UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on July 09, 2014, 10:56:54 PM
-
This is not a rhetorical question.
When peopele believe something such belief will either be based on rational evidence or something other than rational evidence.
On both the blue and red forums I tried to get people to provide the basis for their assertions to try to understand their positions. Many have been non-committal and said they didn't know whether to believe Jeremy is guilty or not. Many of those who assert he is innocent have to date failed to provide any basis for their position at all let alone a rational basis. Those who have provided a basis have largely provided lies or at best bogus claims they believe but are false for example the assertion Nevill phoned police himself.
Jeremy supporters like Holly have at best managed to say they wonder whether the evidence to prove Jeremy's guilt was fabricated but have failed to provide any evidence at all to establish such occurred. But Holly et al go well beyond this and assert it did happen. Wondering whether it occured and asserted it did are two very different things. You have no need for evidence to simply wonder. You do have a need for evidence in order to reasonably assert something happened.
Can anyone who thinks Jeremy is innocent provide a detailed basis for why they believe such and explain whether it is based on evidence or just hunches?
I can and have provided the basis why I believe Jeremy is guilty.
I. Zero evidence that Sheila did anything
A) What evidence is there that Sheila killed anyone? None!
B) Any evidence she loaded a gun? No, she had no elevated lead levels.
C) Any evidence she fired a gun? No, she had no GSR or high velocity back spatter from the victims
D) Any evidence she beat Nevill? No, even though she would have: damaged her nails, damaged her hand when the stock broke, been hit with medium velocity blood spatter from the victim and would have gotten her prints on the blood that was on the rifle none of this occurred.
E) Any evidence that she killed herself? No she can't have killed herself because after she was shot while seated with her body propped against something the killer: 1) removed the moderator and put it in the closet, 2) moved her blody flat while she was still bleeding so she then bled down the side of her neck forming a blood pool, 3) placed the bible in such pool of blood then opened and closed it repeatedly before the blood dried. Someone else had to do all these things and they were done very soon after she had been killed.
F) No indication she would do something like this and no motive. There is no reason for her medication to stop working suddenly at 2AM while sleeping and to get dilusions. Even before her latest medicaiton she was not having delusions about her fmaily. There is nothing that should have agitated her while everyone was sleeping. There is nothing to indicate she would have been likely to harm anyone else or her self.
G) No evidence she would have been able to carry out such a murder because: 1) she had no experience using such a weapon so would not have even known how to chamber a round let alone known she needed to. Nor would she know how to load 11 rounds (the maximum capacity of the weapon) and 11 rounds were fired in the master bedroom at the parents before Nevill escaped to the kitchen. 2) schizophrenia prevents people from being organized killers 3) her medication would have harmed her already poor hand eye coordination which was so bad she could not even be taught to drive. Her medication causes involuntary movements like Parkison's.
H) What evidence is there that Nevill actually phoned Jeremy? None
I) Jeremy's story kept shifting and many details was contradicted by others suggesting he was trying to frame Sheila. For instance, he initially told police she had taken her shooting and she had fired all guns in the house including the gun he left on the kitchen table with a loaded magazine but he later acknowledged she had never fired it or any other weapons to his knowledge. The claim he got the gun out to shoot rabbits is not credible because he was not known to ever do such. His ex-girlfriend and extended family said he did not like the shooting of rabbits. Worse, his story of the gun being found without the scope and moderator attached is not credible. His claim that Nevill sometimes removed the scope was disputed by others and he was unable to present any valid reason for why the scope would be removed. He clearly staged the bullets in the kitchen, they can't have been the sloe source of ammunition used in the murders. There were 48-50 rounds allegedly when he supposedly left them in the kitchen prior to the murders and there were 30 after the murders. 25 were used in the murders. For his story to be true that means the killer used 18-20 rounds from this pile of ammo but instead of using all 25 from it went to the closet to get another 5-7 rounds. Why would anyone do that let alone Sheila while she is supposedly enraged? So all the available evidence in this regard suggests that Jeremy lied about getting the gun out, loading it and leaving it and additional ammunition in the kitchen for Sheila to grab. This tale appears to be complete fiction meant to frame Sheila because there is no way she would have fetched the gun herself while arguing with anyone and if she had then as she tried to load it she coudl have been disarmed. So this tale was crafted of the gun being left in front of her for her to grab as she was arguing with nevill, shooting him in the kitchen and then moving on to the rest. But as we know the shooting started upstairs not in the kitchen so the whole thing is BS.
J) Did Jeremy react as someone who received such a call would react? No someone receiving such call would call 999 to report it and then go over to investigate. Instead he called Julie so she could confirm that he told her Nevill called him thinking this would make his claim of Nevill phoning more credible. 20 minutes or more after this he finally called police. At trial he stated the delay was because at first he didn't think it was urgent but after thinking about it a while realized it was. All he cared about wan an alibi. Pretending Nevill called him was an alibi and he wanted that alibi to be established further by police. He didn't want police to arrive at WHF and see him there already because they could think he went in and did something prior to their arrival. His alibi was to be that Nevill phoned and was killed after calling while Jeremy was not there. So he needed the police to see he was not there. Thus he parked on the side of the road and after police passed him, then he slowly followed and arrived 3 minuts later so they could see him arrive. No one who actually received such a call would be engaged in such kind of behavior they would go to the house and try to listen and spy from outside at minimum to then talk to police when they arrive. Some would actually do more than just try to spy and listen and would actually have entered. I am one such person.
K) Would Nevill have been likely to make such a call to him? No because:
1) Nevill didn't trust him and intimated to others he thought Jeremy wanted him dead
2) Jeremy had an answering machine and the phone was on the ground floor thus the phone would be unlikely to wake Jeremy up and even if he did wake up the answering machine would have simply picked up. It would tkae Jeremy several minutes to reach the phone even if he had woken up. Thus if a true emergency Nevill would have dialled 999 not called Jeremy
3) Nevill was taller and stronger than Jeremy so could have disarmed Sheila as easily or more easily than Jeremy, why would he decide to have Jeremy disarms her instead? Worse, it would take Jeremy 20 minutes or more to answer, dress, drive there and find a way in even if Jeremy did get the message. Why would he decide to wait that long instead of trying to disarm her himself?
4) Jeremy antagonized Sheila so would agitate the situationa nd cause her to be more likely to fire not less likely. Nevill was the adult with the most calming effect on Sheila and thus best chance of calming her down.
5) How would Nevill be in a position to make the call? How did he get to the kitchen and where was Sheila while he was there? Why would June stay in bed yet he would run to use the phone? If Sheila was in front of him he could not have made the call she would have shot him. If she was not there in the room at that moment why would he choose to make a call that likely would not be answered and if answered would still not result in help coming for at least 20 minutes when he instead could have used the opportunity to arm himself? If he is truly frieghtened then he would have grabbed a knife, gun or some other weapon that were all readily available in the kitchen to use to confront Sheila with. In the meantime the evidence shows that the killer caught the parents in their bedroom and shot 11 times. June was killed but Nevill was merely wounded and managed to reach the kitchen where he struggled with his killer. His killer had an empty gun so had to beat Nevill unconscious in order to then be able to reload the gun and fire 4 more shots to kill him. There was no opportunity for Nevill to make any call.
So the evidence against Jeremy is strong.
I never ever have seen a Jeremy defender able to provide a list of reasons for their views let lone one that cites evidence which refutes the evidence that proves Jeremy is guilty.
-
Since I joined the forums I've never seen a firm basis for Jeremy's innocence. The legal appeals change with the wind and it seems SOME of the members who believe Jeremy innocent change their reasons just as quickly.
Us "guilters" are often asked "how did Jeremy manage to do this then" butI can't say that theories for how Sheila did anything are forthcoming from the supporters.
They can tell you what they don't believe, the police, Julie, the relatives, the silencer but they don't seem to present a good reason for WHY.
Not aimed at any one in particular.
-
Since I joined the forums I've never seen a firm basis for Jeremy's innocence. The legal appeals change with the wind and it seems SOME of the members who believe Jeremy innocent change their reasons just as quickly.
Us "guilters" are often asked "how did Jeremy manage to do this then" butI can't say that theories for how Sheila did anything are forthcoming from the supporters.
They can tell you what they don't believe, the police, Julie, the relatives, the silencer but they don't seem to present a good reason for WHY.
Not aimed at any one in particular.
I resent being called a "guilter." An ugly word that doesn't mean anything.
Maybe I'm an "innocenter." Because it's so obvious that Sheila was innocent. Not a speck of anyone else's blood on her, and no blood in her lungs and throat, even though apparently she shot herself in the throat, then shot herself again. So, even though we can all see a pouch of blood collected in her neck, she didn't gasp or cough or gag, she calmy repositioned the gun and shot herself again. She didn't panic, or feel pain. She didn't gasp. And inhale the blood that ran from the first gunshot.
Madness.
-
Scipio are you aware that your ban on Blue has been lifted? Huh I guess I'll be dumped now in favour of Caroline 8)><(
-
This is not a rhetorical question.
When peopele believe something such belief will either be based on rational evidence or something other than rational evidence.
On both the blue and red forums I tried to get people to provide the basis for their assertions to try to understand their positions. Many have been non-committal and said they didn't know whether to believe Jeremy is guilty or not. Many of those who assert he is innocent have to date failed to provide any basis for their position at all let alone a rational basis. Those who have provided a basis have largely provided lies or at best bogus claims they believe but are false for example the assertion Nevill phoned police himself.
Jeremy supporters like Holly have at best managed to say they wonder whether the evidence to prove Jeremy's guilt was fabricated but have failed to provide any evidence at all to establish such occurred. But Holly et al go well beyond this and assert it did happen. Wondering whether it occured and asserted it did are two very different things. You have no need for evidence to simply wonder. You do have a need for evidence in order to reasonably assert something happened.
Can anyone who thinks Jeremy is innocent provide a detailed basis for why they believe such and explain whether it is based on evidence or just hunches?
I can and have provided the basis why I believe Jeremy is guilty.
I. Zero evidence that Sheila did anything
A) What evidence is there that Sheila killed anyone? None!
B) Any evidence she loaded a gun? No, she had no elevated lead levels.
C) Any evidence she fired a gun? No, she had no GSR or high velocity back spatter from the victims
D) Any evidence she beat Nevill? No, even though she would have: damaged her nails, damaged her hand when the stock broke, been hit with medium velocity blood spatter from the victim and would have gotten her prints on the blood that was on the rifle none of this occurred.
E) Any evidence that she killed herself? No she can't have killed herself because after she was shot while seated with her body propped against something the killer: 1) removed the moderator and put it in the closet, 2) moved her blody flat while she was still bleeding so she then bled down the side of her neck forming a blood pool, 3) placed the bible in such pool of blood then opened and closed it repeatedly before the blood dried. Someone else had to do all these things and they were done very soon after she had been killed.
F) No indication she would do something like this and no motive. There is no reason for her medication to stop working suddenly at 2AM while sleeping and to get dilusions. Even before her latest medicaiton she was not having delusions about her fmaily. There is nothing that should have agitated her while everyone was sleeping. There is nothing to indicate she would have been likely to harm anyone else or her self.
G) No evidence she would have been able to carry out such a murder because: 1) she had no experience using such a weapon so would not have even known how to chamber a round let alone known she needed to. Nor would she know how to load 11 rounds (the maximum capacity of the weapon) and 11 rounds were fired in the master bedroom at the parents before Nevill escaped to the kitchen. 2) schizophrenia prevents people from being organized killers 3) her medication would have harmed her already poor hand eye coordination which was so bad she could not even be taught to drive. Her medication causes involuntary movements like Parkison's.
