UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: jackiepreece on January 06, 2013, 03:58:20 PM
-
John you have said before that Jeremy might not be guilty he might just be the unluckiest person in the world.
Can you give any scenarios where someone else is guilty of the murders at WHF and Jeremy has taken the fall for a crime he did no committ
-
John you have said before that Jeremy might not be guilty he might just be the unluckiest person in the world.
Can you give any scenarios where someone else is guilty of the murders at WHF and Jeremy has taken the fall for a crime he did no committ
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner but have been busy with some early arrivals on the farm.
I did say that there is always a slim chance that Jeremy might be innocent given everything that we know but I cannot put any meat on those bones Jackie. The evidence overwhelmingly points to him being guilty. Remember Jackie, Jeremy didn't have to have pulled the trigger to be guilty, he only had to have prior knowledge of the crime.
Goatboy is correct when he stated earlier that no third party intruder could have got into the farmhouse and out again without leaving a trace.
-
For some reason the blue forum doesn't like this question, I was reminded of it on the UK Justice Forum Facebook page today. Why when accused of lying in court did Jeremy merely answer "that is what you have to establish"? Were it not for the wealth of circumstantial evidence against him I would probably think him guilty for this comment alone. An innocent man in a court of law would not give that answer. The only person who would give an answer like that is a guilty man who thinks the law has nothing on him.
I would be interested to hear a Bamber supporter's view on this comment. Because I think it is pretty damning.
-
For some reason the blue forum doesn't like this question, I was reminded of it on the UK Justice Forum Facebook page today. Why when accused of lying in court did Jeremy merely answer "that is what you have to establish"? Were it not for the wealth of circumstantial evidence against him I would probably think him guilty for this comment alone. An innocent man in a court of law would not give that answer. The only person who would give an answer like that is a guilty man who thinks the law has nothing on him.
I would be interested to hear a Bamber supporter's view on this comment. Because I think it is pretty damning.
It is quite remarkable how little effort he put into stating his innocence. Had he in fact been completely innocent he would have been shouting it from the rooftops at every opportunity and especially with so many reporters around. When he was given the opportunity to speak and say his piece at the police interview the most common two words were...
NO COMMENT
NO COMMENT
NO COMMENT
NO COMMENT
Hardly the actions of an innocent person was it?
...as was hiding his shame and guilt under his cardigan?
(http://i.imgur.com/Uyqma.jpg)
Jeremy Bamber leaves the court in 1985
following his indictment on robbery charges.
-
You could look at this two ways that if Jeremy was in fact innocent he didn't believe he could possibly be found guilty on just circumstantial
Obviously not well led by his barrister before being cross examined
If Jeremy had in fact killed his family I would have expected to see a much more scared Bamber in the dock knowing what the case against him was. I still believe if there was a retrial today Jeremy would be found not guilty
The case is not proven 100% either way
-
Jack, Bamber didnt show any fear in the dock the same as he showed no remorse or genuine grief at their deaths.
Bamber was arrogant, and thought he would get away with it. He even says now that he never sees himself not being a free man one day, that arrogance is still there.
-
Jack, Bamber didnt show any fear in the dock the same as he showed no remorse or genuine grief at their deaths.
Bamber was arrogant, and thought he would get away with it. He even says now that he never sees himself not being a free man one day, that arrogance is still there.
The trial judge Mr Justice Drake had Jeremy down to a tee when he made his comments after the verdict had been received. It is worth having a look at the ITN news report in the video section which describes how Jeremy received the verdict and the judges comments before being taken down.
-
Andrea
I have had many long conversations with Jeremy and letters and I don't see that arrogance people talk about. I could give you a number of examples where he is always putting himself down. I have often seen a naive not very streetwise person believing everything he is told.
I can only go by my own personal experience of him.
It's nice to see the case being discussed on the forum though rather than another quiz night or the Simon Hall case. These matters need to be dealt with.
I notice Mrs Halls mate is back on doing some 'crucial to the Bamber case' posting
-
David can you remember the comments the trial judge made when the Guildford four were sentenced
Judges do make mistakes
-
I know you feel differently, jack.
But IMO, Bamber will feed bullshit by the shovel full to anyone who will listen. Remember Jack, i did lean towards innocence. So i have looked at this case from BOTH sides.
JB enjoys being a thorn in the side of the legal sytem and his wider family. He will continue to find discrepancies in the paper work, that he then tries to say proves his innocence, it does no such thing. The trial and appeals/applications show that.
-
Good grief! Jeremy Kyle. Why would anyone want to air their problems to the nation on that show. Oh dear!!
-
I came across some interesting comments underneath the video of JB on I think 'Crimes that shook Britain'- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-OlvzCVrmc
"05:15 When told of the murders he 'broke down,cried and was in a state of traumatic shock' -- Fortunately in the following weeks,Jeremy was able to regain his composure enough to have the farmhouse contents/ assets valuated,was able to dine out with friends at expensive resturants (including on the night of his parents funerals), go on a cannabis buying trip to Amsterdam,enquire about buying a porche, attempt to sell nude photos of Sheila to a Tabloid, before embarking on a holiday in St Tropez."-well didn't the Menendez brothers do something similar when they shot their parents and killed them?
There were many comments about polygraph testing too, I don't know why Jeremy Bamber had one since the evidence is admissable in English courts and one person pointed out "Well, he's been lying for 25 years", so is it a case if you say something for long enough you believe it?
Plus Sheila's 'clean' nature-found with immaculate nails and no lead traces, one person points out- "Why wont you answer the question? Explain to me how Sheila shot her family. Ya know, she shot them, made something to eat, had a bath, barked like a dog to confuse the cops, read the bible, please!! Bamber is guilty, and he aint ever coming out. haha."
Another personmentions that if Sheila had got debris on her feet it might have been down to the firearm team knocking a bowl over as they went through the house.
There does seem to be a lot of Jeremy supporter sites out there which claim 'to tell the truth' which as someone else pointed out "You mean that he is proclaiming his OWN innocence on his OWN website?", it's only lately I've found more sites telling opposite ends to the supporter site.
I do wonder also how many people have made money off the back of this case-books, representation fees, documentaries etc
-
I came across some interesting comments underneath the video of JB on I think 'Crimes that shook Britain'- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-OlvzCVrmc
"05:15 When told of the murders he 'broke down,cried and was in a state of traumatic shock...
