UK Justice Forum

Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on February 22, 2014, 09:23:20 PM

Title: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 22, 2014, 09:23:20 PM
What happened is easy to piece together based on the evidence.  Precisely why it happened cannot be said for sure, there are several variables.

What happened:

Nevill grabbed the rifle, tried to take it away from the killer and they wrestled over it. The weapon swayed all around as they each tried to wrest it from the other.  It crashed into things and knocked them over, probably knocking little knickknacks around in the process.  The silencer scraped against the bottom of the mantelshelf in a random pattern indicating each was fighting for control and it just randomly was swaying.   Their bodies knocked into things like the table and chairs. Eventually the killer punched Neville in the face repeatedly breaking his nose and giving him black eyes.  This enabled the killer to seize sole control of the rifle.  The killer then began striking Nevill with the butt of the rifle.  Defensive wounds indicate Neville tried to block the blows with his arms but eventually the killer was able to hit Nevill in the head repeatedly. The blows were so hard that the stock broke and Nevill was knocked unconscious.  The killer then shot Nevill 3-4 more times in his head and he died. (3 times if the killer had shot him from the stairs, 4 times if the shot from the stairs never occurred and the bullet casing was transported to the stairs by someone accidentally)           

Why did this struggle happen?  Why was Nevill able to grab the rifle?  Why didnít his killer shoot him before he could grab it?  The main variables are whether the gun was loaded or not at the time the Killer entered the kitchen and whether Neville was chasing his killer or his killer was chasing Nevill.

Everyone has always assumed Nevill was being chased by his killer.  I even assumed such because the bullet casing on the stairs suggests his killer was chasing him and still firing.  But if the theory of the medical examiner is correct and all 4 final shots were fired in the kitchen and a shell casing stuck to a shoe and deposited on the stairs this adds a different possibility.

Variables:

1) Gun was empty when the killer exited the bedroom   
a)Nevill took advantage of this and ran down stairs either to use the phone or to try to get a weapon of his own and killer gave chase.
i)Killer caught up with Nevill then tried to bludgeon him and Nevill grabbed the gun and the scuffle ensued, or
ii)Nevill jumped his killer as his killer entered the kitchen and grabbed the gun and the scuffle ensued, or
iii) Nevill's killer caught up with Nevill in the kitchen, pulled the trigger, both realized the gun was empty and Nevill moved to disarm his killer and the struggle ensued

b) Killer was running downstairs to get more ammunition and Nevill gave chase, caught up with his killer in the kitchen and tried to disarm the killer.  No one considered this possibility before.

2) Gun was empty after killer fired from the stairs. Nevill managed to run out of the room and ran down stairs either to use the phone or to try to get a weapon of his own. Killer gave chase and fired 1 shot from the stairs hitting him in the head but it was not severe enough to disable him.  killer followed Nevill into the kitchen either to get more ammo or to try to stop Nevill from reaching the phone or a weapon
a)Killer caught up with Nevill then tried to bludgeon him and Nevill grabbed the gun and the scuffle ensued, or

b)Nevill jumped his killer as his killer entered the kitchen and grabbed the gun and the scuffle ensued, or

c) Nevill's killer caught up with Nevill in the kitchen, Nevill's killer pulled the trigger, both realized the gun was empty and Nevill moved to disarm his killer and the struggle ensued

3) Gun was loaded when killer exited the bedroom and entered the kitchen. Nevill managed to run out of the room and ran down stairs either to use the phone or to try to get a weapon of his own. Killer gave chase.
a) killer fired 1 shot from the stairs hitting Nevill in the head but it was not severe enough to disable him. Killer didnít have any other clear shots before Neville entered the kitchen so killer didnít fire again until after Nevill was unconscious
b) killer could not get any clear shots so decided not to fire at Nevill as he was on the run.

In either event Nevill would have jumped his killer as his killer entered the kitchen and grabbed the gun and the scuffle ensued.  If Nevill didnít jump his killer then his killer would simply have shot him and the scuffle would not have occurred. So if the gun was loaded his killer was ambushed. 

It is highly unlikely that Sheila could have won such a scuffle let alone inflict all the damage that was inflicted on Nevill without Sheila receiving a single scratch.  So it is rather academic which scenario actually occurred.  These are all the possibilities though of why the scuffle took place.  I accounted for every possibility.  I find it interesting that Nevill could have been the one pursuing his killer, that places things in a someone different light.

I wondered why he would not simply run out the front door.  Chasing his killer because he wanted to disarm him before he could reload and because he was angry and wanted revenge would account for why he didn't flee the premises. If someone has a loaded gun and is shooting at you the more space you have to run around the harder a target you will be.  So leaving the premises makes the most sense.  If a killer is close behind, running to a phone is a waste of time. You will leave yourself exposed for a clean shot as you try to dial.  That is why I assumed his goal was to get a weapon of his own.  But that too would be futile if his killer were close behind with a loaded gun.  Moreover I wondered why Nevill would have the guts to charge his attacker and try to grab the gun in the kitchen yet was not desperate/gutsy enough to do so upstairs and wondered how he got by his attacker out the bedroom door.

All these questions are answered if the killer ran out of bullets hen ran downstairs to get more ammo and Nevill gave chase.  It actually makes perfect sense that in this case Nevill would not leave the house but instead attempt to disarm the killer.         
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Lindyhop on February 23, 2014, 09:15:03 AM
Very well thought out Scipio. Something else which I haven't come across in any discussions is JB's disguise. I imagine he had a balaclava on and may have come across as a masked intruder upstairs in the dark. Did he then reveal himself to them before he shot them? During the battle with Neville downstairs Neville would have been aware that his killer was his son, which could explain his actions - he may have acted differently if he thought it was an unknown armed burglar. He probably also recognised his gun.

(I also wonder if June and Sheila were aware their killer was Jeremy at the time they died. I think it's been accepted that the twins died in their sleep, so they were thankfully oblivious to the goings on)
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: goatboy on February 23, 2014, 09:55:03 AM
For me I think Nevill was trying to get to the phone in the kitchen because the one in the bedroom had either been moved, or simply disabled by taking the kitchen phone receiver off the hook. I genuinely don't see why Sheila would have been so keen to prevent him from reaching the phone, and I think the struggle in the kitchen was evidence that someone didn't want the police to know the truth about who was attacking Nevill. Put simply the struggle to stop him getting to the phone makes more sense if the killer was Jeremy than if it was Sheila. What swings it for me is that assuming the call from Nevill to Jeremy did happen then why, if Jeremy thought his family's lives were in danger would he call Julie first, waste time looking for the local police station number rather than dial 999, and finally drive to the farm at a snail's pace? All of this behaviour clearly indicates he was in no hurry to get there because he knew what was there-because there was no call from Nevill.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Joanne on February 23, 2014, 11:25:18 AM
In that 'Great crimes and trials' programme, they did say that even though it took some time to muster the police team, they still got there before Jeremy and the police thought after that it was odd that he didn't follow 'natural' instinct and go to the farm straight away to see what was going on.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 23, 2014, 03:50:10 PM
Very well thought out Scipio. Something else which I haven't come across in any discussions is JB's disguise. I imagine he had a balaclava on and may have come across as a masked intruder upstairs in the dark. Did he then reveal himself to them before he shot them? During the battle with Neville downstairs Neville would have been aware that his killer was his son, which could explain his actions - he may have acted differently if he thought it was an unknown armed burglar. He probably also recognised his gun.

(I also wonder if June and Sheila were aware their killer was Jeremy at the time they died. I think it's been accepted that the twins died in their sleep, so they were thankfully oblivious to the goings on)

Since he planned to kill everyone straight away I doubt he bothered to wear a disguise. Wearing clothes he didn't mind disposing of and gloves so that he left would not leave and bloody fingerprints or have gun shot residue on hands was a good idea but I doubt he wore anything over his face.  I would not bother doing so it would obstruct vision unnecessarily.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Amanda3266 on February 23, 2014, 06:03:39 PM
I think there is speculation somewhere that Jeremy wore a wet-suit and balaclava and simply showered afterwards. I am not certain I buy that necessarily...it seems an awful lot of trouble to go to if you know you are going to kill everybody who could identify you.

I think the scuffle happened because Neville had just about enough strength left to fight his attacker...there was no way this was Sheila... I have checked the postmortem report....her fingernails were long and painted with nail varnish...so not false ones and no way could she have carried out all these murders and not damaged a single nail.

I agree that Neville was persued downstairs but managed to ambush his attacker.....maybe while he was trying to reload the rifle.

I am also of the opinion that Jeremy took the phone straight off the hook in the kitchen when he arrived to disable all other phones in the house.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 23, 2014, 08:47:41 PM
I think there is speculation somewhere that Jeremy wore a wet-suit and balaclava and simply showered afterwards. I am not certain I buy that necessarily...it seems an awful lot of trouble to go to if you know you are going to kill everybody who could identify you.

I think the scuffle happened because Neville had just about enough strength left to fight his attacker...there was no way this was Sheila... I have checked the postmortem report....her fingernails were long and painted with nail varnish...so not false ones and no way could she have carried out all these murders and not damaged a single nail.