H) What evidence is there that Nevill actually phoned Jeremy? None
I) Jeremy's story kept shifting and many details was contradicted by others suggesting he was trying to frame Sheila. For instance, he initially told police she had taken her shooting and she had fired all guns in the house including the gun he left on the kitchen table with a loaded magazine but he later acknowledged she had never fired it or any other weapons to his knowledge. The claim he got the gun out to shoot rabbits is not credible because he was not known to ever do such. His ex-girlfriend and extended family said he did not like the shooting of rabbits. Worse, his story of the gun being found without the scope and moderator attached is not credible. His claim that Nevill sometimes removed the scope was disputed by others and he was unable to present any valid reason for why the scope would be removed. He clearly staged the bullets in the kitchen, they can't have been the sloe source of ammunition used in the murders. There were 48-50 rounds allegedly when he supposedly left them in the kitchen prior to the murders and there were 30 after the murders. 25 were used in the murders. For his story to be true that means the killer used 18-20 rounds from this pile of ammo but instead of using all 25 from it went to the closet to get another 5-7 rounds. Why would anyone do that let alone Sheila while she is supposedly enraged? So all the available evidence in this regard suggests that Jeremy lied about getting the gun out, loading it and leaving it and additional ammunition in the kitchen for Sheila to grab. This tale appears to be complete fiction meant to frame Sheila because there is no way she would have fetched the gun herself while arguing with anyone and if she had then as she tried to load it she coudl have been disarmed. So this tale was crafted of the gun being left in front of her for her to grab as she was arguing with nevill, shooting him in the kitchen and then moving on to the rest. But as we know the shooting started upstairs not in the kitchen so the whole thing is BS.
J) Did Jeremy react as someone who received such a call would react? No someone receiving such call would call 999 to report it and then go over to investigate. Instead he called Julie so she could confirm that he told her Nevill called him thinking this would make his claim of Nevill phoning more credible. 20 minutes or more after this he finally called police. At trial he stated the delay was because at first he didn't think it was urgent but after thinking about it a while realized it was. All he cared about wan an alibi. Pretending Nevill called him was an alibi and he wanted that alibi to be established further by police. He didn't want police to arrive at WHF and see him there already because they could think he went in and did something prior to their arrival. His alibi was to be that Nevill phoned and was killed after calling while Jeremy was not there. So he needed the police to see he was not there. Thus he parked on the side of the road and after police passed him, then he slowly followed and arrived 3 minuts later so they could see him arrive. No one who actually received such a call would be engaged in such kind of behavior they would go to the house and try to listen and spy from outside at minimum to then talk to police when they arrive. Some would actually do more than just try to spy and listen and would actually have entered. I am one such person.
K) Would Nevill have been likely to make such a call to him? No because:
1) Nevill didn't trust him and intimated to others he thought Jeremy wanted him dead
2) Jeremy had an answering machine and the phone was on the ground floor thus the phone would be unlikely to wake Jeremy up and even if he did wake up the answering machine would have simply picked up. It would tkae Jeremy several minutes to reach the phone even if he had woken up. Thus if a true emergency Nevill would have dialled 999 not called Jeremy
3) Nevill was taller and stronger than Jeremy so could have disarmed Sheila as easily or more easily than Jeremy, why would he decide to have Jeremy disarms her instead? Worse, it would take Jeremy 20 minutes or more to answer, dress, drive there and find a way in even if Jeremy did get the message. Why would he decide to wait that long instead of trying to disarm her himself?
4) Jeremy antagonized Sheila so would agitate the situationa nd cause her to be more likely to fire not less likely. Nevill was the adult with the most calming effect on Sheila and thus best chance of calming her down.
5) How would Nevill be in a position to make the call? How did he get to the kitchen and where was Sheila while he was there? Why would June stay in bed yet he would run to use the phone? If Sheila was in front of him he could not have made the call she would have shot him. If she was not there in the room at that moment why would he choose to make a call that likely would not be answered and if answered would still not result in help coming for at least 20 minutes when he instead could have used the opportunity to arm himself? If he is truly frieghtened then he would have grabbed a knife, gun or some other weapon that were all readily available in the kitchen to use to confront Sheila with. In the meantime the evidence shows that the killer caught the parents in their bedroom and shot 11 times. June was killed but Nevill was merely wounded and managed to reach the kitchen where he struggled with his killer. His killer had an empty gun so had to beat Nevill unconscious in order to then be able to reload the gun and fire 4 more shots to kill him. There was no opportunity for Nevill to make any call.
So the evidence against Jeremy is strong.
I never ever have seen a Jeremy defender able to provide a list of reasons for their views let lone one that cites evidence which refutes the evidence that proves Jeremy is guilty.
Scipio when the CCRC referred JB's case back to the CoA in 2002 they did so based on the silencer evidence. If any of the other so-called evidence was strong enough in its own right or even collectively eg phone calls. bike, state of SC, SC receiving two gunshot wounds, JM's testimony etc, etc the case would not have been referred. The reason it was referred is that the other evidence that was presented at trial was weak.
If you read the Judge's summing up you will see the jury's deliberations centred on the silencer and it is this that underpinned the prosecution's case and ultimately convicted JB.
The tragedy happened on 7th August 1985. JB was not arrested and charged until a month later. Why would a mass murderer be allowed to roam free for a month and leave the country? If it was as obvious as you seem to think how come experienced police officers, pathologist and doctor didn't at least have niggling doubts? DS jones claims he had doubts from the off but as the pathologist said DS Jones said nothing of significance it was based on a gut feeling as a result of JB's behaviour eg bacon butty etc
-
Scipio when the CCRC referred JB's case back to the CoA in 2002 they did so based on the silencer evidence. If any of the other so-called evidence was strong enough in its own right or even collectively eg phone calls. bike, state of SC, SC receiving two gunshot wounds, JM's testimony etc, etc the case would not have been referred. The reason it was referred is that the other evidence that was presented at trial was weak.
If you read the Judge's summing up you will see the jury's deliberations centred on the silencer and it is this that underpinned the prosecution's case and ultimately convicted JB.
The tragedy happened on 7th August 1985. JB was not arrested and charged until a month later. Why would a mass murderer be allowed to roam free for a month and leave the country? If it was as obvious as you seem to think how come experienced police officers, pathologist and doctor didn't at least have niggling doubts? DS jones claims he had doubts from the off but as the pathologist said DS Jones said nothing of significance it was based on a gut feeling as a result of JB's behaviour eg bacon butty etc
The prosecution case summed up is that Sheila could not have killed herself so someone else did and since Jeremy was area of it and tried to frame Sheila and had no way to know unless he was the real killer then that means he is the one who did it and Julie's testimony corroborates such. But the entire position fleshed out is what I presented except that I failed to mention Julie's testimony.
Can you flesh out a case the way I did? Absolutely not. Your cliams are not well thought out so you can't do so. They are also not based on anything beyond your desire to suggest Jeremy is innocent so that you cane present your psychology quackery so you don't really put much thought into it. Jeremy's innocense is just a means to an end with you.
But by all means try presenting a case where you actually have the claims fleshed out and explain whether the points are just hunches with no support or not.
-
The prosecution case summed up is that Sheila could not have killed herself so someone else did and since Jeremy was area of it and tried to frame Sheila and had no way to know unless he was the real killer then that means he is the one who did it and Julie's testimony corroborates such. But the entire position fleshed out is what I presented except that I failed to mention Julie's testimony.
Can you flesh out a case the way I did? Absolutely not. Your cliams are not well thought out so you can't do so. They are also not based on anything beyond your desire to suggest Jeremy is innocent so that you cane present your psychology quackery so you don't really put much thought into it. Jeremy's innocense is just a means to an end with you.
But by all means try presenting a case where you actually have the claims fleshed out and explain whether the points are just hunches with no support or not.
Dr Vanezis has always maintained that he was unable to determine one way or the other whether SC took her own life or was murdered. The case is not as clear cut as you like to make out.
Why don't you stick to debating the case instead of telling me how I can't flesh out a case and that my claims are not well thought out etc. Of course you think this because it doesn't fit with your theories.
Why don't you debate with me about the nureo-scientific evidence regarding disorganised attachment? Instead you write it off as "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery". This is new and powerful evidence based on decades of research and evidence, much of which was produced by your Ivy league unis. The prosecution will be hard pressed to find a psychologist, psychiatrist, neuro-scientist (biology and chemistry) to counter the defenses claim that SC was adversely affected by June's mental illness resulting in a disorganised attachment which in itself leads to a lack of empathy and propensity towards violence and suicide. Dr Ferguson told the court (jury) he found it difficult to conceptualise SC harming the twins and NB and he didn't think she was a suicide risk. There's now clear evidence this was wrong. You seem to forget the case is nearly 3 decades old and science moves on. This is the strongest evidence to date that JB is innocent. If you want to live in the dark ages be my guest. Once JB's conviction is over turned there will be no hiding place for any wrongdoers.
-
Dr Vanezis has always maintained that he was unable to determine one way or the other whether SC took her own life or was murdered. The case is not as clear cut as you like to make out.
Why don't you stick to debating the case instead of telling me how I can't flesh out a case and that my claims are not well thought out etc. Of course you think this because it doesn't fit with your theories.
Why don't you debate with me about the nureo-scientific evidence regarding disorganised attachment? Instead you write it off as "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery". This is new and powerful evidence based on decades of research and evidence, much of which was produced by your Ivy league unis. The prosecution will be hard pressed to find a psychologist, psychiatrist, neuro-scientist (biology and chemistry) to counter the defenses claim that SC was adversely affected by June's mental illness resulting in a disorganised attachment which in itself leads to a lack of empathy and propensity towards violence and suicide. Dr Ferguson told the court (jury) he found it difficult to conceptualise SC harming the twins and NB and he didn't think she was a suicide risk. There's now clear evidence this was wrong. You seem to forget the case is nearly 3 decades old and science moves on. This is the strongest evidence to date that JB is innocent. If you want to live in the dark ages be my guest. Once JB's conviction is over turned there will be no hiding place for any wrongdoers.
It's not evidence though, is it Holl? It's just supposition. Evidence would be Mike's magical phone logs, or the picture of Sheila on the bed, both of which are complete bollox. Just because Sheila MIGHT have done it doesn't mean that she did. That's like Clappy saying that June did it. Sorry. 8(8-))
-
I have only been worried by the apparent lack of evidence that Shiela was ever in the kitchen walking on broken glass. But I have seen a photograph that strongly suggests that her feet were cut by something, probably broken glass.
-
It's not evidence though, is it Holl? It's just supposition. Evidence would be Mike's magical phone logs, or the picture of Sheila on the bed, both of which are complete bollox. Just because Sheila MIGHT have done it doesn't mean that she did. That's like Clappy saying that June did it. Sorry. 8(8-))
I don't believe there ever was or ever will be conclusive evidence to prove 100% either way. As we know jurors decide based on "beyond reasonable doubt".
In terms of evidence to overturn JB's conviction my understanding is that some new evidence is required that had the jury have known about it at trial it may have caused them to arrive at a different decision. The evidence relating to June's mental illness, SC potentially developing a disorganised attachment and propensity towards violence and suicide could meet this criteria. Especially when it contradicts Dr Ferguson's evidence at trial.
