Profiling

[starryian]

I don't really know. Holly Goodhead.  My knowledge of The McCann Case is vast, if not absolutely total.  While my knowledge of Jeremy Bamber is limited.
I came into this discussion pretty certain in my own mind that Jeremy Bamber could be innocent.  I am no longer anywhere near so sure.  And it didn't take me all that long to question my previous conceptions.

There are some points of evidence that are fundamental, and you only need a couple of those.  The rest is just dressing.
It is very doubtful that Sheila could have fought and won a physical battle against Neville Bamber.

I also am very strong physically, but i have yet to meet a man that I could beat in a stand up punch up.  And I feel no shame about this.  It is just a fact of life.

So why would she then go back upstairs and shoot herself twice when the first shot would almost certainly have disabled her?
This does not make sense.  I suspect that Sheila never went downstairs in the first place.  I also now suspect That Jeremy shot her twice because the first shot didn't actually kill her.

I think Eleanor that Sheila did not go downstairs at all. Nothing on her person was found to indicate that she did. I believe that Bamber shot the twins first - then nevil hearing the noise got out of bed only to meet Jeremy on the landing (the bullet casing evidence bears this out) who then shot Nevil and wounded him. Nevil retreated into the bedroom, where he obviously tried to protect his wife June. Bamber callously shot June while she was sitting up in bed and shot Nevil a second time, whereupon he frogmarched him (Evidence of gun barrel marks on his back may bear this out) down to the kitchen, where the fight took place. Bamber then went back upstairs and saw June still moving. He stood over her and shot her once between the eyes killing her instantly. It was not that he entered the room of the heavily sedated Sheila, whom he aroused from her sleep and walked her to the main bedroom where she would have seen the body of her mother June. I believe that Bamber threatened Sheila with the life of her children if she did not cooperate (she did not know they were aleady dead) He coerced her into putting the rifle under her chin and he pulled the trigger. To his chargrin, Sheila was still alive, so he shot her again, this time fatally. He then showered and climbed out of the kitchen window and cycled home to make his 'father just phoned me' phone call.

[Eleanor]

There is more to it than just the glass also Eleanor. A bowl of sugar had been upset onto the floor. It would also be inconceivable that a barefoot Sheila didnt manage to pick any of the glass or sugar up on the soles of her feet, especially when she is supposed to been in a vicious fight with her father in the kitchen. Put succinctly, she was not in the kitchen. Nor was she in a fight with her father - there is absolutely no evidence of either event happening whatsoever. This of course has enormous implications for Jeremy Bamber who claimed on the phone to a police officer that 'My father just phoned, he told me that Sheila has gone crazy and has got the gun' With this statement Eleanor, Bamber made it  two horse race. It was either Sheila (if you believe Bamber's version of events) OR he was lying about that phonecall. The only possible reason for Bamber to lie about that phone call can only be that he was involved. There is no other scenario. Now if we look realistically at the evidence of Sheila's possible culpability, it amounts to absolutely zero. No blood on her pristine nightdress (inconceivable if she's just been in a brutal fight with her father) No debris on the soles of her feet (equally inconceivable if you couple this with the first point)
and she had managed to shoot herself twice (this is theoretically possible at least, but I do not believe she was conscious after the first shot - a sub-sonic bullet travelling into her chin at that speed would have knocked her unconscious, considering that the hardened chin of a heavyweight boxer meets the same unconscious state with just a fifty pounds of concussive pressure applied to the same area)
In sum, Eleanor, Bamber made his fatal mistake with the story about that phone call. It instantly closed the notion of any other person being responsible but Sheila or himself, and as we have seen she could not have been involved.
Bamber is undoubtedly guilty.

Yep, I get all of that, Ian.  Jeremy Bamber precluded any other explanation by his reporting of the phone call from his father.  Glaringly obvious.  If it wasn't Sheila then it had to be him.  And I don't suppose you need me to explain why.  Although I could if it was necessary.

The fact remains that Sheila could almost certainly not have done it because evidence puts her somewhere else at the time, without any evidence that she was ever in the kitchen when Nevile was shot to death.

I have already conceded defeat.  And it only took me half of a day of reading proven evidence.

I am a bit sad about this, but thar you go.

[starryian]

I don't really know. Holly Goodhead.  My knowledge of The McCann Case is vast, if not absolutely total.  While my knowledge of Jeremy Bamber is limited.
I came into this discussion pretty certain in my own mind that Jeremy Bamber could be innocent.  I am no longer anywhere near so sure.  And it didn't take me all that long to question my previous conceptions.