I agree that Neville was persued downstairs but managed to ambush his attacker.....maybe while he was trying to reload the rifle.

I am also of the opinion that Jeremy took the phone straight off the hook in the kitchen when he arrived to disable all other phones in the house.

The pathologist was asked about Sheila's nails and he said he wasn't competent to comment it would fall to ballistics.  Do we have the report from ballistics?  If the pathologist is unable to confirm what makes posters here think they are competent to offer up opinion.  Lol  @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 23, 2014, 08:56:55 PM
Here's the pathologist's report re the nails:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 23, 2014, 09:20:41 PM
The pathologist was asked about Sheila's nails and he said he wasn't competent to comment it would fall to ballistics.  Do we have the report from ballistics?  If the pathologist is unable to confirm what makes posters here think they are competent to offer up opinion.  Lol  @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*

The firearms expert was the one tasked with asessing whether she likely loaded and fired a weapon because the pathologist is not an expert on gun shot residue or any other firearms related issues. 

In court each expert stays within their own field.  We have the advantage of knowing the full story and not being limited by the formalities of court.  Thanks to the work of others we KNOW she had no evidence on her hands or clothes of handling bullets let alone firing a weapon.  We also know she had not a scratch on her body and would have if she had been the one engaged in the struggle.  As I pointed out to you I have considerable firearms experience and have been in plenty of fights.  Thus I have actual experience not just experience from study like many lawyers and experts for that matter.  I personally witnessed a female break a nail loading a 9mm magazine so your claim that it doesn't happen is refuted from a personal experience.  More important than the nails not breaking from loading the magazine is not a chip or mark on her hands or any other part of her body if she had punched Nevill hard enough to breka his nose, give him 2 black eyes and to also break the stock over his head.  When you punch someone very hard you get abrasions to your hands, especially knuckles.   He was trying to fight back mind you.  After the stock broke the rifle was still used and that also would have done damage to bare hands. Only someone living in fantasy land would claim that she would not be likely to get a scratch and have no evidence of even handling a weapon let alone being  in a struggle during the course of events.

You can live in denial all you like but it doesn't help prove your claims at all in fact it harms your credibility to do so.   
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Amanda3266 on February 23, 2014, 10:01:02 PM
That's interesting...then again the Pathologist being a bloke wouldn't necessarily have the same experience of nails that us women do!

I would be very surprised if Sheila had been able to do all the things that Jeremy attributes to her without damaging her nail polish at the very least.

Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Outlook on February 23, 2014, 10:33:17 PM
Oh that is easy in Bamber Disneyland.  The Bamber Groupies would have us believe that after the massacre Sheila had a shower (ritual washing as they call it), put on a clean nightie, sat around doing up her nails, waited half-an-hour for the damn things to dry, played peek-a-bo through the window with her brother and the cops.  Shot herself once in the neck, was not sick or suffered any disability, tried a different position and found the rifle was too long, floated downstairs without touching the messy floor, (a girl has to look after her feet), put the silencer in the cupboard, which involved climbing past the body of her father and going through a locked door.  Back again up stairs and shooting herself a second time.  Wrote "Special Branch" on the floor in her own blood and then covered it up with her mother's bible.

Oh and sometime during the night she attended to her "feminine needs" and cut up a tampon in the living room for some strange reason.

Then the police burst in firing at random, changed the barrel on the rifle, the family followed planting evidence in all directions, bounced Sheila on and off the bed several times and at one point the family dog got the blame for firing the final shot, which is why Jeremy executed the dog several days later in his uncontrollable grief at losing his family.

All this is due to the fact they were adopted and Jeremy was in fact the true born king of all Britain and fathered by Prince P*****.

Bamber Groupies are mad beyond belief.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 23, 2014, 11:00:51 PM
Here's the pathologist's report re the nails:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742

As I expected all it did was note that the pathologist has no firearms experience and has no idea whether or not there would likely be damage from such.  Nothing else was considered about the severity of the fight and whether that would likely result in damage was considered either in this report. What maters is the trial testimony not the report because everything in total would be discussed at trial and it would all be tied together not viewed in isolation.     
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 23, 2014, 11:15:02 PM
That's interesting...then again the Pathologist being a bloke wouldn't necessarily have the same experience of nails that us women do!

I would be very surprised if Sheila had been able to do all the things that Jeremy attributes to her without damaging her nail polish at the very least.

Saying he doesn't know what effort goes into loading and operating the weapon so doesn't have  a basis to know what impact loading and operating it would have on her nails and that those with firearms expertise should assess it is a punt basically. instea dof consulting them to find out he will let them evaluate it.

Holly keeps ignoring that the nail issues extend well beyond pulling a trigger and loading a magazine.  The pathologist had no idea what kind of struggle took place because he left the events to be pieced together by others at the time this report was written.

By the trial they had a complete picture of what transpired. Nevill and his killer wrestled over the gun and they did so ferociously.  They made the gun crash into things including the underside of the mantle shelf.  They also knocked over chairs and the like.  The killer punched Nevill in the face repeatedly so he would let go of the rifle.  The killer punched him hard enough to break his nose and give him 2 black eyes.  The killer gripped the rifle extremely tighly as the killer bludgeoned nevill with it striking his arms and then his head.  Hold something in your hands and then bash it against something hard.  What happens to your hands?  What is likely to happen to long nails?  If a woman punches a face hard enough to break a nose and leave black eyes what happened to knuckles and nails? What happens to hands holding a splintered rifle stock that has a sharp edges? It is about more than just the nails and the nail issue is hardly only about the magazine being loaded. I doubt Nevill did not try to strike his killer back either.

       
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Outlook on February 23, 2014, 11:55:22 PM
That is why the Bamber Groupies like to argue only on a point by point basis.

Each single point taken in isolation can be used to prove or disprove another point or merely dismissed as a lie or part of the cover-up by the "corrupt police."

Professor Peter Vanezis is alternatively worshipped as a genius on "Blue" or derided as an incompetent and "part of the cover-up" depending on the item of evidence under discussion.  It all depends on whether they agree with his evidence or not.  This point of view changes regularly as the significance of the silencer and blood changes within the forum largely dependent on what Mike Tesco tells the morons to think next.

Professor Vanezis' website can be viewed here:  http://www.petervanezis.com/index.html

Significantly on "Blue" Bamber's police interview notes are not published and nobody questions this.  Other significant statements and interview notes are not present either.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 24, 2014, 01:15:29 AM
For me I think Nevill was trying to get to the phone in the kitchen because the one in the bedroom had either been moved, or simply disabled by taking the kitchen phone receiver off the hook. I genuinely don't see why Sheila would have been so keen to prevent him from reaching the phone, and I think the struggle in the kitchen was evidence that someone didn't want the police to know the truth about who was attacking Nevill. Put simply the struggle to stop him getting to the phone makes more sense if the killer was Jeremy than if it was Sheila.

I. The killer did indeed take precautions in advance to make sure a phone call could not be made from the bedroom.  I do not believe the phone was simply left off the hook downstairs for a long enough period of time to prevent a call from dialing out. That would take a while for the phone to become inactive to the point that no one could dial out and at any rate had Nevill picked up the phone he would have gotten blood on it whether he picked it up in the bedroom or the kitchen.  I doubt the killer would wash blood off the phone, indeed if jeremy were the killer the blood would help his story so he had reason to leave it on the phone had he relocated it to the kitchen.  In fact there is no reason to relocate it to the kitchen. He could have claimed Nevill made the call to him from the bedroom.  Much more likely is that the killer hid the kitchen phone saying it was broken (though it was tested and worked perfectly) and either brought the master bedroom phone there personally earlier in the day or made sure someone else did it.  It was testified to that when the kitchen phone had problems the bedroom phone was substituted.  They considered it more important to have phones in the office and kitchen than the bedroom so the bedroom phone was the one that was usually moved.  The killer either moved it personally or hid the kitchen phone saying it was broken and suggested someone else move the bedroom phone.
           
This indicates 2 things.  1) that the killings were premeditated not a spur of the moment thing and 2) the killer did not want the victims to call someone and reveal his/her identity to anyone because it would result in the killer being caught. The killer hoped police would not find out his/her identity and planned to escape the scene and hoped to escape responsibility.
 
None of this is consistent with what Sheila allegedly was doing.  It is not claimed that Sheila planned the murders in advance and came up with a scheme to blame someone else, escape responsibility and start a new life without her parents and children.  This is not claimed because it makes no sense and no one can come up with any reason that she would do such or how she could expect to escape liability.  The allegation is that she had a crazy episode and where she decided to kill everyone including herself.  If she were in a crazy frenzy and this had not been preplanned then she certainly would not take precautions to remove the phone.  Even if she planned to kill herself then commit suicide in advance there still would be no reason to move the phone. Even if her parents managed to make a call identifying her as shooting them so what?  By the time anyone could arrive everyone would be dead including her.  There is no way anyone could respond fast enough to prevent her from killing everyone.  So the phone doesn't matter at all.  The phone only matters if a killer intends to flee the scene and escape responsibility. This does indeed suggest that Jeremy was the killer not Sheila. His frame would not work if Nevill or June called to say he was shooting them.  If they called to announce Sheila was shooting them though it would not accomplish anything.  Indeed Nevill allegedly called and identified their killer yet everyone in the house died anyway. 