-
I have only been worried by the apparent lack of evidence that Shiela was ever in the kitchen walking on broken glass. But I have seen a photograph that strongly suggests that her feet were cut by something, probably broken glass.
Apparently there was a broken glass lampshade and crockery but we have no idea when exactly these items were broken and more importantly how many pieces. If the lampshade produced 2 or 3 pieces they could have been avoided especially if they were not in pathways. Only if something smashed into splinters and slithers is it likely to have been hazardous.
-
Apparently there was a broken glass lampshade and crockery but we have no idea when exactly these items were broken and more importantly how many pieces. If the lampshade produced 2 or 3 pieces they could have been avoided especially if they were not in pathways. Only if something smashed into splinters and slithers is it likely to have been hazardous.
But her feet were cut. So she could have been in the kitchen when the overhead lamp was broken. The Prosecution have said that she never was in the kitchen to kill her father. When in fact she could have been.
Look now, I believed that Jeremy was innocent, and then I believed that he was guilty. And now I find that there are doubts.
Sadly, I don't care enough to do anything about it. But I do suspect that Jeremy will ultimately be released on a reasonable doubt.
The whole family were crackers as far as I can see, probably caused by the adoptive parents being crackers. Babies so very rarely get born crackers. And not nearly enough attention was paid to how barmy the parents were.
-
But her feet were cut. So she could have been in the kitchen when the overhead lamp was broken. The Prosecution have said that she never was in the kitchen to kill her father. When in fact she could have been.
Look now, I believed that Jeremy was innocent, and then I believed that he was guilty. And now I find that there are doubts.
Sadly, I don't care enough to do anything about it. But I do suspect that Jeremy will ultimately be released on a reasonable doubt.
The whole family were crackers as far as I can see, probably caused by the adoptive parents being crackers. Babies so very rarely get born crackers. And not nearly enough attention was paid to how barmy the parents were.
Oh I didn't realise SC's feet were cut? Are you able to provide any evidence of this?
There's no evidence Nevill Bamber was "crackers/barmy". In fact he seemed to be a model adoptive father. As far as June Bamber goes she obviously had ambivalent feelings about adoption hence her severe depression caused by her decision to adopt. Personally I think this was bound up with her strongly held religious beliefs ie accepting (or not) an illegitimate child and her losses over her inability to produce birth children. She should never have been approved as suitable to adopt by the authorities. And it beggars belief that she was allowed to adopt JB having suffered in-patient psychiatric care over her decision to adopt SC. I agree with you, not nearly enough attention is paid to the family as a whole and children are not born violent and suicidal.
-
Oh I didn't realise SC's feet were cut? Are you able to provide any evidence of this?
There's no evidence Nevill Bamber was "crackers/barmy". In fact he seemed to be a model adoptive father. As far as June Bamber goes she obviously had ambivalent feelings about adoption hence her severe depression caused by her decision to adopt. Personally I think this was bound up with her strongly held religious beliefs ie accepting (or not) an illegitimate child and her losses over her inability to produce birth children. She should never have been approved as suitable to adopt by the authorities. And it beggars belief that she was allowed to adopt JB having suffered in-patient psychiatric care over her decision to adopt SC. I agree with you, not nearly enough attention is paid to the family as a whole and children are not born violent and suicidal.
Sorry, I can't produce the photo of Sheila with cut feet. I came across it somewhere, but can't remember where. But I did most definitely see it. Although I wouldn't blame you if you don't believe me.
I suppose that I don't know enough about the attitude of some adoptive parents, but I suspect that Nevill will have been somewhat affected by his wife's attitude. Although not necessarily to illegitimate children. Perhaps just for coercing his wife into adopting children in the first place. Such a sad and sorry tale.
None of this will have done much for Sheila's well being who does seem to have been mentally unbalanced.
I have trawled through most of The Trial evidence in a vaguely academic fashion, and I find most of it decidedly suspect. In fact I have wondered how Jeremy got convicted at all, bearing in mind reasonable doubt.
I simply cannot comment about the policemen involved. Some I would trust, and some I wouldn't. But their conclusions will have born weight.
-
Dr Vanezis has always maintained that he was unable to determine one way or the other whether SC took her own life or was murdered. The case is not as clear cut as you like to make out.
Vanezis stated that based ALONE On the autopsy results he was unable to say whether it was murder or suicide. Based on all the available evidence he believes she was murdered.
It is indeed clear cut once one looks at all the evidence which is why you always try to hide from it.
Why don't you stick to debating the case instead of telling me how I can't flesh out a case and that my claims are not well thought out etc. Of course you think this because it doesn't fit with your theories.
I am debating the case and the fact you can't flesh out any of your arguments and that they are so baseless is part and parcel of why your claims are not to be taken seriously.
Why don't you debate with me about the nureo-scientific evidence regarding disorganised attachment? Instead you write it off as "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery". This is new and powerful evidence based on decades of research and evidence, much of which was produced by your Ivy league unis. The prosecution will be hard pressed to find a psychologist, psychiatrist, neuro-scientist (biology and chemistry) to counter the defenses claim that SC was adversely affected by June's mental illness resulting in a disorganised attachment which in itself leads to a lack of empathy and propensity towards violence and suicide. Dr Ferguson told the court (jury) he found it difficult to conceptualise SC harming the twins and NB and he didn't think she was a suicide risk. There's now clear evidence this was wrong. You seem to forget the case is nearly 3 decades old and science moves on. This is the strongest evidence to date that JB is innocent. If you want to live in the dark ages be my guest. Once JB's conviction is over turned there will be no hiding place for any wrongdoers.
Because such is not evidence at all. As I said you approach things ass backwards and your claims that there is evidence of Jeremy's innocence is thus complete fiction.
You can't prove Jeremy is innocent by trying to establish Sheila had mental problems. You need physical evidence Sheila did what you claim and to refute all the physical evidence that says she kille dno one and can't have killed herself.
You cna't do that so don't try in earnest and just go on about worthless quackery theories that i have no need at all to bother to humiliate you over because they don't prove anything at all in relation to the murders let alone in any way, shape or form establish Jeremy is innocent.
-
I have only been worried by the apparent lack of evidence that Shiela was ever in the kitchen walking on broken glass. But I have seen a photograph that strongly suggests that her feet were cut by something, probably broken glass.
The photo you are referring to doesn't have any cuts so far as I can see. Worse though such photo has never been established to be Sheila's foot. It looks more like June's though might not even be from the case for all we know. The defense has been rather silent about this issue. There is a blotch of dirt on it and then little marks that could be anything even simply blemishes of the skin. I do not know what the technical name is but there are discolorings that form right under the initial layer. The only person in a position to say what definitely was found on her body was Vanezis.
-
Scipio. No need to be quite so scathing. In My Opinion.
-
PS. No need to be quite so scathing to Holly Goodhead, I meant. You can be as scathing as you like to me.
-
PS. No need to be quite so scathing to Holly Goodhead, I meant. You can be as scathing as you like to me.
You maccanochist, you!
All I see is an area of dirt (circled right), which might have come from her slipper/shoe insoles or from the floor anywhere in the house, and a couple of reddish marks (circled left) which may or not be cuts, but possibly blood spots. Again these marks could have come from insoles, or from blood picked up from the carpet as she (was) walked through the master bedroom. Looks like it was taken on a stainless steel gurney/mortuary table from the mirrored reflection you can see, not solid black as you would expect from a non-reflective surface like a carpet.
(http://i.imgur.com/TlIqEPC.jpg)
-
You maccanochist, you!
All I see is an area of dirt (circled right), which might have come from her slipper/shoe insoles or from the floor anywhere in the house, and a couple of reddish marks (circled left) which may or not be cuts, but possibly blood spots. Again these marks could have come from insoles, or from blood picked up from the carpet as she (was) walked through the master bedroom. Looks like it was taken on a stainless steel gurney/mortuary table from the mirrored reflection you can see, not solid black as you would expect from a non-reflective surface like a carpet.
(http://i.imgur.com/TlIqEPC.jpg)
Thanks for the photo. But her foot might have been cleaned up by then. May or may not be cuts. So there could be some doubt.
Maccanochist? You could be right about that that. But at least I am trying to get around the forum a bit. Even if only for a smidgeon of light relief.
-
PS. No need to be quite so scathing to Holly Goodhead, I meant. You can be as scathing as you like to me.
Thanks Eleanor 8((()*/ Scipio can be as scathing as he likes to me too. His posts really are full of flaws, factual errors etc, etc but even when pointed out he refuses to accept it. It is a waste of time going round in circles with him. He thinks he is an authority on everything from the law to history to ballistics and yet provides no links to support any of his assertions. He expects us to take everything he says at face value. Then he refers to my links from the likes of Dr Daniel Siegel and Dr Allan Schore as "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery" @)(++(*
Do they sound "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery" to you?
http://www.allanschore.com/bio.php
http://www.drdansiegel.com/about/biography/
-
You maccanochist, you!
All I see is an area of dirt (circled right), which might have come from her slipper/shoe insoles or from the floor anywhere in the house, and a couple of reddish marks (circled left) which may or not be cuts, but possibly blood spots. Again these marks could have come from insoles, or from blood picked up from the carpet as she (was) walked through the master bedroom. Looks like it was taken on a stainless steel gurney/mortuary table from the mirrored reflection you can see, not solid black as you would expect from a non-reflective surface like a carpet.
(http://i.imgur.com/TlIqEPC.jpg)
That's the problem with photos, the obvious things you can tell from photos are often things that don't matter. The finer details like is this dirt, blood or something else can only be determined from actual physical testing. Likewise to know if something is a cut, bruise, burn etc.
-
Thanks Eleanor 8((()*/ Scipio can be as scathing as he likes to me too. His posts really are full of flaws, factual errors etc, etc but even when pointed out he refuses to accept it. It is a waste of time going round in circles with him. He thinks he is an authority on everything from the law to history to ballistics and yet provides no links to support any of his assertions. He expects us to take everything he says at face value. Then he refers to my links from the likes of Dr Daniel Siegel and Dr Allan Schore as "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery" @)(++(*
Do they sound "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery" to you?
http://www.allanschore.com/bio.php
http://www.drdansiegel.com/about/biography/
No, they don't sound like mumbo jumbo or psychological quackery to me. Just an attempt to get at what might have happened.
Apart from a brief period in between, I went from Innocent, and then back to Possibly Innocent. I am still at Possibly Innocent.
And this is a Discussion Forum where everyone's opinion is valid, and worth considering. What else does Miscarriages of Justice mean? It is an invitation to express an opinion without fear of being ridiculed.
Although you might wonder about that on The McCann Forum from time to time.
-
No, they don't sound like mumbo jumbo or psychological quackery to me. Just an attempt to get at what might have happened.
Apart from a brief period in between, I went from Innocent, and then back to Possibly Innocent. I am still at Possibly Innocent.
And this is a Discussion Forum where everyone's opinion is valid, and worth considering. What else does Miscarriages of Justice mean? It is an invitation to express an opinion without fear of being ridiculed.
Although you might wonder about that on The McCann Forum from time to time.
Opinion that has no evidentiary basis and doesn't make sense has no value. Unfortunately that is all Holly posts though.