There are some points of evidence that are fundamental, and you only need a couple of those.  The rest is just dressing.
It is very doubtful that Sheila could have fought and won a physical battle against Neville Bamber.

I also am very strong physically, but i have yet to meet a man that I could beat in a stand up punch up.  And I feel no shame about this.  It is just a fact of life.

So why would she then go back upstairs and shoot herself twice when the first shot would almost certainly have disabled her?
This does not make sense.  I suspect that Sheila never went downstairs in the first place.  I also now suspect That Jeremy shot her twice because the first shot didn't actually kill her.

Yes you might be right Eleanor.  At uni we are always told "think critically" 8-)(--).  I try not to assume too much.  I think if it is so obvious then why did the police initially go down the 4 murders/1 suicide route?  Also when presented with the victims, crime scene etc why did the pathologist not think it strange?  Even when the pathologist was told the police enquiry was moving in a different direction he still maintained he was unable to confirm whether Sheila was murdered or committed suicide.  Even two of the jurors at trial returned not guilty verdicts.  I remind myself that Mr Bamber had already been shot four times by the time he reached the kitchen and might easily have been overpowered.  The pathologist makes reference to traces of cannabis and Sheila's medication being present in her system but the pathologist would surely have known if this would have prevented Sheila from potentially overpowering her father due to uncoordination etc.

Re the two shots to Sheila, again the pathologist states he is unable to tell whether it is a case of murder or suicide. 

Anyway need to get ready now for a girls night out on the town 

Holly, this is the crux of this case. The police were duped from the start. Bamber had already painted the picture for them, telling them that his sister was 'a nutter' a 'dangerous woman who was deranged'. This was the mindset of the police that morning. The pathologists job is not to investigate - that is for the police. They are there to give their scientific opinion according to the evidence there at the scene to determine how somone died. The pathologist in this case stated he did not know. He was also being badgered by one Chief Investigator DCI Jones. A man who seems to have already made up his mind that it was four murders and a suicide. Despite some serious misgivings from junior officers, most noticably namesake Detective Sargeant Stan Jones. DCI Jones promptly ignored their misgivings and promptly went off to finish a game of golf at the local course. Furthermore, the scene was also badly handled and mismanaged by SOCO DI Cooke and much vital evidence was lost. Bamber even managed to convince police to destroy evidence shortly after the murders - such was the mindset of the police at the time. A 1992 City of London Police Review (COLP) Heavily criticised the shoddy police investigation with DCI Jones (By then deceased) coming in for most of the criticism for the mindset of the police that day. However, the report did highlight that althought the inital investigation was perfunctory the follow up was very thorough and managed to unmask the real culprit.
The poor quality of the initial investigation has given Bamber and his cronies leverage to question his conviction numerous times over the last 26 years or so. In the meantime he has also developed a habit of changing or inserting scenarios as and when they are offered to him by his supporters. Put simply, he is guilty and true-to-form has tried to squirm out of his rightful punishment. It has failed, just like his evil plan on the night of August 7th/8th 1985.
The two jurors could not make up their minds as to the guilt or innocence of Bamber but 10 DID. A 10-2 majority is all that is needed to secure a conviction. That conviction has stood the test of time, Bambers versions have not.

[starryian]

There is more to it than just the glass also Eleanor. A bowl of sugar had been upset onto the floor. It would also be inconceivable that a barefoot Sheila didnt manage to pick any of the glass or sugar up on the soles of her feet, especially when she is supposed to been in a vicious fight with her father in the kitchen. Put succinctly, she was not in the kitchen. Nor was she in a fight with her father - there is absolutely no evidence of either event happening whatsoever. This of course has enormous implications for Jeremy Bamber who claimed on the phone to a police officer that 'My father just phoned, he told me that Sheila has gone crazy and has got the gun' With this statement Eleanor, Bamber made it  two horse race. It was either Sheila (if you believe Bamber's version of events) OR he was lying about that phonecall. The only possible reason for Bamber to lie about that phone call can only be that he was involved. There is no other scenario. Now if we look realistically at the evidence of Sheila's possible culpability, it amounts to absolutely zero. No blood on her pristine nightdress (inconceivable if she's just been in a brutal fight with her father) No debris on the soles of her feet (equally inconceivable if you couple this with the first point)
and she had managed to shoot herself twice (this is theoretically possible at least, but I do not believe she was conscious after the first shot - a sub-sonic bullet travelling into her chin at that speed would have knocked her unconscious, considering that the hardened chin of a heavyweight boxer meets the same unconscious state with just a fifty pounds of concussive pressure applied to the same area)
In sum, Eleanor, Bamber made his fatal mistake with the story about that phone call. It instantly closed the notion of any other person being responsible but Sheila or himself, and as we have seen she could not have been involved.
Bamber is undoubtedly guilty.

