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: adam on January 19, 2015, 07:36:43 PM
Title: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: adam on January 19, 2015, 07:36:43 PM
'WHAT', said AE after hearing that Sheila had reloaded. Twice.
AE had assumed Sheila had killed everyone with just one round of bullets.
Bamber told the police on the massacre night that Sheila knew how to use the guns at WHF. This damning claim eventually saw him back down. Saying at court she had 'limited' experience with guns. He couldn't say 'no experience', after all Sheila had held a gun while on a photo shoot.
Sent off to boarding school at a young age, Sheila later got married and moved to London. I doubt she ever got her hands dirty out in the WHF fields. Or ever fired a gun. Rumours that she may have gone on a shooting trip, years earlier float about.
It is doubtful someone in such a rage with limited/no gun experience would be able to load a rifle. I couldn't. There was also virtually no oil on her, which would be expected after two reloads.
The massacre attempt went off plan early on. Bamber perhaps over estimating the rifle power. And Neville needing to be brutally beaten. Reloads were needed to finish the job. Why not reload twice to make it look like an attack from a crazy woman ?
After brutally beating an alive/dead Neville I would have thought Sheila would have got enough anger out of her system. But no, reloads were required.
What do other people think of Sheila's reloads ?
147
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 20, 2015, 10:04:05 AM
'WHAT', said AE after hearing that Sheila had reloaded. Twice.
AE had assumed Sheila had killed everyone with just one round of bullets.
Bamber told the police on the massacre night that Sheila knew how to use the guns at WHF. This damning claim eventually saw him back down. Saying at court she had 'limited' experience with guns. He couldn't say 'no experience', after all Sheila had held a gun while on a photo shoot.
Sent off to boarding school at a young age, Sheila later got married and moved to London. I doubt she ever got her hands dirty out in the WHF fields. Or ever fired a gun. Rumours that she may have gone on a shooting trip, years earlier float about.
It is doubtful someone in such a rage with limited/no gun experience would be able to load a rifle. I couldn't. There was also virtually no oil on her, which would be expected after two reloads.
The massacre attempt went off plan early on. Bamber perhaps over estimating the rifle power. And Neville needing to be brutally beaten. Reloads were needed to finish the job. Why not reload twice to make it look like an attack from a crazy woman ?
After brutally beating an alive/dead Neville I would have thought Sheila would have got enough anger out of her system. But no, reloads were required.
What do other people think of Sheila's reloads ?
SC grew up on a farm and was around guns from a young age. She also had a relationship with a farm hand in her teenage years. DB is on record confirming SC had a little experience with guns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo @ 6.30 in
How much experience does one need to load and a fire a rifle? Personally I think gender stereotyping kicks in.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: adam on January 21, 2015, 10:11:44 AM
The judge in his summing up asked the jury ' Do you think Sheila was capable of reloading the gun twice in the middle of the killings ? '
The prosecution said it was 'unthinkable'.
The defence said she washed herself afterwards to get rid of lead marks !
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: adam on January 21, 2015, 10:12:34 AM
It is interesting that the prosecution said it was 'unthinkable' that Sheila re loaded. Twice.
They would have obviously investigated how easy/difficult it was to re load for someone with no/limited experience with guns. Who was in a murderous rage. Coming to the conclusion that it is 'unthinkable'
There is no record of the defence refuting this. Just claiming that Sheila had a shower, explaining why there was no lead oil on her
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 21, 2015, 02:43:16 PM
The judge in his summing up asked the jury ' Do you think Sheila was capable of reloading the gun twice in the middle of the killings ? '
The prosecution said it was 'unthinkable'.
The defence said she washed herself afterwards to get rid of lead marks !
What is the definition of "middle of the killings"? Surely the emphasis should have been on the injuries sustained by the victims after the first round? The pathologist makes it clear that the wounds sustained by NB and June in the bedroom from the first round would have resulted in death if further gunshots hadn't supervened. Within seconds the first round was fired rendering NB and June completely defenceless. Thereafter there was no urgency in reloading to maintain control.
JB's defence were useless and it seems likely to me Geoffrey Rivlin QC completely lost his appetite (if he ever had one) for court room battles after his drubbing from Anthony Arlidge QC. Hence a couple of years after JB's trial he became a judge.
There seems to have been a lack of communication between the pathologist, ballistics/firearms and JB's defence in terms of spelling out the order of injuries and their impact eg the fact NB's left arm was totally impaired by the injury he sustained upstairs meaning he was incapable of putting up any sort of fight in the kitchen with SC or JB.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 21, 2015, 02:46:51 PM
It is interesting that the prosecution said it was 'unthinkable' that Sheila re loaded. Twice.
They would have obviously investigated how easy/difficult it was to re load for someone with no/limited experience with guns. Who was in a murderous rage. Coming to the conclusion that it is 'unthinkable'
There is no record of the defence refuting this. Just claiming that Sheila had a shower, explaining why there was no lead oil on her
There's not much evidence of the defense refuting anything! Why? Strong prosecution case or weak defense?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on January 21, 2015, 05:39:01 PM
Off topic, but might be of interest - Anthony Arlidge QC in action, lecturing about...
The City of London and the Magna Carta... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HY_esN_ums (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HY_esN_ums)
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 22, 2015, 08:04:36 AM
Off topic, but might be of interest - Anthony Arlidge QC in action, lecturing about...
The City of London and the Magna Carta... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HY_esN_ums (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HY_esN_ums)
*&(+(+ Myster. Interesting.
It would be good to listen to Geoffrey Rivlin present to see how the pair come over. I had a look on You Tube and Googled him but haven't turned anything up.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 22, 2015, 09:50:16 AM
It would be good to listen to Geoffrey Rivlin present to see how the pair come over. I had a look on You Tube and Googled him but haven't turned anything up.
The best I can do is a photo. GR is the gentleman with glasses. The trio seem colour coordinated &%+((£
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on January 22, 2015, 06:05:13 PM
The best I can do is a photo. GR is the gentleman with glasses. The trio seem colour coordinated &%+((£
Looks like a family group, Holly... father, son?, daughter (in-law)?
Still off-topic...
Geoffrey Rivlin QC was involved with the prosecution of J.A. Symonds for corruption in 1981. Not relevant to the Bamber case, but with audio recordings/transcripts of his closing speech...
Looks like a family group, Holly... father, son?, daughter (in-law)?
Still off-topic...
Geoffrey Rivlin QC was involved with the prosecution of J.A. Symonds for corruption in 1981. Not relevant to the Bamber case, but with audio recordings/transcripts of his closing speech...
EL got lost on the back-roads making his own way to the outside Anschutz demonstration and missed it.
Oh Myster... thank you. You are so resourceful 8**8:/:
Geoffrey Rivlin's voice doesn't sound anywhere near as authoritative as Anthony Arlidge's. Geoffrey Rivlin was born in the north and attended school and uni in the north. Not much hint of a northern accent apart from one word I detected. Think it was "none". My best friend at school was from the north and she pronounced the word similarly.
The two chaps look to me to be of a similar age. The female looks younger. As far as I am aware GR has never married and doesn't have any children:
I don't believe judges or barristers had to undergo refresher training/continual professional development back in the 80's. They might do now. At the time of JB's trial Sir Maurice Drake was 63 yoa - when was he last assessed as competent? I am not saying he wasn't competent but these people just seem unaccountable to anyone. It doesn't seem right that one man or woman decides on a strategy at trial and a person's liberty depends on the outcome. By this I mean had Geoffrey Rivlin presented to the jury the scenario that the silencer was contaminated the jury may have returned a different verdict. How competent was he? He was 45 yoa at the time of JB's trial. Again I'm not saying he wasn't but where's the evidence? I worked in financial services for nearly a quarter of a century and I had to undertake annual testing to maintain my permissions with the regulator. When I have trades people round eg plumbers etc they have to undertake refresher testing to maintain their licences. I accept judges and barristers are trained to a very high degree in the first instance but even so they should surely have to demonstrate their competence periodically? I believe all medical professionals now have to demonstrate ongoing competency.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 23, 2015, 09:30:57 PM
To say if Shelia had enough knowledge about guns to commit this act is irrelevant as it all depends on the firearm used. a .22 Semi Automatic rifle is about the most easiest gun to use and reload. The whole point of automatic weapons is to make the process of shooting and loading quick and easy, as this clip below shows
Load the magazine and pull back the bolt leaver and your done. Could Shelia have used this weapon? Defiantly Yes. If it was a manual rifle then that would be totally different but that is not the case
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Caroline on January 23, 2015, 10:10:51 PM
To say if Shelia had enough knowledge about guns to commit this act is irrelevant as it all depends on the firearm used. a .22 Semi Automatic rifle is about the most easiest gun to use and reload. The whole point of automatic weapons is to make the process of shooting and loading quick and easy, as this clip below shows
Load the magazine and pull back the bolt leaver and your done. Could Shelia have used this weapon? Defiantly Yes. If it was a manual rifle then that would be totally different but that is not the case
If you know how to use one it's easy, if you have never used one before, I doubt it's as easy as you say.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 23, 2015, 10:55:31 PM
I'm here all night, by the way, doing 15 minute checks on a sick pony. I will become increasingly pedantic and annoying.
I've had too much ale and feel slightly sicky 8(8-)) Hope your pony is not as sick as I feel. Can we play online find the pony/donkey tail? I will have a look and see if we can play online. Talking of ponies etc have you heard from Jackie (Preecey)?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: puglove on January 23, 2015, 11:35:11 PM
I've had too much ale and feel slightly sicky 8(8-)) Hope your pony is not as sick as I feel. Can we play online find the pony/donkey tail? I will have a look and see if we can play online. Talking of ponies etc have you heard from Jackie (Preecey)?
If your slightly sicky feeling involves a lorry to London, a CT scan and 3 f..kING THOUSAND POUNDS, then yes, you are as sick as my pony.
I think (hope) Jackie is fine. She's probably doing what I'm doing, rescuing unwanted horses and shopping at Oxfam.
Best love,Holl. xx
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 24, 2015, 12:11:44 AM
If you know how to use one it's easy, if you have never used one before, I doubt it's as easy as you say.
An automatic gun is designed to be easy for the user. I have used a manual rifle and yes it is difficult but a semi automatic requires no skill what so ever. There have been cases of children using semi automatic weapons to kill multiple people. Also considering a .22 calibre has very little kickback it would be easy for anyone to use, its designed to kill foxes and rabbits, smaller targets than Humans
To say Shelia could not have been capable of shooting and reloading the weapon used then she must have had trouble making butter toast or doing anything in her day to day life.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 24, 2015, 12:14:56 AM
If your slightly sicky feeling involves a lorry to London, a CT scan and 3 f.....g THOUSAND POUNDS, then yes, you are as sick as my pony.
I think (hope) Jackie is fine. She's probably doing what I'm doing, rescuing unwanted horses and shopping at Oxfam.
Best love,Holl. xx
No it doesn't involve all that just a nauseas feeling like morning/travel sickness. Self induced and it will be gone in the morning. Thankful for small mercies I guess. Hope your pony gets better. I've had a look online but cant find any online find the donkey tail games. Thought it might be fun and Jackie could join us. Cambridge and ManU drew.
Night puglove. Love you. X
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: puglove on January 24, 2015, 12:18:54 AM
No it doesn't involve all that just a nauseas feeling like morning/travel sickness. Self induced and it will be gone in the morning. Thankful for small mercies I guess. Hope your pony gets better. I've had a look online but cant find any online find the donkey tail games. Thought it might be fun and Jackie could join us. Cambridge and ManU drew.
Night puglove. Love you. X
Night, Holl. Love you, too.
I think you might be up the duff.
8((()*/ %£&)**# 8)-))) 8()-000(
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: puglove on January 24, 2015, 12:35:58 AM
An automatic gun is designed to be easy for the user. I have used a manual rifle and yes it is difficult but a semi automatic requires no skill what so ever. There have been cases of children using semi automatic weapons to kill multiple people. Also considering a .22 calibre has very little kickback it would be easy for anyone to use, its designed to kill foxes and rabbits, smaller targets than Humans
To say Shelia could not have been capable of shooting and reloading the weapon used then she must have had trouble making butter toast or doing anything in her day to day life.
You've obviously heard the AE adage that Sheila couldn't put beans on toast, or sugar in tea. She could be distant, and uncoordinated. But, obviously, she could also pluck her eyebrows and paint her nails. That's a bit like "muscle memory" - something you can just do subconsciously because you've done it forever. But....did she know how the gun worked? And how did she reload? How did she carry the second magazine?
No pockets in a nightie.
This has all been done before. I'm only playing because I've got to sit here all night.
OK. Here's one for you. Why aren't there any fingerprints on the gun?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: puglove on January 24, 2015, 12:49:38 AM
You've obviously heard the AE adage that Sheila couldn't put beans on toast, or sugar in tea. She could be distant, and uncoordinated. But, obviously, she could also pluck her eyebrows and paint her nails. That's a bit like "muscle memory" - something you can just do subconsciously because you've done it forever. But....did she know how the gun worked? And how did she reload? How did she carry the second magazine?
No pockets in a nightie.
This has all been done before. I'm only playing because I've got to sit here all night.
OK. Here's one for you. Why aren't there any fingerprints on the gun?
Seriously, unless you're going with Tubby McStealer's crapola, that a police officer shot Sheila then wiped the gun, then the only explantion is Bamber, wearing gloves. How could Sheila wipe out her entire family, turn the gun round and batter Ralph, then shoot herself, twice, and.....the gun isn't slathered in her prints?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: puglove on January 24, 2015, 01:00:01 AM
Seriously, unless you're going with Tubby McStealer's crapola, that a police officer shot Sheila then wiped the gun, then the only explantion is Bamber, wearing gloves. How could Sheila wipe out her entire family, turn the gun round and batter Ralph, then shoot herself, twice, and.....the gun isn't slathered in her prints?
Even if Sheila had held the gun, long enough for Ralph to make the apocryphal call to Bamber, her prints would be on the stock and the barrel. So...where are they?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: puglove on January 24, 2015, 01:12:21 AM
Even if Sheila had held the gun, long enough for Ralph to make the apocryphal call to Bamber, her prints would be on the stock and the barrel. So...where are they?
"Come quick, your sister's gone crazy with the gun."
So...at some stage, according to Bamber, Sheila held the gun.
I rest my case. Mushy sprouts to eternity and beyond.
8((()*/
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Caroline on January 24, 2015, 01:18:52 AM
No newbies who watched me shoot could appreciate the things I did because I did them so fast. It takes actually training someone for them to understand how to use a weapon including how to remove the magazine for a weapon that has a detachable magazine.
As I posted in the past, US President Gerald Ford survived an assassination attempt because the would be killer, who was accustomed to people using guns around her but not semi autos) didn't know she had to manually chamber a round first.
At any rate, when did she see someone chamber a round in a semi-automatic rifle?
The first semi-auto the family owned was purchased late November 1984. That gun was purchased for Jeremy and barely used. There is no evidence anyone except Jeremy and Anthony used it.
Even Jeremy's fairytale about the rabbit featured him inserting the magazine into the gun in a different room than Sheila was in so that lie doesn't provide a way to claim she saw him chamber a round.
But hey when did you ever ry to look at it rationally...
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 24, 2015, 03:50:24 AM
You've obviously heard the AE adage that Sheila couldn't put beans on toast, or sugar in tea. She could be distant, and uncoordinated. But, obviously, she could also pluck her eyebrows and paint her nails. That's a bit like "muscle memory" - something you can just do subconsciously because you've done it forever. But....did she know how the gun worked? And how did she reload? How did she carry the second magazine?
No pockets in a nightie.
This has all been done before. I'm only playing because I've got to sit here all night.
OK. Here's one for you. Why aren't there any fingerprints on the gun?
Shelia was prescribed the antipsychotic Haloperidol, the common side effects of Haloperidol explain Shelia's behaviour
Dystonia Muscle rigidity Akathisia Parkinsonism Hypotension Agitation Confusional state Visual disturbances Neuroleptic malignant syndrome and many more less common side effects
She stopped taking this medication at the time of murders. The drug is used to prevent mania and other episodes common with schizophrenia.
A .22 semi automatic rifle is easy to load and use. The trigger and the bolt lever is all you can move and all you can use. Its a simple weapon.
The gun cannot be used as forensic evidence, Its been proven that the police handled and moved it several times thus contaminating it. I have heard conflicting claims that Shelia' fingerprints where on the gun and where not the gun but like I said the gun cant be used as forensic evidence because its been tampered with.
Here's one for you. If Jeremy went though all the effort to plan and premeditate this including the false police telephone calls using a bike and even dying his hair jet black why didn't he consider wearing gloves to cover his prints?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 24, 2015, 04:02:34 AM
Shelia was prescribed the antipsychotic Haloperidol, the common side effects of Haloperidol explain Shelia's behaviour
Dystonia Muscle rigidity Akathisia Parkinsonism Hypotension Agitation Confusional state Visual disturbances Neuroleptic malignant syndrome and many more less common side effects
She stopped taking this medication at the time of murders. The drug is used to prevent mania and other episodes common with schizophrenia.
She stop taking it in the sense that she stopped taking it orally. She was being injected by her doctor on a monthly basis. Thus she was on her medication at the time of the murders and it was detected in her system when she was autopsied. Her medication had side effects. Those side effects were over sedation, involuntary spasms, loss of dexterity and other things which would make her less likely to be able to load and shoot the gun competently. She was diagnosed as being over sedated. So things were the complete opposite as you suggest.