-
Thanks Eleanor 8((()*/ Scipio can be as scathing as he likes to me too. His posts really are full of flaws, factual errors etc, etc but even when pointed out he refuses to accept it. It is a waste of time going round in circles with him. He thinks he is an authority on everything from the law to history to ballistics and yet provides no links to support any of his assertions. He expects us to take everything he says at face value. Then he refers to my links from the likes of Dr Daniel Siegel and Dr Allan Schore as "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery" @)(++(*
Do they sound "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery" to you?
http://www.allanschore.com/bio.php
http://www.drdansiegel.com/about/biography/
You are the queen of making nonsense unsupported claims. A perfect example is right now saying my posts are full of factual flaws. Identify them and prove these flaws. The fact of the maatter is that you can't. Youa re simply living in a world of denail.
The same way you simply deny that there was any struggle int he kitchen with Nevill you deny my posts are accurate.
In the meantime I can and do constantly estbalish yours are factually baseless.
From your claim that 2 pairs of underwear and a pair of leggings stained in the crotch with blood is evidence Sheila changed her clothing after the murders to your nonsense claim about police taking blood form the samples vanezis took before relaying them to the lab.
You are the one who was factually wrong about the dates the samples were conveyed and much more including the date the lab notified police human blood had bene found in the moderator. You challenged that it was the 14th and posted some worhtless blurb form the 2002 court of Appeal decision concerning the rifle trying to pretend the blood being discussed was found on the rifle. But COLP made clear it was blood from the moderator you were wrong not me.
You are the one with no command of the facts and no concern for facts. You just make up things and then when people prove you wrong you ignore it go into denial mode, pretend it never happened and then tell fairytales about how they are always wrong.
All it does is make it appear you need to stop playing fake psychiatrist and to go visit one.
were likely worn during the murders andunderwear
-
You are the queen of making nonsense unsupported claims. A perfect example is right now saying my posts are full of factual flaws. Identify them and prove these flaws. The fact of the maatter is that you can't. Youa re simply living in a world of denail.
The same way you simply deny that there was any struggle int he kitchen with Nevill you deny my posts are accurate.
In the meantime I can and do constantly estbalish yours are factually baseless.
From your claim that 2 pairs of underwear and a pair of leggings stained in the crotch with blood is evidence Sheila changed her clothing after the murders to your nonsense claim about police taking blood form the samples vanezis took before relaying them to the lab.
You are the one who was factually wrong about the dates the samples were conveyed and much more including the date the lab notified police human blood had bene found in the moderator. You challenged that it was the 14th and posted some worhtless blurb form the 2002 court of Appeal decision concerning the rifle trying to pretend the blood being discussed was found on the rifle. But COLP made clear it was blood from the moderator you were wrong not me.
You are the one with no command of the facts and no concern for facts. You just make up things and then when people prove you wrong you ignore it go into denial mode, pretend it never happened and then tell fairytales about how they are always wrong.
All it does is make it appear you need to stop playing fake psychiatrist and to go visit one.
were likely worn during the murders andunderwear
Re the title of the thread it is not necessary for anyone to prove that Jeremy is innocent. Based on English law the criteria at trial is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Why do YOU want to impose a higher threshold? Are YOU able to prove JB is guilty? As far as I am concerned the answer to that is most definitely NO!
I am not interested in raking over the above. It is not where it's at! The whole world has moved on in the last 30 years but you seem like some sort of Neanderthal man in a time warp. The significant advances in neurobiology and neurochemistry are the way forward in resolving the WHF case.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034
-
Re the title of the thread it is not necessary for anyone to prove that Jeremy is innocent. Based on English law the criteria at trial is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Why do YOU want to impose a higher threshold? Are YOU able to prove JB is guilty? As far as I am concerned the answer to that is most definitely NO!
I am not interested in raking over the above. It is not where it's at! The whole world has moved on in the last 30 years but you seem like some sort of Neanderthal man in a time warp. The significant advances in neurobiology and neurochemistry are the way forward in resolving the WHF case.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034
Innocent until proven guilty. He was proved guilty so anyone asserting he is innocent does indeed bear the burden of deonstrating it.
The fact of the matte ris that I haven't found a single Jeremy supporter who can lay out in detail their views of why he is innocent let alone to provide evidence that helps prove their views.
You most certainly can't do so. Anything you do try to post as evidence is inaccurate or at the very least fails to prove anything at all let alone what you assert like the 2 pairs of soaking panties which clearly have no relation to the murders at all let alone evidence Sheila had victim blood on her and washed and changed such clothing.
-
We know when the lampshade and crockery was smashed just as we know when the stock of the rifle was damaged. It all occurred in the kitchen during the altercation between Nevill and his attacker.
Maybe Sheila did go down the stairs in a futile attempt to get help, maybe she was forced back up to the master bedroom at gunpoint. Assuming for a moment that the photo posted above is that of Sheila then what is very obvious is that there are no fresh cuts on her foot and no blood smears consistent with having trod on broken glass or crockery. Indeed, inspection of Sheila in the morgue present no evidence of cuts to her feet, another blue forum dead-end I'm afraid.
-
We know when the lampshade and crockery was smashed just as we know when the stock of the rifle was damaged. It all occurred in the kitchen during the altercation between Nevill and his attacker.
Maybe Sheila did go down the stairs in a futile attempt to get help, maybe she was forced back up to the master bedroom at gunpoint. Assuming for a moment that the photo posted above is that of Sheila then what is very obvious is that there are no fresh cuts on her foot and no blood smears consistent with having trod on broken glass or crockery. Indeed, inspection of Sheila in the morgue present no evidence of cuts to her feet, another blue forum dead-end I'm afraid.
The killer and Nevill fought over the rifle. Think about 4 hands on the rifle pulling it in different directions. How would that particular rifle be tall enough to break the lampshade? Wihtout the moderator attached the barrel will not extend above the heads of those struggling. A struggle with Sheila would feature the gun lower than Jeremy because she was shorter. Even with Jeremy and Nevill the barrel would have been below their heads not above. The only way the gun would have been long enough is with the moderator attached. The scratches to the aga confirm it was indeed attached as they struggled.
-
I envisaged the rifle was swung like a baseball bat with the stock end used to inflict damage. In that way the attacker came to strike the glass lampshade shattering it.
-
The killer and Nevill fought over the rifle. Think about 4 hands on the rifle pulling it in different directions. How would that particular rifle be tall enough to break the lampshade? Wihtout the moderator attached the barrel will not extend above the heads of those struggling. A struggle with Sheila would feature the gun lower than Jeremy because she was shorter. Even with Jeremy and Nevill the barrel would have been below their heads not above. The only way the gun would have been long enough is with the moderator attached. The scratches to the aga confirm it was indeed attached as they struggled.
Are you suggesting Sheila or Jeremy had an extra hand? The pathologist stated "Regarding wound 7 [bedroom], in my view after the infliction of this wound the victim's ability to use his left arm would be totally impaired".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=726
If NB's left arm was totally impaired in the bedroom how did he engage in a struggle over the rifle in the kitchen with anyone?
If you wish to assert that the lampshade was smashed during a struggle between NB and the perpetrator are you able to provide the following measurements to enable us to make informed decisions:
Height from floor to lowest and highest point of lampshade
Height and arm length of NB
Height and arm length of JB
Height and arm length of SC
Length of rifle with and without silencer
-
Rather than start a new thread I thought I would put this here as I am sure it is a pretty moot point 8-)(--)
I have often been puzzled why if SC took her own life she chose to do so in her parents' bedroom (main bedroom), and close to June who by all accounts she didn't get on with to put it mildly, ie why not the twins' room or even her own room? Then I recalled seeing a number of photos of SC fussing over her pets eg rabbit, cat and dog. As Crispy the dog was found in the main bedroom I wonder if this is what led SC to this room?
-
Rather than start a new thread I thought I would put this here as I am sure it is a pretty moot point 8-)(--)
I have often been puzzled why if SC took her own life she chose to do so in her parents' bedroom (main bedroom), and close to June who by all accounts she didn't get on with to put it mildly, ie why not the twins' room or even her own room? Then I recalled seeing a number of photos of SC fussing over her pets eg rabbit, cat and dog. As Crispy the dog was found in the main bedroom I wonder if this is what led SC to this room?
No Holly, it was Jerry who led her there before shooting her.
-
No Holly, it was Jerry who led her there before shooting her.
Possibly, but if JB wanted to stage a suicide why there and not in the twins' room? If he went to the trouble of staging a suicide by introducing the bible it doesn't make sense to me that he didn't think through the location?
What was SC doing while JB shot NB and June and, if you subscribe to Scipio's theories, fighting with NB in the kitchen?
I am sure Scipio will enlighten me 8(0(*
-
Possibly, but if JB wanted to stage a suicide why there and not in the twins' room? If he went to the trouble of staging a suicide by introducing the bible it doesn't make sense to me that he didn't think through the location?
What was SC doing while JB shot NB and June and, if you subscribe to Scipio's theories, fighting with NB in the kitchen?
I am sure Scipio will enlighten me 8(0(*
Why didn't Sheila run? I would have been out of there like the clappers out of hell. She couldn't actually save anyone. Could she? Obviously not.
-
Why didn't Sheila run? I would have been out of there like the clappers out of hell. She couldn't actually save anyone. Could she? Obviously not.
I think a mothers first instinct would be to protect her children to the point of sacrificing her life. If JB surely he would attempt to kill NB first as he would be the greatest threat to any plan? If one subscribes to Scipio's theory about an altercation taking place in the kitchen, along with John's theory regarding the noise levels from gunfire with the silencer attached, surely SC would wake and grab the twins and run? If NB and JB were engaged in a power struggle over the rifle/moderator with it scratching the Aga, smashing the lampshade, and crockery knocked off the table with chairs and stools overturned surely this presented an opportunity to escape? None of it makes sense.
-
Anschutz 525: full length = 1090mm. (almost 43") + Parker-Hale moderator = 176mm. (almost 7")
Total length = 1266mm. (about 50")
Get hold of a Stanley or similar tape measure, lock it at 50" then stand up in your kitchen and wave it about with both hands like a madman (or in your case madwoman) and see if you can reach the lampshade. Careful you don't smash it though... don't want any cuts on those pretty little feet.
JB was taller than Sheila and probably taller than you as well, so it was easier to reach the shade.
Average modern room height is about 2.35m (about 7'9"). WHF being older more likely to be taller, even anything up to 10', but then you need to allow for the drop of ceiling light flex.
Similarly, lock the tape at 36" (the measurement from trigger to rifle end + moderator that Herbert MacDonell noted), hold it at right angles to your body, place one end on your neck as per the first shot, then try to reach the other end with your fingers. My reach attempt was 4" too short. Sheila Caffell was thought to have a short reach, and so it was impossible for her to have pulled the trigger.
But then again you don't believe the moderator was fitted!
-
Anschutz 525: full length = 1090mm. (almost 43") + Parker-Hale moderator = 176mm. (almost 7")
Total length = 1266mm. (about 50")
Get hold of a Stanley or similar tape measure, lock it at 50" then stand up in your kitchen and wave it about with both hands like a madman (or in your case madwoman) and see if you can reach the lampshade. Careful you don't smash it though... don't want any cuts on those pretty little feet.
JB was taller than Sheila and probably taller than you as well, so it was easier to reach the shade.
Average modern room height is about 2.35m (about 7'9"). WHF being older more likely to be taller, even anything up to 10', but then you need to allow for the drop of ceiling light flex.
Similarly, lock the tape at 36" (the measurement from trigger to rifle end + moderator that Herbert MacDonell noted), hold it at right angles to your body, place one end on your neck as per the first shot, then try to reach the other end with your fingers. My reach attempt was 4" too short. Sheila Caffell was thought to have a short reach, and so it was impossible for her to have pulled the trigger.