Not so much shock but a sudden release of pent-up guilt and realisation at what he had just done some hours earlier...results look the same.
-
I've just read this over there>>>>
"the dog should have been questioned as it was the only reliable witness to the whole murder incident"-I know I shouldn't laugh but this is a classic! Epic even!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3770.msg152313/topicseen.html#msg152313
-
I've just read this over there>>>>
"the dog should have been questioned as it was the only reliable witness to the whole murder incident"-I know I shouldn't laugh but this is a classic! Epic even!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3770.msg152313/topicseen.html#msg152313
The dog wouldn't know much as he hid under the bed. 8(0(*
-
I've just read this over there>>>>
"the dog should have been questioned as it was the only reliable witness to the whole murder incident"-I know I shouldn't laugh but this is a classic! Epic even!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3770.msg152313/topicseen.html#msg152313
The dog wouldn't know much as he hid under the bed. 8(0(*
If he thought the dog could have said anything Jeremy would have murdered poor Crispy too. That is because Jeremy Bamber is a murdering s..mbag. If you can't be rude about a psycopathic convicted child killer who can you be rude about Lugg?
-
I've just read this over there>>>>
"the dog should have been questioned as it was the only reliable witness to the whole murder incident"-I know I shouldn't laugh but this is a classic! Epic even!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3770.msg152313/topicseen.html#msg152313
The dog wouldn't know much as he hid under the bed. 8(0(*
If he thought the dog could have said anything Jeremy would have murdered poor Crispy too. That is because Jeremy Bamber is a murdering s..mbag. If you can't be rude about a psycopathic convicted child killer who can you be rude about Lugg?
Didn't he shoot the dog too when nobody wanted it?
-
I've just read this over there>>>>
"the dog should have been questioned as it was the only reliable witness to the whole murder incident"-I know I shouldn't laugh but this is a classic! Epic even!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3770.msg152313/topicseen.html#msg152313
The dog wouldn't know much as he hid under the bed. 8(0(*
If he thought the dog could have said anything Jeremy would have murdered poor Crispy too. That is because Jeremy Bamber is a murdering s..mbag. If you can't be rude about a psycopathic convicted child killer who can you be rude about Lugg?
Didn't he shoot the dog too when nobody wanted it?
Had it been an intruder who had broken into the farmuse they would have shot the dog instantly. Crispy knew it was not an intruder so went and hid when the gunfire started.
-
Can I ask what is probably a stupid question but, the .22 used in the murders right, how loud was is without a silencer and how loud was it with? Would it be louder being fired inside the house due to the walls as apose to outside where the noise would be distributed more widely especially in a field (not in a dense woods etc)?
And Nevilles injuries to his face, could some of them be attributed to him falling into the coal bucket thingy? Were the causes of his facial injuries accounted for ie a fight, falling etc?
-
And another useless question-the bible found at the side of Sheila, what chapter/verse was it opened at?
I asked for 2 reasons, one bing in the Mccann investigation, Kate Mccann sourced 2 Samuel v12 (allegedly) which they thought reflected her mood (about a child dying) and I think it would be s similar situation in this case (had Sheila done it but she didn't), Sheila would have found a relevent chapter/verse to her situation and left it open at that page. If Sheila didn't do it (which she didn't), it wouldn't have mattered where it was open at, unless the person who did it thought to find appropriate passages.
-
And another useless question-the bible found at the side of Sheila, what chapter/verse was it opened at?
I asked for 2 reasons, one bing in the Mccann investigation, Kate Mccann sourced 2 Samuel v12 (allegedly) which they thought reflected her mood (about a child dying) and I think it would be s similar situation in this case (had Sheila done it but she didn't), Sheila would have found a relevent chapter/verse to her situation and left it open at that page. If Sheila didn't do it (which she didn't), it wouldn't have mattered where it was open at, unless the person who did it thought to find appropriate passages.
The pathologist made specific mention of the fact that the Bible lay over her hand in the original police photo, a point which was not conducive of her putting it there given she was supposed to have shot herself twice. It was also face down when found.
By the way Jackie, how do you manage to shoot yourself whilst holding a rifle in both hands whilst at the same time holding a Bible open? Some of the suggestions put forward in the Bamber range from the surreal to the ridiculous quite frankly don't you think?
-
Can I ask what is probably a stupid question but, the .22 used in the murders right, how loud was is without a silencer and how loud was it with? Would it be louder being fired inside the house due to the walls as apose to outside where the noise would be distributed more widely especially in a field (not in a dense woods etc)?
And Nevilles injuries to his face, could some of them be attributed to him falling into the coal bucket thingy? Were the causes of his facial injuries accounted for ie a fight, falling etc?
The sound of the rifle would have been exaggerated when used inside the farmhouse Joanne. The sound moderator would have muffled the sound ever so slightly.
As for Nevill's injuries, the pathologist was very clear that his head and facial wounds were the result of being beaten by someone wielding the rifle by holding it by the barrel and beating him with the stock. The piece of stock was broken off in this assault and was found lying in front of the Aga.
-
The whole episode is far worse than I thought, so not only 2 babies got shot (overkill), their Nan and Mum shot but Neville must have known the end game and took a beating in the process. It was horrendous enough what happened but to know what was going on and try and fight back. Even more reason why Sheila could not and never could have done it.
-
The whole episode is far worse than I thought, so not only 2 babies got shot (overkill), their Nan and Mum shot but Neville must have known the end game and took a beating in the process. It was horrendous enough what happened but to know what was going on and try and fight back. Even more reason why Sheila could not and never could have done it.
If a deranged person had done it there would have been spent bullets all over the place. As it was all but one of the bullets found their target making the whole episode one in which all targets were carefully selected and then executed. Whoever did it knew exactly what they were doing and were not in the grip of some psychotic episode.
-
Can I ask what is probably a stupid question but, the .22 used in the murders right, how loud was is without a silencer and how loud was it with? Would it be louder being fired inside the house due to the walls as apose to outside where the noise would be distributed more widely especially in a field (not in a dense woods etc)?
And Nevilles injuries to his face, could some of them be attributed to him falling into the coal bucket thingy? Were the causes of his facial injuries accounted for ie a fight, falling etc?