II. It makes little sense to rush to the phone if someone is actively shooting you unless you can lock a door and have some time to safely dial. To stop, pick up the phone and dial you open yourself up to a clear shot. Stationary targets are much easier to hit.  Unless his killer was out of bullets so paused shooting or was a good distance behind Nevill it makes little sense to use the phone.  The lack of blood on the phone means Nevill was stopped before he reached it.   

Someone posted that the doors usually were locked from the inside with the key left in.  This suggests it was the old style lever locks (what we is the US typically call skeleton key locks).  This could explain why Nevill did not run out the door.  If indeed the doors usually had the keys inside the lock then the killer would have taken the keys and hid them so that no one could escape easily.  Many families keep keys in the kitchen maybe he found the front door locked with no key in the lock so could not unlock it and that is why he ran to the kitchen.  His killer cannot have been too far behind that Nevill was unable to reach the phone if he was trying to reach it.  Unless Nevill knew the gun was empty I think he had a different motive than the reach the phone. 

III. The lack of blood on the phone makes it unlikely the phone had been in the bedroom for Nevill to try to use.  If he did run down to try to use it probably it was because the bedroom phone was missing.  That still required running past his killer which would be safer to accomplish if you wrestle the gun away as opposed to just running by.  That is why I  think that the gun might have been empty and he might have been chasing his killer.

What swings it for me is that assuming the call from Nevill to Jeremy did happen then why, if Jeremy thought his family's lives were in danger would he call Julie first, waste time looking for the local police station number rather than dial 999, and finally drive to the farm at a snail's pace? All of this behaviour clearly indicates he was in no hurry to get there because he knew what was there-because there was no call from Nevill.

I still wonder if Nevill were actually trying to reach the phone when he ran into the kitchen, I am not completely convinced he was.  BUT the account from Jeremy is that he not only was running to the phone but he reached it, dialed Jeremy and told him that Sheila grabbed a gun, was running around with it in a crazy fit and he was scared she was going to use it so come over right away to help disarm her.

I have a host of problems with the account and Jeremyís supposed reactions.

The killer started shooting upstairs.  June was shot enough times to disable her and Nevill had already been shot at least 4 times by the time he could have reached the phone.  One of these bullets had shot off his lip and another shattered his teeth, jaw and damaged his voicebox to the point he would be unable to speak in any fashion that could be understood.

Why was there no blood on the phone if Nevill had actually picked it up and dialed it? 

Even if he got through to Jeremy how could he communicate with Jeremy given the damage to his mouth and voicebox?     

Even if by some miracle he were able to talk, why would he phone Jeremy and ask Jeremy to come over?  He and his wife had been shot, they needed medical attention what could Jeremy do for them?  Even if he felt to weak to disarm Sheila himself so decided to ask Jeremy to come help why wouldnít he tell Jeremy that they had been shot and to call an ambulance then come over.?  It makes no sense to fail to indicate they had been shot and in need of medical attention.  At best Nevill would have calle dhis son because his son were closer than police so would arrive sooner but he still at minimum would have wanted an ambulance even if not police to come.

The fact Jeremy called Julie is suspicious period.  Calling her before police is even more suspicious but just the fact he called her at all makes no sense.  This was the middle of the night why would he feel the need to wake her and her roommates up just to tell her that his parents called to say Sheila was in a crazy frenzy running around with a gun but they the phonecall was cut off so he was not sure what happened?  What could she do?  Absolutely nothing.  He could not have been calling to be consoled because he wasnít sure what if anything had happened.  For all he knew nothing happened. He could have gone over and found out nothing was wrong.  Wouldnít a rational person find out what happened and if bad news and needing a shoulder to cry on to call at that point?  If it were the middle of the day not the middle of the night ok maybe then it might make sense for him to gossip and say he is heading to his parents with police to check things out because there might be trouble.  To say such at night and worry her for potentially nothing makes no sense.  Some emotional basket case might fear the worst and call his girlfriend to cry but he was far from a basket case and showed little sign of concern.           

He did not run over right away to see what was up.  He was only 3 minutes away but he decided not to go check it out.  Not even to go recon the outside of the house and try to spy or listen.  He decided he would make police go with him but he did not call police right away.  He didnít even dial 999 he displayed no sense of urgency whatsoever.  Nor did he show any sense of urgency when he finally got to the scene.  He didnít get close to the house to look in the windows.  He left it up to police.  When police said they were not going in did he press them to go in?  Did he say if they donít go in then he will?  Nope for more than 3.5 hours he hung out with cops chatting calmly about cars and guy stuff and in fact he even lied to police to make them scared to go in.  He told them Sheila had fired and was proficient with all the guns in the house.  Given this complete lack of urgency on his part why would he feel any need to wake his girlfriend to tell her something might have happened?  There is only one explanation about why he called.  He knew they were dead when he made the call and was excited in a good way, not upset.  He was so excited he could not contain himself and needed to tell somebody.  That is the only rational explanation for his call and that is the purpose for the call according to Julie.  Her account is much more credible than his.       

The fact he wanted police to pick him up and then when they refused to wait for them to go there first then go also makes no sense.  Why was he so desperate for police to see that he arrived after them?  The only explanation was tha tit was an act to try to get cops to think he had nothing to do with it because he wasnít even on the scene till after they arrived.  It was rather worthless but shows how his mind was working. 

Someone in his place either would have:
 
1) taken the 3 minute drive to check things out and then called police if necessary.  At bare minimum to spy outside if not actually enter,  or

2) called police then taken the 3 minute drive and at minimum tried to listen and look in the windows while waiting for police, some even would have entered the house

3) After police arrived and said they were waiting not going in, who would wait?  You would either go in without police or press the police to go inside to make sure no one is hurt and in need of medical attention.

Jeremy's actions make no sense.  When you factor in everything else it is easy to see he committed the murders.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 24, 2014, 12:26:13 PM
No scuffle ever took place in the kitchen between Nevill and Sheila or Jeremy.  Nevill sustained at least three gun shot wounds in the bedroom causing significant loss of blood internally and externally and extreme pain.  He also loss the complete use of his left arm.  Had other injuries not have supervened he would have died from these injuries alone.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: John on February 24, 2014, 01:01:39 PM
No scuffle ever took place in the kitchen between Nevill and Sheila or Jeremy.

A bit of a curved ball even from you Holly, please elaborate. 
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 24, 2014, 01:33:21 PM
A bit of a curved ball even from you Holly, please elaborate.

According to pathologist's report NB's injuries were such ie 3 gunshot wounds: loss of blood internally and externally, extreme pain and total impairment of loss of left arm, that by the time he reached the kitchen he was incapable of any sort of defence.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: John on February 24, 2014, 01:38:05 PM
According to pathologist's report NB's injuries were such ie 3 gunshot wounds: loss of blood internally and externally, extreme pain and total impairment of loss of left arm, that by the time he reached the kitchen he was incapable of any sort of defence.

Again, the defence wounds on his arms say different.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 24, 2014, 02:32:31 PM
Again, the defence wounds on his arms say different.

If poor Nevill was dead or near dead I guess anyone could rain blows down on him  8(8-))
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: John on February 24, 2014, 03:18:27 PM
If poor Nevill was dead or near dead I guess anyone could rain blows down on him  8(8-))

Then there was the smashed lampshade, the smashed rifle stock, the overturned and upset table and chairs and the red paint from the underside of the kitchen mantlepiece on the end of the silencer.  Yes, there definitely was a scuffle in the kitchen Holly.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 24, 2014, 03:53:26 PM
Then there was the smashed lampshade, the smashed rifle stock, the overturned and upset table and chairs and the red paint from the underside of the kitchen mantlepiece on the end of the silencer.  Yes, there definitely was a scuffle in the kitchen Holly.

I don't agree there was "definitely" a struggle.  The pathologist states:

"Without knowing the sequence of injuries re shot prior to other wounds causing injury to arm, I did not find it surprising that a woman of that build in possession of a weapon possibly in a deranged state, could cause the injuries present".

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: John on February 24, 2014, 04:11:05 PM
I don't agree there was "definitely" a struggle.  The pathologist states:

"Without knowing the sequence of injuries re shot prior to other wounds causing injury to arm, I did not find it surprising that a woman of that build in possession of a weapon possibly in a deranged state, could cause the injuries present".

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742

So who smashed up the kitchen and damaged the rifle stock?  Did they do it just for fun?
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 24, 2014, 04:33:35 PM
So who smashed up the kitchen and damaged the rifle stock?  Did they do it just for fun?