But then again you don't believe the moderator was fitted!
Thank you Myster. I am afraid this is where my OCD kicks in ie I need PRECISE measurements to the nearest mm. "Sheila Caffell was thought to have a short reach" doesn't sound very PRECISE. Unless we have precise measurements including length of reach it's pretty irrelevant. I don't think it is necessary for me to retrieve the photo of SC with the rifle which we are all familiar with but the one thing that stands out for me is the length of her fingers. Although I accept that her long nails may give the appearance of her fingers being longer than they actually were. Assuming her fingers were longer than average (and certainly her feet were larger than average according to AE's wit stats) she may have been long limbed too. There are too many unknowns to draw anything meaningful from it. I think I read somewhere SC was 5' 7" and JB 5' 10"? (I am teeny only 5' 3.5", 8st 7llbs, size 8. I can be fierce but overall I think good things come in small packages 8**8:/: which might just be music to your ears 8(0(*
I think the idea that SC shot herself with the silencer attached and somehow returned it to the gun cupboard is the stuff of fairies. I am more inclined to think JB guilty than thinking SC used the silencer and returned it to the gun cupboard.
-
Are you suggesting Sheila or Jeremy had an extra hand? The pathologist stated "Regarding wound 7 [bedroom], in my view after the infliction of this wound the victim's ability to use his left arm would be totally impaired".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=726
If NB's left arm was totally impaired in the bedroom how did he engage in a struggle over the rifle in the kitchen with anyone?
If you wish to assert that the lampshade was smashed during a struggle between NB and the perpetrator are you able to provide the following measurements to enable us to make informed decisions:
Height from floor to lowest and highest point of lampshade
Height and arm length of NB
Height and arm length of JB
Height and arm length of SC
Length of rifle with and without silencer
Impaired doesn't mean he would not be able to try to use his hand to hold the rifle. At any rate he had full use of his right arm anyway and thus could indeed have grabbed the weapon with it. Since the killer prevailed that means the effort to strip it from the killer was ultimately unsuccessful and all he anaged to do was buy a little more time.
Myster filled in most of the details of import regarding the size of the weapon.
If you ar holding a broom (obviously lighter than a rifle) and someone tries to take it from you how will the broom what directions will it move and how high will you be holding it? Are you going to raise it well above your head? Obviously you want to hold if close to your chest to get the best leverage. The other person would want to twist and yank it to try to pry it away.
No one is going to be holding it above their head like an axe.
This actually gives a good view of how the killer probably would be holding it as Nevill tried to take it away could can get an idea of height from it rather well.
While you can push the rifle away from the barrel area to try to take it away you would want to grab a more substantial area along the foregrip (the area in from of the magazine) as you can see even though the person in the photo has a hand there someone else can also grab the same area because it is long.
(http://i.imgur.com/3QFW0.jpg)
One of the parties would be likely go for the trigger area as well since that is an ideal place to hold onto.
-
Possibly, but if JB wanted to stage a suicide why there and not in the twins' room? If he went to the trouble of staging a suicide by introducing the bible it doesn't make sense to me that he didn't think through the location?
What was SC doing while JB shot NB and June and, if you subscribe to Scipio's theories, fighting with NB in the kitchen?
I am sure Scipio will enlighten me 8(0(*
Why would Sheila kill herself in there? I have no answer at all why she would. Logic suggests she would do it in the room where she killed her last victim. Kill the last victim then turn the gun on herself if she had decided to commit murder suicide.
Why would Jeremy kill her in there?
1) killing her in her own room might be viewed as evidence someone went in there and killed her the same way they did everyone else then left the gun after killing her.
2) killing her near the kids would make it look like she killed them last. If they were killed last they coudl potentially be considered to inherit property and then their father would get their share.
3) seeing her kids deads could freak her out even more and make her uncoooperative
4) seeing Nevill dead could freak her even out and make her uncooperative
Maybe June was seen as the victim whose body would least freak her out since she liked June the least well out of all the victims
5) Maybe he had not yet killed the twinse at the time he had killed her
6) Maybe he killed the twins already but she didn't know it and he fooled her and told her to cooperate or he would shoot her kids and thus taking her in there would ruin his ruse.
Any of these reaosns could be the answer. You are asking a state of mind question we have to get into the killer's state of mind to figure out the motivation for why he would choose to stage her there.
For all we know it is something even more simple and less thought out and Sheila had woken up, walked into the room to look at her mother then Jeremy came up and chased her to the other side of the room before grabbing her and forcing her on the floor to shoot her.
Since Jeremy never said is detail what happened we will never know he never even gave Julie the full details and only gavee us a glimpse into his state of mind about certain things like thinking a bike would be safer and less chance of being caught on the roads.
What was Sheila doing during the murders?
Well her doctor said that the signs described indicated she was over sedated and would have slept very deeply. So chances are she didn't wake up until Jeremy woke her up to take her into the master bedroom to kill her.
If she did wake up and come out as they were fighting in the kitchen she scould not have missed her mother lying on th efloor so probably would have went and looked, maybe checked on the boys to make sure they were ok. Then Jeremy comes back up and kills her then the boys.
We know that he had ten shots and used 8 on th eboys and 2 on SHeila we don't know if he killed her and then them or he killed them then went and got her to kill her. For all we know he shot 5 times, then 3 into the boys then the gun was empty so that is why 1 was shot less as opposed to making sure he saved 2 to kill Sheila with.
-
Why didn't Sheila run? I would have been out of there like the clappers out of hell. She couldn't actually save anyone. Could she? Obviously not.
Sheila was overmedicated and already in a zombie like state. People said she was vacant and her speech and movements were slow. There is an upper people usually take to counter Haldol's sedative effects but she never refilled that prescription. So she is woken from a nice sleep and is trying to figure out what is going on and by the time she does it is too late Jeremy is there to kill her.
But maybe she didn't wake up from the sound of the shots they are like caps going off when the sound moderator is used so she could have slept through it. If she did go downstairs and try to unlock a door Jeremy would have probably caught her before she coudl leave and you would think she would take her kids with her to try to flee.
Ann Eaton was convinced something happned in her bedroom. Maybe he had to drag her out of bed to get her up and she screamed like mad.
-
Scipio, have you noticed the Anschutz in the photo is not the actual murder weapon, in that there is no damage to the wooden stock where a piece was broken off. This photo was featured in the "Murder Casebook" magazine no.7 about the WHF murders, and like others in there is attributed to the Anglia Press Agency. So I presume this other rifle was also found at WHF and could have been the one belonging to Anthony Pargeter?
Although I can't place exactly where in WHF that area/cupboard is from the photo.
-
I think a mothers first instinct would be to protect her children to the point of sacrificing her life. If JB surely he would attempt to kill NB first as he would be the greatest threat to any plan? If one subscribes to Scipio's theory about an altercation taking place in the kitchen, along with John's theory regarding the noise levels from gunfire with the silencer attached, surely SC would wake and grab the twins and run? If NB and JB were engaged in a power struggle over the rifle/moderator with it scratching the Aga, smashing the lampshade, and crockery knocked off the table with chairs and stools overturned surely this presented an opportunity to escape? None of it makes sense.
The gunshots with the moderator attached sound like toy cap gun shots. There are people who don't wake up from loud gunshotsless alone muffled shots. So she might not have woken up at all.
The noise in the kitchen was further away than the shots in the bedroom so even less likely to cause her to wake up. But if she did wake up and finally get out of bed to investigate by the time she got out of her room they proably would have been in the kitchen. She wa salreayd considered slow let alone trying to wake up and get her bearings and to see with the lights on. She woudl see her mother for sure and either go to her mother or check on her kids. She would not know what is going on exactly and be lost, she was vacant and lost alot anyway because of her medication. If she recognized what was going on then I don't think she would try to escape without her kids. Them in bed says she didn't try to run but rather either never woke up until Jeremy woke her or before she could think of what to do Jeremy was back upstairs.
-
Scipio, have you noticed the Anschutz in the photo is not the actual murder weapon, in that there is no damage to the wooden stock where a piece was broken off. This photo was featured in the "Murder Casebook" magazine no.7 about the WHF murders, and like others in there is attributed to the Anglia Press Agency. So I presume this other rifle was also found at WHF and could have been the one belonging to Anthony Pargeter?
Although I can't place exactly where in WHF that area/cupboard is from the photo.
I was under the impression the photo was just some random guy who happened to have the same kind of weapon and thus used for illustrative purposes. It is someone related to the case?
-
I was under the impression the photo was just some random guy who happened to have the same kind of weapon and thus used for illustrative purposes. It is someone related to the case?
Could be a plain clothes police officer. The other 1985-6 period photos in the mag of Julie Mugford , Stan Jones, the Boutflours etc. also belonged to the Anglia Press Agency, ie. from East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. So perhaps it was taken in WHF around that time.
-
Thank you Myster. I am afraid this is where my OCD kicks in ie I need PRECISE measurements to the nearest mm. "Sheila Caffell was thought to have a short reach" doesn't sound very PRECISE. Unless we have precise measurements including length of reach it's pretty irrelevant. I don't think it is necessary for me to retrieve the photo of SC with the rifle which we are all familiar with but the one thing that stands out for me is the length of her fingers. Although I accept that her long nails may give the appearance of her fingers being longer than they actually were. Assuming her fingers were longer than average (and certainly her feet were larger than average according to AE's wit stats) she may have been long limbed too. There are too many unknowns to draw anything meaningful from it. I think I read somewhere SC was 5' 7" and JB 5' 10"? (I am teeny only 5' 3.5", 8st 7llbs, size 8. I can be fierce but overall I think good things come in small packages 8**8:/: which might just be music to your ears 8(0(*
I think the idea that SC shot herself with the silencer attached and somehow returned it to the gun cupboard is the stuff of fairies. I am more inclined to think JB guilty than thinking SC used the silencer and returned it to the gun cupboard.
I love how women always have to count that extra half inch.
Not even the most staunch Jeremy supporters claim Sheila managed to put the moderator away after shooting herself with it. At trial and on appeal the argument was that she put the moderator away before shooting herself.
The argument was that the blood inside belonged to June and Nevill and that she put it away after she killed everyone which of course implicates your question of why woudl she go kill herself in the master bedroom?
Another question is why would she bother to go downstairs and put it away. But also this would mean before the murders she went and got it and attached it because Jeremy claims it had not been attached. This makes no sense for a person supposedly in a crazy rage but rather indicates preplanning. Since the use of the moderator makes it extremely unlikely she was the killer instead most supporters argue publicly (though not in court because there is no evidence to support the claim) that the evidence on/in the moderator was fabricated and that it wasn't used at all.
-
Could be a plain clothes police officer. The other 1985-6 period photos in the mag of Julie Mugford , Stan Jones, the Boutflours etc. also belonged to the Anglia Press Agency, ie. from East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. So perhaps it was taken in WHF around that time.
IF it is WHF since the gun is not damaged that means the photo was taken prior to the murders.
-
IF it is WHF since the gun is not damaged that means the photo was taken prior to the murders.
Unless as I said it was an older model which belonged to Anthony Pargeter. Didn't he also own one, and was surprised to see the new one belonging to the Bambers when he looked inside the gun cupboard, prior to the murders.
-
Impaired doesn't mean he would not be able to try to use his hand to hold the rifle. At any rate he had full use of his right arm anyway and thus could indeed have grabbed the weapon with it. Since the killer prevailed that means the effort to strip it from the killer was ultimately unsuccessful and all he anaged to do was buy a little more time.