If the twins were shot first and one or other of the doors between their bedroom, adjoining box room and master bedroom had been slightly ajar (or even closed for that matter) I think the sound of the rifle would have been prominent. I wonder if one or both parents heard it and then dismissed it at first. (when you hear an unusual noise in the night it's all too easy to roll over in a comfy bed and say to yourself ..."I'll see what it is in the morning")
The jury were taken out in the field to hear a demonstration of the rifle's report, although I'm not sure if they carried out the same indoors.
-
And another useless question-the bible found at the side of Sheila, what chapter/verse was it opened at?
I asked for 2 reasons, one bing in the Mccann investigation, Kate Mccann sourced 2 Samuel v12 (allegedly) which they thought reflected her mood (about a child dying) and I think it would be s similar situation in this case (had Sheila done it but she didn't), Sheila would have found a relevent chapter/verse to her situation and left it open at that page. If Sheila didn't do it (which she didn't), it wouldn't have mattered where it was open at, unless the person who did it thought to find appropriate passages.
I think pretty much every page of the Bible could be considered to be loaded with significance if you look for it. I think it was planted there to make it look like she had committed the murders in a mad frenzy but with a crazy religious element to it as well.
-
As for Nevill's injuries, the pathologist was very clear that his head and facial wounds were the result of being beaten by someone wielding the rifle by holding it by the barrel and beating him with the stock. The piece of stock was broken off in this assault and was found lying in front of the Aga.
The rifle stock must have taken one hell of a knock to break a piece off, unless of course it was damaged and split beforehand.
I've only had experience of a .22 air rifle of similar weight and size, but it would take more than hitting a pliable live human to break a piece off it.... something like contact with an immoveable object such as a door frame, edge of a table or worktop, or an AGA towel rail.
Weren't the arm defence wounds only narrow, matching the barrel diameter?
It's quite difficult to hold a rifle by the barrel with two hands, even with one hand on the stock and use it in a clubbing action.. it's hard to describe but it feels out of balance and you don't have full control.
-
As for Nevill's injuries, the pathologist was very clear that his head and facial wounds were the result of being beaten by someone wielding the rifle by holding it by the barrel and beating him with the stock. The piece of stock was broken off in this assault and was found lying in front of the Aga.
The rifle stock must have taken one hell of a knock to break a piece off, unless of course it was damaged and split beforehand.
I've only had experience of a .22 air rifle of similar weight and size, but it would take more than hitting a pliable live human to break a piece off it.... something like contact with an immoveable object like door frame, edge of a table or worktop, or an AGA towel rail.
Absolutely, it must have come into contact with something solid like the kitchen floor as blows were being rained down on Nevill. If there was a scrap between Nevill and his assailant in the kitchen as the evidence suggests there was every opportunity for the rifle stock to sustain damage as the table and chairs were being knocked about and lamp shades smashed.
-
Where did the evidence come from that Sheila Caffelll asked Colin Caffell to take her back on the last journey to WHF and he said no because he was with someone else?
I am guessing this must have been detailed in Colin's book and was this used at trial as something that might have been significant to Sheila's state of mind?
Also is it documented if she shared this information with her mother, father or Jeremy?
-
I have Colins book and dont recall reading that Sheila asked him to get from WHF. Colin was due to collect his twins, as he was due to take them abroad to visit a Aunt.
-
I don't remember him saying that in the book either. However, their marriage had ended when the boys were only 5 months old so obviously Colin had moved on as people do after marriages break down. In the book Colin reveals at the party at his house the weekend before the murders Sheila seemed scared of Jeremy and wouldn't ask him for a lift home herself. Colin also reveals that Jeremy quizzed him at some length about Sheila's mental health problems for the first time which he saw as quite sinister in retrospect.
-
I don't remember him saying that in the book either. However, their marriage had ended when the boys were only 5 months old so obviously Colin had moved on as people do after marriages break down. In the book Colin reveals at the party at his house the weekend before the murders Sheila seemed scared of Jeremy and wouldn't ask him for a lift home herself. Colin also reveals that Jeremy quizzed him at some length about Sheila's mental health problems for the first time which he saw as quite sinister in retrospect.
Why speculate? You only need to watch the interview which Colin Caffell gave to ITN after the trial. Colin talks of a postive future with Sheila and the boys. In a nutshell she had everything to look forward to and what's more killer Jeremy Bamber knew it thus his comment to Julie Mugford just before he killed them all. "Its tonight or never".
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/28/AS281086004/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
-
Andrea I didn't word my last post very well I meant when Sheila asked Colin if they could get back together.
Do you know where this is written about because it must have come from Colin and do you know if this information was used at trial?
-
I don't recall any mention of a conversation where Sheila and Colin discussed getting back together in Colin's book. Colin had a girlfriend called Heather at the time, it was mentioned that Sheila was romantically involved with Freddie (everywhere else but Colin's book mentioned that he was just a friend). Colin seems pretty convinced that though Sheila could behave erratically and violently any harm was done to herself, never to anyone else. That is why he was quick to believe she could have killed herself. However, when he was first told about the murders he assumed everyone had just been shot in their sleep. Like the rest of us Colin couldn't believe that she was skilled enough to hit the target so many times, nor could he believe for a moment that Sheila could have fought with Nevill and overpowered him. The angry letters from Jeremy published in the book are quite interesting. I think Jeremy couldn't bear the fact that Colin had become so calm and understanding about the murders, I think he wrote the letters to Colin to try to make Colin hate him. Interestingly enough, a letter from Bamber dated 1988 states that he had enough evidence together to challenge the conviction and he was adamant that he would be free soon. Nothing much changes, even 25 years on!
-
Did the Bambers employ child minders?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-killer-says-he-adored-1153202
“I was always a mummy’s boy until I was seven or eight years old. We always had au pairs and a female housekeeper and Sheila so I was surrounded by women who ensured I got lots of love and attention.”
Or did the Mirror make it up?
-
Did the Bambers employ child minders?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-killer-says-he-adored-1153202 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-killer-says-he-adored-1153202)
“I was always a mummy’s boy until I was seven or eight years old. We always had au pairs and a female housekeeper and Sheila so I was surrounded by women who ensured I got lots of love and attention.”