A .22 semi automatic rifle is easy to load and use. The trigger and the bolt lever is all you can move and all you can use. Its a simple weapon.
http://youtu.be/vx2hKR_XI2A?t=4m46s (http://youtu.be/vx2hKR_XI2A?t=4m46s) The gun cannot be used as forensic evidence, Its been proven that the police handled and moved it several times thus contaminating it. I have heard conflicting claims that Shelia' fingerprints where on the gun and where not the gun but like I said the gun cant be used as forensic evidence because its been tampered with.
Here's one for you. If Jeremy went though all the effort to plan and premeditate this including the false police telephone calls using a bike and even dying his hair jet black why didn't he consider wearing gloves to cover his prints?
The police moved the gun by touching the loops that the shoulder straps fit in, they did not contaminate it, no police prints were found on the weapon.
Jeremy did use gloves that is why there was no prints int he blood that covered the weapon. Had he not used gloves then his prints would have been left in the blood that was on it. One of his prints was found on it but not in the blood. He told Julie one glove came off during the course of the murders and he was scared that he touched it and got a print on it as a result. But it is unknown if that print got there during the murders. He could have missed that print when wiping the weapon down before committing the murders.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 24, 2015, 05:05:55 AM
In normal subjects after a single oral dose, haloperidol half-life has been reported to range 14.5-36.7 hours (or up to 1.5 days). After chronic administration, half-lives of up to 21 days have been reported
I have never seen the autopsy report, However the drug can remain in your system for many weeks having not taken the drug. You need to take the drug on a daily basis for it to work and it will stay in the body tissue for several weeks as the half life time states.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Caroline on January 24, 2015, 10:59:16 AM
Shelia was prescribed the antipsychotic Haloperidol, the common side effects of Haloperidol explain Shelia's behaviour
Dystonia Muscle rigidity Akathisia Parkinsonism Hypotension Agitation Confusional state Visual disturbances Neuroleptic malignant syndrome and many more less common side effects
She stopped taking this medication at the time of murders. The drug is used to prevent mania and other episodes common with schizophrenia.
A .22 semi automatic rifle is easy to load and use. The trigger and the bolt lever is all you can move and all you can use. Its a simple weapon.
The gun cannot be used as forensic evidence, Its been proven that the police handled and moved it several times thus contaminating it. I have heard conflicting claims that Shelia' fingerprints where on the gun and where not the gun but like I said the gun cant be used as forensic evidence because its been tampered with.
Here's one for you. If Jeremy went though all the effort to plan and premeditate this including the false police telephone calls using a bike and even dying his hair jet black why didn't he consider wearing gloves to cover his prints?
Not sure where you are getting your info from, but Sheila didn't stop taking Haloperido at all.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 24, 2015, 02:28:56 PM
Not sure where you are getting your info from, but Sheila didn't stop taking Haloperido at all.
The Mammoth Book of CSI By Roger Wilkes. -------------------------------
You also need to consider that the effects of oral Haloperido last between 2-6 hours depending on dosage. At the time of the crime it would have weared off, Unless she took it before bed.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on January 24, 2015, 02:55:18 PM
Sheila wasn't taking Haldol orally at the time of the murders... she had monthly injections - 100 mg per month, reduced from 200mg in July1985 because it was making her very lithargic. When questioned Dr Ferguson's opinion was that she would not have killed her father or the twins.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: APRIL on January 24, 2015, 03:40:16 PM
Sheila wasn't taking Haldol orally at the time of the murders... she had monthly injections - 100 mg per month, reduced from 200mg in July1985 because it was making her very lithargic. When questioned Dr Ferguson's opinion was that she would not have killed her father or the twins.
I have grave doubts about the efficacy of Dr F's treatment of Sheila, partly because he seems NOT to have been aware that his instructions weren't followed to reduce the dosage to 150 mg and partly because he may have been compromised by also treating June. Certainly Sheila was medicated but there seem to have been no inroads made into assessing her psychological state of mind.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on January 24, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
I have grave doubts about the efficacy of Dr F's treatment of Sheila, partly because he seems NOT to have been aware that his instructions weren't followed to reduce the dosage to 150 mg and partly because he may have been compromised by also treating June. Certainly Sheila was medicated but there seem to have been no inroads made into assessing her psychological state of mind.
Where are you getting this information from, April? Who didn't follow the instructions to reduce her dosage to 150mg - her local G.P? I thought it was 100 rather than 150 too. If Sheila was drugged up with 200mg on August 7th then no wonder she appeared out of it on the phone!
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Caroline on January 24, 2015, 04:38:30 PM
The Mammoth Book of CSI By Roger Wilkes. -------------------------------
You also need to consider that the effects of oral Haloperido last between 2-6 hours depending on dosage. At the time of the crime it would have weared off, Unless she took it before bed.
Where are you getting this information from, April? Who didn't follow the instructions to reduce her dosage to 150mg - her local G.P? I thought it was 100 rather than 150 too. If Sheila was drugged up with 200mg on August 7th then no wonder she appeared out of it on the phone!
Hi Myster, that is what April means, the dose was meant to be reduced to 150mg (on Dr F's instructions) but it was reduced to 100mg. So, his instructions were not followed.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: APRIL on January 24, 2015, 05:00:36 PM
Where are you getting this information from, April? Who didn't follow the instructions to reduce her dosage to 150mg - her local G.P? I thought it was 100 rather than 150 too. If Sheila was drugged up with 200mg on August 7th then no wonder she appeared out of it on the phone!
Myster, at some point, after discharging herself from Dr F's care -in his opoinion, too soon- Sheila visited her GP and requested that he dosage of Haloperidol be reduced. Her GP wrote to Dr F. who EVENTUALLY received the letter and he suggested that the dosage was reduced to 150 mgs. Sheila was unable to keep her appointment with her regular GP -Dr Angelou?- so she saw a locum. I'm presuming that she would have explained to this locum her request for a reduced dose of meds, and, again, I'm assuming that the locum knew nothing of her case and didn't check, but she DID administer a dose of only 100 mgs which IMO, should NEVER have b een done without close monitoring. We already know that Dr F. said, of Sheila, that she was difficult to treat because she failed to keep follow up appointments. He also said, because she chose to leave his care earlier than he would have liked, that she should be visited by psych. nurses. THIS never happened. I feel PASSIONATELY that Sheila was BADLY let down.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 24, 2015, 10:17:57 PM
Myster, at some point, after discharging herself from Dr F's care -in his opoinion, too soon- Sheila visited her GP and requested that he dosage of Haloperidol be reduced. Her GP wrote to Dr F. who EVENTUALLY received the letter and he suggested that the dosage was reduced to 150 mgs. Sheila was unable to keep her appointment with her regular GP -Dr Angelou?- so she saw a locum. I'm presuming that she would have explained to this locum her request for a reduced dose of meds, and, again, I'm assuming that the locum knew nothing of her case and didn't check, but she DID administer a dose of only 100 mgs which IMO, should NEVER have b een done without close monitoring. We already know that Dr F. said, of Sheila, that she was difficult to treat because she failed to keep follow up appointments. He also said, because she chose to leave his care earlier than he would have liked, that she should be visited by psych. nurses. THIS never happened. I feel PASSIONATELY that Sheila was BADLY let down.
You would have a vlaid argument if 100MG were not an effective dose. But as I pointed out to you what we know today is that 100MG is considered the largest safe dose to give on a regular basis and there is no significant difference in effectiveness between 100MG and 200MG. The fact that there is no major difference in effectiveness yet many problems from dosages greater than 100MG is why it is not considered safe.
You keep ignoring this and pretending 100MG was not enough of adoasge and that as a result she relapsed. It is a wasted effort though.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: APRIL on January 24, 2015, 10:59:34 PM
You would have a vlaid argument if 100MG were not an effective dose. But as I pointed out to you what we know today is that 100MG is considered the largest safe dose to give on a regular basis and there is no significant difference in effectiveness between 100MG and 200MG. The fact that there is no major difference in effectiveness yet many problems from dosages greater than 100MG is why it is not considered safe.
You keep ignoring this and pretending 100MG was not enough of adoasge and that as a result she relapsed. It is a wasted effort though.
Scipio, I'm fully aware of what YOU have said but I've discussed this with a friend who is a psychiatrist and I naturally put far more store by what SHE has to say, than you, on this particular point. Quite reasonably, I wouldn't seek her advice on legal matters. Each to their own.
You do seem to be missing some of the point here, anyway. I don't know what would be the procedure in America, but here it isn't usual for a GP -let alone a locum who wasn't au fait with the patient- to go against the instructions of a consultant, added to which, said consultant has put it in writing how difficult was Sheila to treat because she failed to keep follow up appointments. She had left hospital too soon, having been there only about a month. Had she stayed longer they may have corrected the dosage. She wasn't fully well. She had written a very strange letter to AE.
I AM prepared to allow, that under supervised conditions, reducing her meds by half. to counteract side effects, might have been reasonable, but to lift someone out of lethargy without close monitoring and ASSUME that they're safe, when they have mentioned suicide, even in passing, is NOT a step that most psychiatrists would take.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 24, 2015, 11:18:08 PM
Scipio, I'm fully aware of what YOU have said but I've discussed this with a friend who is a psychiatrist and I naturally put far more store by what SHE has to say, than you, on this particular point. Quite reasonably, I wouldn't seek her advice on legal matters. Each to their own.
You do seem to be missing some of the point here, anyway. I don't know what would be the procedure in America, but here it isn't usual for a GP -let alone a locum who wasn't au fait with the patient- to go against the instructions of a consultant, added to which, said consultant has put it in writing how difficult was Sheila to treat because she failed to keep follow up appointments. She had left hospital too soon, having been there only about a month. Had she stayed longer they may have corrected the dosage. She wasn't fully well. She had written a very strange letter to AE.
I AM prepared to allow, that under supervised conditions, reducing her meds by half. to counteract side effects, might have been reasonable, but to lift someone out of lethargy without close monitoring and ASSUME that they're safe, when they have mentioned suicide, even in passing, is NOT a step that most psychiatrists would take.
I presended documentary evidence including the prescribing instructions currently in force. That trumps the opinion of a nurse by far. Her opinion means nothing when the prescribing information says not to do more than 100MG and there are studies that document the effectiveness of 100MG is virtually identical to 200MG. In fact the studies found not much difference between 50MG and 100MG.
You can choose to ignore that all you like but it is worthless to go into a debate saying you choose to ignore it because you would rather believe the unsupported opinion of a nurse friend. Unless your nurse friend can point to stupides to contrdict the findings and say the prescribing instructions used today are in error she is of no use to you at all.
I don't really care about the issue of whether the doctor was wrong to change the dosage on her own because it has nothing to do with the murders. I care about evidence related to the murders.
In any event since she is a doctor and the one giving the shot I would presume even in the UK she has to make her own assessment of what to give becaus eit is her butt on the line and a doctor is supposed to to just follow blindly what others say.
Ferguson stated that bases on what this doctor said and others said Sheila's dosage was too high and she was being over sedated. That assessment was that she was oversedated at the time of death which is when she had only 100MG. I am sure part of that is that she was not taking a countering agent. Had she been taking it then the effects woudl nto have been as bad.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 24, 2015, 11:54:07 PM
DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION HALDOL (Haloperidol) Decanoate should be administered by deep intramuscular injection into the gluteal region. A 2- inch long, 21-gauge needle is recommended. The maximum volume per injection site should not exceed 3 mL. The recommended interval between doses is 4 weeks.
DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION HALDOL (Haloperidol) Decanoate should be administered by deep intramuscular injection into the gluteal region. A 2- inch long, 21-gauge needle is recommended. The maximum volume per injection site should not exceed 3 mL. The recommended interval between doses is 4 weeks.
When is the last time Shelia received an Injection?
100mg is the recommended highest dosage today. However the same standards would not have been used in the 1980s
That is the whole point we know much more today than back then. If they knew back then what we know today Ferguson would never have prescribed her 200MG. She might have been prescribed 50MG for all we know since it is the typicla high doasge and 100MG is reserved for the worst cases but then again she might have been deemed to warrant 100MG we have no idea what his assessment would have been. All we know is he was wrong in claiming 200MG was safe and wrong about it not causing harmful side effects. He claimed it was very safe but studies have found he was wrong which is why it is not used much these days there are safer drugs available.
The injections lasted for 6 weeks but she was being injected every 4 weeks. The reason why you don't wait 6 weeks is you want to make sure it doesn't run out before the next injection and want to have regular intervals so you don't forget and you have some leeway in case there are some scheduling issues. Her last injection prior to death was July 11 (so 3 weeks before her death). She was supposed to get another injection the week after she died. The dosage of her last injection was 100MG. It is unknown why she stopped taking the agent prescribed to counter the side effects. Given her complaints about being too drwsy you would think her doctor would have asked her if she was taking it but apparently she didn't ask. Thus we have no clue why she stopped was she just too lazy or was there another reason?. One of the things it is supposed to counter is the drowsiness she complained of... So that helps explain why she was still so drowsy even after the reduction to 100MG. Had she been taking the countering aganet maybe that would not have been the case.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: APRIL on January 25, 2015, 09:09:37 AM
I presended documentary evidence including the prescribing instructions currently in force. That trumps the opinion of a nurse by far. Her opinion means nothing when the prescribing information says not to do more than 100MG and there are studies that document the effectiveness of 100MG is virtually identical to 200MG. In fact the studies found not much difference between 50MG and 100MG.
You can choose to ignore that all you like but it is worthless to go into a debate saying you choose to ignore it because you would rather believe the unsupported opinion of a nurse friend. Unless your nurse friend can point to stupides to contrdict the findings and say the prescribing instructions used today are in error she is of no use to you at all.
I don't really care about the issue of whether the doctor was wrong to change the dosage on her own because it has nothing to do with the murders. I care about evidence related to the murders.
In any event since she is a doctor and the one giving the shot I would presume even in the UK she has to make her own assessment of what to give becaus eit is her butt on the line and a doctor is supposed to to just follow blindly what others say.
Ferguson stated that bases on what this doctor said and others said Sheila's dosage was too high and she was being over sedated. That assessment was that she was oversedated at the time of death which is when she had only 100MG. I am sure part of that is that she was not taking a countering agent. Had she been taking it then the effects woudl nto have been as bad.
WHERE do I say my friend is a nurse? Try READING instead of merely ASSUMING. Prior to her retirement last year, she was a practicing PSYCHIATRIST. WHY would I take the word of a will writer/property conveyancer/articled clerk over a trained doctor? As you are ONLY interested in "the murders" perhaps you should limit your comments to just what pertains to them and leave the rest of us to look at the bigger picture uninterrupted.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: adam on January 25, 2015, 09:38:54 AM
That is the whole point we know much more today than back then. If they knew back then what we know today Ferguson would never have prescribed her 200MG. She might have been prescribed 50MG for all we know since it is the typicla high doasge and 100MG is reserved for the worst cases but then again she might have been deemed to warrant 100MG we have no idea what his assessment would have been. All we know is he was wrong in claiming 200MG was safe and wrong about it not causing harmful side effects. He claimed it was very safe but studies have found he was wrong which is why it is not used much these days there are safer drugs available.
The injections lasted for 6 weeks but she was being injected every 4 weeks. The reason why you don't wait 6 weeks is you want to make sure it doesn't run out before the next injection and want to have regular intervals so you don't forget and you have some leeway in case there are some scheduling issues. Her last injection prior to death was July 11 (so 3 weeks before her death). She was supposed to get another injection the week after she died. The dosage of her last injection was 100MG. It is unknown why she stopped taking the agent prescribed to counter the side effects. Given her complaints about being too drwsy you would think her doctor would have asked her if she was taking it but apparently she didn't ask. Thus we have no clue why she stopped was she just too lazy or was there another reason?. One of the things it is supposed to counter is the drowsiness she complained of... So that helps explain why she was still so drowsy even after the reduction to 100MG. Had she been taking the countering aganet maybe that would not have been the case.
But they DIDN'T know then what we NOW know. In fact, Dr F's recommended reduction wouldn't have taken the dose to what is currently suggested but he WAS taking the CLINICALLY APPROVED route of reducing meds SLOWLY. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that had she not left the hospital when she did, it would have been further reduced AND she'd have been monitored.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 25, 2015, 04:12:44 PM
But they DIDN'T know then what we NOW know. In fact, Dr F's recommended reduction wouldn't have taken the dose to what is currently suggested but he WAS taking the CLINICALLY APPROVED route of reducing meds SLOWLY. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that had she not left the hospital when she did, it would have been further reduced AND she'd have been monitored.
You seem to ignore the forest for the trees to waste your time on worthless points.
In evaluating whether 100MG was enough to prevent her from having delusions what matters is the CURRENT medical evidence- the best evidence available not what they erroneously thought in 1985.
What we know today is that 100MG is as effective as 200MG and that 100MG is the highest safe amount. We also knwo there is only a very small difference between 50MG and 100MG. SO trying to argue that she relapsed because her dosage was cut has no medical support whatsoever. Studies totally refute the arguments you and your nurse friend are making and so does the dosage recommendations in use today.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: APRIL on January 25, 2015, 04:47:28 PM
You seem to ignore the forest for the trees to waste your time on worthless points.
In evaluating whether 100MG was enough to prevent her from having delusions what matters is the CURRENT medical evidence- the best evidence available not what they erroneously thought in 1985.
What we know today is that 100MG is as effective as 200MG and that 100MG is the highest safe amount. We also knwo there is only a very small difference between 50MG and 100MG. SO trying to argue that she relapsed because her dosage was cut has no medical support whatsoever. Studies totally refute the arguments you and your nurse friend are making and so does the dosage recommendations in use today.