Myster filled in most of the details of import regarding the size of the weapon.
If you ar holding a broom (obviously lighter than a rifle) and someone tries to take it from you how will the broom what directions will it move and how high will you be holding it? Are you going to raise it well above your head? Obviously you want to hold if close to your chest to get the best leverage. The other person would want to twist and yank it to try to pry it away.
No one is going to be holding it above their head like an axe.
This actually gives a good view of how the killer probably would be holding it as Nevill tried to take it away could can get an idea of height from it rather well.
While you can push the rifle away from the barrel area to try to take it away you would want to grab a more substantial area along the foregrip (the area in from of the magazine) as you can see even though the person in the photo has a hand there someone else can also grab the same area because it is long.
(http://i.imgur.com/3QFW0.jpg)
One of the parties would be likely go for the trigger area as well since that is an ideal place to hold onto.
OMFG it's Rick Astley!
Errrmm...oh yes trigger area...yes I am sure it is an ideal place to hold onto 8(0(*
Scipio I don't think you should take this over to Blue it might get the knitting circle crowd a little over excited 8(0(*
-
I love how women always have to count that extra half inch.
Not even the most staunch Jeremy supporters claim Sheila managed to put the moderator away after shooting herself with it. At trial and on appeal the argument was that she put the moderator away before shooting herself.
The argument was that the blood inside belonged to June and Nevill and that she put it away after she killed everyone which of course implicates your question of why woudl she go kill herself in the master bedroom?
Another question is why would she bother to go downstairs and put it away. But also this would mean before the murders she went and got it and attached it because Jeremy claims it had not been attached. This makes no sense for a person supposedly in a crazy rage but rather indicates preplanning. Since the use of the moderator makes it extremely unlikely she was the killer instead most supporters argue publicly (though not in court because there is no evidence to support the claim) that the evidence on/in the moderator was fabricated and that it wasn't used at all.
It can make a big difference you know 8(0(*
Shouldn't Chloe 23 be doing all the smutty stuff >@@(*&)
-
I love how women always have to count that extra half inch.
Not even the most staunch Jeremy supporters claim Sheila managed to put the moderator away after shooting herself with it. At trial and on appeal the argument was that she put the moderator away before shooting herself.
The argument was that the blood inside belonged to June and Nevill and that she put it away after she killed everyone which of course implicates your question of why woudl she go kill herself in the master bedroom?
Another question is why would she bother to go downstairs and put it away. But also this would mean before the murders she went and got it and attached it because Jeremy claims it had not been attached. This makes no sense for a person supposedly in a crazy rage but rather indicates preplanning. Since the use of the moderator makes it extremely unlikely she was the killer instead most supporters argue publicly (though not in court because there is no evidence to support the claim) that the evidence on/in the moderator was fabricated and that it wasn't used at all.
At last we agree on something 8((()*/ What on earth went through Geoffrey Rivlins QC's mind to dream up such a truly bizarre idea? How on earth did he expect to sell that to the jury? It is crazy, madness, as is the idea that the blood found in the silencer could possibly be an intimate mix of June and NB's. Geoffrey Rivlin QC has a lot to answer for in this sorry saga and this is probably one of the reasons he opted for a change of career ie from barrister to judge in 1989.
-
There are several narrow parallel bruises matching the width of the rifle barrel, and several gouge wounds.
Could the latter have been caused by the front-sight hood (the cylindrical part which covers the actual sight itself to stop extraneous light affecting your view when the rifle is aimed in the normal way).
Vanezis noted that there were 4 marks caused by the "rounded end of that object".
*******************************************
The rifle in your photo looks a different one to the actual murder weapon held by PC Whiddon -
1). The short cylindrical front-sight hood is missing. (arrowed)
2). The stock where his right hand is holding the rifle doesn't look damaged, (arrowed) although it's just as difficult
to see any damage in the Whiddon photo.
If this photo was taken on the 7th. August 1985 why is a moderator fitted, when it was only discovered days later by David Boutflour?
Could this be Anthony Pargeter's Anschütz rifle?
I'm trying to figure out in which part of the house that photo was taken and who it was holding the rifle.... is he a plain clothes policeman?
(http://i.imgur.com/ZKeaPQ0.jpg)
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=275.msg27957#msg27957
Is this really the same rifle?
-
Unless as I said it was an older model which belonged to Anthony Pargeter. Didn't he also own one, and was surprised to see the new one belonging to the Bambers when he looked inside the gun cupboard, prior to the murders.
AP had a bolt action BRNO.
-
At last we agree on something 8((()*/ What on earth went through Geoffrey Rivlins QC's mind to dream up such a truly bizarre idea? How on earth did he expect to sell that to the jury? It is crazy, madness, as is the idea that the blood found in the silencer could possibly be an intimate mix of June and NB's. Geoffrey Rivlin QC has a lot to answer for in this sorry saga and this is probably one of the reasons he opted for a change of career ie from barrister to judge in 1989.
He dealt with the moderator evidence to the best extent he could. While still a loser argument it was better than no defense at all
The defense expert he hired not only afforded no way to assert that the evidence had been planted, even worse he found more blood on the first 8 baffles that was consistent with Sheila's blood. He originally said maybe the blood was a mixture of June and Nevill's blood that had not intimately mixed but after reviwing all the prosecution expert's tests and speaking with the expert he agreed with the results.
So what did Rivlin have to blunt the evidence? Nothing he had an expert that bolstered the prosecution merely. The best he could do was get the prosecution witness to say there was a remote chance the blood was a mix of Nevill and June's blood.
He had a choice to argue that it was Nevill and June's blood or to make no argument at all. If he made no argument at all and just accepted the blood was Sheila's then for sure the case is lost. He hoped some jurors would be stupid enough to believe it was June and Nevill's blood and hioed they would not recognize that would mean Sheila had to install the moderator herself prior to the murders and remove it after killing everyone else or would accept that as a reasonable possibilty. The jury already had to believe she had gone to the closet to get more rounds since 5-7 rounds had to come from another supply than the one in the kitchen for Sheila to have been responsible.
This pathetic argument actually swayed 2 jurors, jurors are often not very bright and that is what he was hoping for, indeed 1 juror after the OJ SImpson trial went on TV and revealed she didn't understand what it means to say the chance of the blood being someone other than OJ was in the billions meant. She was unaware of what the population of Earth was and therefore what the odds meant. If you told her the Earth had a trillion people she would probably not think anything wrong with it. When you consider there are people like that out there you can see how Rivlin's defense offered a little hope.
What was the alternative? To say the blood go there innocently through past use? Blood doesnt get there like that through innocent use. He tried to get the expert to say it was possible for the blood to have gotten inside from bashing the victim with the gun and ordinary back spatter to which the expert replied it is possible a tiny bit could get inside from those methods but it would not go far inside and be no where near the volume found.
So the option was to argue the unlikely or have no argument at all.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury Sheila's blood got inside through ordinary contamintion prior to the murders because she was there and her blood somehow got inside or ordinary contamination after the murders somehow. I know I presented no witnesses to this effect and the prosecution expert says this is not possible but you should believe me anyway. Thank You.
That was the alternative so it was argue the crappy position he did or that position which basically says my client is guilty and I am just here because by law says he gets to have an attorney so convict him.
-
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=275.msg27957#msg27957 (http://www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=275.msg27957#msg27957)
Is this really the same rifle?
I don't think it is.
There is definitely no damage to the stock where his right hand is positioned (unless the broken off piece is sellotaped on, which I doubt). And what reason would they have for removing the cylindrical foresight hood?
(http://i.imgur.com/S5Ye4jv.jpg?1)
You posted an alternative photo before of the actual weapon held by PC Whiddon from a better angle so that the damage was more visible...
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=275.msg27965#msg27965
(http://i.imgur.com/4r6XhXZ.jpg)
The white-painted moulding of the wooden door-frame or panelling behind him looks similar to that of other woodwork in the kitchen photos of White House Farm. Not the actual office/den gun cupboard, but possibly the small cupboard in the main Hall, backing onto the Bottle cupboard in the GF plan. Could even be one of the other rooms such as the GF Scullery or Washroom/Toilet. There were other firearms discovered too including - a BSA Meteor .22 airgun and a Webley& Scott bolt-action .410 shotgun, both under some clothes on the spiral staircase S2 in the kitchen.
-
This is not a rhetorical question.
When peopele believe something such belief will either be based on rational evidence or something other than rational evidence.
On both the blue and red forums I tried to get people to provide the basis for their assertions to try to understand their positions. Many have been non-committal and said they didn't know whether to believe Jeremy is guilty or not. Many of those who assert he is innocent have to date failed to provide any basis for their position at all let alone a rational basis. Those who have provided a basis have largely provided lies or at best bogus claims they believe but are false for example the assertion Nevill phoned police himself.
Jeremy supporters like Holly have at best managed to say they wonder whether the evidence to prove Jeremy's guilt was fabricated but have failed to provide any evidence at all to establish such occurred. But Holly et al go well beyond this and assert it did happen. Wondering whether it occured and asserted it did are two very different things. You have no need for evidence to simply wonder. You do have a need for evidence in order to reasonably assert something happened.
Can anyone who thinks Jeremy is innocent provide a detailed basis for why they believe such and explain whether it is based on evidence or just hunches?
I can and have provided the basis why I believe Jeremy is guilty.
I. Zero evidence that Sheila did anything
A) What evidence is there that Sheila killed anyone? None!
B) Any evidence she loaded a gun? No, she had no elevated lead levels.
C) Any evidence she fired a gun? No, she had no GSR or high velocity back spatter from the victims
D) Any evidence she beat Nevill? No, even though she would have: damaged her nails, damaged her hand when the stock broke, been hit with medium velocity blood spatter from the victim and would have gotten her prints on the blood that was on the rifle none of this occurred.
E) Any evidence that she killed herself? No she can't have killed herself because after she was shot while seated with her body propped against something the killer: 1) removed the moderator and put it in the closet, 2) moved her blody flat while she was still bleeding so she then bled down the side of her neck forming a blood pool, 3) placed the bible in such pool of blood then opened and closed it repeatedly before the blood dried. Someone else had to do all these things and they were done very soon after she had been killed.
F) No indication she would do something like this and no motive. There is no reason for her medication to stop working suddenly at 2AM while sleeping and to get dilusions. Even before her latest medicaiton she was not having delusions about her fmaily. There is nothing that should have agitated her while everyone was sleeping. There is nothing to indicate she would have been likely to harm anyone else or her self.
G) No evidence she would have been able to carry out such a murder because: 1) she had no experience using such a weapon so would not have even known how to chamber a round let alone known she needed to. Nor would she know how to load 11 rounds (the maximum capacity of the weapon) and 11 rounds were fired in the master bedroom at the parents before Nevill escaped to the kitchen. 2) schizophrenia prevents people from being organized killers 3) her medication would have harmed her already poor hand eye coordination which was so bad she could not even be taught to drive. Her medication causes involuntary movements like Parkison's.