Or did the Mirror make it up?
It's in quotation marks, so Bamber (not the Mirror) definitely made it up.
-
You could look at this two ways that if Jeremy was in fact innocent he didn't believe he could possibly be found guilty on just circumstantial
Obviously not well led by his barrister before being cross examined
If Jeremy had in fact killed his family I would have expected to see a much more scared Bamber in the dock knowing what the case against him was. I still believe if there was a retrial today Jeremy would be found not guilty
The case is not proven 100% either way
No Jackie, not if Bamber is a psychopath. They do not react as normal individuals do. They are relatively free of fear, remorse, guilt, shame and of course, a conscience. Psychopaths are notorious for their arrogance and I believe Bamber fully thought he would get clean away with it. His actions in court and during recesses can only be described as self-assured to the point of arrogance. His own defense team had to remind him on several occasions of the severity of the proceedings. So your answer is self-serving and arrives at the destination you set before you asked it. I will let the words of Jeremy Bamber help you a little to arrive at a conclusion on this question. In a conversation Bamber had with Julie Mugford when telling her how he would like to "get rid of the whole bloody lot of them" just a few weeks prior to the murders, Mugford swore on oath that he had said quiet clearly " Of course I shall be the prime suspect, but they'll never be able to prove it" Arrogance indeed.
-
I've just read this over there>>>>
"the dog should have been questioned as it was the only reliable witness to the whole murder incident"-I know I shouldn't laugh but this is a classic! Epic even!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3770.msg152313/topicseen.html#msg152313
that was a good one
-
I've just read this over there>>>>
"the dog should have been questioned as it was the only reliable witness to the whole murder incident"-I know I shouldn't laugh but this is a classic! Epic even!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3770.msg152313/topicseen.html#msg152313
The dog wouldn't know much as he hid under the bed. 8(0(*
If he thought the dog could have said anything Jeremy would have murdered poor Crispy too. That is because Jeremy Bamber is a murdering s..mbag. If you can't be rude about a psycopathic convicted child killer who can you be rude about Lugg?
Didn't he shoot the dog too when nobody wanted it?
Had it been an intruder who had broken into the farmuse they would have shot the dog instantly. Crispy knew it was not an intruder so went and hid when the gunfire started.
Hello, first post in this topic from a newbie! That is an excellent point about the dog, and something I had not thought of before. I believe that Jeremy Bamber was responsible for this shocking crime ... for many reasons. Anyone who is capable of trying to flog topless pictures of his recently murdered sister is capable of anything, in my opinion.
-
...and yes, Jeremy Bamber shot June Bamber's dog Crispy. You could say Crispy was the 6th victim because Bamber couldn't live with the thought that the dog knew what he was capable of!
-
...and yes, Jeremy Bamber shot June Bamber's dog Crispy. You could say Crispy was the 6th victim because Bamber couldn't live with the thought that the dog knew what he was capable of!
Oh John he didn't shoot the dog did he? I take it this was some time after the murders?
-
Not sure when but he didn't make much of an attempt to re-home her and nobody in the family wanted her.
What does surprise me a little is that he didn't shoot her on the night but maybe he couldn't find her.
-
Not sure when but he didn't make much of an attempt to re-home her and nobody in the family wanted her.
What does surprise me a little is that he didn't shoot her on the night but maybe he couldn't find her.
That's a real shame about what happened to the little dog. She must have been petrified on that night. Can I just say that I am in no way comparing this to what Sheila, Nevill, June and the boys went through on that night but I am an nuts about animals and feel sad about what happened to the little dog.
-
Hi Rachel,
The dog, a Shih Tzu bitch affectionately named 'Crispy' was known to be a lively, affectionate and loving dog , who was especially fond of Sheila and the twin boys. She was found cowering and shivering underneath the bed in the main bedroom where June and Sheila's bodies were found. She was the only living thing to emerge alive from White House Farm on the morning of 7th August 1985.
She was placed into the care of Jeremy Bamber the morning the murders were discovered. He angrily and callously retorted when offered the dog (we know this to be true because stunned policemen present actually heard him)
"I don't want that bloody thing in my house, he might chew all my wiring of my stereo system" Soon after the dog was either shot by Bamber or taken to be put down elsewhere. (I cannot confirm)
Such was the callous indifference this monster displayed towards this poor creature. There were suggestions that Farm Secretary, Barbara Wilson had volunteered to 'adopt' Crispy, but Bamber ignored her.
-
Hi Rachel,
The dog, a Shih Tzu bitch affectionately named 'Crispy' was known to be a lively, affectionate and loving dog , who was especially fond of Sheila and the twin boys. She was found cowering and shivering underneath the bed in the main bedroom where June and Sheila's bodies were found. She was the only living thing to emerge alive from White House Farm on the morning of 7th August 1985.
She was placed into the care of Jeremy Bamber the morning the murders were discovered. He angrily and callously retorted when offered the dog (we know this to be true because stunned policemen present actually heard him)
"I don't want that bloody thing in my house, he might chew all my wiring of my stereo system" Soon after the dog was either shot by Bamber or taken to be put down elsewhere. (I cannot confirm)
Such was the callous indifference this monster displayed towards this poor creature. There were suggestions that Farm Secretary, Barbara Wilson had volunteered to 'adopt' Crispy, but Bamber ignored her.
This is true. When Bamber, the family-loving tractor expert ( @)(++(*) was asked to care for June's little traumatised dog, the last link to his Mum, he said "Get rid of it, have it put down, I hate the f..king thing." This was just a few days before he grubbed about and found photos of Sheila, and tried to sell them.
-
Hi Rachel,
The dog, a Shih Tzu bitch affectionately named 'Crispy' was known to be a lively, affectionate and loving dog , who was especially fond of Sheila and the twin boys. She was found cowering and shivering underneath the bed in the main bedroom where June and Sheila's bodies were found. She was the only living thing to emerge alive from White House Farm on the morning of 7th August 1985.
She was placed into the care of Jeremy Bamber the morning the murders were discovered. He angrily and callously retorted when offered the dog (we know this to be true because stunned policemen present actually heard him)
"I don't want that bloody thing in my house, he might chew all my wiring of my stereo system" Soon after the dog was either shot by Bamber or taken to be put down elsewhere. (I cannot confirm)
Such was the callous indifference this monster displayed towards this poor creature. There were suggestions that Farm Secretary, Barbara Wilson had volunteered to 'adopt' Crispy, but Bamber ignored her.