And I have allowed that had she stayed in hospital, instead of discharging herself, her dosage may have been lowered under controlled circumstances. I have yet to see WHERE I've stated that Sheila relapsed -I don't normally do sweeping statements- because her dosage had been cut but I stand by that she was a psychological mess because of it. I don't have "a nurse friend" but I DO have a friend who was a practicing psychiatrist and you can go on pretending you're more qualified than she or ANYONE else to deliver opinions on the case just because you've read someone ELSE'S opinion on the internet, but I'll take a doctor's opinion over an articled clerk's any day, thank-you.
As for ignoring the forest for the trees and wasting my time on worthless points, NEWS FLASH!!! Jeremy has been found guilty. He is doing a FULL life term. I'm concerned that Sheila was badly let down and I stand by it. As there seems to be nothing that you care about other than arguing points of law in an already proven case, I fail to see why you're wasting YOUR time, either.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 25, 2015, 07:26:58 PM
And I have allowed that had she stayed in hospital, instead of discharging herself, her dosage may have been lowered under controlled circumstances. I have yet to see WHERE I've stated that Sheila relapsed -I don't normally do sweeping statements- because her dosage had been cut but I stand by that she was a psychological mess because of it. I don't have "a nurse friend" but I DO have a friend who was a practicing psychiatrist and you can go on pretending you're more qualified than she or ANYONE else to deliver opinions on the case just because you've read someone ELSE'S opinion on the internet, but I'll take a doctor's opinion over an articled clerk's any day, thank-you.
As for ignoring the forest for the trees and wasting my time on worthless points, NEWS FLASH!!! Jeremy has been found guilty. He is doing a FULL life term. I'm concerned that Sheila was badly let down and I stand by it. As there seems to be nothing that you care about other than arguing points of law in an already proven case, I fail to see why you're wasting YOUR time, either.
You have no evidence at all to suggest her cut in dosage resulted in her being a mess or her leaving the hospital for that matter. It is a perfect example of how you just decide what you want to argue insipite of evidence instead of as a result of following evidence.
What did she do after being released tha tindicates she was a psychological mess and woudl have been avoidable with mroe treatment?
What did she do after her dosage was cut that indicates she was a mess?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: John on January 26, 2015, 01:56:39 AM
'WHAT', said AE after hearing that Sheila had reloaded. Twice.
AE had assumed Sheila had killed everyone with just one round of bullets.
Bamber told the police on the massacre night that Sheila knew how to use the guns at WHF. This damning claim eventually saw him back down. Saying at court she had 'limited' experience with guns. He couldn't say 'no experience', after all Sheila had held a gun while on a photo shoot.
Sent off to boarding school at a young age, Sheila later got married and moved to London. I doubt she ever got her hands dirty out in the WHF fields. Or ever fired a gun. Rumours that she may have gone on a shooting trip, years earlier float about.
It is doubtful someone in such a rage with limited/no gun experience would be able to load a rifle. I couldn't. There was also virtually no oil on her, which would be expected after two reloads.
The massacre attempt went off plan early on. Bamber perhaps over estimating the rifle power. And Neville needing to be brutally beaten. Reloads were needed to finish the job. Why not reload twice to make it look like an attack from a crazy woman ?
After brutally beating an alive/dead Neville I would have thought Sheila would have got enough anger out of her system. But no, reloads were required.
What do other people think of Sheila's reloads ?
The mechanics of the five murders was premeditated. Sheila could never have carried them out on her own as part of some deranged psychotic episode. The killer had to be proficient with the rifle and Sheila hated guns. Remember, no missed shots as one would expect from someone who was having an event.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 26, 2015, 12:56:20 PM
You have no evidence at all to suggest her cut in dosage resulted in her being a mess or her leaving the hospital for that matter. It is a perfect example of how you just decide what you want to argue insipite of evidence instead of as a result of following evidence.
What did she do after being released tha tindicates she was a psychological mess and woudl have been avoidable with mroe treatment?
What did she do after her dosage was cut that indicates she was a mess?
Just to clarify. I was implying that a reduced dose or a missed dose would have made her less sedated and more active as all of the evidence that claims Shelia was too incapable of using the gun is consistent will the side effects of the medication she was on.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 26, 2015, 03:40:29 PM
Just to clarify. I was implying that a reduced dose or a missed dose would have made her less sedated and more active as all of the evidence that claims Shelia was too incapable of using the gun is consistent will the side effects of the medication she was on.
There are 2 distinct issues in play with respect to the medication.
1) effectiveness: was the dosage too small to be medically effective and thus she had a relaose
2) the side effects:
a) one side effect of the medication is drowsiness and sedation. Both before and after the reduction to 100MG she complained to people about being overly tired and would go to bed early. The Saturday evening before the murders she went home early from a party because she was tired.
b) loss of dexterity and involuntary spasms.
The tired issue makes it unlikely she would wake up in the middle of the night. But if she did there would be nothing to agitate her because everyone else was in bed and her medication was working properly.
The issue of the involuntary spasms and loss of dexterity means she would have a problem loading the gun rapidly and a problem with aiming it accurately. It is hard to believe she could fire 25 shots without missing a single time given the dexterity problems, her poor hand eye coordination and the involuntary spasms.
This is extra though not the main case against Jeremy.
The main case against Jeremy was testimony that he told Julie he planned to kill his family, that he called her before police to tell her they were dead, evidence he lied to police and staged bullets to support his lies and finally evidence that the victims did not kill themselves or eachother and that a third party did it so proof that Jeremy carried out his planned attack.
His supporters play games and dance around but never competently address let alone refute this evidence. Most supporters are busy arguing other cases instead of the specifics of this case. They talk about documented MOJs and then say this proves there could be an MOJ here though the facts are completely different and other MOJs having nothing at all to do with this case. They do that because they have nothing substantive to seize upon in this case to establish there was an MOJ.
The claims of his defenders seemed pretty damning and I approached the case thinking maybe he was innocent. But upon scrutinizing the claims and looking in depth at the facts it became clear his defenders grossly misrepresented things from A-Z. Stories about Nevill calling police, Sheila being shot by police and then moved and many other claims all have turned out to be made up nonsense. When all the nonsense is stripped away it is clear Jeremy is guilty and his defenders simply choose to ignore reality for a variety of reasons ranging from hating police to loving conspiracies to having some odd like for Jeremy. If you approach it rationally and objectively there is no question of his guilt.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 26, 2015, 07:16:27 PM
There are 2 distinct issues in play with respect to the medication.
1) effectiveness: was the dosage too small to be medically effective and thus she had a relaose
2) the side effects:
a) one side effect of the medication is drowsiness and sedation. Both before and after the reduction to 100MG she complained to people about being overly tired and would go to bed early. The Saturday evening before the murders she went home early from a party because she was tired.
b) loss of dexterity and involuntary spasms.
We will need to know via medical records when her last injection was. if she was so tired and drowsy how and why did she attend the party?
This is extra though not the main case against Jeremy.
The main case against Jeremy was testimony that he told Julie he planned to kill his family, that he called her before police to tell her they were dead.
This is what blows my mind! Why on earth would Jeremy tell anyone? He plans this elaborate murder covering his tracks ensuring minimal detection only to tell someone afterwards he done it? It don't make sense. How on earth could Julie in her right mind react to such news? Gets a call from her then boyfiend saying he murdered his entire family including two six year old boys. Then she stays with him feeling safe and not in danger of her own life knowing her partner is a mass murderer?
His supporters play games and dance around but never competently address let alone refute this evidence.
Both camps are guilty of the same mentality. Going round in circles making claims and counter claims going from one subject to another with circumstantial theories and ideas about what took place without resulting in any solid conclusions. All I know is that Jeremy's conviction is unsafe, What was used to convict him has come under serious scrutiny and the appeals courts have unfairly moved the goal post for him. I don't really take a solid stance on weather it was Jeremy or Shelia, But he should be given a second trial. Its a dilemma for the Crown prison service, keep an innocent man behind bars or let a killer go free? they will be accused of wrongdoing either way
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on January 26, 2015, 08:01:11 PM
There'll never be another trial... for starters because the leading protagonists have since died - Stan Jones, Bob Miller, Robert Boutflour to name but three. No doubt more will follow before reaching that stage, even if it was ever to be considered. Anybody who thinks or hopes otherwise is living in cloud-cuckoo land, I'm afraid!
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: adam on January 26, 2015, 08:28:14 PM
We will need to know via medical records when her last injection was. if she was so tired and drowsy how and why did she attend the party?
This is what blows my mind! Why on earth would Jeremy tell anyone? He plans this elaborate murder covering his tracks ensuring minimal detection only to tell someone afterwards he done it? It don't make sense. How on earth could Julie in her right mind react to such news? Gets a call from her then boyfiend saying he murdered his entire family including two six year old boys. Then she stays with him feeling safe and not in danger of her own life knowing her partner is a mass murderer?
Both camps are guilty of the same mentality. Going round in circles making claims and counter claims going from one subject to another with circumstantial theories and ideas about what took place without resulting in any solid conclusions. All I know is that Jeremy's conviction is unsafe, What was used to convict him has come under serious scrutiny and the appeals courts have unfairly moved the goal post for him. I don't really take a solid stance on weather it was Jeremy or Shelia, But he should be given a second trial. Its a dilemma for the Crown prison service, keep an innocent man behind bars or let a killer go free? they will be accused of wrongdoing either way
I don't think his conviction is unsafe.
It is mainly Bamber who has been banging on about it over the last 30 years. Accusing the relatives, police and Julie of framing him.
He is skilful at doing this, the internet giving his flagging 90's campaign a boast. There is no proof any of the evidence is wrong. Just Chinese whispers.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 26, 2015, 08:38:51 PM
There'll never be another trial... for starters because the leading protagonists have since died - Stan Jones, Bob Miller, Robert Boutflour to name but three. No doubt more will follow before reaching that stage, even if it was ever to be considered. Anybody who thinks or hopes otherwise is living in cloud-cuckoo land, I'm afraid!
Yeah I Know, Not to mention finding an impartial jury that wont read up on all the gossip that circulates the forums. I think its also due to the high profile of the case that would bring allot of politics involved
But considering all the new evidence and information what do you think would happen if it did happen? It would be very interesting.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 26, 2015, 08:46:07 PM
It is mainly Bamber who has been banging on about it over the last 30 years. Accusing the relatives, police and Julie of framing him.
He is skilful at doing this, the internet giving his flagging 90's campaign a boast. There is no proof any of the evidence is wrong. Just Chinese whispers.
If that was the case there wound not be 9061 posts about the Bamber case on this forum. why all the fuss if its just Bamber banning on? There is an abundance of scrutiny of the evidence and the debates that circulate on and off the web are testimant to that.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: adam on January 26, 2015, 08:55:44 PM
If that was the case there wound not be 9061 posts about the Bamber case on this forum. why all the fuss if its just Bamber banning on? There is an abundance of scrutiny of the evidence and the debates that circulate on and off the web are testimant to that.
It's an interesting case for lots of reasons.
High profile. Horrific. Greed. Love. Money. Police mistakes. The murder/suicide frame attempt. Bamber's 'Campaign for Freedom'.
People discuss the possibility that evidence was planted or people lied. But there is no proof.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on January 26, 2015, 09:04:45 PM
Yeah I Know, Not to mention finding an impartial jury that wont read up on all the gossip that circulates the forums. I think its also due to the high profile of the case that would bring allot of politics involved
But considering all the new evidence and information what do you think would happen if it did happen? It would be very interesting.
Which new evidence is this? Three questionable burn marks on Nevill Bamber's back, or dubious gun shot deposits on Sheila's neck. Those have already been rejected by the CCRC and Appeal Court, and have also seen the departure of his latest legal representative from the case.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 26, 2015, 09:28:44 PM
Which new evidence is this? Three questionable burn marks on Nevill Bamber's back, or dubious gun shot deposits on Sheila's neck. Those have already been rejected by the CCRC and Appeal Court, and have also seen the departure of his latest legal representative from the case.
"Sheila: photographic evidence and time of death
Some of the evidence not made available to the defence before 2005 were photographs of Sheila taken by a police photographer at around 9 am on 7 August. In a letter to the Home Secretary in August 2005, Bamber's lawyers said these photographs had only recently been passed to the defence, and showed that Sheila's blood was still wet. They argued that, had she been killed before 3:30 am as the prosecution said, her blood would have congealed by 9 am. They also cited a statement from one of the first officers to enter the house at 7:34 am, PC Peter Woodcock, whose witness statement was first discovered by the defence in a box of papers in July 2005, though the defence team acknowledged the statement may have been part of the trial bundle. The statement was dated 20 September 1985 and said of Sheila: "She had what appeared to be two bullet holes under her chin and blood leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks." In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police."
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on January 26, 2015, 09:45:02 PM
Those expert opinions are nine years old and if they had any relevance his representatives would have made use of them by now. The fact that they haven't shows that they're worthless. Who's to say that what looks like fresh blood is simply a reflection from the camera flash of dried blood?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 26, 2015, 09:58:14 PM
Those expert opinions are nine years old and if they had any relevance his representatives would have made use of them by now. The fact that they haven't shows that they're worthless. Who's to say that what looks like fresh blood is simply a reflection from the camera flash of dried blood?
This was sent to the home secretary by his representatives they have made use of it. I have seen this photo in news articles. two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli think otherwise, its not just the a question of dry or wet blood there was no rigor mortis and the skin was not discoloured while photos of the other bodies showed the opposite.
There are 406 crime scene photos but most are not avalible to us. vast majority we have never seen
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: John on January 27, 2015, 12:52:14 PM
Sheila may have been alive but brain dead for quite a while after she was shot. It is a distinct possibility which even the experts cannot discount. Fact is nobody knows, not even Jeremy Bamber.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 27, 2015, 03:36:56 PM
We will need to know via medical records when her last injection was. if she was so tired and drowsy how and why did she attend the party?
I already provided you with the answer she was injected July 11, 1985 which was 3 weeks before the murders and the medicine lasted 6 weeks. Moreover, the medicine was found in her system at autopsy. Furthermore, there are no accounts of her having any episodes after she left the hospital in March 1985 so nothing to indicate at any time her medication wasn't working. Trying to claim she didn't have enough in her system is a complete waste of time and has no evidentiary basis.
Being drowsy and wanting to go to bed early doesn't preclude her from still trying to have a life.
This is what blows my mind! Why on earth would Jeremy tell anyone? He plans this elaborate murder covering his tracks ensuring minimal detection only to tell someone afterwards he done it? It don't make sense. How on earth could Julie in her right mind react to such news? Gets a call from her then boyfiend saying he murdered his entire family including two six year old boys. Then she stays with him feeling safe and not in danger of her own life knowing her partner is a mass murderer?
Why does any criminal tell about their plans? A combination of being arrogant, stupid, wanting to brag and wanting to complain.
Julie had mixed feelings. She loved him enough to keep quiet at first and even try to cover for him. She expected him to marry her, they had been engaged in the past in fact but he broke the engagement because his family liked the idea of him marrying her and he didn't want to placate them.
She said that she felt guilty over time and could not keep living the lie and thus they broke up. But if you read between the lines it appears to me she was willing to live with the guilt if he was willing to marry her but since it was evidence he was just having fun and didn't intend to marry her she decided to cut her losses and not take the turmoil of knowing what he did.
So she actually did what he hoped- at first. When the tide turned he was so stupid he didn't think that police would believe her when she changed her story so was not worried about the prospects of her doing so. He was convinced that he pulled off the perfect crime he didn't know about his mistakes yet. Neither did th epolice know most of them either the lab figured it out subsequently.
Both camps are guilty of the same mentality. Going round in circles making claims and counter claims going from one subject to another with circumstantial theories and ideas about what took place without resulting in any solid conclusions. All I know is that Jeremy's conviction is unsafe, What was used to convict him has come under serious scrutiny and the appeals courts have unfairly moved the goal post for him. I don't really take a solid stance on weather it was Jeremy or Shelia, But he should be given a second trial. Its a dilemma for the Crown prison service, keep an innocent man behind bars or let a killer go free? they will be accused of wrongdoing either way
You are the one going in circles. Facts have been presented to you and yet you have ignored them and asked the same questions again. There is nothing at all to indicate Jeremy is innocent or that he is the victim of a MOJ.
The things you have raised to suggest such are all BS that his defenders have made up not anything actually solid. Those who say he is guilty point out the evidence used to convict him. People like you read the BS claims of defenders that misrepresent things and then use those misrepresentations as the basis of claiming he was the victim of a MOJ. The dance is indeed old but the leading is being done by those who defend Bamber.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 27, 2015, 03:50:28 PM
Some of the evidence not made available to the defence before 2005 were photographs of Sheila taken by a police photographer at around 9 am on 7 August. In a letter to the Home Secretary in August 2005, Bamber's lawyers said these photographs had only recently been passed to the defence, and showed that Sheila's blood was still wet. They argued that, had she been killed before 3:30 am as the prosecution said, her blood would have congealed by 9 am. They also cited a statement from one of the first officers to enter the house at 7:34 am, PC Peter Woodcock, whose witness statement was first discovered by the defence in a box of papers in July 2005, though the defence team acknowledged the statement may have been part of the trial bundle. The statement was dated 20 September 1985 and said of Sheila: "She had what appeared to be two bullet holes under her chin and blood leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks." In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police."
This is a perfect example of how people read nonsense from he Bamber page and then adopt it.