If as the pathologist stated Sheila was in a deranged state I guess anything is possible as he has alluded to.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 24, 2014, 05:59:03 PM
No scuffle ever took place in the kitchen between Nevill and Sheila or Jeremy.  Nevill sustained at least three gun shot wounds in the bedroom causing significant loss of blood internally and externally and extreme pain.  He also loss the complete use of his left arm.  Had other injuries not have supervened he would have died from these injuries alone.

Your claim that no struggle took place in the kitchen is a whopper of a lie.  I have already pointed to the evidence multiple times that proves beyond any question it happened.


1) Items in the kitchen were broken and turned upside down during the course of the struggle.  The chair that Nevill fell upon was turned over in the struggle and then he fell upon it.  The rifle crashed into things as they struggled over control of it. That is how the suppressor scratched the mantle and the scratch pazzern zig zags all around showing there was a scuffle over control.  It was not simply dragged in a straight line indicating someone picked it up from the floor and simply raised it and it scratched in that manner.  These are not my assessments these are the assements of the experts that were told to the jury. 

2) At trial the pathologist noted that Nevill's arms had devensive wounds made by the rifle indicating he raised his arms to protect himself as the killer was striking him with the rifle

3) The pathologist noted Nevill had a broken nose and 2 black eyes from being struck repeatedly in his face by the killer   

4) The pathologist noted Nevill had wounds to his head made by the rifle as he was struck with it and these marks would have rendered him unconscious

5) The killer struck Nevill in the head so hard that stock broke and the piece that broke off the stock was lying in the kitchen.

You ignore all of these injuries time after time and make no effort to try to explain how the stock could have gotten broken other than during a struggle.

Your ultimate argument is that these things should not have occurred because Nevill should have passed out from loss of blood in your opinion.  They did happen though which proves your opinion that Nevill should have and did pass put to be wrong. Has he been so weak that he simply passed out upon reaching the kitchen then the kitchen would not have had so many things knocked over and broken, the suppressor would not have left scratches indicating there was a fight over control of the rifle it was attached to, and the killer would not have need to punch Nevill in the face reapeatedly (breaking his nose and giving him black eyes) and would not have needed to bludgeon him with the rifle (breaking the stock over his head).  There was no reason to bludgeon him unless he was actively threatening the killer and the killer could not shoot him.  You need both of these things for the killer to resort to bludgeoning.  If he were not an active threat and were passing out the killer would simply have shot him. If he were an active threat but had not managed to grab the gun the killer would simply have shot him.  The killer didn't shoot him because Nevill jumped his killer.  Moreover Nevill would not have defensive wounds on his arms if he had been passed out as you claim.

What medical evidence do you have that Nevill was passing out?  Your sole evidenc eis that he would have eventually bled to death if his wounds were not treated.  That doesn't establish that he would have been likely to pass out upon reaching the kitchen. Any bullet wound can potentially result in blleding to death if left untreated but it can take a long time for that to occur and someone can remain conscious and able to function for quite some time. 

The pathologist testifed that Nevill's wounds to his shoulde ran delbow were minor and did not say he would have lost use of his arm, you made that up. He testified that Nevill's wound to his lip and the one to his jaw/voicebox would not have immobilized him.  He could still function for quite some time with these wounds.  He said the main problem he saw with these wounds is that they would have rendered Nevill unable to speak.  So the pathologist had no problem with the proposition Nevill could receive these wounds then run down the stairs, pick up a phone and dial but he would not have been able to speak in any understandable fashion.     

Your claim that he would have passed out upon entering the kitchen comes from you alone not any expert opinion about the severity of his injuries. This you use as an excuse to say the struggle in the kitchen never happened though there is so much physical evidence proving it did occur.  You do not ever address this evidence you just pretend it doesn't exist. 

 
 

The loss of blood from the shoulder wound, lip wound, jaw/voicebox wound and
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 24, 2014, 06:18:52 PM
If poor Nevill was dead or near dead I guess anyone could rain blows down on him  8(8-))

How did the chair get knocked over for him to collapse on?  How did the rest of the kitchen get messed up including the suppressor scratching against the mantle in a pattern indicating a struggle over control of the rifle not simply dragging it in a linear fashion?

If he collapsed and were lying down unconscious or dead why would the killer then beat his face in with their fists, and bludgeon him with the rifle?  In that case his arms would not be raised and the killer had to intentionally bash his arms.  The killer then bashed his head enough to break the rifle. What purpose does this beating serve?

You seem to be suggesting the beating could have been delivered after the final shots were delivered.  It might not have even been before the final gunshot wounds you think.

Ok let's see

scenario A) Nevill passes out upon entering the kitchen and the killer has the opportunuty to shoot Nevill to death. Instead the killer punches him and bludgeons him with the rifle.  When finally done inflicting the beating the killer shoot Nevill to death.  The killer then proceeds to finish off the rest of the victims. 

Scenario B) Nevill passes out upon entering the kitchen and the killer has the opportunuty to shoot Nevill to death so does so.  The killer then punches his dead body and bludgeons him with the rifle.  When finally done inflicting the beating the killer proceeds to finish off the rest of the family.

Why would the killer resort to a beating at all?  Only rage and hatred of tha tperson could cause it.  Sheila didn't have rage or hatred towards her father it was her mother she hated.  Her mother's body had no marks at all from being beaten.  If anything her body should have been the one that was beaten or at the very elast hers in addition of the motive was to take out rage on a corpse.

But again the physical evidence proves there was a struggle that his body was not simply limp as he was beaten. The killer didn't stomp his arms as the were on the floor he raised his arms to block the rifle blows.  The force necessary to break a stock is considerable.  It takes someone stronger than Sheila to do that and even if by some miracle she had the strength her hands would have been damaged in the process.  Take an axe handle and bash it repeatedly against something till it breaks off near where your hands are holding it and see what happens to your hands. Blisters, splinters and cuts are the result. Do so with long finger nails like Sheila had and see if they chip or break.  Punch someone in the face repatedly and see if your knuckles get abrasions and your nails chipped.  The notion that nothing will happen at all is absurd since even men's hands receive abrasions and damage in the process of inflicting a beating.     
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 24, 2014, 06:47:29 PM
Your claim that no struggle took place in the kitchen is a whopper of a lie.  I have already pointed to the evidence multiple times that proves beyond any question it happened.


1) Items in the kitchen were broken and turned upside down during the course of the struggle.  The chair that Nevill fell upon was turned over in the struggle and then he fell upon it.  The rifle crashed into things as they struggled over control of it. That is how the suppressor scratched the mantle and the scratch pazzern zig zags all around showing there was a scuffle over control.  It was not simply dragged in a straight line indicating someone picked it up from the floor and simply raised it and it scratched in that manner.  These are not my assessments these are the assements of the experts that were told to the jury. 

2) At trial the pathologist noted that Nevill's arms had devensive wounds made by the rifle indicating he raised his arms to protect himself as the killer was striking him with the rifle

3) The pathologist noted Nevill had a broken nose and 2 black eyes from being struck repeatedly in his face by the killer   

4) The pathologist noted Nevill had wounds to his head made by the rifle as he was struck with it and these marks would have rendered him unconscious

5) The killer struck Nevill in the head so hard that stock broke and the piece that broke off the stock was lying in the kitchen.

You ignore all of these injuries time after time and make no effort to try to explain how the stock could have gotten broken other than during a struggle.

Your ultimate argument is that these things should not have occurred because Nevill should have passed out from loss of blood in your opinion.  They did happen though which proves your opinion that Nevill should have and did pass put to be wrong. Has he been so weak that he simply passed out upon reaching the kitchen then the kitchen would not have had so many things knocked over and broken, the suppressor would not have left scratches indicating there was a fight over control of the rifle it was attached to, and the killer would not have need to punch Nevill in the face reapeatedly (breaking his nose and giving him black eyes) and would not have needed to bludgeon him with the rifle (breaking the stock over his head).  There was no reason to bludgeon him unless he was actively threatening the killer and the killer could not shoot him.  You need both of these things for the killer to resort to bludgeoning.  If he were not an active threat and were passing out the killer would simply have shot him. If he were an active threat but had not managed to grab the gun the killer would simply have shot him.  The killer didn't shoot him because Nevill jumped his killer.  Moreover Nevill would not have defensive wounds on his arms if he had been passed out as you claim.

What medical evidence do you have that Nevill was passing out?  Your sole evidenc eis that he would have eventually bled to death if his wounds were not treated.  That doesn't establish that he would have been likely to pass out upon reaching the kitchen. Any bullet wound can potentially result in blleding to death if left untreated but it can take a long time for that to occur and someone can remain conscious and able to function for quite some time. 

The pathologist testifed that Nevill's wounds to his shoulde ran delbow were minor and did not say he would have lost use of his arm, you made that up. He testified that Nevill's wound to his lip and the one to his jaw/voicebox would not have immobilized him.  He could still function for quite some time with these wounds.  He said the main problem he saw with these wounds is that they would have rendered Nevill unable to speak.  So the pathologist had no problem with the proposition Nevill could receive these wounds then run down the stairs, pick up a phone and dial but he would not have been able to speak in any understandable fashion.     