Hi starryian and thanks for the info. I felt very upset reading about what happened to Crispy, sounds like she was a lovely little thing and a beloved family pet. What a horrible thing for Bamber to say "I don't want that thing in my house". If that was me, I would have clung to that little furry link to my family. Your words "callous indifference" and "monster" sum Bamber up perfectly.
-
Hi Rachel,
The dog, a Shih Tzu bitch affectionately named 'Crispy' was known to be a lively, affectionate and loving dog , who was especially fond of Sheila and the twin boys. She was found cowering and shivering underneath the bed in the main bedroom where June and Sheila's bodies were found. She was the only living thing to emerge alive from White House Farm on the morning of 7th August 1985.
She was placed into the care of Jeremy Bamber the morning the murders were discovered. He angrily and callously retorted when offered the dog (we know this to be true because stunned policemen present actually heard him)
"I don't want that bloody thing in my house, he might chew all my wiring of my stereo system" Soon after the dog was either shot by Bamber or taken to be put down elsewhere. (I cannot confirm)
Such was the callous indifference this monster displayed towards this poor creature. There were suggestions that Farm Secretary, Barbara Wilson had volunteered to 'adopt' Crispy, but Bamber ignored her.
This is true. When Bamber, the family-loving tractor expert ( @)(++(*) was asked to care for June's little traumatised dog, the last link to his Mum, he said "Get rid of it, have it put down, I hate the f..king thing." This was just a few days before he grubbed about and found photos of Sheila, and tried to sell them.
Hi Shona, just another example of what a callous monster Bamber is, IMO. Again, if that was me, I would have clung onto that last link to my Mum and family. He is just vile. Poor Crispy :-(
-
Hi Rachel,
Quite correct, Crispy was the only surviving witness. Ann Eaton's statement relates that Crispy was extremely traumatized and (you will be pleased to know) bit Jeremy. Jeremy later had Crispy killed. Someone told me that Jeremy shot Crispy (as vets do not normally put down healthy animals). He silenced the only witness! A big mistake as doubtlessly Crispy would have been a defence witness and could have cleared Jeremy. (Wait until this appears on Tesco Towers)! @)(++(*
I related this to some of the Bamberettes and got a stunned silence because in spite of their supposed knowledge of the case they have never read the witness statements. Eventually the normal response emerged. "Oh poor Jeremy, the dog must have been old and cranky and he was doing it a favour!" "Maybe it had no teeth, you have to shoot them when they are like that." They really are staggeringly loopy.
Has anyone noticed that the spellchecker translates "Bamberettes" as "Barbarities"? A nice coincidence!
-
Hi Rachel,
Quite correct, Crispy was the only surviving witness. Ann Eaton's statement relates that Crispy was extremely traumatized and (you will be pleased to know) bit Jeremy. Jeremy later had Crispy killed. Someone told me that Jeremy shot Crispy (as vets do not normally put down healthy animals). He silenced the only witness! A big mistake as doubtlessly Crispy would have been a defence witness and could have cleared Jeremy. (Wait until this appears on Tesco Towers)! @)(++(*
I related this to some of the Bamberettes and got a stunned silence because in spite of their supposed knowledge of the case they have never read the witness statements. Eventually the normal response emerged. "Oh poor Jeremy, the dog must have been old and cranky and he was doing it a favour!" "Maybe it had no teeth, you have to shoot them when they are like that." They really are staggeringly loopy.
Has anyone noticed that the spellchecker translates "Bamberettes" as "Barbarities"? A nice coincidence!
Hi Outlook, I am pleased to hear that Crispy bit Bamber! The callous way he treated his supposedly beloved Mum's dear pet doesn't quite square with that sickening blog he wrote recently about his family Xmas memories, does it? Cosy references to Xmas trees bought by Nevill, "shopping with Mum" , and references to "our cat Thomas". Trying to portray himself as a loving son devastated by the loss of his family. he is a monster and I'm so glad that he will never get out. It must be eating away at him that he so nearly got away with it!
-
Hi Rachel,
Quite correct, Crispy was the only surviving witness. Ann Eaton's statement relates that Crispy was extremely traumatized and (you will be pleased to know) bit Jeremy. Jeremy later had Crispy killed. Someone told me that Jeremy shot Crispy (as vets do not normally put down healthy animals). He silenced the only witness! A big mistake as doubtlessly Crispy would have been a defence witness and could have cleared Jeremy. (Wait until this appears on Tesco Towers)! @)(++(*
I related this to some of the Bamberettes and got a stunned silence because in spite of their supposed knowledge of the case they have never read the witness statements. Eventually the normal response emerged. "Oh poor Jeremy, the dog must have been old and cranky and he was doing it a favour!" "Maybe it had no teeth, you have to shoot them when they are like that." They really are staggeringly loopy.
Has anyone noticed that the spellchecker translates "Bamberettes" as "Barbarities"? A nice coincidence!
Hi Outlook, I am pleased to hear that Crispy bit Bamber! The callous way he treated his supposedly beloved Mum's dear pet doesn't quite square with that sickening blog he wrote recently about his family Xmas memories, does it? Cosy references to Xmas trees bought by Nevill, "shopping with Mum" , and references to "our cat Thomas". Trying to portray himself as a loving son devastated by the loss of his family. he is a monster and I'm so glad that he will never get out. It must be eating away at him that he so nearly got away with it!
Hi Rachel, Yes a shame the bite didn't turn septic. You know how upset dogs get over disturbances and to think of poor Crispy seeing all that and then being left in the house with the bodies. It would drive a human insane let alone a dog.
I recall in the JB police interviews he even tried to blame Crispy for Sheila's death, saying the dog jumping around could have set off the gun.
Yes the Christmas message was sickening. You should have heard the Bamberettes over that. "Oh poor Jeremy, losing his family, not a trace of bitterness, he is so wonderful, Oh how I wept for him..."
Totally pathetic...