1) Prior to these photos being taken a doctor examined Sheila and stated in his report that the blood on her body was dry.
2) The blood appears dry on the undoctored photos when the color filters are changed is when the blood looks very red red.
3) There is no way to tell from a photo whether blood is wet or dry it is a function that has to be done in person. In person all the witnesses say it was dry including the doctor who declared her dead at 8:45AM.
There is no scientific basis to say a photo shows wet blood and the photo thus can't be used to contradict the testimony of the doctor and police. The court was quite right to reject such nonsense.
Here is the photo in question that the defense claims proves the blood was wet:
Sheila may have been alive but brain dead for quite a while after she was shot. It is a distinct possibility which even the experts cannot discount. Fact is nobody knows, not even Jeremy Bamber.
Are you being serious? Your claiming Shelia could have been brain dead but still be alive a breathing for several hours with two bullet wounds to the neck and major blood loss?
scipio_usmc - medical experts Professor Marco Meloni and Professor Cavalli reported that the photos indicate Shelia died less than two hours after the photo was taken at 8-9am. Your opinion on the other hand has no expert or professional credibility its just your opinion.
Having read through this forums many reasons and 'facts' why Shelia could not have done this,
My Take:
Show me the proof that the Titanic hit an iceberg! Where is this iceberg?! Did anyone take a picture at the moment the ship hit the iceberg?! If not, then there is no 'documentary evidence' - probably never happened! The witnesses are all suspect and completely unreliable - that's why their testimonies about the sinking are all different! Show me on the wreckage anything that proves it hit an iceberg - there is nothing! A myth! Where are all these supposed 1500 people? Are there pictures of masses of floating bodies? There's no proof anyone was on the ship! There's no proof it wasn't blasted by a UFO!
Too much time is spent in circular, asinine arguments with people who can't comprehend a mother could possibly have done this.
I strongly suggest you all read up the case of Andrea Yates
Yates was a schizophrenic mother who killed all 5 of her children in one afternoon. She claimed the devil had possessed her children, Plus everyone who knew Andre Yates could not believe she could have committed this crime.
Sounds familiar?
Once you understand that people with these complex conditions do commit these crimes you will realise the gravity of doubt on Jeremy's conviction. I don't know what happened that night but I'm not convinced Jeremy committed this act nor am I convinced he is innocent, Many people I introduce to this case come to the same conclusion and cant make up their minds. Some people on the other hand take sides and believe what they want to believe.
Than again what if he is innocent? and is 30 years behind bars enough to give him the benefit of the doubt? I really don't know. I don't think any judge wants this bizarre case on their shoulders.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on January 27, 2015, 08:37:41 PM
The Andrea Yates murders bear no resemblance to this case. She drowned five children in her bath.
Sheila Caffell had never used the Anschutz, had no idea how to use it, nor had the co-ordination or experience to reload it at least twice. Colin Caffell knew this better than anyone else. Add to that, there was no evidence of any blood from the people she supposedly killed spattered on her nightdress, no lead residue of measurable quantity or any bullet oil on her fingers had she loaded the magazine, only one fingerprint on the butt when there should have been many.
I don't know how many times these facts have to be repeated to you for it to sink in!
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 27, 2015, 09:49:25 PM
Are you being serious? Your claiming Shelia could have been brain dead but still be alive a breathing for several hours with two bullet wounds to the neck and major blood loss?
scipio_usmc - medical experts Professor Marco Meloni and Professor Cavalli reported that the photos indicate Shelia died less than two hours after the photo was taken at 8-9am. Your opinion on the other hand has no expert or professional credibility its just your opinion.
Don't you mean she died 2 hours before the photo was taken? They didn't assert she died after the photo was taken.
Funny how you say you require proof but believe any stupid claim you hear when you think it supports what you want to assert.
There is no recognized science of looking at a photo showing dried blood and calculating the time the blood dried by just looking at the photo. Someone claiming they caa do such are full of crap. I will flip the script on you and challenge you to post studiens and materials from scientific literature that details a recognized science of looking at blood in a photo and claculating when it dried. You won't find any which is why the courts laughed at the claims. In order to be used in court a scientific forumal must be well established as valid.
For you to take such junk scienve and say you believe it just demonstrates how gullible you are despite protesting otherwise or how dishonest you are that you will knowingly adopt BS just because it suits your agenda. But it gets worse.
The photo was not taken between 8 and 9 the photographer was not even on the scene yet. The photos were taken around 11. So in order for Laurel and Hardy to be correct about the wounds being 2 hours old ofr less that requires the wounds to have been delivered AFTER Dr Craig observed the wounds, dry blood and declared her dead at 8:45AM. Anyone who believes the wounds appeared after Dr Craig saw her has far more severe mental problems than Sheila did.
Having read through this forums many reasons and 'facts' why Shelia could not have done this,
My Take:
Show me the proof that the Titanic hit an iceberg! Where is this iceberg?! Did anyone take a picture at the moment the ship hit the iceberg?! If not, then there is no 'documentary evidence' - probably never happened! The witnesses are all suspect and completely unreliable - that's why their testimonies about the sinking are all different! Show me on the wreckage anything that proves it hit an iceberg - there is nothing! A myth! Where are all these supposed 1500 people? Are there pictures of masses of floating bodies? There's no proof anyone was on the ship! There's no proof it wasn't blasted by a UFO!
Too much time is spent in circular, asinine arguments with people who can't comprehend a mother could possibly have done this.
I strongly suggest you all read up the case of Andrea Yates
Yates was a schizophrenic mother who killed all 5 of her children in one afternoon. She claimed the devil had possessed her children, Plus everyone who knew Andre Yates could not believe she could have committed this crime.
Sounds familiar?
Once you understand that people with these complex conditions do commit these crimes you will realise the gravity of doubt on Jeremy's conviction. I don't know what happened that night but I'm not convinced Jeremy committed this act nor am I convinced he is innocent, Many people I introduce to this case come to the same conclusion and cant make up their minds. Some people on the other hand take sides and believe what they want to believe.
Than again what if he is innocent? and is 30 years behind bars enough to give him the benefit of the doubt? I really don't know. I don't think any judge wants this bizarre case on their shoulders.
My take is that you are a hypocrite who is totally full of crap.
This board has thousands of posts that lay out solid evidence proving Sheila could not have committed the crimes and that Jeremy did. Today alone I provided a very detailed list of phsical evidence that proves her innocense and his guilt. DId you address any of that? No because you can't instead you dishonestly pretend that the arguments put forth by me and others here is that a mother wouldn't kill her kids.
Why did you do that? Because you can't refute the actual evidence that we cited so instead you create a strawman argument to attack.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 28, 2015, 08:45:11 AM
No newbies who watched me shoot could appreciate the things I did because I did them so fast. It takes actually training someone for them to understand how to use a weapon including how to remove the magazine for a weapon that has a detachable magazine.
As I posted in the past, US President Gerald Ford survived an assassination attempt because the would be killer, who was accustomed to people using guns around her but not semi autos) didn't know she had to manually chamber a round first.
At any rate, when did she see someone chamber a round in a semi-automatic rifle?
The first semi-auto the family owned was purchased late November 1984. That gun was purchased for Jeremy and barely used. There is no evidence anyone except Jeremy and Anthony used it.
Even Jeremy's fairytale about the rabbit featured him inserting the magazine into the gun in a different room than Sheila was in so that lie doesn't provide a way to claim she saw him chamber a round.
But hey when did you ever ry to look at it rationally...
You seem to think you have to be some sort of intellectual giant to chamber a round, load and attach a magazine, aim and fire. You don't. The process is intuitive and straightforward. Most would have some idea from watching movies. Those brought up in an environment where gun usage was common place it would be second nature. The mechanical process is no more or less complicated than operating every day equipment including baby care equipment.
I believe there's a perception that firearms are the domain of males and females are incapable of operating such based on typical gender stereo-typing. More so if a female is attractive and feminine. Especially in countries like England where usage of firearms is strictly controlled. Not true of course - a female is just as capable of picking up a firearm and firing it. For those with training they can become as proficient as a male ?>)()<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6CBKUM9gk8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZE-EDGw2vo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9swOszwXhgc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hPvF9DWcRc
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: adam on January 28, 2015, 09:00:44 AM
You seem to think you have to be some sort of intellectual giant to chamber a round, load and attach a magazine, aim and fire. You don't. The process is intuitive and straightforward. Most would have some idea from watching movies. Those brought up in an environment where gun usage was common place it would be second nature. The mechanical process is no more or less complicated than operating every day equipment including baby care equipment.
I believe there's a perception that firearms are the domain of males and females are incapable of operating such based on typical gender stereo-typing. More so if a female is attractive and feminine. Especially in countries like England where usage of firearms is strictly controlled. Not true of course - a female is just as capable of picking up a firearm and firing it. For those with training they can become as proficient as a male ?>)()<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6CBKUM9gk8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZE-EDGw2vo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9swOszwXhgc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hPvF9DWcRc
I would prefer to not have to re load. Like Keanu Reeves in the Matrix. He would just throw away an empty gun and use another one he had on him.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 28, 2015, 11:57:25 AM
All those earlier videos you posted are from the U.S.A. where (some) children are taught to use weapons responsibly from an early age. As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions Sheila Caffell was unfamiliar with the new Anschutz, and unlike the healthy young American women in the videos was not fit enough because of her medication to use it on August 7th '85.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 28, 2015, 12:21:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdAI9j_lDbc
See her long varnished nails
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 28, 2015, 12:37:56 PM
All those earlier videos you posted are from the U.S.A. where (some) children are taught to use weapons responsibly from an early age. As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions Sheila Caffell was unfamiliar with the new Anschutz, and unlike the healthy young American women in the videos was not fit enough because of her medication to use it on August 7th '85.
NB might well have taught SC to use weapons responsibly from an early age. We have no idea if SC was familiarised further with firearms via school friends and/or the farm hand she had a relationship with.
SC didn't need to be familiar with the new Anshutz per se to load the magazine, attach it, chamber a round, aim and fire.
The pathologist described SC as well nourished and healthy.
Young mothers develop upper body strength from lifting and carrying children and various equipment eg buggies etc. SC was capable of fine motor movement as evidenced by her shaped eyebrows, manicured and varnished nails and applying full face make-up.
To doubt a women's ability to use a firearm is sexist. It is like me doubting a man's ability to hoover. 8((()*/
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 28, 2015, 02:14:00 PM
All those earlier videos you posted are from the U.S.A. where (some) children are taught to use weapons responsibly from an early age. As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions Sheila Caffell was unfamiliar with the new Anschutz, and unlike the healthy young American women in the videos was not fit enough because of her medication to use it on August 7th '85.
Hey lookout!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB7iz1HTh9U
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 28, 2015, 02:31:49 PM
All those earlier videos you posted are from the U.S.A. where (some) children are taught to use weapons responsibly from an early age. As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions Sheila Caffell was unfamiliar with the new Anschutz, and unlike the healthy young American women in the videos was not fit enough because of her medication to use it on August 7th '85.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8eVqOfreZc
I think we should refrain from gender stereotyping 8((()*/
It seems inconceivable to me that SC and JB wouldn't target practice around the farm as children/teenagers. My younger brother by some 2 years had an air rifle which he showed me how to use and I fired at various things he placed around the garden and hung on trees. The WHF tragedy did not require any accuracy of shots; I am saying this on the basis that it seems inconceivable to me that a female that grew up on a farm with a brother as an only sibling would not have at least had some basic knowledge of handling and firing firearms.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 28, 2015, 04:52:03 PM
NB might well have taught SC to use weapons responsibly from an early age. We have no idea if SC was familiarised further with firearms via school friends and/or the farm hand she had a relationship with.
SC didn't need to be familiar with the new Anshutz per se to load the magazine, attach it, chamber a round, aim and fire.
The pathologist described SC as well nourished and healthy.
Young mothers develop upper body strength from lifting and carrying children and various equipment eg buggies etc. SC was capable of fine motor movement as evidenced by her shaped eyebrows, manicured and varnished nails and applying full face make-up.
To doubt a women's ability to use a firearm is sexist. It is like me doubting a man's ability to hoover. 8((()*/
She didn't need to know how to load the gun and chamber a round to be able to use it? That is perhaps the dumbest thing you have ever written on this this site.
You are demonstrating how ridiculously biased and irrational you are being. You have to be very desperate to ignore something that basic and dismiss its significance.
Sheila's family said that she had no interest in learning about weapons. Far form being a sexist comment it is reality that fathers taught sons how to shoot not daughters and that in boy schools shooting was taught but girls in school were not taught. This is not posters being sexist but rather being rational, objective and facing evidence. You don't want to face evidence you want to just ignore and dismiss anything that challenges you.
At any rate even if her father forced her to learn about weapons he did not own any semi-automatics so could not have taught her how to use semiautomatics when young. The first semi-auto he ever purchased was not purchased until the end of November 1984 and was purchased at Jeremy's insitience and purchased for Jeremy. he is the one who wanted a semi-auto. Why was he so desperate to have a semi-auto? Quite obviously so that the murders he planned to commit with it would go more smoothly.
SInce it was the first semi-auto, even if Sheial were taught how to load and use a shotgun when young that would not enable her to know how to load and operate the murder weapons because they loaded and operated differently. Ther eis no detachable magazine for a shotgun it is organic to the weapon. There is no need to chamber a round manually first for the shotguns they possessed either. Sheila would thus have no idea that a round even needed to be manually chmabered first let alone know how to do so.
This was pointed out to you multiple times in the past. Your silly way of dealing with it is to claim well who cares she would be able to use any weapon in the world by being trained when young how to use a shotgun even if they load and operate differently. I posted you an article about Lynette Fromme who grew up around shotgun and rifle use when she was young. She tried to shoot US President Ford with a semi-aut handgun but didn't know it needed to have a round manually chambered first and thus the gun didn't fire and she was disarmed without doing any damage.
That is what would have happened to SHeila if she grabbed the weapon, figured out how to insert a magazine and then held it on her father. It woudl nto have fired and he woudl have been able to disarm her.
You ignore this because it is inconvenient to what you decided you want to believe in spite of the evidence. You just dismiss it without any rational basis and make the ridiculous claim itdoesn't matter she didn't know how to load it or chamber a round. It doesn't matter to you because you don't care about the truth but rather what you choose to believe happened in spite of the evidence. To peopel who care about facts, evidence and what relaly happened it is a big deal and matters a great deal.
The issue of her poor hand eye coordination and the side effects of her medicne which woudl cause her to have tremors and inhibit her effective use of firearms is not sexists and has nothign to do with her gender. It has to do with evidence that she had bad hand eye coordination and dexterity issues. You choose to ignore this liek you ignore all evidence and when people bring it up you simply dismiss it's significance as you dismiss anything that detracts from your position. Dismissing it doesn't make it go away. It must be refuted to go away and dissmissing it doesn't refute it.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 28, 2015, 08:07:00 PM
She didn't need to know how to load the gun and chamber a round to be able to use it? That is perhaps the dumbest thing you have ever written on this this site.
You are demonstrating how ridiculously biased and irrational you are being. You have to be very desperate to ignore something that basic and dismiss its significance.
Sheila's family said that she had no interest in learning about weapons. Far form being a sexist comment it is reality that fathers taught sons how to shoot not daughters and that in boy schools shooting was taught but girls in school were not taught. This is not posters being sexist but rather being rational, objective and facing evidence. You don't want to face evidence you want to just ignore and dismiss anything that challenges you.
At any rate even if her father forced her to learn about weapons he did not own any semi-automatics so could not have taught her how to use semiautomatics when young. The first semi-auto he ever purchased was not purchased until the end of November 1984 and was purchased at Jeremy's insitience and purchased for Jeremy. he is the one who wanted a semi-auto. Why was he so desperate to have a semi-auto? Quite obviously so that the murders he planned to commit with it would go more smoothly.
SInce it was the first semi-auto, even if Sheial were taught how to load and use a shotgun when young that would not enable her to know how to load and operate the murder weapons because they loaded and operated differently. Ther eis no detachable magazine for a shotgun it is organic to the weapon. There is no need to chamber a round manually first for the shotguns they possessed either. Sheila would thus have no idea that a round even needed to be manually chmabered first let alone know how to do so.
This was pointed out to you multiple times in the past. Your silly way of dealing with it is to claim well who cares she would be able to use any weapon in the world by being trained when young how to use a shotgun even if they load and operate differently. I posted you an article about Lynette Fromme who grew up around shotgun and rifle use when she was young. She tried to shoot US President Ford with a semi-aut handgun but didn't know it needed to have a round manually chambered first and thus the gun didn't fire and she was disarmed without doing any damage.
That is what would have happened to SHeila if she grabbed the weapon, figured out how to insert a magazine and then held it on her father. It woudl nto have fired and he woudl have been able to disarm her.
You ignore this because it is inconvenient to what you decided you want to believe in spite of the evidence. You just dismiss it without any rational basis and make the ridiculous claim itdoesn't matter she didn't know how to load it or chamber a round. It doesn't matter to you because you don't care about the truth but rather what you choose to believe happened in spite of the evidence. To peopel who care about facts, evidence and what relaly happened it is a big deal and matters a great deal.
The issue of her poor hand eye coordination and the side effects of her medicne which woudl cause her to have tremors and inhibit her effective use of firearms is not sexists and has nothign to do with her gender. It has to do with evidence that she had bad hand eye coordination and dexterity issues. You choose to ignore this liek you ignore all evidence and when people bring it up you simply dismiss it's significance as you dismiss anything that detracts from your position. Dismissing it doesn't make it go away. It must be refuted to go away and dissmissing it doesn't refute it.