Your claim that he would have passed out upon entering the kitchen comes from you alone not any expert opinion about the severity of his injuries. This you use as an excuse to say the struggle in the kitchen never happened though there is so much physical evidence proving it did occur.  You do not ever address this evidence you just pretend it doesn't exist. 

 
 

The loss of blood from the shoulder wound, lip wound, jaw/voicebox wound and

I had a mutually (I think) enjoyable debate this afternoon with John.  We were able to convey points without chapter and verse.  I have no intention of spending time trawling through your lengthy and 'wordy' posts.  If you want to believe I find you/your posts too hot to handle be my guest  8(>((

Its a fact that those who can spot a MoJ are in a minority by the nature of the beast.  If MoJ's were clear for all to see then they would not occur in the first place. 

I have gone through everything in the public domain with a fine toothcomb and unless you can produce something new I shall continue to believe JB is a MoJ.

Btw please see my post re Sochi/Winter Olympics  8)-)))
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: puglove on February 24, 2014, 06:56:28 PM
I had a mutually (I think) enjoyable debate this afternoon with John.  We were able to convey points without chapter and verse.  I have no intention of spending time trawling through your lengthy and 'wordy' posts.  If you want to believe I find you/your posts too hot to handle be my guest  8(>((

Its a fact that those who can spot a MoJ are in a minority by the nature of the beast.  If MoJ's were clear for all to see then they would not occur in the first place. 

I have gone through everything in the public domain with a fine toothcomb and unless you can produce something new I shall continue to believe JB is a MoJ.

Btw please see my post re Sochi/Winter Olympics  8)-)))

Don't forget that Ralph wouldn't have bruised so extensively if he'd been beaten after death.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Myster on February 24, 2014, 08:06:55 PM
As scipio pointed out, the rifle butt must have sustained a tremendous blow to break a piece off it.  I've used an air-rifle of similar build, length, weight and age to the Anschutz and the stock on that was of strong hardwood, very difficult to break imo as I think most rifles of that vintage were.
 
What I have difficulty with is why a piece would break off as a result of strong impact with a pliable giving human body. On being hit wouldn't a person's head or body be forced backwards absorbing the blow, thus reducing its severity ?  NB's right forearm bore defence bruises sustained from a rifle barrel and/or butt, and it appears his radial/ulna bones weren't broken which I think would have been had the stock shattered on them.
Peter Vanezis noted that the facial as opposed to the top of head fractures were in his opinion not the result of bullet wounds, i.e. they were possibly sustained from the rifle in some way - metal barrel or wooden stock.   But again I feel the victim's head would need to be held against something fixed and solid itself (such as the floor) for any piece of the stock to break off, otherwise the head would simply be knocked backwards soaking up the impact.

Perhaps it was more likely that the assailant missed his target when trying to beat his opponent (say e.g. if Nevill was quick enough to move out of the way) and the stock hit a hard rigid object such as the edge of the kitchen worktop or the table, a spindle chair back or arm (one of the arms on a chair was broken off) or even the metal guard/towel rail of the AGA.

Alternatively could NB have attempted to hold up a chair or position one between himself and attacker with his functioning arm to shield himself from the raining rifle blows and the butt was broken on it that way ?

Whatever caused the break-off I think the resulting force could have made the assailant lose control of and possibly drop the rifle with the shock of the impact, perhaps also temporarily hurting or even spraining his wrist(s) before he picked it up from the floor again.

And this would be even more damaging to a delicately-built finely-boned woman like Sheila Caffell imo.

(http://i.imgur.com/k0Dz1Oj.jpg)
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 24, 2014, 08:44:27 PM
I had a mutually (I think) enjoyable debate this afternoon with John.  We were able to convey points without chapter and verse.  I have no intention of spending time trawling through your lengthy and 'wordy' posts.  If you want to believe I find you/your posts too hot to handle be my guest  8(>((

Its a fact that those who can spot a MoJ are in a minority by the nature of the beast.  If MoJ's were clear for all to see then they would not occur in the first place. 

I have gone through everything in the public domain with a fine toothcomb and unless you can produce something new I shall continue to believe JB is a MoJ.

Btw please see my post re Sochi/Winter Olympics  8)-)))

I didn't go chapter and verse over the entire case.  I went chapter and verse over the evidence there was a struggle.  I started this thread and the topic of this thread is the struggle.  I am not going off topic to post the evidence proving the struggle happened.

In order to establish the struggle did not happen you need to address and refute each and every piece of evidence proving it occurred.  You refuse to do so because you can't.  In fact you just posted opinion from the pathologist that a crazy person of her size could potentially cause the injuries he suffered as opposed to someone stronger doing so.  That right there is an admission there was a struggle. 

So you refuse to attempt to refute the evidence and instead say that you have the right to believe anything you feel like even if you don't have any evidence to support your claims.  You are right it is your prerogative to believe nonsense if you chose to do so.  However, you lose the debate by resorting to such.  Moreover, I personally think you are no so stupid as you proclaim and are simply choising not to believe the evidence a struggle occurred.  Your actions suggest you know it did occur and actually believe it occurred but that since this demolishes your claim Jeremy is innocent you insist it didn't happen.  Deep down you know he is guilty but for some reason you have decided to proclaim his innocence.  I frankly don't care about your motivation in doing so this debate is about evidence not what you believe.

you debate the evidence when you deal with people you think you can outwhit with distortions.  When it comes to people you can't outwhit you stop discussing evidence and instead whine that you have the right to believe anything you choose.

That is you giving up and walking away instead of continuting to debate.  To not give up you have to continue to address the arguments raise dand evidence proffered in support of those arguments. The funny part is you suggest a woman like yourself would have been a great asset to Jeremy at trial.  Running away when the heat gets too tough doesn't cut it.  You can dish it out but you can't take it.  I can take as good as I dish and don't want my "adversaries" to simply cut and run.

Keeping with my nature I will detail the deception you engaged in.  In another thread you whined about how you had a nice conversation with John but then I got involved and had to mix issues. 

What was that conversation?  You came around to admitting something happened but that the pathologist opined that a woman of Sheila's size in a crazy state might have been able to cause the injuries.  Anyone can beat up someone passed out. 

The was talking in theory.  Did he say in theory anyone could beat up someone who was unconscious? No he was talking about whether someone Sheila's size could inflict the damage in question and prevail.  He was talking about her prevailing in the struggle that you claim never happened.  He says it did happen and the defense conceded it happend and the best they could do was get him to say it is possible someone of her size could have had the strength to inflict the injuries.

The next thing to do is look for evidence about whether she inflicted the injuries.  Has she done so she would have received abrasions in the process.  She would most likely have chipped the paint on her finger nails and broken them while punching him and striking with the rifle. This is where the defense fell flat.  They could not provide any evidence to suggest she had actually been the one who inflicted the injuries.   

You can't explain how a crazy woman in a scuffle could receive no damage while inflicting these wounds.  The pathologist did not opine that she could have caused these wounds without anything at all happening to her in the process.  You don't address court testimony and arguments that were actually before the jury.  You take a report in isolation or a piece of testimony in isolation because in isolation you can address one point with a theoretical explanation.  The evidence and case as a whole though you cannot refute.

 

       
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 24, 2014, 10:16:35 PM
As scipio pointed out, the rifle butt must have sustained a tremendous blow to break a piece off it.  I've used an air-rifle of similar build, length, weight and age to the Anschutz and the stock on that was of strong hardwood, very difficult to break imo as I think most rifles of that vintage were.
 
What I have difficulty with is why a piece would break off as a result of strong impact with a pliable giving human body. On being hit wouldn't a person's head or body be forced backwards absorbing the blow, thus reducing its severity ?  NB's right forearm bore defence bruises sustained from a rifle barrel and/or butt, and it appears his radial/ulna bones weren't broken which I think would have been had the stock shattered on them.
Peter Vanezis noted that the facial as opposed to the top of head fractures were in his opinion not the result of bullet wounds, i.e. they were possibly sustained from the rifle in some way - metal barrel or wooden stock.   But again I feel the victim's head would need to be held against something fixed and solid itself (such as the floor) for any piece of the stock to break off, otherwise the head would simply be knocked backwards soaking up the impact.

Perhaps it was more likely that the assailant missed his target when trying to beat his opponent (say e.g. if Nevill was quick enough to move out of the way) and the stock hit a hard rigid object such as the edge of the kitchen worktop or the table, a spindle chair back or arm (one of the arms on a chair was broken off) or even the metal guard/towel rail of the AGA.

Alternatively could NB have attempted to hold up a chair or position one between himself and attacker with his functioning arm to shield himself from the raining rifle blows and the butt was broken on it that way ?

Whatever caused the break-off I think the resulting force could have made the assailant lose control of and possibly drop the rifle with the shock of the impact, perhaps also temporarily hurting or even spraining his wrist(s) before he picked it up from the floor again.

And this would be even more damaging to a delicately-built finely-boned woman like Sheila Caffell imo.