-
Hi Rachel,
Quite correct, Crispy was the only surviving witness. Ann Eaton's statement relates that Crispy was extremely traumatized and (you will be pleased to know) bit Jeremy. Jeremy later had Crispy killed. Someone told me that Jeremy shot Crispy (as vets do not normally put down healthy animals). He silenced the only witness! A big mistake as doubtlessly Crispy would have been a defence witness and could have cleared Jeremy. (Wait until this appears on Tesco Towers)! @)(++(*
I related this to some of the Bamberettes and got a stunned silence because in spite of their supposed knowledge of the case they have never read the witness statements. Eventually the normal response emerged. "Oh poor Jeremy, the dog must have been old and cranky and he was doing it a favour!" "Maybe it had no teeth, you have to shoot them when they are like that." They really are staggeringly loopy.
Has anyone noticed that the spellchecker translates "Bamberettes" as "Barbarities"? A nice coincidence!
Hi Outlook, I am pleased to hear that Crispy bit Bamber! The callous way he treated his supposedly beloved Mum's dear pet doesn't quite square with that sickening blog he wrote recently about his family Xmas memories, does it? Cosy references to Xmas trees bought by Nevill, "shopping with Mum" , and references to "our cat Thomas". Trying to portray himself as a loving son devastated by the loss of his family. he is a monster and I'm so glad that he will never get out. It must be eating away at him that he so nearly got away with it!
Hi Rachel, Yes a shame the bite didn't turn septic. You know how upset dogs get over disturbances and to think of poor Crispy seeing all that and then being left in the house with the bodies. It would drive a human insane let alone a dog.
I recall in the JB police interviews he even tried to blame Crispy for Sheila's death, saying the dog jumping around could have set off the gun.
Yes the Christmas message was sickening. You should have heard the Bamberettes over that. "Oh poor Jeremy, losing his family, not a trace of bitterness, he is so wonderful, Oh how I wept for him..."
Totally pathetic...
Hi Outlook, well I have heard it all now - Bamber trying to blame Crispy for setting the gun off! That doesn't surprise me one bit, he is a psychopathic liar. Yes, I felt sick when I read his horrible Xmas blog, cynically using memories of the family he killed to try and garner sympathy and make him look like a good guy.
As we know, Bamber was correctly convicted on evidence and sentenced. It's the other things as well though that point to what a vile man is he - trying to sell pics of Sheila and his callous treatment of Crispy. How do his supporters manage to gloss over these things I wonder.
-
Hi Rachel, Yes it is on page 51 of Bambers police interview of 10-12th September 1985. I think that is the reason Crispy was not shot at the time to leave a remote possibility of a bizzare accident for the last shot. Totally insane I know.
You can almost hear Stan Jones spluttering with disbelief at the idea. These statements are never made available by Bamber's supporters as they are damming in the extreme.
Interestingly a few pages earlier Stan Jones brings up the issue of the number of magazines for the rifle. I know I am indulging in speculation here and there is not the slightest evidence for a second magazine but clearly it was a question at the time and to me it solves the issue of the "extra ten bullets" and the strange idea that everyone stood around politely waiting for the assassin to reload before resuming the fight.
Incidentally this idea still works if people believe Sheila did it because the problem is more extreme in her case, no pockets in a nightie to store bullets so a second magazine would have been useful there. The only problem in the case of Sheila is "Where is it?"
Although I am sure the Bamberettes have an answer for this. @)(++(*
-
Hi Rachel,
Quite correct, Crispy was the only surviving witness. Ann Eaton's statement relates that Crispy was extremely traumatized and (you will be pleased to know) bit Jeremy. Jeremy later had Crispy killed. Someone told me that Jeremy shot Crispy (as vets do not normally put down healthy animals). He silenced the only witness! A big mistake as doubtlessly Crispy would have been a defence witness and could have cleared Jeremy. (Wait until this appears on Tesco Towers)! @)(++(*
I related this to some of the Bamberettes and got a stunned silence because in spite of their supposed knowledge of the case they have never read the witness statements. Eventually the normal response emerged. "Oh poor Jeremy, the dog must have been old and cranky and he was doing it a favour!" "Maybe it had no teeth, you have to shoot them when they are like that." They really are staggeringly loopy.
Has anyone noticed that the spellchecker translates "Bamberettes" as "Barbarities"? A nice coincidence!
Another lie perpertrated by the Pro-Bambers is that Jeremy is a big animal lover.... im just surprised that Jeremy didnt kill the dog on that very same night
-
Hi Rachel, Yes it is on page 51 of Bambers police interview of 10-12th September 1985. I think that is the reason Crispy was not shot at the time to leave a remote possibility of a bizzare accident for the last shot. Totally insane I know.
You can almost hear Stan Jones spluttering with disbelief at the idea. These statements are never made available by Bamber's supporters as they are damming in the extreme.
Interestingly a few pages earlier Stan Jones brings up the issue of the number of magazines for the rifle. I know I am indulging in speculation here and there is not the slightest evidence for a second magazine but clearly it was a question at the time and to me it solves the issue of the "extra ten bullets" and the strange idea that everyone stood around politely waiting for the assassin to reload before resuming the fight.
Incidentally this idea still works if people believe Sheila did it because the problem is more extreme in her case, no pockets in a nightie to store bullets so a second magazine would have been useful there. The only problem in the case of Sheila is "Where is it?"
Although I am sure the Bamberettes have an answer for this. @)(++(*
Outlook, thanks for that - I was having a look through Bamber's statements earlier and hadn't got to this one yet. He was really clutching at straws, wasn't he! Yes, very telling that these statements are not made available by Bamber's supporters.
Still trying to get my head round the bullets issue, very interesting.
-
Hi Rachel,
Quite correct, Crispy was the only surviving witness. Ann Eaton's statement relates that Crispy was extremely traumatized and (you will be pleased to know) bit Jeremy. Jeremy later had Crispy killed. Someone told me that Jeremy shot Crispy (as vets do not normally put down healthy animals). He silenced the only witness! A big mistake as doubtlessly Crispy would have been a defence witness and could have cleared Jeremy. (Wait until this appears on Tesco Towers)! @)(++(*
I related this to some of the Bamberettes and got a stunned silence because in spite of their supposed knowledge of the case they have never read the witness statements. Eventually the normal response emerged. "Oh poor Jeremy, the dog must have been old and cranky and he was doing it a favour!" "Maybe it had no teeth, you have to shoot them when they are like that." They really are staggeringly loopy.