I didn't say SC didn't need to know how to load and attach a mag and chamber a round. I implied that the skills are transferable from one firearm to another and that she did not need previous experience with the rifle in question. You have no idea whether or not NB had previously owned a semi-auto rifle similar to the purchase in Nov '84. Or whether SC had exposure/experience elsewhere.
From your quote above "Sheila's family said that she had no interest in learning about weapons." It rather begs the question that they thought they knew SC well enough to make that statement and yet evidently did not know her well enough to identify her children at the morgue?
When it suits all concerned quote that NB and SC had a positive and close relationship and yet when it comes to familiarization with weapons its exclusive to fathers and sons. Rubbish. Fact is most daughters are closer to their fathers. My father (adoptive) a civil eng by prof taught me loads: DIY, car mechanics, gardening and golf. Oh and cooking as he was better than my mother (adoptive). He was a also a very good artist (drawing and painting) but I am afraid I was truly hopeless at that. I am sure it would have been par for the course that NB and SC would take strolls around the fields and NB showed SC how to handle weapons.
JB tells us that June taught him how to cook. Yet AE's WS's tell us that June ASKED AE to teach SC to cook! Make of that what you will!
You banging on about President Ford is akin to David banging on about Andrea Yates! Keep it relevant.
SC's coordination, medication etc, etc did not prevent her carrying out a host of activities requiring manual dexterity eg serving food and drink to guests at a party a few days prior to the tragedy, shaping her eyebrows, manicuring and polishing her nails, applying full face make-up, styling her hair.
Get real.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 28, 2015, 09:10:00 PM
See how Bunny Hunter was taught to use firearms by her father. Totally cool girl 8(>((
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_mJ-4a1DcI
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: John on January 28, 2015, 10:21:10 PM
Are you being serious? Your claiming Shelia could have been brain dead but still be alive a breathing for several hours with two bullet wounds to the neck and major blood loss?
scipio_usmc - medical experts Professor Marco Meloni and Professor Cavalli reported that the photos indicate Shelia died less than two hours before the photo was taken at 8-9am. Your opinion on the other hand has no expert or professional credibility its just your opinion.
Am I serious? Yes...dead serious!
No expert can give the exact time of death from any photograph. The problem in this case is that the police didn't call the pathologist out to the scene so it was many hours later when he examined Sheila in the morgue. It is difficult enough at the best of times for a pathologist to determine time of death after many hours have passed so the delay in carrying out an autopsy didn't help.
Fact is, nobody knows for sure when Sheila expired.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 28, 2015, 11:09:34 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFy0fecVJYs
A female supposedly new to an AK57. Beautiful sound as the bullet ricochets around. I want a gun 8(*( 8(*( 8(*(
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: John on January 28, 2015, 11:21:06 PM
I didn't say SC didn't need to know how to load and attach a mag and chamber a round. I implied that the skills are transferable from one firearm to another and that she did not need previous experience with the rifle in question. You have no idea whether or not NB had previously owned a semi-auto rifle similar to the purchase in Nov '84. Or whether SC had exposure/experience elsewhere.
The skills are not transferable between weapons that function differently. I know that all the evidence available indicates the first semi-auto was purchased in 1984 and at Jeremy's insistence because he wanted a semi-auto so he would be able to shoot his family faster. You intentionally ignore that Sheila wasn't intereste din guns, that even Jeremy admits she hadn't fired any and suggest Sheila would know how to operate the wepaon because you are absolutely desperate to assert she committed the crimes so you can present your troubled adoptee theory. You are absolutely shameless to smear her memory for your own agenda.
From your quote above "Sheila's family said that she had no interest in learning about weapons." It rather begs the question that they thought they knew SC well enough to make that statement and yet evidently did not know her well enough to identify her children at the morgue?
When it suits all concerned quote that NB and SC had a positive and close relationship and yet when it comes to familiarization with weapons its exclusive to fathers and sons. Rubbish. Fact is most daughters are closer to their fathers. My father (adoptive) a civil eng by prof taught me loads: DIY, car mechanics, gardening and golf. Oh and cooking as he was better than my mother (adoptive). He was a also a very good artist (drawing and painting) but I am afraid I was truly hopeless at that. I am sure it would have been par for the course that NB and SC would take strolls around the fields and NB showed SC how to handle weapons.
JB tells us that June taught him how to cook. Yet AE's WS's tell us that June ASKED AE to teach SC to cook! Make of that what you will!
This is a perfect example of how you just make up any crap that suits your agenda. What evidence do you have that Neville taught Sheila how to use firearms? None! You just decided that since he was her rock that means he would have bonded with her over weapons. Yet the relatives say that is not the case and even Jeremy doesn't assert such. you just made it all up to suit your agenda and that is all you do on this board. You ignore the evidence available and just make up any crap you feel like. Your belief that he would have taught her how to use weapons and that they would have bonded over it means absolutely nothing. It is not evidence that your beliefs are true. Evidence matters your unsupported opinions do not.
You banging on about President Ford is akin to David banging on about Andrea Yates! Keep it relevant.
SC's coordination, medication etc, etc did not prevent her carrying out a host of activities requiring manual dexterity eg serving food and drink to guests at a party a few days prior to the tragedy, shaping her eyebrows, manicuring and polishing her nails, applying full face make-up, styling her hair.
Get real.
I am real she had such poor coordination she could not even drive. The fact that Lynette Fromme didn't know she had to chamber a round in a semi-auto though she grew up around the use of shotguns and thus botched her attempted assassination is relevant. It illustrates the very issue at hand. Unlike you I actually provided an example that is on point. You on the other hand make claims that are wrong and totally illogical such as your bogus claim that a case was reversed because of a judge's error during summation when it had to do with a coerced confession. You are a very poor judge of what is relevant or logical since you constantly make illogical, irrelevant posts.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 29, 2015, 01:09:10 AM
A female supposedly new to an AK57. Beautiful sound as the bullet ricochets around. I want a gun 8(*( 8(*( 8(*(
The weapon was loaded and the first round chambered before the video was filmed. The only thing she is doing in the video is firing then moving the gun to safe. Then she moves it to fire, fires and moves the safety again. Obviously she was taught where the safety is, how to operate the safety and told to put it in safe after each shot. She didn't learn how to do it on her own just by virtue of having fired different weapons she was specifically taught how to use it. The difference between this civilian model and the one I fired in the military is that it had 3 settings full auto, semi-auto and safe. This one just has semi-auto and safe. The safety is on the opposite side of an M-16. Moreover it operates differently instead of a switch that spins the lever on the AKM is moved up or down. I learned to operate the AKM through training not by being given the gun and simply expected to know immediately how to operate it.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 29, 2015, 01:28:41 AM
Yes that's what I meant to say as the sound echo's around. I thought it said AK57 but AK47 sounds familiar.
There is no such thing as an AK-57. The military weapon is the AKM. The AKM was replaced by the AK-74 but both are still used. The AKM was an improved version of the AK-47. The AK-74 is designed to fire smaller ammunition and thus has shorter range. Some units preferred the longer range AKM so still have some and use both. The Chinese copied the AK-47 in 1956 and it is the Type 56. For sale to countries that use NATO ammunition they made the AK-101, it is an AK-74 chambered in NATO 5.56mm as opposed to the usual Soviet 5.45mm.
Many people will call any AK family rifle an AK-47 though most are not technically AK-47s. This is especially true of civilian models where people will call just about anything an AK-47 regardless of where it was made.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: John on January 29, 2015, 11:29:30 AM
An AK57 is a Crux rucksack made in China and the nearest it comes to weaponry is that it is manufactured in gunmetal grey.
The skills are not transferable between weapons that function differently. I know that all the evidence available indicates the first semi-auto was purchased in 1984 and at Jeremy's insistence because he wanted a semi-auto so he would be able to shoot his family faster. You intentionally ignore that Sheila wasn't intereste din guns, that even Jeremy admits she hadn't fired any and suggest Sheila would know how to operate the wepaon because you are absolutely desperate to assert she committed the crimes so you can present your troubled adoptee theory. You are absolutely shameless to smear her memory for your own agenda.
What skill is required to load bullets into a mag, slot the mag in, chamber a round and pull the trigger? The mechanical process is no more difficult than it is with a host of everyday equipment eg changing a battery in a household appliance, food mixer, erecting and collapsing a baby buggy.
I cannot recall what type of car I had my formal driving lessons in but my first personally owned car was a mini 1275GT (same car as Marc Bolan died in). Since then I have owned and had access to a wide range of motor vehicles. The controls and transmission are all different. I don't have to think about it I get in and go because I know how to drive a car ie the basic skills are transferable in the same way that they are with all equipment. including firearms.
How do you know the first semi auto NB owned was the one purchased in Nov '84? Prove it? How do you know JB initiated the purchase and not NB? If the relationship was strained why did the pair make the purchase together? SC didn't need to be interested in guns to pick it up and fire it. I am not particularly interested in my car but it doesn't stop me getting in it and driving it. I am not particularly interested in my vacuum cleaner but it doesn't stop me turning it on to vacuum. I am not particularly interested in my mobile phone but it doesn't stop me manipulating it via the screen to perform various functions. How interested does someone have to be in something to perform a function/pick up a semi-auto rifle, prepare it for fire and pull the trigger?
I wish I was clever enough to come up with the adoption, attachment and neuroscientific theories, research and studies relevant to the WHF tragedy but I have to hand the credit for that to all the various professors and doctors at the Ivy League unis in US.
Whoa you're resulting to emotional blackmail now are you? Bit big girls blousy. I am shameless in my smearing of SC? I haven't seen you come to her defence when posters refer to her as "promiscuous" and worse.
From your quote above "Sheila's family said that she had no interest in learning about weapons." It rather begs the question that they thought they knew SC well enough to make that statement and yet evidently did not know her well enough to identify her children at the morgue?
This is a perfect example of how you just make up any crap that suits your agenda. What evidence do you have that Neville taught Sheila how to use firearms? None! You just decided that since he was her rock that means he would have bonded with her over weapons. Yet the relatives say that is not the case and even Jeremy doesn't assert such. you just made it all up to suit your agenda and that is all you do on this board. You ignore the evidence available and just make up any crap you feel like. Your belief that he would have taught her how to use weapons and that they would have bonded over it means absolutely nothing. It is not evidence that your beliefs are true. Evidence matters your unsupported opinions do not.
What evidence do you have that NB, JB, her farm hand boyfriend and or a.n others didn't provide same basic instruction? It should be fairly obvious that if a female grows up on a farm with a brother as an only sibling she will have sufficient exposure/experience to guns to pick one up, perform the most basic functions and fire it. I have already stated that complete novices should have been placed in a room where they witnessed a proficient operator/handler load and fire the weapon in question half a dozen times and then see how many of the novices were capable of duplicating the action.
I am real she had such poor coordination she could not even drive. The fact that Lynette Fromme didn't know she had to chamber a round in a semi-auto though she grew up around the use of shotguns and thus botched her attempted assassination is relevant. It illustrates the very issue at hand. Unlike you I actually provided an example that is on point. You on the other hand make claims that are wrong and totally illogical such as your bogus claim that a case was reversed because of a judge's error during summation when it had to do with a coerced confession. You are a very poor judge of what is relevant or logical since you constantly make illogical, irrelevant posts.
She didn't need to learn to drive as she lived in London. A car is a pain in London with parking and traffic. CC was some years older than SC and he didn't learn to drive until June funded his lessons. Please provide my post where I stated that Justice Drake's summation was in anyway a factor in the MoJ of the Bridgewater 4? I simply pointed out that JB and the Bridgwater 4 shared the same trial judge. Crucial difference between Lynette Frome and Sheila Caffell is that Lynette Frome did not grow up on a farm where a wide range of firearms were kept and used. Lynette Frome's father was an aeronautical engineer and her mother a homemaker. SC's father was a former RAF pilot and farmer and her mother a farmer too. But hey that's Skip's peverse logic.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 29, 2015, 03:42:29 PM
What skill is required to load bullets into a mag, slot the mag in, chamber a round and pull the trigger? The mechanical process is no more difficult than it is with a host of everyday equipment eg changing a battery in a household appliance, food mixer, erecting and collapsing a baby buggy.
The skill of knowing how to release the magazine, knowing that the bullets need ot be loaded into the magazine, knowing that you need to manually feed the first round into the chamber and knowing hwo to chamber a round for starters. These are all things that do not need to be done with the shotguns they owned. The shotguns they woned either took one or 2 shells at a time loaded into the breech of the gun and needed no manual feeding of a round into the chamber it was already in the breech when loaded.
All guns are different and knowing how to use one does not instantly mean you can use another. Even handguns are different some are double action others single action. The difference is that the hammer has to be cocked to fire for single action but wiht double action the trigger operated the hammer always even if not cocked. That alone can make the difference between a gun firing or not. I watched with great amusement as someone who never used a revolver before (his only experience with revolvers was toy cap guns) took more than 20 minutes to figure out how to get the cylinder to swing out. He though it would open like a cap gun so tried pulling on the rod that is used to eject the shells. He had no idea there was a thumb lever that makes it open. Someone took pity on him and told him there is a thumb switch and he then figured out how to work it finally.
I cannot recall what type of car I had my formal driving lessons in but my first personally owned car was a mini 1275GT (same car as Marc Bolan died in). Since then I have owned and had access to a wide range of motor vehicles. The controls and transmission are all different. I don't have to think about it I get in and go because I know how to drive a car ie the basic skills are transferable in the same way that they are with all equipment. including firearms.
How do you know the first semi auto NB owned was the one purchased in Nov '84? Prove it? How do you know JB initiated the purchase and not NB? If the relationship was strained why did the pair make the purchase together? SC didn't need to be interested in guns to pick it up and fire it. I am not particularly interested in my car but it doesn't stop me getting in it and driving it. I am not particularly interested in my vacuum cleaner but it doesn't stop me turning it on to vacuum. I am not particularly interested in my mobile phone but it doesn't stop me manipulating it via the screen to perform various functions. How interested does someone have to be in something to perform a function/pick up a semi-auto rifle, prepare it for fire and pull the trigger?
I wish I was clever enough to come up with the adoption, attachment and neuroscientific theories, research and studies relevant to the WHF tragedy but I have to hand the credit for that to all the various professors and doctors at the Ivy League unis in US.
Whoa you're resulting to emotional blackmail now are you? Bit big girls blousy. I am shameless in my smearing of SC? I haven't seen you come to her defence when posters refer to her as "promiscuous" and worse.
What evidence do you have that NB, JB, her farm hand boyfriend and or a.n others didn't provide same basic instruction? It should be fairly obvious that if a female grows up on a farm with a brother as an only sibling she will have sufficient exposure/experience to guns to pick one up, perform the most basic functions and fire it. I have already stated that complete novices should have been placed in a room where they witnessed a proficient operator/handler load and fire the weapon in question half a dozen times and then see how many of the novices were capable of duplicating the action.
She didn't need to learn to drive as she lived in London. A car is a pain in London with parking and traffic. CC was some years older than SC and he didn't learn to drive until June funded his lessons. Please provide my post where I stated that Justice Drake's summation was in anyway a factor in the MoJ of the Bridgewater 4? I simply pointed out that JB and the Bridgwater 4 shared the same trial judge. Crucial difference between Lynette Frome and Sheila Caffell is that Lynette Frome did not grow up on a farm where a wide range of firearms were kept and used. Lynette Frome's father was an aeronautical engineer and her mother a homemaker. SC's father was a former RAF pilot and farmer and her mother a farmer too. But hey that's Skip's peverse logic.
The proof are the accounts of the witnesses that it was the first semi-auto. You bear the burden of proving otehrwise but can't.
You also bear the burden of establishing she was trianed to use weapons, particuarly semi-autos. Jeremy iniially claimed he taught her how to fire the murde rwepaon but when giving his statements and uring his interrogation he stated the opposite and denied telling police he taught her how to use the murder wepaon.
Witnesses said she had no interest in guns and worse said that June told them that Jeremy wanted to teach her how to load the magazine but she wasn't intereste din learning. SInce she wasn't interested in learning that refutes your suggesiton she was interested in learning how to use it.
You intentionally ignroe the evidence because it is inconvenient to your agenda. You ignore everything inconvenient to your agenda from ignoring the medical testimony that her fatal wound would result in drawback to the evidence Neville struggled with his killer. You just dismiss and ignore eveyrthing that proves Jeremy did it so you can move forward with your nonsense claims that Sheila did it because she was adopted.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 30, 2015, 04:17:25 PM
I was just reading up on Kirsten Weiss a professional performance shooter and adventurer.
In her bio it states:
Though by no means a requirement to love shooting, Kirsten’s grown up in a family who appreciates guns. Her parents taught her, practically before she could speak, to “treat every gun as if it were loaded”. With safety taught and in mind, guns represent fun, recreation, challenge, and camaraderie. Because of this she has a very comfortable, yet respectful, relationship with guns.
http://kirstenjoyweiss.com/bio/
I guess NB would have done similar to the above with SC and JB especially after NB's shooting accident with Leslie Speakman &%+((£
Cool vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmqly9v8pk8
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on January 30, 2015, 05:00:13 PM
Not necessarily. &%&£(+ I live opposite a farm. The farmer who I know well has two daughters, both now adult and married, neither of whom showed the least bit of interest in using his rifles even though one was tomboyish before she eventually grew out of it. You can't apply one guess to cover all!