(http://i.imgur.com/k0Dz1Oj.jpg)

A skull is quite hard and if hit sufficiently hard it could break.  It could have skidded off his head and into a stationary object as well though.  How did it break?  Consider if only a portion of the stock had struck the head or something else that was very strong. That could cause it to split. He was probably being struck at an angle and not the entire rifle butt was hitting his head. It still has to be a lot of force though to break it.  The definsive wounds prove Nevill was fighting back and no passed out as he was being struck.

The killer had to have one hand right after the trigger around the narrowest portion of the stock where it overlapped with the gun and another hand towards the front of the rifle past where the scope was attached. When the stock broke it broke where the killers hands were and unless the killer had good gloves on this would have done something to the hands. The scope also could have done something to the hands which might be why the scope was removed afterwards. It might have left a tell tale mark on the killer. The killer didn't breka the stock and receive no marks at all in the process unless the killer had gloves and surely can't have wielded a rifle in the manner with long nails and nothing happening to them.       


Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Myster on February 25, 2014, 06:53:25 PM
@scipio.

In different posts over the past few days I got the impression that you believe the telescopic sight was already attached during the assault, then removed afterwards, perhaps because of the following in blue from the 2002 Court of Appeal Document...

13. The rifle was a .22 Anschutz automatic rifle. Together with a Parker Hale sound moderator (silencer) and telescopic sights, it had been bought by Nevill Bamber on 30 November 1984. 500 rounds of ammunition had also been purchased. There was evidence that the gun was used to shoot rabbits and would only ever be used with the sound moderator and the telescopic sights attached. A screwdriver was required to remove the telescopic sights but there was evidence that this was not normally done because of the time it took to realign them.

and...

20. cont... Relevant events before 7 August 1985 21. Anthony Pargeter, Nevill Bamber's nephew and a competition standard shot, stayed at White House Farm between 26-28 July 1985. He saw the .22 rifle in the gun cupboard in the ground floor office. The telescopic sights and sound moderator were attached and the gun appeared in a "new" condition. There were no scratches or marks upon it. Later the appellant, himself a good shot, took the rifle out for some target practice.

and...

35. Upstairs the bodies of June Bamber and Sheila Caffell were found on the floor of the main bedroom. That of Mrs Bamber was very heavily bloodstained and lay by the doorway. Sheila Caffell's body was by her parents bed. The .22 rifle (with the sound moderator and telescopic sights removed) was on her body with her right hand resting lightly upon it and with the muzzle of the weapon just below wounds to her neck. Immediately to her right, resting on the upper right arm and the floor, was a Bible that belonged to June Bamber.


This is probably why you said the sight caused some of the damage to Nevill's face and arms, and could also have injured Jeremy Bamber's hands.



But according to Roger Wilkes (Blood Relations) who interviewed members of the family...

At Bourtree Cottage on the morning after the murders when questioned by David Boutflour, Jeremy Bamber said he had taken the telescopic sight (and silencer) off before he went out to rabbit hunting the previous night, so that it would fit in the gun cupboard afterwards. This struck David as strange, because even with the sight fixed but without silencer, there was enough room for the rifle to fit.  So why did he take the sight off at all, when it had been fully functional beforehand, especially if he was soon about to shoot rabbits from a distance!

The only true reason for its removal as far as I can see was to make it easier to handle without obstruction at close quarters in a planned assault within the confines of White House Farm.

From my own experience with a Nikko-Stirling that I once removed from an air-rifle, I found out how time-consuming and involved it was to zero-in again to anything like the accuracy it was before.

Lesson learned: If it works fine, don't fix it.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 25, 2014, 08:09:34 PM
@scipio.

In different posts over the past few days I got the impression that you believe the telescopic sight was already attached during the assault, then removed afterwards, perhaps because of the following in blue from the 2002 Court of Appeal Document...

13. The rifle was a .22 Anschutz automatic rifle. Together with a Parker Hale sound moderator (silencer) and telescopic sights, it had been bought by Nevill Bamber on 30 November 1984. 500 rounds of ammunition had also been purchased. There was evidence that the gun was used to shoot rabbits and would only ever be used with the sound moderator and the telescopic sights attached. A screwdriver was required to remove the telescopic sights but there was evidence that this was not normally done because of the time it took to realign them.

and...

20. cont... Relevant events before 7 August 1985 21. Anthony Pargeter, Nevill Bamber's nephew and a competition standard shot, stayed at White House Farm between 26-28 July 1985. He saw the .22 rifle in the gun cupboard in the ground floor office. The telescopic sights and sound moderator were attached and the gun appeared in a "new" condition. There were no scratches or marks upon it. Later the appellant, himself a good shot, took the rifle out for some target practice.

and...

35. Upstairs the bodies of June Bamber and Sheila Caffell were found on the floor of the main bedroom. That of Mrs Bamber was very heavily bloodstained and lay by the doorway. Sheila Caffell's body was by her parents bed. The .22 rifle (with the sound moderator and telescopic sights removed) was on her body with her right hand resting lightly upon it and with the muzzle of the weapon just below wounds to her neck. Immediately to her right, resting on the upper right arm and the floor, was a Bible that belonged to June Bamber.


This is probably why you said the sight caused some of the damage to Nevill's face and arms, and could also have injured Jeremy Bamber's hands.



But according to Roger Wilkes (Blood Relations) who interviewed members of the family...

At Bourtree Cottage on the morning after the murders when questioned by David Boutflour, Jeremy Bamber said he had taken the telescopic sight (and silencer) off before he went out to rabbit hunting the previous night, so that it would fit in the gun cupboard afterwards. This struck David as strange, because even with the sight fixed but without silencer, there was enough room for the rifle to fit.  So why did he take the sight off at all, when it had been fully functional beforehand, especially if he was soon about to shoot rabbits from a distance!

The only true reason for its removal as far as I can see was to make it easier to handle without obstruction at close quarters in a planned assault within the confines of White House Farm.

From my own experience with a Nikko-Stirling that I once removed from an air-rifle, I found out how time-consuming and involved it was to zero-in again to anything like the accuracy it was before.

Lesson learned: If it works fine, don't fix it.

I am not convinced that the scope had been removed at the time of the murders. I am not even convinced that Jeremy actually took out the gun, loaded it, unloaded it and left it to be accessed later.  These claims come from Jeremy alone.  He has eveyr reaosn to lie and has been caught in numerous lies so I don't particularly believe him. It is quite possible that he slipped in the house when everyone was asleep, fetched the gun, loaded it at that point including the magazine and that he left the scope and silencer both attached as they were when he found the weapon.  I am not going to rule out the scope being attached just on his say so. Thus it will always be possible to me that the scope had a role we are unaware of and that to this day was not looked at. 

The testimony tends to establish the gun always had the scope and silencer attached.  Jeremy though claims they were not usually attached and had not been attached when he retrieved it.  There were other guns in the same closet though that had scopes and even a silencer attached. Jeremy's claim he sought out a gun with no scope to go shhot bunnies makes no sense. I would use open sights for a large target maybe but not a bunny.  I would want to use a scope and I would even want a scope for a larger animal. I first learned to shoot with open sights.  We didn't get to use scopes until later on in our training and in the field.  Scopes are considerably better than open sights. It was relatively late out so why would he want to skip the suppressor as well and disturb neighbors even if the neighbors were not overly close?  In fact the main reaosn for the supporessor is not even to reduce recoil it is so that the noise doesn't hurt your ears.  A suppressor is not silent as they show on television, not most of them anyway because there are other factors at play.  But a suppressor like this reduces the noise enough so that it doesn't hurt your ears so you don't need to use earplugs. So it makes no sense to choose the weapon he claimed he did.  But worse he didn't just find the gun lacking the suppressor and scope as he claims. If the gun was indeed left by him on the kitchen table without these accessories it means he removed them.  Removing them makes no sense though for going to shoot bunnies there had to be a different motive as you suggest.

We know for a fact the suppressor was used in the murders.  The defense even conceded this point at trial the defense maintained it was Nevill and June's blood in the supporessor and that Sheila removed it before killing herself.

Here is the entire field of possibilities related to the suppressor:

1) it was a lie Jeremy left the gun out at all and in fact the gun was in the closet with the suppressor and scope attached and Jeremy used it in such fashion then removed both accessories after the murders and put them away

2) it was a lie Jeremy left the gun out at all and in fact the gun was in the closet with the suppressor and scope attached but Jeremy removed the scope before committing the murders

3) Jeremy removed the scope but not the suppressor and left it on the table

4) Jeremy left the gun on the table as he claims and the killer later fetched the suppressor and installed it before committing the murders

The defense maintains number 4 is what happened. Number 4 is not consistent with someone being in a crazy rage simply grabbing the gun though form the table. It demonstrates rational thinking. So if that is what happened it doesn't fit with how Sheila was supposed to be acting.

Even if Jeremy had left the gun on the table I don't think Nevill and June would have left the gun and bullets and set the table around them.  Jeremy would have to expect his parents to put the gun somewhere else and tha the would have to go search for it.  He had no need to leave it on the table. If he did prep the gun in advance he could leave it and the bullets hidden in a place where he could find it but no one else was likely to tamper with or even just in the closet and retrive it when he was ready to commit the murders. 