Has anyone noticed that the spellchecker translates "Bamberettes" as "Barbarities"? A nice coincidence!
Another lie perpertrated by the Pro-Bambers is that Jeremy is a big animal lover.... im just surprised that Jeremy didnt kill the dog on that very same night
Hello Iggy. Yes, Bamber's treatment of poor Crispy doesn't quite gel with his carefully constructed "nice guy" image, does it. I've been reading some of the risible "testimonials" on the official Bamber site... one of which has been penned by someone who has never met Bamber but has concluded that he "couldn't have done it" on the strength of a few letters and phone calls.
-
Yes Bamber's treatment of animals was appalling.
If he shot Crispy, it was in the suspicion that the dog may have been tempted to grass him up. Bamber's reasoning? Dead dogs don't testify. His suggestion in the police statement that Crispy may have pulled the trigger is just as absurd.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Yes Bamber's treatment of animals was appalling.
If he shot Crispy, it was in the suspicion that the dog may have been tempted to grass him up. Bamber's reasoning? Dead dogs don't testify. His suggestion in the police statement that Crispy may have pulled the trigger is just as absurd.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
I think it is exactly that, Crispy was not shot at the time of the murders in the bizarre hope she could be used as an excuse for the second shot to Sheila's neck, but Crispy was having none of that so Jeremy later shot Crispy before she could testify. 8-)(--)
This is as sane as some of Tesco's theories, but I am not serious. 8**8:/: I like to think I am funny but I am really just irritating.
The issue with the bullets is just that there are too many of them. 35 left in a pack of 50 but 25 were fired so where did the other ten come from? Any possible scenario requires at least two short sessions to reload so everyone has to stand around politely waiting for the assassin to reload before starting the fight again. Sheila was proved to be "clean" and her nails were intact so she did not reload anything. A magazine holds ten rounds so whilst I accept this is purely speculation (which is banned on this forum), to me, a second preloaded magazine is the only explanation. The assassin disposes of this spare magazine as he has lots of time and opportunity. Sheila could not dispose of anything because she was dead. Also the first shot killed her so she is totally innocent.
-
Hi Rachel,
Quite correct, Crispy was the only surviving witness. Ann Eaton's statement relates that Crispy was extremely traumatized and (you will be pleased to know) bit Jeremy. Jeremy later had Crispy killed. Someone told me that Jeremy shot Crispy (as vets do not normally put down healthy animals). He silenced the only witness! A big mistake as doubtlessly Crispy would have been a defence witness and could have cleared Jeremy. (Wait until this appears on Tesco Towers)! @)(++(*
I related this to some of the Bamberettes and got a stunned silence because in spite of their supposed knowledge of the case they have never read the witness statements. Eventually the normal response emerged. "Oh poor Jeremy, the dog must have been old and cranky and he was doing it a favour!" "Maybe it had no teeth, you have to shoot them when they are like that." They really are staggeringly loopy.
Has anyone noticed that the spellchecker translates "Bamberettes" as "Barbarities"? A nice coincidence!
Another lie perpertrated by the Pro-Bambers is that Jeremy is a big animal lover.... im just surprised that Jeremy didnt kill the dog on that very same night
He probably couldn't find the dog to shoot it that night and in any event the clock was ticking in his great master-plan. Bamber knew that the dog saw what he had done that night and it probably got on his nerves. he certainly didn't want that dog around. Had he made any effort Crispy could have been re-homed but that wasn't good enough...she had to die!
The first shot wouldn't have killed her Outlook but it effectively paralysed her and most probably stunned her. The second shot was needed to end her life, Bamber couldn't possibly take the risk that the paramedics or ambulancemen as they were in 1985 could revive her long enough to save her life.
Just had a thought on this. Was it necessary that Jeremy Bamber delay the police and first-aiders from gaining access to the farmhouse? The longer he kept them out the safer it was for him surely?
-
Hi Rachel,
Quite correct, Crispy was the only surviving witness. Ann Eaton's statement relates that Crispy was extremely traumatized and (you will be pleased to know) bit Jeremy. Jeremy later had Crispy killed. Someone told me that Jeremy shot Crispy (as vets do not normally put down healthy animals). He silenced the only witness! A big mistake as doubtlessly Crispy would have been a defence witness and could have cleared Jeremy. (Wait until this appears on Tesco Towers)! @)(++(*
I related this to some of the Bamberettes and got a stunned silence because in spite of their supposed knowledge of the case they have never read the witness statements. Eventually the normal response emerged. "Oh poor Jeremy, the dog must have been old and cranky and he was doing it a favour!" "Maybe it had no teeth, you have to shoot them when they are like that." They really are staggeringly loopy.
Has anyone noticed that the spellchecker translates "Bamberettes" as "Barbarities"? A nice coincidence!
Another lie perpertrated by the Pro-Bambers is that Jeremy is a big animal lover.... im just surprised that Jeremy didnt kill the dog on that very same night
He probably couldn't find the dog to shoot it that night and in any event the clock was ticking in his great master-plan. Bamber knew that the dog saw what he had done that night and it probably got on his nerves. he certainly didn't want that dog around. Had he made any effort Crispy could have been re-homed but that wasn't good enough...she had to die!
The first shot wouldn't have killed her Outlook but it effectively paralysed her and most probably stunned her. The second shot was needed to end her life, Bamber couldn't possibly take the risk that the paramedics or ambulancemen as they were in 1985 could revive her long enough to save her life.
John, you are more than likely right that Bamber would have shot poor Crispy on that terrilble night if he could have found her. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... had Bamber been the "good guy" that he has spent years trying to cultivate to his groupies, then he would have cherished Crispy as the last link to his dear Mum and family. Instead, it seems that he shot Crispy himself or had her put down.
As for his vile attempts to frame poor Sheila... this case is just so upsetting, even 28 years on. I am just so sorry for the extended family and what they have had to suffer, not only the loss of June, Nevill, Sheila and the boys but also Bamber's attempts to point suspicion on them.