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 30, 2015, 05:10:23 PM
I was just reading up on Kirsten Weiss a professional performance shooter and adventurer.
In her bio it states:
Though by no means a requirement to love shooting, Kirsten’s grown up in a family who appreciates guns. Her parents taught her, practically before she could speak, to “treat every gun as if it were loaded”. With safety taught and in mind, guns represent fun, recreation, challenge, and camaraderie. Because of this she has a very comfortable, yet respectful, relationship with guns.
http://kirstenjoyweiss.com/bio/
I guess NB would have done similar to the above with SC and JB especially after NB's shooting accident with Leslie Speakman &%+((£
Cool vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmqly9v8pk8
Teaching someone to treat a gun as if loaded no matter what doesn't mean they taught her how to operate it. I told my nieces to always treat my guns like loaded and to never aim that at anyone even though I let them touch them while they were unloaded and have NEVER let them touche them when loaded and thus never taught them how to operate any of them.
You are tkaing someone who has an interest in guns and thus was taught how to operate guns, and comparing it to someone who had no interest and didn't operate them. She didn't even want to learn how to load the magazine to Jeremy's rifle let alone to see how it is inserted into the weapon. They didn't even have any semi-autos until Jeremy insisted on them buying one so had not to teach her how to use anyway when she was young.
[ moderated ]
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 30, 2015, 05:33:01 PM
Not necessarily. &%&£(+ I live opposite a farm. The farmer who I know well has two daughters, both now adult and married, neither of whom showed the least bit of interest in using his rifles even though one was tomboyish before she eventually grew out of it. You can't apply one guess to cover all!
Absolutely I agree, but if you are exposed to a certain action/behaviour, even if not consciously aware and have no interest in re-enacting the action/behaviour, it stands to reason that one would be able to draw on that action/behaviour as and when? Also I don't think it is necessary for a girl/woman who shows an interest in traditional male activities to be a "tom-boy"? In the WHF case SC was unlikely to ever be a markswoman but was she capable of picking up a rifle performing the most basic functions and managing successful aims at close range?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 30, 2015, 05:49:08 PM
Teaching someone to treat a gun as if loaded no matter what doesn't mean they taught her how to operate it. I told my nieces to always treat my guns like loaded and to never aim that at anyone even though I let them touch them while they were unloaded and have NEVER let them touche them when loaded and thus never taught them how to operate any of them.
You are tkaing someone who has an interest in guns and thus was taught how to operate guns, and comparing it to someone who had no interest and didn't operate them. She didn't even want to learn how to load the magazine to Jeremy's rifle let alone to see how it is inserted into the weapon. They didn't even have any semi-autos until Jeremy insisted on them buying one so had not to teach her how to use anyway when she was young.
@ 6.30 mins in DB tells us that SC had a little experience with guns. How much is "a little"? SC went out beating as I have done on occasions. I find it inconceivable against this backdrop coupled with the fact she grew up on a working farm that she was not capable of picking up the rifle, performing the most basic functions and firing successful shots at close range.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 30, 2015, 10:09:42 PM
@ 6.30 mins in DB tells us that SC had a little experience with guns. How much is "a little"? SC went out beating as I have done on occasions. I find it inconceivable against this backdrop coupled with the fact she grew up on a working farm that she was not capable of picking up the rifle, performing the most basic functions and firing successful shots at close range.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
You are wasting your time spinning. You can say the same crap over and over but it will not chancge that there were not semi-autos until Jeremy INSISTED his father buy him one (to use to kill them with that is why he wanted a semi-auto) and even if Sheila had been taught how to use shotguns when she wa slittle that will not permit her to know how to load and operate a semi-auto becaus eit functions different. You can claim the skills are the same from one weapon to another but just because you insist such doens't make it true. I have provided examples where it didn't hold tue.
When all the evidence is added together it is clear Jeremy killed everyone, that SHeila didn't do a thing and that your claims to the contrary are unsupported by anything.
The evidence that Jeremy wanted to kil lhis family and then followed through and did so is overwhelming which is why you spend your life with tons of ridiculous what ifs instead of any evidence to the contary.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 30, 2015, 10:12:56 PM
I think it is a rather pointless argument to try and establish that Shelia could not have used a .22 calibre semi automatic
They have .22 manual rifles designed for kids! let alone semi-automatic
At the end of the day automatic guns are very easily to use. In my experience iv only handled manual rifles they are more difficult but still a fairly simple tool to use.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on January 30, 2015, 10:32:49 PM
I think I'd rather believe Colin Caffell as to whether Sheila was familar with the use of guns or not...
At the end of the day automatic guns are very easily to use. In my experience iv only handled manual rifles they are more difficult but still a fairly simple tool to use.
Your desperation is showing and your arguments do not repsond to the arguments made.
Argument: Witnesses testified Sheila had no interest in firearms, didn't want to learn how to load bullets into the magazine of the murder weapon, no one saw her ever fire a weapon including her brother and they didn't own any semi-autos until Jeremy had his father buy the murder wepaon. She thus had no way to know how to load the murder weapon.
Your response: they have manuals available online that she could have obtianed from somewhere to learn.
Rebuttal: If she wanted to learn she woudl have let her brother teach her she would not have needed to go look for a manual somehwere. But she didn't want to learn.
Argument: Sheila lacked the hand eye coordination to accurately shoot and had dexterity problems because of her medication including involuntary movements and never used the murder weapon before let alone was proficient with it thus the notion she would be able to fire 25 shots without misisng is not very credible.
Your response: Women have been trained how to effectively use military weapons so she could have handled the recoil of a gun like a 22.
Rebuttal: your argument doesn't speak to any of the issues that were raised it is nonresponsive. You took the strawman argument that people said she was too weak to fire the gun instead of addressing the real argument which spoke to her not being able to accurately fire it. Saying women trained to accurately operate wepaons can do so doesn't speak to the fact she wasn't trained and thus would not be able to plus she had physical problems from her illenss and side effects from her medication which interfered.
[ moderated ]
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: puglove on January 30, 2015, 11:17:24 PM
Exactly. The Anschutz was a new gun, and although Bamber tried to show Sheila how to load it, she had no interest and wandered away.
Because my husband shoots, I know how to use an under and over shotgun, and an air rifle to keep magpies away from the swallow nests in the stables. But I wouldn't have a clue about Anschutz magazines, or the fact that you have to chamber a round. I wouldn't know where to start. How would Sheila know? By osmosis?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 30, 2015, 11:40:48 PM
Shelia didn't like guns therefore could not use one is a poor argument.
I don't like cars but I have a full license. My Grandfather does not like computers but still manages to e-mail me. So are you saying that it was not me that passed my driving test, That someone else such as a cloned imposter took my driving test because I don't like cars? That someone else must be behind all my Grandfathers online correspondence because he does not like computers?
Oh as I goes and my Dad can testify I have watched a few episodes of Laurel and Hardy with him! But I have no interest in Laurel and Hardy! Cant have happened then! a Myth! Never watched it, It was a clone of me that was present with my father!
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: puglove on January 30, 2015, 11:55:08 PM
Shelia didn't like guns therefore could not use one is a poor argument.
I don't like cars but I have a full license. My Grandfather does not like computers but still manages to e-mail me. So are saying that it was not me that passed my driving test, That someone else such as a cloned imposter took my driving test because I don't like cars? That someone else must be behind all my Grandfathers online correspondence because he does not like computers?
Oh as I goes and my Dad can testify I have watched a few episodes of Laurel and Hardy with him! But I have no interest in Laurel and Hardy! Cant have happened then! a Myth! Never watched it, It was a clone of me that was present with my father!
You have to take scipio as you find him. I think he's brilliant.
Anyhoo. The general consensus seems to be that, because Sheila grew up on a farm, she could automatically.....
drive a tractor
hitch up a trailer
shoot game and vermin
cook scones for the W.I.
stack bales
keep chickens
make a stirrup cup
arrange flowers for the local church
But she couldn't even drive a car. She had no interest in farming or farming life.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: puglove on January 31, 2015, 12:13:56 AM
I'm on a warning, apparently, so I can't be too contentious, but....please explain to me how the gun was free of Sheila's prints. She shot her family, she used the gun as a club when she battered Ralph, then she shot herself. Twice. So....why isn't the gun covered in her prints? How did she wipe them off?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: puglove on January 31, 2015, 12:34:21 AM
I'm on a warning, apparently, so I can't be too contentious, but....please explain to me how the gun was free of Sheila's prints. She shot her family, she used the gun as a club when she battered Ralph, then she shot herself. Twice. So....why isn't the gun covered in her prints? How did she wipe them off?
And...I know we've all been here before, but Sheila never moved after the first shot. No blood in her lungs or stomach. Even though the first shot tore into the soft tissue.
If Sheila was conscious after the first shot, she would have drowned in her own blood.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 31, 2015, 12:59:29 AM
I'm on a warning, apparently, so I can't be too contentious, but....please explain to me how the gun was free of Sheila's prints. She shot her family, she used the gun as a club when she battered Ralph, then she shot herself. Twice. So....why isn't the gun covered in her prints? How did she wipe them off?
From what I understand. They found both Shelia and Jeremy's print on the gun. from the CCRC report
Quote
72. The weapon was also examined for fingerprints. A print from the appellant's right forefinger was found on the breech end of the barrel, above the stock and pointing across the gun and Sheila Caffell's right ring fingerprint was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. There were three further finger marks on the rifle, each of insufficient detail for identification purposes.
Remember the police hade moved the gun at the scene. Then would have been handled inappropriately thereafter until it became a murder investigation. making it rather inconsistent in terms of fingerprint evidence
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: puglove on January 31, 2015, 01:10:48 AM
From what I understand. They found both Shelia and Jeremy's print on the gun. from the CCRC report
Remember the police hade moved the gun at the scene. Then would have been handled inappropriately thereafter until it became a murder investigation. making it rather inconsistent in terms of fingerprint evidence
Sorry, david, but you're a bit wrong there. The gun was lifted from Sheila's body by the trigger surround. With, according to Mike, a pencil.
But....it still doesn't explain why Sheila's prints were'nt all over the gun.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: puglove on January 31, 2015, 01:34:29 AM
Shelia didn't like guns therefore could not use one is a poor argument.
I don't like cars but I have a full license. My Grandfather does not like computers but still manages to e-mail me. So are you saying that it was not me that passed my driving test, That someone else such as a cloned imposter took my driving test because I don't like cars? That someone else must be behind all my Grandfathers online correspondence because he does not like computers?
Oh as I goes and my Dad can testify I have watched a few episodes of Laurel and Hardy with him! But I have no interest in Laurel and Hardy! Cant have happened then! a Myth! Never watched it, It was a clone of me that was present with my father!
You didn;'t hate driving enough to not bother learning how to drive and not obtianing a license. Your grandfather doesn't hate computers enough not to use them. In contrast she didn't have enough interest in guns to allow anyone to teach her. Anyone can see how different the circumstances are.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: david1819 on January 31, 2015, 03:56:16 AM
Good luck with explaining how Sheila wiped out her entire family with not a scrap of evidence.
And....boo hoo, Jeremy Bamber.
You're going nowhere, Sonny Jim.
Ho Ho!!!!
Well Shelia and Jeremy both lived for considerable time at the crime scene and visited often. Finding prints and DNA round the house wont mean anything. compounded with the botched crime scene.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: John on January 31, 2015, 12:22:54 PM
You have to take scipio as you find him. I think he's brilliant.
Anyhoo. The general consensus seems to be that, because Sheila grew up on a farm, she could automatically.....
drive a tractor
hitch up a trailer
shoot game and vermin
cook scones for the W.I.
stack bales
keep chickens
make a stirrup cup
arrange flowers for the local church
But she couldn't even drive a car. She had no interest in farming or farming life.
I totally agree, I grew up on a farm where shotguns were used regularly but I was never interested in them. If I recall I fired a shotgun only once under supervision and I must admit I wasn't impressed.
Sheila would have been completely out of her depth using a rifle to do what was done at White House Farm. Had she got her hands on the rifle and managed to fire it she would have still been overpowered immediately. A rampage through the house for Sheila has always been a non starter.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 31, 2015, 04:15:18 PM
From what I understand. They found both Shelia and Jeremy's print on the gun. from the CCRC report
Remember the police hade moved the gun at the scene. Then would have been handled inappropriately thereafter until it became a murder investigation. making it rather inconsistent in terms of fingerprint evidence
There was only a single print from each and neither was in the blood. That is one of the mistakes he made, the killer's prints woudl have been int he blood that was on the gun. Jeremy to Julie he had Sheila touch the gun before the murders to get her prints on it. The blood covered up all but one of her prints that he managed to get on the gun though so they could not be lifted. While using the gun with gloves he also coudl have ende dup wiping away some of the prints he managed to stage. What he should have done was after the murders to stick her hands on the gun in the wet blood to get her prints in the blood. He wore gloves hence why he didn't get his prints in the blood. By the time he was done removing the moderator, putting the moderator away, moving her body flat and and sticking the gun on her body the blood on the rifle was dry hence why it didn't stransfer from the rifle to her gown. Fingerprints don't mean much because they can be deposited anytime. Prints in blood can't be delosited anytime they had to be deposited during the murders so are key. He missed a golden opportunity becaus ehe lacked forensic knowledge.
The police moved the gun by holding the swivels the shoulder strap attaches to. They didn't touch the gun itself.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 01, 2015, 01:42:31 PM
Part of the prosecution's case was as follows (taken from the CoA) doc:
f) Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.
DB also states at 6.30 in "Her nails were still perfect"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
The following vid featuring Beautiful Ash with long fingernails shooting a AKS-74 Clone - Arsenal SLR-105r shows that it is possible to load and fire a firearm with long nails without causing any damage. Her long nails are particularly noticeable during the first 20 secs as she points to various points on the gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc9K9GYdtUc
Well done Beautiful Ash 8@??)( Thanks on behalf of the UK Justice Forum 8((()*/
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on February 01, 2015, 02:13:58 PM
Pffft!... the first shot missed the target, and by the time she fired off the second even a 7 stone weakling could have knocked it out of her hand!
I'm sure "Beautiful Ash" will be reading UK Justice Forum and appreciate your good wishes.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 01, 2015, 02:19:49 PM
FAO SCIPIO
Skipio I have emailed Bunny Hunter and sent her a synopsis of the WHF case. I have asked if she is prepared to join us on the forum to discuss firearms with our resident 'expert' ie your good self; particularly whether or not loading the mag, chambering a round and firing the semi-auto would present any particular difficulty to someone with little experience. If Bunny agrees to join us are you prepared to join in too and if so what dates and times are best for you? Thanks Scipio. Holly.
Part of the prosecution's case was as follows (taken from the CoA) doc:
f) Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.
DB also states at 6.30 in "Her nails were still perfect"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
The following vid featuring Beautiful Ash with long fingernails shooting a AKS-74 Clone - Arsenal SLR-105r shows that it is possible to load and fire a firearm with long nails without causing any damage. Her long nails are particularly noticeable during the first 20 secs as she points to various points on the gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc9K9GYdtUc
Well done Beautiful Ash 8@??)( Thanks on behalf of the UK Justice Forum 8((()*/
Ho ho!! Bamber -The New Evidence.....or.....Mark Williams-Thomas does "Look Around You."
I'd forgotten just how lame that was - what on earth was MWT thinking?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on February 01, 2015, 02:41:36 PM
Backed a winner there Holls... how completely different can you get from Sheila Caffell!!! 8((()*/
Somehow I don't think Bunny Hunter will have monthly Haldol injections, or won't drive a car (automobile in American lingo).
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 01, 2015, 03:55:22 PM
Backed a winner there Holls... how completely different can you get from Sheila Caffell!!! 8((()*/
Somehow I don't think Bunny Hunter will have monthly Haldol injections, or won't drive a car (automobile in American lingo).
But we know SC's fine motor skills were ok as she was able to:
- Shape her eyebrows - Manicure and polish her nails - Apply full face make-up - Style her hair
All evidenced in soc photo and other recent photos.
How to shape your eyebrows - see following vid. About 7 min in she starts plucking. Impossible to do without fine motor skills:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGjR2aqkbVQ
How to give yourself a manicure. Again impossible to do without fine motor skills
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4bqpihDPnA
SC left WHF at 17 yoa to live in London. It appears SC had a lack of funds to learn to drive and to run a car. In any event there's no evidence she went out of London other than to visit WHF so why would she want to be bothered with a car given the traffic and parking problems?
Ho ho!! Bamber -The New Evidence.....or.....Mark Williams-Thomas does "Look Around You."
I'd forgotten just how lame that was - what on earth was MWT thinking?
Yes I agree it was truly awful. My bugbear with it is that it is dominated by males. That makes me so mad 8()(((@# 8()(((@# 8()(((@#
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 01, 2015, 04:15:25 PM
Fine motor skills:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_motor_skill
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on February 01, 2015, 04:36:45 PM
Mmmmm!... Zukreat's very pretty. I think I'm in love! (**sigh**)
But Sheila trained as a model, so these things were second nature and automatic to her. Loading a magazine and firing a newish Anschutz weren't, even her ex-husband admitted she didn't like them. Put this up recently but John whooshed it for some unknown reason... grrrr!
I know what Ann Eaton thought... and I completely agree even though I wasn't there, she was. Work that one out!
At this rate we could be here as long as the McCannics... seven years of hard labour. Speaking of which, this is long overdue... more productive than sifting through thousands of documents to try and prove your innocence, when you've known for thirty years that you're guilty...