The tale of leaving it on the kitchen table was a contrived one. He invented that tale so people would believe Sheila was having a psychotic episode, the gun and bullets were right there in front of her face and all she had to do was slap a magazine in not load the clip so Nevill could not disarm her safely.  He was scared to try to disarm her and instead called Jeremy to do it. I don't believe tha the took out the gun and left it on the table with the bullets. I believe Jeremy made up this tale to get police to believe that Sheila did it.  The same way he made up the claim she had fired all guns in the house and was proficient with them to get police to believe she did it. He said the suppressor was not attached at this point though it was. Why did he says it wasn't attached? Well first of all he didn't want anyone to know it was used during the crimes.  But also with the suppressor attached the gun would be hanging off the table. The gun would be too long to fit anywhere natural in the room.  That is even more reason why it would have been put away by Nevill or June aside from just the twins being tempted by it.

His claim the suppressor was not on the gun was worthless and clearly a lie.  I don't believe he removed it then put it back on later. He lied about the suppressor so why not the scope?  I therefore am not conviced that the scope was not attached at the time of the murders.  He could have removed it but he might not have. I won't write it off just on his say so. Because no one thought about this possibility no one looked for marks to match to it.  They didn't inspect Jeremy at all which was a giant loss of potential evidence.     

 
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Myster on February 25, 2014, 09:20:39 PM
The fact that the table was already set for breakfast, with what appear to be clean cereal bowls on place mats, spoons, marmalade pot, butter dish as in the CS photo is proof enough for me that the rifle was never on it to begin with, even though stated otherwise in the CoA document. That's a non-starter - it's inconceivable to me that it wouldn't have been removed, if it was ever on there in the first place.

Perhaps he thought that by leaving the suppressor on it would reduce the noise enough not to disturb and wake the twins or Sheila, if the first targets were his parents.

As for the telescopic sight, I'm still of the opinion that it was deliberately removed by JB to make the rifle more easy to use at close quarters. If he had been planning this for months in advance, why would he overlook this - the sight would obstruct his view whilst shooting somebody at arms length, and if your plan is to kill everyone while they were asleep in bed, he wouldn't have needed any kind of sight, fixed or telescopic... just point at the head and fire, as in the botched first attempt at June, and the successful ones at Sheila and the twins. What he hadn't considered was receiving any resistance from Nevill which almost scuppered his plan.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 25, 2014, 10:17:57 PM
The fact that the table was already set for breakfast, with what appear to be clean cereal bowls on place mats, spoons, marmalade pot, butter dish as in the CS photo is proof enough for me that the rifle was never on it to begin with, even though stated otherwise in the CoA document. That's a non-starter - it's inconceivable to me that it wouldn't have been removed, if it was ever on there in the first place.

Perhaps he thought that by leaving the suppressor on it would reduce the noise enough not to disturb and wake the twins or Sheila, if the first targets were his parents.

As for the telescopic sight, I'm still of the opinion that it was deliberately removed by JB to make the rifle more easy to use at close quarters. If he had been planning this for months in advance, why would he overlook this - the sight would obstruct his view whilst shooting somebody at arms length, and if your plan is to kill everyone while they were asleep in bed, he wouldn't have needed any kind of sight, fixed or telescopic... just point at the head and fire, as in the botched first attempt at June, and the successful ones at Sheila and the twins. What he hadn't considered was receiving any resistance from Nevill which almost scuppered his plan.


He didn't need the sight but at close range it would not necessarily obstruct his shot. He could indeed have decided it might obstruct his shot and to remove it which simply suggest even more tha the is guilty if that did occur.  Either he removed it before the murders to make the murders easier or after for a different reason.  Either way it hurts him.

There are 2 different reasons to leave the suppressor:

1) less recoil, 2) less noise and the less noise would mean it would not hurt his ears as much and to have less of a chance to wake up people in other rooms.

He lied about the silencer not being attached when he "left the gun out" and put it away after the murders so no one would know it was attached because after he shot her he realized it was too long for her to commit suicide with it attached. If he had not been overthinking and had just placed the suppressor near her it might not have been as bad, putting it away ended up being a major mistake. That is how criminals get caught though.   
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 18, 2020, 07:20:42 PM
What happened is easy to piece together based on the evidence.  Precisely why it happened cannot be said for sure, there are several variables.

What happened:

Nevill grabbed the rifle, tried to take it away from the killer and they wrestled over it. The weapon swayed all around as they each tried to wrest it from the other.  It crashed into things and knocked them over, probably knocking little knickknacks around in the process.  The silencer scraped against the bottom of the mantelshelf in a random pattern indicating each was fighting for control and it just randomly was swaying.   Their bodies knocked into things like the table and chairs. Eventually the killer punched Neville in the face repeatedly breaking his nose and giving him black eyes.  This enabled the killer to seize sole control of the rifle.  The killer then began striking Nevill with the butt of the rifle.  Defensive wounds indicate Neville tried to block the blows with his arms but eventually the killer was able to hit Nevill in the head repeatedly. The blows were so hard that the stock broke and Nevill was knocked unconscious.  The killer then shot Nevill 3-4 more times in his head and he died. (3 times if the killer had shot him from the stairs, 4 times if the shot from the stairs never occurred and the bullet casing was transported to the stairs by someone accidentally)           

Why did this struggle happen?  Why was Nevill able to grab the rifle?  Why didnít his killer shoot him before he could grab it?  The main variables are whether the gun was loaded or not at the time the Killer entered the kitchen and whether Neville was chasing his killer or his killer was chasing Nevill.

Everyone has always assumed Nevill was being chased by his killer.  I even assumed such because the bullet casing on the stairs suggests his killer was chasing him and still firing.  But if the theory of the medical examiner is correct and all 4 final shots were fired in the kitchen and a shell casing stuck to a shoe and deposited on the stairs this adds a different possibility.

Variables:

1) Gun was empty when the killer exited the bedroom   
a)Nevill took advantage of this and ran down stairs either to use the phone or to try to get a weapon of his own and killer gave chase.
i)Killer caught up with Nevill then tried to bludgeon him and Nevill grabbed the gun and the scuffle ensued, or
ii)Nevill jumped his killer as his killer entered the kitchen and grabbed the gun and the scuffle ensued, or
iii) Nevill's killer caught up with Nevill in the kitchen, pulled the trigger, both realized the gun was empty and Nevill moved to disarm his killer and the struggle ensued

b) Killer was running downstairs to get more ammunition and Nevill gave chase, caught up with his killer in the kitchen and tried to disarm the killer.  No one considered this possibility before.

2) Gun was empty after killer fired from the stairs. Nevill managed to run out of the room and ran down stairs either to use the phone or to try to get a weapon of his own. Killer gave chase and fired 1 shot from the stairs hitting him in the head but it was not severe enough to disable him.  killer followed Nevill into the kitchen either to get more ammo or to try to stop Nevill from reaching the phone or a weapon
a)Killer caught up with Nevill then tried to bludgeon him and Nevill grabbed the gun and the scuffle ensued, or

b)Nevill jumped his killer as his killer entered the kitchen and grabbed the gun and the scuffle ensued, or

c) Nevill's killer caught up with Nevill in the kitchen, Nevill's killer pulled the trigger, both realized the gun was empty and Nevill moved to disarm his killer and the struggle ensued

3) Gun was loaded when killer exited the bedroom and entered the kitchen. Nevill managed to run out of the room and ran down stairs either to use the phone or to try to get a weapon of his own. Killer gave chase.
a) killer fired 1 shot from the stairs hitting Nevill in the head but it was not severe enough to disable him. Killer didnít have any other clear shots before Neville entered the kitchen so killer didnít fire again until after Nevill was unconscious
b) killer could not get any clear shots so decided not to fire at Nevill as he was on the run.

In either event Nevill would have jumped his killer as his killer entered the kitchen and grabbed the gun and the scuffle ensued.  If Nevill didnít jump his killer then his killer would simply have shot him and the scuffle would not have occurred. So if the gun was loaded his killer was ambushed. 

It is highly unlikely that Sheila could have won such a scuffle let alone inflict all the damage that was inflicted on Nevill without Sheila receiving a single scratch.  So it is rather academic which scenario actually occurred.  These are all the possibilities though of why the scuffle took place.  I accounted for every possibility.  I find it interesting that Nevill could have been the one pursuing his killer, that places things in a someone different light.

I wondered why he would not simply run out the front door.  Chasing his killer because he wanted to disarm him before he could reload and because he was angry and wanted revenge would account for why he didn't flee the premises. If someone has a loaded gun and is shooting at you the more space you have to run around the harder a target you will be.  So leaving the premises makes the most sense.  If a killer is close behind, running to a phone is a waste of time. You will leave yourself exposed for a clean shot as you try to dial.  That is why I assumed his goal was to get a weapon of his own.  But that too would be futile if his killer were close behind with a loaded gun.  Moreover I wondered why Nevill would have the guts to charge his attacker and try to grab the gun in the kitchen yet was not desperate/gutsy enough to do so upstairs and wondered how he got by his attacker out the bedroom door.