-
What annoys me is the Bamber supporters' continued insistance that JB and the police saw a figure in the window when they arrived. If this was the case why was more not made of this at the trial? Wasn't that a perfect alibi for Jeremy? Why do the Bamber supporters claim the sighting of the figure at the window was the reason why the firearms team were called, when the real reason for the instruction of the firearms team was because Bamber had painted a picture of a mentally unstable woman in a house full of guns posing a threat to the life of the other occupants? I personally think Bamber pretended to notice it which obviously spooked the police officers (who had no reason to doubt his story at the time).
-
Hi Rachel,
Quite correct, Crispy was the only surviving witness. Ann Eaton's statement relates that Crispy was extremely traumatized and (you will be pleased to know) bit Jeremy. Jeremy later had Crispy killed. Someone told me that Jeremy shot Crispy (as vets do not normally put down healthy animals). He silenced the only witness! A big mistake as doubtlessly Crispy would have been a defence witness and could have cleared Jeremy. (Wait until this appears on Tesco Towers)! @)(++(*
I related this to some of the Bamberettes and got a stunned silence because in spite of their supposed knowledge of the case they have never read the witness statements. Eventually the normal response emerged. "Oh poor Jeremy, the dog must have been old and cranky and he was doing it a favour!" "Maybe it had no teeth, you have to shoot them when they are like that." They really are staggeringly loopy.
Has anyone noticed that the spellchecker translates "Bamberettes" as "Barbarities"? A nice coincidence!
Another lie perpertrated by the Pro-Bambers is that Jeremy is a big animal lover.... im just surprised that Jeremy didnt kill the dog on that very same night
He probably couldn't find the dog to shoot it that night and in any event the clock was ticking in his great master-plan. Bamber knew that the dog saw what he had done that night and it probably got on his nerves. he certainly didn't want that dog around. Had he made any effort Crispy could have been re-homed but that wasn't good enough...she had to die!
The first shot wouldn't have killed her Outlook but it effectively paralysed her and most probably stunned her. The second shot was needed to end her life, Bamber couldn't possibly take the risk that the paramedics or ambulancemen as they were in 1985 could revive her long enough to save her life.
Just had a thought on this. Was it necessary that Jeremy Bamber delay the police and first-aiders from gaining access to the farmhouse? The longer he kept them out the safer it was for him surely?
My only certainity about the first shot is that Sheila did not breathe after it. The forensic evidence says that there was not blood in her lungs or stomach. Now we know she bled out into her throat. The gag reflex is the strongest of all reflexes. If you have something in your throat or lungs you retch it out, it is like an explosion and expells a fine mist over everything. So my feeling is that had Sheila been anything near alive after the first shot she would have been covered in a fine mist of blood and so would the ceiling and everything. She was not so she was either dead or in vagal inhibition.
As an aside death is difficult to diagnose as it is a process, rarely a single event. The TV shows always have a doctor or the police checking for pulse or pupil dilation or absence of breath. What they never show is the most reliable method which is to look for the absence of a gag reflex. In short you stick your fingers down the supposed deceased persons throat. Doctors do not like doing it for obvious reasons and it cannot be acted in a TV drama.
However, that said I absolutely agree that JB wanted to delay the entry of the police as long as possible but I do think he was absolutely sure that everyone in the house was dead (apart from Crispy).
-
Hi Rachel,
Quite correct, Crispy was the only surviving witness. Ann Eaton's statement relates that Crispy was extremely traumatized and (you will be pleased to know) bit Jeremy. Jeremy later had Crispy killed. Someone told me that Jeremy shot Crispy (as vets do not normally put down healthy animals). He silenced the only witness! A big mistake as doubtlessly Crispy would have been a defence witness and could have cleared Jeremy. (Wait until this appears on Tesco Towers)! @)(++(*
I related this to some of the Bamberettes and got a stunned silence because in spite of their supposed knowledge of the case they have never read the witness statements. Eventually the normal response emerged. "Oh poor Jeremy, the dog must have been old and cranky and he was doing it a favour!" "Maybe it had no teeth, you have to shoot them when they are like that." They really are staggeringly loopy.
Has anyone noticed that the spellchecker translates "Bamberettes" as "Barbarities"? A nice coincidence!
Another lie perpertrated by the Pro-Bambers is that Jeremy is a big animal lover.... im just surprised that Jeremy didnt kill the dog on that very same night
He probably couldn't find the dog to shoot it that night and in any event the clock was ticking in his great master-plan. Bamber knew that the dog saw what he had done that night and it probably got on his nerves. he certainly didn't want that dog around. Had he made any effort Crispy could have been re-homed but that wasn't good enough...she had to die!
The first shot wouldn't have killed her Outlook but it effectively paralysed her and most probably stunned her. The second shot was needed to end her life, Bamber couldn't possibly take the risk that the paramedics or ambulancemen as they were in 1985 could revive her long enough to save her life.
Just had a thought on this. Was it necessary that Jeremy Bamber delay the police and first-aiders from gaining access to the farmhouse? The longer he kept them out the safer it was for him surely?
My only certainity about the first shot is that Sheila did not breathe after it. The forensic evidence says that there was not blood in her lungs or stomach. Now we know she bled out into her throat. The gag reflex is the strongest of all reflexes. If you have something in your throat or lungs you retch it out, it is like an explosion and expells a fine mist over everything. So my feeling is that had Sheila been anything near alive after the first shot she would have been covered in a fine mist of blood and so would the ceiling and everything. She was not so she was either dead or in vagal inhibition.
As an aside death is difficult to diagnose as it is a process, rarely a single event. The TV shows always have a doctor or the police checking for pulse or pupil dilation or absence of breath. What they never show is the most reliable method which is to look for the absence of a gag reflex. In short you stick your fingers down the supposed deceased persons throat. Doctors do not like doing it for obvious reasons and it cannot be acted in a TV drama.
However, that said I absolutely agree that JB wanted to delay the entry of the police as long as possible but I do think he was absolutely sure that everyone in the house was dead (apart from Crispy).
This is a brilliant post, and encapsulates just why Sheila played no part in the WHF murders. And, to be fair, apart from mertol and susan ingham, everyone can see that. It's nice to support Mike, he's a bit of a trouper, and he hasn't got much else going on, BUT!! If he had THE photo, and THE phone log, he would post them. He'd have to, just to score points and burst with hubristic pride. He couldn't help himself. Ta Daa!!