H) What evidence is there that Nevill actually phoned Jeremy? None
I) Jeremy's story kept shifting and many details was contradicted by others suggesting he was trying to frame Sheila. For instance, he initially told police she had taken her shooting and she had fired all guns in the house including the gun he left on the kitchen table with a loaded magazine but he later acknowledged she had never fired it or any other weapons to his knowledge. The claim he got the gun out to shoot rabbits is not credible because he was not known to ever do such. His ex-girlfriend and extended family said he did not like the shooting of rabbits. Worse, his story of the gun being found without the scope and moderator attached is not credible. His claim that Nevill sometimes removed the scope was disputed by others and he was unable to present any valid reason for why the scope would be removed. He clearly staged the bullets in the kitchen, they can't have been the sloe source of ammunition used in the murders. There were 48-50 rounds allegedly when he supposedly left them in the kitchen prior to the murders and there were 30 after the murders. 25 were used in the murders. For his story to be true that means the killer used 18-20 rounds from this pile of ammo but instead of using all 25 from it went to the closet to get another 5-7 rounds. Why would anyone do that let alone Sheila while she is supposedly enraged? So all the available evidence in this regard suggests that Jeremy lied about getting the gun out, loading it and leaving it and additional ammunition in the kitchen for Sheila to grab. This tale appears to be complete fiction meant to frame Sheila because there is no way she would have fetched the gun herself while arguing with anyone and if she had then as she tried to load it she coudl have been disarmed. So this tale was crafted of the gun being left in front of her for her to grab as she was arguing with nevill, shooting him in the kitchen and then moving on to the rest. But as we know the shooting started upstairs not in the kitchen so the whole thing is BS.
J) Did Jeremy react as someone who received such a call would react? No someone receiving such call would call 999 to report it and then go over to investigate. Instead he called Julie so she could confirm that he told her Nevill called him thinking this would make his claim of Nevill phoning more credible. 20 minutes or more after this he finally called police. At trial he stated the delay was because at first he didn't think it was urgent but after thinking about it a while realized it was. All he cared about wan an alibi. Pretending Nevill called him was an alibi and he wanted that alibi to be established further by police. He didn't want police to arrive at WHF and see him there already because they could think he went in and did something prior to their arrival. His alibi was to be that Nevill phoned and was killed after calling while Jeremy was not there. So he needed the police to see he was not there. Thus he parked on the side of the road and after police passed him, then he slowly followed and arrived 3 minuts later so they could see him arrive. No one who actually received such a call would be engaged in such kind of behavior they would go to the house and try to listen and spy from outside at minimum to then talk to police when they arrive. Some would actually do more than just try to spy and listen and would actually have entered. I am one such person.
K) Would Nevill have been likely to make such a call to him? No because:
1) Nevill didn't trust him and intimated to others he thought Jeremy wanted him dead
2) Jeremy had an answering machine and the phone was on the ground floor thus the phone would be unlikely to wake Jeremy up and even if he did wake up the answering machine would have simply picked up. It would tkae Jeremy several minutes to reach the phone even if he had woken up. Thus if a true emergency Nevill would have dialled 999 not called Jeremy
3) Nevill was taller and stronger than Jeremy so could have disarmed Sheila as easily or more easily than Jeremy, why would he decide to have Jeremy disarms her instead? Worse, it would take Jeremy 20 minutes or more to answer, dress, drive there and find a way in even if Jeremy did get the message. Why would he decide to wait that long instead of trying to disarm her himself?
4) Jeremy antagonized Sheila so would agitate the situationa nd cause her to be more likely to fire not less likely. Nevill was the adult with the most calming effect on Sheila and thus best chance of calming her down.
5) How would Nevill be in a position to make the call? How did he get to the kitchen and where was Sheila while he was there? Why would June stay in bed yet he would run to use the phone? If Sheila was in front of him he could not have made the call she would have shot him. If she was not there in the room at that moment why would he choose to make a call that likely would not be answered and if answered would still not result in help coming for at least 20 minutes when he instead could have used the opportunity to arm himself? If he is truly frieghtened then he would have grabbed a knife, gun or some other weapon that were all readily available in the kitchen to use to confront Sheila with. In the meantime the evidence shows that the killer caught the parents in their bedroom and shot 11 times. June was killed but Nevill was merely wounded and managed to reach the kitchen where he struggled with his killer. His killer had an empty gun so had to beat Nevill unconscious in order to then be able to reload the gun and fire 4 more shots to kill him. There was no opportunity for Nevill to make any call.
So the evidence against Jeremy is strong.
I never ever have seen a Jeremy defender able to provide a list of reasons for their views let lone one that cites evidence which refutes the evidence that proves Jeremy is guilty.
That’s an excellent post, Scorpio !
I’m glad I stumbled upon this as there’s a new post of a similar vein asking for proof of Sheila’s guilt
So far, not one person had been able to provide any, despite the same old posters still claiming the psychopath, Jeremy Bamber is innocent
-
Yes, an excellent post which I don’t believe can be credibly refuted for the most part. In CAL’s book I’ve just got up to the bit where Jeremy discusses buying a Porsche with proceeds from the caravan park with a policeman whilst attending the Farm on the morning it happened. I mean, is this perfectly normal, explicable behaviour in someone whose family is likely lying in pools of their own blood?
-
Yes, an excellent post which I don’t believe can be credibly refuted for the most part. In CAL’s book I’ve just got up to the bit where Jeremy discusses buying a Porsche with proceeds from the caravan park with a policeman whilst attending the Farm on the morning it happened. I mean, is this perfectly normal, explicable behaviour in someone whose family is likely lying in pools of their own blood?
At the time he was being told by the police all would be OK. The police initiated the conversation to take his mind off things:
Ground 11 – the proposed purchase of a Porsche by the appellant 428. This ground was abandoned before the hearing and nothing further need be said about it.
-
Yes, an excellent post which I don’t believe can be credibly refuted for the most part. In CAL’s book I’ve just got up to the bit where Jeremy discusses buying a Porsche with proceeds from the caravan park with a policeman whilst attending the Farm on the morning it happened. I mean, is this perfectly normal, explicable behaviour in someone whose family is likely lying in pools of their own blood?
Of course it isn’t normal behaviour.
To supposedly receive a phone call from your dad, saying: “Help me. Sheila’s gone berserk with the gun” and he supposedly sounded TERRIFIED, you’d rush like mad to the farm after calling 999 and would be in a terrible state of panic, especially when you heard the dogs barking and whining knowing your dad would have gone to investigate if the dogs were barking like that.
When he turned up AFTER the police, they were surprised how calm he was. And when other officers arrived a couple of hours later, one thought Jeremy was a CID officer as he was so calm!
And then to talk about cars while there’s still no-one coming out the house, and say “The Osea Road Caravan Site will see next a brand new Porsche this year” is the talk of a psychopath.
Just a couple of hours after that, when they found everyone dead, Jeremy was fit enough to drive home...and when got thre he said to the police he’d who’d accompanied him “I’m starving!” and started cooking up bacon!! You can’t eat when you’re in deep traumatised shock, and devastated with sudden grief! He then went for a big nosh-up that night in a restaurant and had Champagne while kissing a Julie and chuckling....
-
At the time he was being told by the police all would be OK. The police initiated the conversation to take his mind off things:
Ground 11 – the proposed purchase of a Porsche by the appellant 428. This ground was abandoned before the hearing and nothing further need be said about it.
The policeman Myall judged the conversation to be “very strange”, according to CAL’s book.
-
I resent being called a "guilter." An ugly word that doesn't mean anything.
Maybe I'm an "innocenter." Because it's so obvious that Sheila was innocent. Not a speck of anyone else's blood on her, and no blood in her lungs and throat, even though apparently she shot herself in the throat, then shot herself again. So, even though we can all see a pouch of blood collected in her neck, she didn't gasp or cough or gag, she calmy repositioned the gun and shot herself again. She didn't panic, or feel pain. She didn't gasp. And inhale the blood that ran from the first gunshot.
Madness.
Gosh, I’m learning new things every day
I didn’t realise Sheila had no blood in her lungs, so that’s even further evidence that she couldn’t have stood up, gone downstairs, hid the silencer after unscrewing it, walked back upstairs...then supposedly shot herself a SECOND time without even coughing once!
-
Scipio when the CCRC referred JB's case back to the CoA in 2002 they did so based on the silencer evidence. If any of the other so-called evidence was strong enough in its own right or even collectively eg phone calls. bike, state of SC, SC receiving two gunshot wounds, JM's testimony etc, etc the case would not have been referred. The reason it was referred is that the other evidence that was presented at trial was weak.
If you read the Judge's summing up you will see the jury's deliberations centred on the silencer and it is this that underpinned the prosecution's case and ultimately convicted JB.
The tragedy happened on 7th August 1985. JB was not arrested and charged until a month later. Why would a mass murderer be allowed to roam free for a month and leave the country? If it was as obvious as you seem to think how come experienced police officers, pathologist and doctor didn't at least have niggling doubts? DS jones claims he had doubts from the off but as the pathologist said DS Jones said nothing of significance it was based on a gut feeling as a result of JB's behaviour eg bacon butty etc
You’re wrong, Holly
The judge actually said to the jury that they could come to a decision on “Julie Mugford’s statement alone”...
-
The policeman Myall judged the conversation to be “very strange”, according to CAL’s book.
In the interest of balance other conversations occured;
Jeremy Bamber asked Dr Craig and Chief Superintendant Harris if he could go into the farmhouse. Upon his request being refused he asked "Can't I see my Dad?". Harris explained that his parents were dead. "I want to see him. Why can't my Dad come out to see me?" [CAL page 177]
-
Gosh, I’m learning new things every day
I didn’t realise Sheila had no blood in her lungs, so that’s even further evidence that she couldn’t have stood up, gone downstairs, hid the silencer after unscrewing it, walked back upstairs...then supposedly shot herself a SECOND time without even coughing once!
Even stranger.
-
You’re wrong, Holly
The judge actually said to the jury that they could come to a decision on “Julie Mugford’s statement alone”...
No I'm no wrong. This is what the trial judge said:
The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.
154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.
It was the evidence relating to the sound moderator that the judge said could "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.
-
In the interest of balance other conversations occured;
Jeremy Bamber asked Dr Craig and Chief Superintendant Harris if he could go into the farmhouse. Upon his request being refused he asked "Can't I see my Dad?". Harris explained that his parents were dead. "I want to see him. Why can't my Dad come out to see me?" [CAL page 177]
I expect if Gerry McCann had been chatting about buying a Porsche on the night Madeleine went missing you probably wouldn’t be so keen to point out other conversations that occurred,
-
I expect if Gerry McCann had been chatting about buying a Porsche on the night Madeleine went missing you probably wouldn’t be so keen to point out other conversations that occurred,
JB did not initiate the conversations. They were engineered by the police to take his mind off the situation. And the Porsche referred to was a kit car. Have you read PC Myall's statements along with the other first respondents?
-
JB did not initiate the conversations. They were engineered by the police to take his mind off the situation. And the Porsche referred to was a kit car. Have you read PC Myall's statements along with the other first respondents?
No. Are you saying that CAL misreported him when he said the conversation was “very strange”?
-
No. Are you saying that CAL misreported him when he said the conversation was “very strange”?
For those who are interested in the case I don't understand why they would want to go to third parties when full statements and reports exist straight from the horse's mouth.
-
For those who are interested in the case I don't understand why they would want to go to third parties when full statements and reports exist straight from the horse's mouth.
Did CAL not conduct her own research and interviews? Is her book not reliable? I am new to the case and have started with her book, perhaps my lack of in-depth knowledge of each and every statement means I’m not worthy of your time, in which case just ignore my comments and I’ll talk to others about it.