All these questions are answered if the killer ran out of bullets hen ran downstairs to get more ammo and Nevill gave chase.  It actually makes perfect sense that in this case Nevill would not leave the house but instead attempt to disarm the killer.       


Excellent post!

Itís so refreshing to read someone whoís intelligent.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 18, 2020, 11:20:32 PM
As Scipio says
"I wondered why he would not simply run out the front door.  Chasing his killer because he wanted to disarm him before he could reload and because he was angry and wanted revenge would account for why he didn't flee the premises. If someone has a loaded gun and is shooting at you the more space you have to run around the harder a target you will be.  So leaving the premises makes the most sense.  If a killer is close behind, running to a phone is a waste of time. You will leave yourself exposed for a clean shot as you try to dial.  That is why I assumed his goal was to get a weapon of his own.  But that too would be futile if his killer were close behind with a loaded gun.  Moreover I wondered why Nevill would have the guts to charge his attacker and try to grab the gun in the kitchen yet was not desperate/gutsy enough to do so upstairs and wondered how he got by his attacker out the bedroom door.

All these questions are answered if the killer ran out of bullets hen ran downstairs to get more ammo and Nevill gave chase.  It actually makes perfect sense that in this case Nevill would not leave the house but instead attempt to disarm the killer."

Why didn't both June and Nevill escape via the door near the kitchen?
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 19, 2020, 08:02:03 AM
Re the thread title, perhaps a more pertinent question is if events unfolded as the prosecution want us to believe why didn't the 'scuffle' take place upstairs? 
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 19, 2020, 08:11:21 AM
Re the thread title, perhaps a more pertinent question is if events unfolded as the prosecution want us to believe why didn't the 'scuffle' take place upstairs?

IMO a scuffle didn't take place upstairs because events didn't unfold as the prosecution claim.

Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 19, 2020, 07:19:35 PM
Re the thread title, perhaps a more pertinent question is if events unfolded as the prosecution want us to believe why didn't the 'scuffle' take place upstairs?

Jeremy, the perp, had run out of bullets, dear

And Nevill managed to escape downstairs

Donít you think the police eventually worked all that out? Or are you still stuck almost half a century ago?

You do realise Jeremy Bamber was charged and convicted for these crimes, donít you? And that heís lost every single appeal?

Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 19, 2020, 07:27:33 PM
IMO a scuffle didn't take place upstairs because events didn't unfold as the prosecution claim.

So what are you implying (all imagination, of course )?

That Jeremy frogmarched Nevill downstairs while he went to reload the rifle?

Nevill either went downstairs in panic, fear and desperation for help in a dire emergency, or he was forced downstairs

The PERP (Jeremy) clearly ran out of bullets, otherwise heíd have shot Nevill at the bottom of the stairs.

Sounds like he forced Nevill into the kitchen.

BTW, I thought opinions werenít allowed on here
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: G-Unit on June 19, 2020, 08:50:06 PM
So what are you implying (all imagination, of course )?

That Jeremy frogmarched Nevill downstairs while he went to reload the rifle?

Nevill either went downstairs in panic, fear and desperation for help in a dire emergency, or he was forced downstairs

The PERP (Jeremy) clearly ran out of bullets, otherwise heíd have shot Nevill at the bottom of the stairs.

Sounds like he forced Nevill into the kitchen.

BTW, I thought opinions werenít allowed on here

Opinions are fine so long as they're acknowledged as such and not claimed to be facts.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Caroline on June 19, 2020, 09:19:44 PM

Excellent post!

Itís so refreshing to read someone whoís intelligent.

That's kind of an insult to the rest of us!  @)(++(*
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 20, 2020, 01:17:30 AM
That's kind of an insult to the rest of us!  @)(++(*


I certainly wasnít including you in my remarks, Caroline ó nor several others. So apologies if it came out wrong. 8**8:/:

I was thinking of a handful of other posters....
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 20, 2020, 01:23:13 AM
I am not convinced that the scope had been removed at the time of the murders. I am not even convinced that Jeremy actually took out the gun, loaded it, unloaded it and left it to be accessed later.  These claims come from Jeremy alone.  He has eveyr reaosn to lie and has been caught in numerous lies so I don't particularly believe him. It is quite possible that he slipped in the house when everyone was asleep, fetched the gun, loaded it at that point including the magazine and that he left the scope and silencer both attached as they were when he found the weapon.  I am not going to rule out the scope being attached just on his say so. Thus it will always be possible to me that the scope had a role we are unaware of and that to this day was not looked at. 

The testimony tends to establish the gun always had the scope and silencer attached.  Jeremy though claims they were not usually attached and had not been attached when he retrieved it.  There were other guns in the same closet though that had scopes and even a silencer attached. Jeremy's claim he sought out a gun with no scope to go shhot bunnies makes no sense. I would use open sights for a large target maybe but not a bunny.  I would want to use a scope and I would even want a scope for a larger animal. I first learned to shoot with open sights.  We didn't get to use scopes until later on in our training and in the field.  Scopes are considerably better than open sights. It was relatively late out so why would he want to skip the suppressor as well and disturb neighbors even if the neighbors were not overly close?  In fact the main reaosn for the supporessor is not even to reduce recoil it is so that the noise doesn't hurt your ears.  A suppressor is not silent as they show on television, not most of them anyway because there are other factors at play.  But a suppressor like this reduces the noise enough so that it doesn't hurt your ears so you don't need to use earplugs. So it makes no sense to choose the weapon he claimed he did.  But worse he didn't just find the gun lacking the suppressor and scope as he claims. If the gun was indeed left by him on the kitchen table without these accessories it means he removed them.  Removing them makes no sense though for going to shoot bunnies there had to be a different motive as you suggest.

We know for a fact the suppressor was used in the murders.  The defense even conceded this point at trial the defense maintained it was Nevill and June's blood in the supporessor and that Sheila removed it before killing herself.

Here is the entire field of possibilities related to the suppressor:

1) it was a lie Jeremy left the gun out at all and in fact the gun was in the closet with the suppressor and scope attached and Jeremy used it in such fashion then removed both accessories after the murders and put them away

2) it was a lie Jeremy left the gun out at all and in fact the gun was in the closet with the suppressor and scope attached but Jeremy removed the scope before committing the murders

3) Jeremy removed the scope but not the suppressor and left it on the table

4) Jeremy left the gun on the table as he claims and the killer later fetched the suppressor and installed it before committing the murders

The defense maintains number 4 is what happened. Number 4 is not consistent with someone being in a crazy rage simply grabbing the gun though form the table. It demonstrates rational thinking. So if that is what happened it doesn't fit with how Sheila was supposed to be acting.

Even if Jeremy had left the gun on the table I don't think Nevill and June would have left the gun and bullets and set the table around them.  Jeremy would have to expect his parents to put the gun somewhere else and tha the would have to go search for it.  He had no need to leave it on the table. If he did prep the gun in advance he could leave it and the bullets hidden in a place where he could find it but no one else was likely to tamper with or even just in the closet and retrive it when he was ready to commit the murders. 

The tale of leaving it on the kitchen table was a contrived one. He invented that tale so people would believe Sheila was having a psychotic episode, the gun and bullets were right there in front of her face and all she had to do was slap a magazine in not load the clip so Nevill could not disarm her safely.  He was scared to try to disarm her and instead called Jeremy to do it. I don't believe tha the took out the gun and left it on the table with the bullets. I believe Jeremy made up this tale to get police to believe that Sheila did it.  The same way he made up the claim she had fired all guns in the house and was proficient with them to get police to believe she did it. He said the suppressor was not attached at this point though it was. Why did he says it wasn't attached? Well first of all he didn't want anyone to know it was used during the crimes.  But also with the suppressor attached the gun would be hanging off the table. The gun would be too long to fit anywhere natural in the room.  That is even more reason why it would have been put away by Nevill or June aside from just the twins being tempted by it.

His claim the suppressor was not on the gun was worthless and clearly a lie.  I don't believe he removed it then put it back on later. He lied about the suppressor so why not the scope?  I therefore am not conviced that the scope was not attached at the time of the murders.  He could have removed it but he might not have. I won't write it off just on his say so. Because no one thought about this possibility no one looked for marks to match to it.  They didn't inspect Jeremy at all which was a giant loss of potential evidence.     



Iíve always maintained that Jeremy never even took the gun out that night. Heís a liar, heís proved that.

I believe he removed the scope some time during the day when no-one was around, and simply left it in the cupboard all ready for him to quickly pick it up that night.

 Heís tripped himself up yet again by saying it didnít have the silencer and scope attached, but admitting he took it from the cupboard where it ALWAYS had the scope/silencer attached.

Heís thick.
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 20, 2020, 01:50:13 AM

I certainly wasnít including you in my remarks, Caroline ó nor several others. So apologies if it came out wrong. 8**8:/:

I was thinking of a handful of other posters....
Do you realise it is against the forum rules to insult anyone,
Title: Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 20, 2020, 01:54:29 AM
Do you realise it is against the forum rules to insult anyone?

Yes