Skipio I have emailed Bunny Hunter and sent her a synopsis of the WHF case. I have asked if she is prepared to join us on the forum to discuss firearms with our resident 'expert' ie your good self; particularly whether or not loading the mag, chambering a round and firing the semi-auto would present any particular difficulty to someone with little experience. If Bunny agrees to join us are you prepared to join in too and if so what dates and times are best for you? Thanks Scipio. Holly.
Part of the prosecution's case was as follows (taken from the CoA) doc:
f) Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.
DB also states at 6.30 in "Her nails were still perfect"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
The following vid featuring Beautiful Ash with long fingernails shooting a AKS-74 Clone - Arsenal SLR-105r shows that it is possible to load and fire a firearm with long nails without causing any damage. Her long nails are particularly noticeable during the first 20 secs as she points to various points on the gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc9K9GYdtUc
Well done Beautiful Ash 8@??)( Thanks on behalf of the UK Justice Forum 8((()*/
Could I have been watching the wrong video but never saw her load a single bullet? &%+((£
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: John on February 02, 2015, 01:30:56 PM
Could I have been watching the wrong video but never saw her load a single bullet? &%+((£
I think the emphasis is on Beautiful Ash shooting as opposed to loading but try this one with Farm Girl she loads a number of bullets. She also has polished nails. The relevant section starts at 1.20 in:
Any Muppet can shoot a rifle at a sand box at 2.5 metres.
(http://i.imgur.com/z0akLoc.jpg?1)
Note the short nails!
(http://i.imgur.com/35xRtdf.jpg?1)
I think Bunny Hunter is just taking the p*** out of macho guys with big weapons, or those that perceive themselves as macho, by over feminising herself in that vid?
Not every woman wants long nails. It's a question of personal preference.
Bunny's other vids show her capability with firearms.
http://bunnyhunterusa.com/
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 02, 2015, 06:09:00 PM
I missed the polished fingernails 8(8-)) ... was too busy concentrating on the butt... her's not the rifle's! ?{)(**
Holly... is there another video of Big Ass Beautiful Ash squeezing into those tiny pants? &%+((£
I think you might be getting confused. We have Beautiful Ash and Farm Girl. Farm Girl has a bit of a booty. No changing of the tiny pants/shorts but she changes her top at the end.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on February 02, 2015, 06:22:49 PM
I think you might be getting confused. We have Beautiful Ash and Farm Girl. Farm Girl has a bit of a booty. No changing of the tiny pants/shorts but she changes her top at the end.
See what you made me do!!! I took my eye off the bullet! Have to go for a lie down now... too much excitement for one night! 8(8-))
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 02, 2015, 07:38:56 PM
It could be argued that the girls in these videos are fairly comfortable with the weapons they are using having been shown how to use them properly whilst we are expected to believe that Sheila with no formal training and very little experience whatsoever with guns could simply pick up an unloaded Anschütz .22 rifle, load and fire it over twenty times with such accuracy that she never missed once. Not forgetting a mid session wrestling encounter in the kitchen where she managed to overpower and beat down her more than 6 foot adoptive father.
Now that is some going for a petite 5 foot something model.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 03, 2015, 07:52:34 PM
It could be argued that the girls in these videos are fairly comfortable with the weapons they are using having been shown how to use them properly whilst we are expected to believe that Sheila with no formal training and very little expoeriuence whatsoever with guns could simply pick up an unloaded Anschütz .22 rifle, load and fire it over twenty times with such accuracy that she never missed once. Not forgetting a mid session wrestling encounter in the kitchen where she managed to overpower and beat down her more than 6 foot adoptive father.
Now that is some going for a petite 5 foot something model.
The girls in the vids were firing at targets some considerable distance. In the case of the following vid 35, 50 and 300 yards. Contrast this with the shots fired at WHF which Malcolm Fletcher, the ballistics expert, estimated as follows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc9K9GYdtUc
June: 5 shots - at least one foot away 1 shot - less than one foot 1 shot - unable to estimate
NB : 6 shots - a few inches 2 shots - at least two feet away
Daniel : 4 shots - within one foot 1 shot - over two feet away
Nicholas : 3 shots - close proximity
Obviously the internal walls will restrict the distance of shots.
The following vid totally demolishes the prosecution's case that a female with long polished nails is unable to load and fire a firearm without causing damage to the nail/polish:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdAI9j_lDbc
I am unable to see anyone in a struggle with poor NB in the kitchen given the wounds he received upstairs notably total impairment to his left arm. He was not Superman.
You seem to have a very traditional (romantic?) view of women John?
Right off to watch ManU v Cambs Utd.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on February 03, 2015, 08:58:23 PM
So this lightly-built 5'7" young woman hammered the rifle butt several times into the face of her strapping 6'4" father, who she apparently loved dearly, gifting him with two black eyes, heavy bruising, lacerations and broken facial bones, before finishing him off with four accurately placed bullets. All without getting sprayed with blood! Yep... sure makes sense to me!
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 03, 2015, 10:33:15 PM
So this lightly-built 5'7" young woman hammered the rifle butt several times into the face of her strapping 6'4" father, who she apparently loved dearly, gifting him with two black eyes, heavy bruising, lacerations and broken facial bones, before finishing him off with four accurately placed bullets. All without getting sprayed with blood! Yep... sure makes sense to me!
I think gender and size are unimportant if the perp was able to inflict life threatening wounds before NB was able to defend himself. The injuries NB sustained in the bedroom, according to the pathology report, would have resulted in death had the gunshot wounds he sustained in the kitchen not supervened. The injuries NB sustained in the bedroom caused "substantial" loss of blood internally and externally, "extreme" pain and total impairment of his left arm. It is not clear to me from the pathology report whether the black eyes and bruising (and possibly other injuries) were caused from bullets ricocheting internally or blows from the rifle. The accurately placed bullets you refer to were fired from a distance of a few inches. We have no idea whether SC showered and changed her clothes as AE threw out the contents of the buckets before they could be forensically examined. In AE's WS's she make ref to SC's underwear and tracksuit bottoms and no reference to children's clothing. In her court testimony she makes ref to children's clothes &%+((£
If SC was responsible she obviously carried out the murders in some sort of altered state of mind so the fact she was said to have had a positive relationship with NB I think is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: puglove on February 03, 2015, 10:38:51 PM
So this lightly-built 5'7" young woman hammered the rifle butt several times into the face of her strapping 6'4" father, who she apparently loved dearly, gifting him with two black eyes, heavy bruising, lacerations and broken facial bones, before finishing him off with four accurately placed bullets. All without getting sprayed with blood! Yep... sure makes sense to me!
If Sheila attacked an already severely injured Ralph with a lump of wood and metal, she must have been standing about 2/3 feet away from him. As you say, without receiving a single speck of blood on her. And if she showered afterwards, when and how did she dry her hair? And put her watch back on? And where are the heavily blood-stained clothes that she must have worn? And, as scipio has pointed out, where are her fingerprints in the blood on the gun? And where are her bloodied footprints, back upstairs (on the carpet) to the main bedroom? And where are the soaking towels she used to dry herself? Her bag is tipped out on the spare bed when she needed a tampon, so why aren't the drawers open and tipped out if she needed a clean nightie and pants? And....if she had the time to do all this, why didn't she leave a note? Anything to explain why she felt so tortured and desperate that she had to kill her children?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: puglove on February 03, 2015, 10:42:25 PM
I think gender and size are unimportant if the perp was able to inflict life threatening wounds before NB was able to defend himself. The injuries NB sustained in the bedroom, according to the pathology report, would have resulted in death had the gunshot wounds he sustained in the kitchen not supervened. The injuries NB sustained in the bedroom caused "substantial" loss of blood internally and externally, "extreme" pain and total impairment of his left arm. It is not clear to me from the pathology report whether the black eyes and bruising (and possibly other injuries) were caused from bullets ricocheting internally or blows from the rifle. The accurately placed bullets you refer to were fired from a distance of a few inches. We have no idea whether SC showered and changed her clothes as AE threw out the contents of the buckets before they could be forensically examined. In AE's WS's she make ref to SC's underwear and tracksuit bottoms and no reference to children's clothing. In her court testimony she makes ref to children's clothes &%+((£
If SC was responsible she obviously carried out the murders in some sort of altered state of mind so the fact she was said to have had a positive relationship with NB I think is irrelevant.
We cross-posted, Holl. What do you think happened to Sheila's prints?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 03, 2015, 10:52:22 PM
We cross-posted, Holl. What do you think happened to Sheila's prints?
Hi puglove
Only one print from each of SC and JB. I'm not convinced that the police didn't, in their haste to make the gun safe, pick it up without gloves and then backtracked by wiping it.
I've also taken this from CoA re the bible:
"52. The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child".
&%+((£
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 04, 2015, 07:57:15 PM
If Sheila attacked an already severely injured Ralph with a lump of wood and metal, she must have been standing about 2/3 feet away from him. As you say, without receiving a single speck of blood on her. And if she showered afterwards, when and how did she dry her hair? And put her watch back on? And where are the heavily blood-stained clothes that she must have worn? And, as scipio has pointed out, where are her fingerprints in the blood on the gun? And where are her bloodied footprints, back upstairs (on the carpet) to the main bedroom? And where are the soaking towels she used to dry herself? Her bag is tipped out on the spare bed when she needed a tampon, so why aren't the drawers open and tipped out if she needed a clean nightie and pants? And....if she had the time to do all this, why didn't she leave a note? Anything to explain why she felt so tortured and desperate that she had to kill her children?
Lump of wood/metal
I think the lump of wood/metal Scipio was referring to related to the broken stock:
In the above post we have Scipio's take but as far as I'm aware the stock was not forensically analysed.
Distance of perp from victims when inflicting wounds
We have Malcolm Fletchers distance of shots as follows:
June: 5 shots - at least one foot away 1 shot - less than one foot 1 shot - unable to estimate
NB : 6 shots - a few inches 2 shots - at least two feet away
Daniel : 4 shots - within one foot 1 shot - over two feet away
Nicholas : 3 shots - close proximity
It seems very likely the perp used the rifle to rain down blows on NB so this would mean contact within two feet?
SC free of blood save her own wounds
I would like to see something from a pathologist/ballistics giving their views on the likely quantity and distribution of blood on the perp.
AE disposed of contents of buckets before they could be forensically examined. Her contradictory WS and trial testimony leaves more questions than answers:
If bath/shower did she wear a shower cap or wash her hair? If she washed/bathed/showered when did she do this? JB claims he received the call from NB at circa 3.15am so if she washed, bathed showered say before 4.30am then any towels used would still be damp when EP broke in at circa 7.30am.
SC's watch
If she went to bed and was woken by JB then would she sleep in her watch? Soc photo show her wearing a chunky ring too. If she was perp and washed, showered, bathed did she take watch and ring off or keep them on? I personally hate anything on in bed but I guess its personal preference. Was the watch ever forensically analysed? Does it still exist? It has a leather strap so potentially could soak in blood.
Fingerprints on rifle in blood stained areas and non blood stained areas
JB claims he used the rifle earlier in the eve. AP claims he saw JB use the rifle the w.e before. If JB he must have wiped his prints from earlier use? Only one belonging to JB and one from SC. Cannot be sure EP followed procedures in handling the rifle and preserving prints. If they made an error did they wipe to remove their prints and cover their backs?
Footprints
AE's WS (I think) states spots (or similar words) to describe blood on the stairs. The raid team also note blood spots on the kitchen floor which I think were confined to one area of the kitchen (not near NB). The main quantity of blood was confined to the area NB was found. It doesn't seem to have produced footprints from SC or JB? If JB I think he must have returned upstairs after shooting NB in the kitchen.
Clean nightie and underwear
The bed shows toiletries and wash bag but I cant see an overnight bag or suitcase? Where did the change of clothes etc go? Stay in holdall or placed in drawers/wardrobe? I've always thought that nightie looks frumpy? Was it SC's or did it belong to June?
Sucide note
I've just Googled 'suicide notes' and it appears some 25% - 30% leave a note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_note
If SC was the perp and took her own life I don't think it was something she planned/intended. FE said SC asked him to keep an eye on her flat as apparently there had been a number of break-ins in the area so it seems she planned returning. Also I think she would have disposed of those photos.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 11, 2015, 07:04:37 PM
In the above post we have Scipio's take but as far as I'm aware the stock was not forensically analysed.
Distance of perp from victims when inflicting wounds
We have Malcolm Fletchers distance of shots as follows:
June: 5 shots - at least one foot away 1 shot - less than one foot 1 shot - unable to estimate
NB : 6 shots - a few inches 2 shots - at least two feet away
Daniel : 4 shots - within one foot 1 shot - over two feet away
Nicholas : 3 shots - close proximity
It seems very likely the perp used the rifle to rain down blows on NB so this would mean contact within two feet?
SC free of blood save her own wounds
I would like to see something from a pathologist/ballistics giving their views on the likely quantity and distribution of blood on the perp.
AE disposed of contents of buckets before they could be forensically examined. Her contradictory WS and trial testimony leaves more questions than answers:
If bath/shower did she wear a shower cap or wash her hair? If she washed/bathed/showered when did she do this? JB claims he received the call from NB at circa 3.15am so if she washed, bathed showered say before 4.30am then any towels used would still be damp when EP broke in at circa 7.30am.
SC's watch
If she went to bed and was woken by JB then would she sleep in her watch? Soc photo show her wearing a chunky ring too. If she was perp and washed, showered, bathed did she take watch and ring off or keep them on? I personally hate anything on in bed but I guess its personal preference. Was the watch ever forensically analysed? Does it still exist? It has a leather strap so potentially could soak in blood.
Fingerprints on rifle in blood stained areas and non blood stained areas
JB claims he used the rifle earlier in the eve. AP claims he saw JB use the rifle the w.e before. If JB he must have wiped his prints from earlier use? Only one belonging to JB and one from SC. Cannot be sure EP followed procedures in handling the rifle and preserving prints. If they made an error did they wipe to remove their prints and cover their backs?
Footprints
AE's WS (I think) states spots (or similar words) to describe blood on the stairs. The raid team also note blood spots on the kitchen floor which I think were confined to one area of the kitchen (not near NB). The main quantity of blood was confined to the area NB was found. It doesn't seem to have produced footprints from SC or JB? If JB I think he must have returned upstairs after shooting NB in the kitchen.
Clean nightie and underwear
The bed shows toiletries and wash bag but I cant see an overnight bag or suitcase? Where did the change of clothes etc go? Stay in holdall or placed in drawers/wardrobe? I've always thought that nightie looks frumpy? Was it SC's or did it belong to June?
Sucide note
I've just Googled 'suicide notes' and it appears some 25% - 30% leave a note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_note
If SC was the perp and took her own life I don't think it was something she planned/intended. FE said SC asked him to keep an eye on her flat as apparently there had been a number of break-ins in the area so it seems she planned returning. Also I think she would have disposed of those photos.
The simple truths are)
1) The killer she had to be wearing shoes or would have cut his/her feet.
2) The killer had to be wearing gloves or would have gotten his her prints in the blood on the rifle. You constantly ignore that whatever prints were planted before the murders on areas that were coated by blood had those prints covered up. The gun was coated in blood. Whenyou touch a gun coate din blood you leave your prints in such blood PLUS because the blood gets on your fingers you get bloody prints on other objects. Teh onyl way such doesn't happen is when you wear gloves. Moreover the stock broke in the narrow portion where the killer had to be holding it. When you bash someone with a rifle you hold the stock around the narrow part because that is where your hand fits. The stock would have cut or at minimum scratched the hand. Gloves of course would prevent such.
3) The killer's clothing definitely would have had high velocity spatter from shooting June and Nevill. There is not enough room for the killer have been far enough to avoid it especially the shot between June's eyes. There is no way the blood would have otten on the gun as the killer was beating Nevill and yet not on the killer.
You have to demonstrate WHY SHeila would take a bath and change her clothes and what she did with them including the gloves.
Talking about a bucket containing panties stained in the crotch doesn't speak to any of the above issues. It doesn't explain why she woudl change what she wore when she killed others, why she would wash up or what she coudl have done with gloves and other clothign she wore when she killed everyone. The only reaosn to wash and change her clothes would be to conceal her actions and try to avoid liability. You were challenged time and again to identify a case where someone decided to commit murder suicide and after killing eveyrone else against their will decided to change and wash before killing themselves. You coudl not identify any examples because there are none. The only people who washed up after murder sucide was in ritualistic religious killings where they washed up the victims and themselve before finishing themselves off. Such happened in a religious cult setting. The birden is on you to establish why she changed and more importantly prove she did so. Saying police left a bucket containing panties with blood stains int he crotch doesn't establish they would or did leave behind gloves and other clothing.
In the meantime she can't have changed her clothing or washed after she was shot. Her gown and hands woudl have had GSR from the shots to herself had she been the killer.
Moreover, this doesn't even deal with other evidence about the moderator which while you chose to dismiss it you can't refute it. All dismissing does is mean you close your eyes to it you have to refute it to get that evidence to go away.
She had to have been wearing gloves
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 22, 2015, 04:34:06 PM
1) The killer she had to be wearing shoes or would have cut his/her feet.
What about NB's feet during the 'violent struggle'? No cuts or any other marks noted to his feet?
A broken glass lampshade and piece of crockery does not necessarily equate to chards scattered far and wide. How many broken pieces in total and what was their approximate size and location?