-
Did CAL not conduct her own research and interviews? Is her book not reliable? I am new to the case and have started with her book, perhaps my lack of in-depth knowledge of each and every statement means I’m not worthy of your time, in which case just ignore my comments and I’ll talk to others about it.
I would recommend cross referencing with the primary source.
-
I would recommend cross referencing with the primary source.
I am not planning on devoting a large proportion of my life to this case and and satisfied with the information I am getting from the book I’m reading. If the police officer did not say that Jeremy’s conversation was “very strange” then perhaps you can provide evidence to the contrary, because this is what he said to the author of the book in 2014. In fact if he hadn’t thought the conversation worthy of note at the time, I don’t suppose it would have appeared in the statement in the first place.
-
I am not planning on devoting a large proportion of my life to this case and and satisfied with the information I am getting from the book I’m reading. If the police officer did not say that Jeremy’s conversation was “very strange” then perhaps you can provide evidence to the contrary, because this is what he said to the author of the book in 2014. In fact if he hadn’t thought the conversation worthy of note at the time, I don’t suppose it would have appeared in the statement in the first place.
For what it's worth, I, too, believe his response to have been very strange. I've done grief counselling and been privy to grieving on many levels. It's been my own experience that those who are grieving can't focus on anything other than their grief and the loss responsible for it. They will often talk at length about the person lost to them.
-
There were different opinions about Jeremy Bamber's reactions, despite people concentrating only on those which paint him in a bad light.
Sgt Jeapes reported that Jeremy Bamber was in a very distressed state. Dr Craig said Jeremy was grief stricken and suffering from emotional shock. DC Clark thought Jeremy hadn't taken in the fact that his family were all dead.
-
There were different opinions about Jeremy Bamber's reactions, despite people concentrating only on those which paint him in a bad light.
Sgt Jeapes reported that Jeremy Bamber was in a very distressed state. Dr Craig said Jeremy was grief stricken and suffering from emotional shock. DC Clark thought Jeremy hadn't taken in the fact that his family were all dead.
He certainly gave them what they expected to see. A good impression of a grieving son.
-
He certainly gave them what they expected to see. A good impression of a grieving son.
Different people formed different opinions of his reactions.
-
Different people formed different opinions of his reactions.
As they have done here, but it has to be remembered that those at the scene were seeing, for the most part, what they'd have expected to see under the circumstances. We now know that everything wasn't as it appeared at the time.
-
There were different opinions about Jeremy Bamber's reactions, despite people concentrating only on those which paint him in a bad light.
Sgt Jeapes reported that Jeremy Bamber was in a very distressed state. Dr Craig said Jeremy was grief stricken and suffering from emotional shock. DC Clark thought Jeremy hadn't taken in the fact that his family were all dead.
I agree, he did show emotion of someone who was grieving- we see it all the time in movies,He couldn't just check his fingernails and say oh, what dead? all of them bejeasus... however, he got over that very quickly
-
I agree, he did show emotion of someone who was grieving- we see it all the time in movies,He couldn't just check his fingernails and say oh, what dead? all of them bejeasus... however, he got over that very quickly
Showing emotion is one thing. Feeling it is entirely different.
-
Showing emotion is one thing. Feeling it is entirely different.
Absolutely. We cannot know what someone truly feels unless they tell us, and even then, they might be lying.
Many of us can put on an act, and some of us can be very convincing; others not so much.
I do believe, however, that it is easier to trust some people than others, and I spend far too much of my time trying to work out why that is!
-
Absolutely. We cannot know what someone truly feels unless they tell us, and even then, they might be lying.
Many of us can put on an act, and some of us can be very convincing; others not so much.
I do believe, however, that it is easier to trust some people than others, and I spend far too much of my time trying to work out why that is!
Perhaps it's good, old fashioned INSTINCT? Our early warning system.
-
Yes we never saw his raw emotions when haggling about his sisters photographs for money- his sister who 'killed' his family and her self? the family he loved and missed...
-
Yes we never saw his raw emotions when haggling about his sisters photographs for money- his sister who 'killed' his family and her self? the family he loved and missed...
Good observation MTI 8@??)(
-
There were different opinions about Jeremy Bamber's reactions, despite people concentrating only on those which paint him in a bad light.
Sgt Jeapes reported that Jeremy Bamber was in a very distressed state. Dr Craig said Jeremy was grief stricken and suffering from emotional shock. DC Clark thought Jeremy hadn't taken in the fact that his family were all dead.
Do Sgt Jeapes and Dr Craig and DC Clark all believe him to be innocent to this day I wonder...?
-
I agree, he did show emotion of someone who was grieving- we see it all the time in movies,He couldn't just check his fingernails and say oh, what dead? all of them bejeasus... however, he got over that very quickly
He went 100 yards into a field to pretend to be sick, if he was really going to be sick, he's have just turned away. He came back with a bunch of poppies - talk about over-egging!
-
He went 100 yards into a field to pretend to be sick, if he was really going to be sick, he's have just turned away. He came back with a bunch of poppies - talk about over-egging!
@)(++(*
Oscar!
-
@)(++(*
Oscar!
Well, he did claim that he should have been an actor. He was in his school drama group.
-
Well, he did claim that he should have been an actor. He was in his school drama group.
He was indeed. He also took part in a play later on, in his village, I believe. his performance, apparently, was quite scary.
Doesn't mean he killed his family though, and nor does it mean he didn't.
-
He was indeed. He also took part in a play later on, in his village, I believe. his performance, apparently, was quite scary.
Doesn't mean he killed his family though, and nor does it mean he didn't.
You mind your bum on that fence, Mrswah. The last thing you want is splinters @)(++(*
-
He was indeed. He also took part in a play later on, in his village, I believe. his performance, apparently, was quite scary.
Doesn't mean he killed his family though, and nor does it mean he didn't.
Absolutely Mrswah-no evidence at all.
But building a profile...
-
You mind your bum on that fence, Mrswah. The last thing you want is splinters
You're right!!
-
Absolutely Mrswah-no evidence at all.
But building a profile...
Mmm. As I said previously, one character flaw doesn't a murderer make, but a whole gamut of them certainly makes the probability more likely.
-
Mmm. As I said previously, one character flaw doesn't a murderer make, but a whole gamut of them certainly makes the probability more likely.
And I have far too much time on my hands to think about these probabilities/possibilities.
-
And I have far too much time on my hands to think about these probabilities/possibilities.
Idle hands are the devils workshop.
-
Idle hands are the devils workshop.
Hm !!!!
-
Idle hands are the devils workshop.
I'll bet Grannie Speakman spake those words frequently!
-
In the interest of balance other conversations occured;
Jeremy Bamber asked Dr Craig and Chief Superintendant Harris if he could go into the farmhouse. Upon his request being refused he asked "Can't I see my Dad?". Harris explained that his parents were dead. "I want to see him. Why can't my Dad come out to see me?" [CAL page 177]
He was putting on an act trying to pretend he was grief stricken. He’s a psychopath, remember.
-
No I'm no wrong. This is what the trial judge said:
The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.
154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.
It was the evidence relating to the sound moderator that the judge said could "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.
I read that the judge told the jury they could reach a decision on Julie Mugford’s evidence alone
I’m not hunting for it, but when I come across it I will post the source.
-
He was putting on an act trying to pretend he was grief stricken. He’s a psychopath, remember.
Has the ring of a toddler screaming "I want my Daddy" in juxtaposition to the big man bragging that the holiday park would stand him a Porsche.
-
JB did not initiate the conversations. They were engineered by the police to take his mind off the situation. And the Porsche referred to was a kit car. Have you read PC Myall's statements along with the other first respondents?
Were you in the car too, Holy?
No, you weren’t — so stop making assumptions
And that ludicrous lie Jeremy Bamber said, claiming it was a kit car is a load of rubbish — complete rubbish.
-
For those who are interested in the case I don't understand why they would want to go to third parties when full statements and reports exist straight from the horse's mouth.
But that horse’s mouth is a pathological liar, Holly
The policeman said he was taken aback when Jeremy said Osea Road Caravan Park would be “standing” him a brand new Porsche.
-
Did CAL not conduct her own research and interviews? Is her book not reliable? I am new to the case and have started with her book, perhaps my lack of in-depth knowledge of each and every statement means I’m not worthy of your time, in which case just ignore my comments and I’ll talk to others about it.
CAL’s book was written having done extensive, thorough research on all elements of the case, even down to the hundreds of letters Jeremy Bamber wrote to her. Her research was so good; so thorough; that’s why the TV company made the drama based on it.
There’s absolutely NO errors in CAL’s book, which is why Jeremy hasn’t done his usual petty complaint of saying something like “Thats wrong! I wasn’t eating a ham sandwich the night before, it was cheese. I’m instructing my lawyers to sue you for libel!”
He even lied about that too.. he said he’d only written to CAL “5 or 6 times” 😂
He’s definitely not bright: he’s always tripping himself up!
-
I would recommend cross referencing with the primary source.
Well, all this cross referencing hasn’t helped YOU much, Holly
Has it, eh?
You’ve been campaigning for a new appeal since 2014, possibly many years longer...and you’ve still got NOWHERE.
NADA.
-
For what it's worth, I, too, believe his response to have been very strange. I've done grief counselling and been privy to grieving on many levels. It's been my own experience that those who are grieving can't focus on anything other than their grief and the loss responsible for it. They will often talk at length about the person lost to them.
Absolutely, April
I have vast experience in this subject too, and never in a million years would anyone who was in total state of panic, fearing their loved ones could be dead or in severe danger even THINK of being able to discuss cars, or anything at all. They can’t focus. All they can think of are their loved ones, and if a policeman suddenly said “what sort of cars do you like?” You’d think they were nuts and would either ignore them, or get angry they’d ask such an unimportant question when you’re close to exploding with panic.
-
He certainly gave them what they expected to see. A good impression of a grieving son.
He TRIED to display grief, but the police all said he didn’t express it normally.
That’s because he was acting.
Just like he acted at the funerals, where he buckled his legs for the cameras...he’s a terrible actor in my opinion.
-
Showing emotion is one thing. Feeling it is entirely different.
Yes, and when you’ve just been told all your family are dead you don’t drive home normally an hour or so later, walk in, and say “I’m starving!” Then start cooking bacon....
-
Yes we never saw his raw emotions when haggling about his sisters photographs for money- his sister who 'killed' his family and her self? the family he loved and missed...
Absolutely!
He was sniggering and giggling in the pub.
Talking of giggling, one of the police officers who went back with him to Goldhanger actually HEARD Jeremy chuckle when Julie went into his bedroom to supposedly comfort him.
That was just a few hours after the police told him all his family were dead.
-
Absolutely!
He was sniggering and giggling in the pub.
Talking of giggling, one of the police officers who went back with him to Goldhanger actually HEARD Jeremy chuckle when Julie went into his bedroom to supposedly comfort him.
That was just a few hours after the police told him all his family were dead.
That was Stan Jones.
-
That was Stan Jones.
Thank you, Caroline:)
I was sure it was Stan Jones, but as I wasn’t 100% I didn't want a warning from Holly ordering me supply sources...😌
-
Were you in the car too, Holy?
No, you weren’t — so stop making assumptions
And that ludicrous lie Jeremy Bamber said, claiming it was a kit car is a load of rubbish — complete rubbish.
How can you be so sure?
-
How can you be so sure?
Because others have said he said the same to them and was talking about areal Porsche.
-
How can you be so sure?
Because the police officer noted it down as he thought it strange Jeremy Bamber could say such a thing.