2) The killer had to be wearing gloves or would have gotten his her prints in the blood on the rifle. You constantly ignore that whatever prints were planted before the murders on areas that were coated by blood had those prints covered up. The gun was coated in blood. Whenyou touch a gun coate din blood you leave your prints in such blood PLUS because the blood gets on your fingers you get bloody prints on other objects. Teh onyl way such doesn't happen is when you wear gloves. Moreover the stock broke in the narrow portion where the killer had to be holding it. When you bash someone with a rifle you hold the stock around the narrow part because that is where your hand fits. The stock would have cut or at minimum scratched the hand. Gloves of course would prevent such.
The rifle wasn't coated in blood as you claim. It was contained to certain areas as per the diagram below so where were JB's prints on the areas not coated in blood, from his earlier use either the eve before or the last w.e of July when AP claims he saw JB use the gun? No blood or prints on the magazine?
You have no idea how the stock broke. None of us do. Therefore your argument that the perp had to be wearing gloves otherwise would of cut his/her hand falls. Was the rifle stock and broken piece analysed?
3) The killer's clothing definitely would have had high velocity spatter from shooting June and Nevill. There is not enough room for the killer have been far enough to avoid it especially the shot between June's eyes. There is no way the blood would have otten on the gun as the killer was beating Nevill and yet not on the killer.
You have to demonstrate WHY SHeila would take a bath and change her clothes and what she did with them including the gloves.
Talking about a bucket containing panties stained in the crotch doesn't speak to any of the above issues. It doesn't explain why she woudl change what she wore when she killed others, why she would wash up or what she coudl have done with gloves and other clothign she wore when she killed everyone. The only reaosn to wash and change her clothes would be to conceal her actions and try to avoid liability. You were challenged time and again to identify a case where someone decided to commit murder suicide and after killing eveyrone else against their will decided to change and wash before killing themselves. You coudl not identify any examples because there are none. The only people who washed up after murder sucide was in ritualistic religious killings where they washed up the victims and themselve before finishing themselves off. Such happened in a religious cult setting. The birden is on you to establish why she changed and more importantly prove she did so. Saying police left a bucket containing panties with blood stains int he crotch doesn't establish they would or did leave behind gloves and other clothing.
In the meantime she can't have changed her clothing or washed after she was shot. Her gown and hands woudl have had GSR from the shots to herself had she been the killer.
I would like to see something from ballistics and the pathologist stating the likely quantity and distribution of blood on the perp. Why didn't the raid team and soc officers seize on this immediately if it was so obvious? The pathologist too? Essex isn't Heartbeat country; in modern times it has always had its fair share of violent crime with links to East/South London heavies so EP would have some training and experience of spatter.
Why would June /SC allow menstrual soiled underwear and dirty clothes soaking in buckets to be left in the kitchen where food was prepared and eaten? And where others would see them eg the twins, NB and JB. What women wants her menstrual soiled underwear on show for male relatives to see? How would you feel about having your soiled underwear (semen and skid) on show for female relatives to see in the kitchen? WHF had a designated room for laundry. I think it was referred to as the scullery. Even you said why would they leave the buckets in the kitchen where food was eaten when they had another more appropriate room; that was of course before I pointed out that the buckets were in fact left and found in the kitchen! (See photos in links below). AE's WS's and trial testimony are very ambiguous about the number of buckets and the contents.
Most suicides don't involve murder. And most people in the UK don't have access to firearms so in cases of murder/suicide it would be highly unusual to involve firearms. Therefore the combination of murder/firearms/spatter/suicide is so rare that there aren't going to be a significant number of cases to draw on to know whether it would be the norm to involve washing and changing before suicide. Your argument that there's no precedent, or none that you're aware of, and therefore it didn't happen is nonsense. The fact is it was possible; no precedent is required.
Moreover, this doesn't even deal with other evidence about the moderator which while you chose to dismiss it you can't refute it. All dismissing does is mean you close your eyes to it you have to refute it to get that evidence to go away.
Refute what?
I'm on a roll with the quote splitting *&*%£
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on February 22, 2015, 05:33:19 PM
Skid!!?... that's a new one on me, but then I have led a very sheltered life.
See... I was right about the expected long-winded post! 8((()*/
If you look at the kitchen photos most of the glass shards are towards the Welsh-Dresser/main hall side, probably caused by a backswing of the rifle hitting the lampshade and sending nearly all the broken pieces that way... not in the region around the sink where NB was trying to defend himself before collapsing on the chair back... hence no marks/cuts/debris on his feet.
As to the soiled underwear, maybe it was late and they couldn't be bothered using the scullery sink, or perhaps it was full of something already, so buckets had to be filled from the kitchen taps. The scullery/rear hall was stone-flagged so could be they didn't feel like walking bare-footed on a cold, dirty floor late on. There are many possible reasons why the buckets might have been in the kitchen. The twins were probably in bed by that time anyway, JB was hurtling and skidding? back to Goldhanger, and NB had seen it all before with two women in the household.
Some folks are not as fastidious or obsessed with cleanliness as you, Holly.
Ann Eaton refers to a bowl with items in the kitchen sink, so maybe she mistook this for the third bucket.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Passer-by on July 31, 2015, 12:36:27 AM
This is a perfect example of how people read nonsense from he Bamber page and then adopt it.
1) Prior to these photos being taken a doctor examined Sheila and stated in his report that the blood on her body was dry.
2) The blood appears dry on the undoctored photos when the color filters are changed is when the blood looks very red red.
3) There is no way to tell from a photo whether blood is wet or dry it is a function that has to be done in person. In person all the witnesses say it was dry including the doctor who declared her dead at 8:45AM.
There is no scientific basis to say a photo shows wet blood and the photo thus can't be used to contradict the testimony of the doctor and police. The court was quite right to reject such nonsense.
Here is the photo in question that the defense claims proves the blood was wet:
But if you look at the photo of the autopsy which has been posted on here (by 'John'? Sorry, I'm assuming you are all super-sleuths on your own forum info!) her face is slathered in blood: clearly in a body bag in the back of a police van she still had a lot of blood that was able to swill around, so it had not congealed.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Passer-by on July 31, 2015, 01:10:51 AM
I have a dark secret to share. When my youngest was diagnosed severely disabled (and the idiot doctor's best advice was to go and live in a remote part of the countryside and just live out my days!) I went through a hellish time: I had no support, I was housebound, I had moved so I had no friends nearby, my husband worked long contracts abroad leaving me to cope on my own for 3-4 months at a time - and I was also ill.
I had dark thoughts. If you'd endured it, you would have too: you see, no one gave me any hope anything would ever get better - all I could see was that it would get worse, especially when the other parents at the preschool tried to get my kid kicked out because of his disability. I thought there was a friendless life time of misery ahead for me and him.
This is awful to say, but I picked a bridge. I knew the area and I knew there was a bypass bridge over reservoir: I'd once seen a car many years earlier nearly crash over the wall when it's brakes failed. Late at night, after researching all I could about the disability, tired, exhausted, forgotten to eat - I would think about that bridge. I would imagine myself pulling over: I could visualise it, in the dark, hardly any traffic at 3am. I could visualise myself, and could visualise my youngest - and it was fine, I could do it. But I couldn't visualise my eldest. He is very bright, full of life, a fantastic future ahead of him - and there it would stop. And it would get me through the night.
But I wasn't on any kind of drugs, medicinal or otherwise and I'm not schizophrenic: I can well imagine those might blur the lines even more. Nonetheless, in the daytime if I ever drove over that bridge I would look - just think to myself where I'd stop the car, that kind of thing. Kid myself hitting water wasn't so bad, and less stressful for the people finding it, etc. Apparently it is quite common for women who have had a baby to think of harming their children also - studies have shown that visualising it is the pressure valve which stops them actually doing it.
So in my opinion, if it was SC and she went off the deep end, it may well have been a sudden rage something triggered but whatever it was - and whoever did it - planned it first. I don't think SC would just suddenly go off on a spontaneous rampage: she would most probably have fantasised about this for months (even years?). If that idea had taken root in her brain, she might well have covertly observed other people handling the guns (in addition to the fact girls on farms usually accompany the blokes when they go out on shoots: who else would bring the sandwiches and how else do farmers' sons get married?!). She may even have secretly practiced handling it out of curiosity - "could I if I wanted to?" on previous visits.
I certainly think it's immensely sexist and ridiculous in a modern context to think a tall girl couldn't fire one of the lightest guns and shoot people at point blank range: nowadays we have women on the front line in the Armed Forces and the idea the little girl is too weak seems pretty weak itself. But what is more, reports of the many more mass murders that we have read about since, suggests mass murderers aren't rampaging about very angry and mad as a dog - they tend to be completely cool, calm and trance-like, as though they are automatons.
And that is another ambiguity of the case: whichever it was - Sheila, Jeremy, a third party - all them would have planned it.
It would be interesting to know if the items of bloody clothing in the buckets had any pockets in them: perhaps whilst she was preparing for her own death, she noticed she had stained her clothes with menstrel blood and on autopilot put them in the bucket before slipping on her clean nightie: this could explain the cleanliness of the nightie and the lack of residue on her hands. Perhaps when she died, she wanted it to be in a clean nightie: I believe her own bed wasn't slept in?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Admin on July 31, 2015, 01:15:09 AM
But if you look at the photo of the autopsy which has been posted on here (by 'John'? Sorry, I'm assuming you are all super-sleuths on your own forum info!) her face is slathered in blood: clearly in a body bag in the back of a police van she still had a lot of blood that was able to swill around, so it had not congealed.
I am not too well versed on this case but I can answer your question about the blood.
When Sheila was shot in the neck and throat a lot of blood made its way into her mouth and throat effectively creating a blood reservoir, some of it flowed out as can been seen in the original photographs. After death this blood would begin to congeal as you correctly pointed out and would do so at different rates depending on temperature and volume. Pooled blood within the body would be the last to congeal, much of it would have still been in a semi liquid form as Sheila was removed to the morgue. The moving and transportation of the body caused this as yet wholly uncongealed blood to escape from the body leaving the smears which can be seen in the morgue photo.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Passer-by on July 31, 2015, 01:34:07 AM
Thank you, that's what I thought. It would be interesting to know when the bodies were moved: if the police thought JB did it before about 3.15am and some photos weren't taken until about 10am, shouldnt all the blood have congealed by about midday when she is the earliest she's likely to have been transported?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Passer-by on July 31, 2015, 01:41:36 AM
Ah: I suppose I should end on a happy note in case you are worried and tell you that I later got fantastic support, as did my child, and with the might of Late Night Internet Research to power me I made sure he got all the right interventions etc and he is now Happy As Larry and fully integrated into mainstream education.
Moral of the Story: don't pay too much attention to the advice of doctors! ;-)
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: John on July 31, 2015, 04:14:02 PM
Thank you for sharing those experiences with us Passer-by. Those of us who have children know only too well the lengths we will go to for them.
Back to topic, I have always found it very convenient that there were no unused rounds found in the rifle, the chances of this occurring in a suicide are small. In my view it is more likely Jeremy emptied the rifle into his victims but had to reload single bullets in order to shoot Sheila. I have a feeling we are still missing clues relating to these shell casings.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Passer-by on July 31, 2015, 04:33:52 PM
That's a good point John: one of the things I find hard to get my head around is the shell casings. They seem awfully small not to get stepped on, kicked about and wedged in the tread of lots of Size 9s plodding around the house trying to find a killer. I can't help wondering if the ones in the kitchen and the main bedroom might have been disturbed?
How do you know that was all that was in the gun, given a firearms officer had to 'make the gun safe'?
I still think a depressed Sheila could well have done more prep for a suicide than is credited.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: John on July 31, 2015, 05:55:03 PM
That's a good point John: one of the things I find hard to get my head around is the shell casings. They seem awfully small not to get stepped on, kicked about and wedged in the tread of lots of Size 9s plodding around the house trying to find a killer. I can't help wondering if the ones in the kitchen and the main bedroom might have been disturbed?
How do you know that was all that was in the gun, given a firearms officer had to 'make the gun safe'?
I still think a depressed Sheila could well have done more prep for a suicide than is credited.
The rifle and magazine were empty when examined/made safe by first police responders.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Passer-by on August 05, 2015, 10:54:25 AM
The rifle and magazine were empty when examined/made safe by first police responders.
I'm really sorry at being crap at posting to relevant links, but I'm sure you super-sleuths know where to find them - but in the process of making the gun safe didn't one policeman, in gloves, pick up the gun, make it safe and then hand it to another policeman who later admitted he was not wearing gloves? Aren't both those actions likely to have obliterated existing prints? And JB's prints should legitimately be all over it anyway as it was effectively his gun - so he would have no need to wear gloves. Why would Sheila have a print on there though? If JC did an Agatha Christie Thang and press her fingers on the gun to leave incriminating fingerprints, there would have been more than 1.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on August 05, 2015, 11:44:54 AM
I'm really sorry at being crap at posting to relevant links, but I'm sure you super-sleuths know where to find them - but in the process of making the gun safe didn't one policeman, in gloves, pick up the gun, make it safe and then hand it to another policeman who later admitted he was not wearing gloves? Aren't both those actions likely to have obliterated existing prints? And JB's prints should legitimately be all over it anyway as it was effectively his gun - so he would have no need to wear gloves. Why would Sheila have a print on there though? If JC did an Agatha Christie Thang and press her fingers on the gun to leave incriminating fingerprints, there would have been more than 1.
I think it's a misconception that if one handles any object ungloved that fingerprints are deposited. Apparently not so. On some surfaces they are notoriously difficult to lift for a variety of reasons texture being one of them. The silencer didn't contain any fingerprints despite all it's handling by the relatives.
I think it's a misconception that if one handles any object ungloved that fingerprints are deposited. Apparently not so. On some surfaces they are notoriously difficult to lift for a variety of reasons texture being one of them. The silencer didn't contain any fingerprints despite all it's handling by the relatives.
Another reason fingerprints might be difficult to lift is due to surface oils. Much has been made of the bullets used being covered in a waxy substance. Also gun oil, GSR, lead etc.
No offence to the experts who dealt with the case to the best of their ability but personally I think a multi-disciplinary approach by US experts would have the case sewn up one way or another in just a few weeks. I'm not a huge fan of the US but I accept they are far more knowledgable and experienced in gun crime due to the widespread use of firearms. They are also streets ahead in the areas of psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Passer-by on August 05, 2015, 12:31:55 PM
I'm inclined to agree.
So what is all this oil that's meant to be on her clothes? I find that hard to believe: I only went to a shooting range a few times (had a boyfriend who did small bore rifle shooting at competitions). I don't remember them being oily? Has anyone got any experience, photos, reference points?
And reiterating, that all family annihilators plan their murders, so SC could have planned and watched carefully when someone else was loading the gun in the months running up to that day.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Myster on August 05, 2015, 12:51:38 PM
So what is all this oil that's meant to be on her clothes? I find that hard to believe: I only went to a shooting range a few times (had a boyfriend who did small bore rifle shooting at competitions). I don't remember them being oily? Has anyone got any experience, photos, reference points?
And reiterating, that all family annihilators plan their murders, so SC could have planned and watched carefully when someone else was loading the gun in the months running up to that day.
I don't think Sheila had the guile or foresight to plan any murders. According to her friend of several years, Tora Tomkinson, she had to be encouraged and supported to even begin decorating her Morshead Mansions flat.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Anna on August 05, 2015, 12:58:45 PM
So what is all this oil that's meant to be on her clothes? I find that hard to believe: I only went to a shooting range a few times (had a boyfriend who did small bore rifle shooting at competitions). I don't remember them being oily? Has anyone got any experience, photos, reference points?
And reiterating, that all family annihilators plan their murders, so SC could have planned and watched carefully when someone else was loading the gun in the months running up to that day.
It was lead residue, which was IIRC not found on her nightdress
The amount of lead residue emitted from a gun can vary slightly from shot to shot. Fouling in the barrel from previous shots can slightly increase the amount of lead residue emitted from one shot to the next.
As described above, gunshot residue can be deposited on articles of clothing when in close proximity to a discharged firearm. But will it stay there? In most cases the answer is yes.
http://www.firearmsid.com/a_distancegsr.htm
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Passer-by on August 05, 2015, 02:16:17 PM
It was lead residue, which was IIRC not found on her nightdress
The amount of lead residue emitted from a gun can vary slightly from shot to shot. Fouling in the barrel from previous shots can slightly increase the amount of lead residue emitted from one shot to the next.
As described above, gunshot residue can be deposited on articles of clothing when in close proximity to a discharged firearm. But will it stay there? In most cases the answer is yes.
http://www.firearmsid.com/a_distancegsr.htm
Clothes in the bucket because marked by menstruation, hands cleansed by washing/rubbing clothes together, clean nighty to go to Heaven?
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on August 05, 2015, 02:54:50 PM
There are lots of videos at the start of this thread showing women loading various firearms and firing several rounds. All are well turned out and they don't appear to have any noticeable staining to their clothes or rubbing their hands as they might if they felt dirty and/or sticky. In fact one woman is dressed in white.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Passer-by on August 05, 2015, 09:18:39 PM
Thanks Holly: I shall hunt through.
Surely if we are expecting spatter on the murderer, there was a fair bit around the house, yet I gather little redecoration was required?
I find it perplexing that he didn't receive all his shots to the head in the kitchen: they sound seriously debilitating and certainly he sounds far too seriously injured for much of a struggle - hitting him sounds like (unfortunate phrase) over-kill and possibly hate-motivated - he may not even have been moving when it happened.
Title: Re: Sheila re loading. Twice.
Post by: Passer-by on August 06, 2015, 03:53:54 AM
Some interesting info about gun suicides - especially the double-shot finger-spasm causing more shots even after death - but also how someone can continue to function even after receiving a shot to the head.