Yep, I get all of that, Ian.  Jeremy Bamber precluded any other explanation by his reporting of the phone call from his father.  Glaringly obvious.  If it wasn't Sheila then it had to be him.  And I don't suppose you need me to explain why.  Although I could if it was necessary.

The fact remains that Sheila could almost certainly not have done it because evidence puts her somewhere else at the time, without any evidence that she was ever in the kitchen when Nevile was shot to death.

I have already conceded defeat.  And it only took me half of a day of reading proven evidence.

I am a bit sad about this, but thar you go.

Eleanor, it is not defeat but merely an awakening. I too initially thought he was innocent until I looked deeper in to the case and found, somewhat to my disgust, that he was not only guilty but an incredibly devious, manipulative and evil man. The more I looked at his actions, his way of life, the more I became convinced that he was a psychopath that very nearly got away with a truly despicable crime. I think you are a questioning and somewhat clever woman. This is why you are here. You have searched for answers. Often it is not what we expect or hope to find, but we find it nonetheless. Keep posting Eleanor, your posts are excellent.

[John]

Holly, since you have raised the issue of the smashed glass light shade and suggested that there was no glass found on the kitchen floor I must draw your attention to the trial transcript below when the then SOCO DC Hammersley was questioned at trial.

I don't know who told you that there was no glass on the floor but they were wrong.  There was also crockery scattered about the kitchen floor.

There exists somewhere photographs of this but they are yet to appear.

[Eleanor]

Thank you, Ian.  I don't know if I am clever or not.  I only think that I am logical.  But a lot of other people think that without it being necessarily true.

Basically, I am a mathematician, albeit without formal qualification.  But adding two plus two was never difficult for the likes of me,  presuming that you know what two and two is.  So therefor you should never jump to conclusion if you don't have all of the facts.  I did do this with Jeremy Bamber, so more shame on me.

I did most definitely not come here to defend The McCanns, although Logistics tell me that they cannot possibly have done what they have been accused of.  Mathematics again.  Some things are just not logistically possible.  But that is by the by on this Thread.

I followed The Casey Anthony Trial from start to finish.  And not once did The Prosecution convince me that Casey had  deliberately  killed that child.  So what she might have done became irrelevant.  But this was America where more Miscarriages of Justice happen than I can bear to think of.  And yes, they do seriously upset me.  And I did take some serious lambasting on that one.  So I am not afraid to go against the grain.

Not that Britain hasn't had a few of it's own.  And we had a very serious Case in France not so long ago, which was eventually proved to be false.  Unfortunately, I am not very good at arguing in French, so I wasn't of much use.
The only other one in France that I was alerted to resulted in his decapitation before I ever became aware of it.  So my concerns were a bit too late for him.

But if any of you ever feel inclined to take up the cudgels for Leonor Cipriano in Portugal, then that might be a good one.

Sorry if I have gone off topic.  I appear to have been wrong about Jeremy Bamber.  But I am not always wrong.

[starryian]

Thank you very much for that Eleanor,
A very interesting posting. I agree that evidence is key, but I also belive that in cases involving human beings to use your instinct as well. The two combined helps police all over the world to set in mention an investigation and by using logical analysis decide to prosecute or not. I very much agree with you on the appalling rate of miscarriages of justice, especially in America, where the system is dare I say 'deeply flawed'. Having lived in America for some years, I got to witness many miscarriages. I used the term 'miscarriages' not just wheree the state have convicted an innocent person but where a clearly guilty person has gotten away with it. (OJ Simpson being the most notable example) It is a judicial system based on presentation, plea bargaining, acting and drama. This is why large trials in America focuses rather uncomfortably on the jury members and often interviews them and in some cases have paid ex jury members to make their own TV shows. It is a system that allows the 'attorneys' to become a high focus of attention (Who can but fail to remember high-priced antics of Johnny Cochran at O.Js trail?)
Moreover, miscarriages of justice especially involving the death penalty are rarely corrected and is the decision of the State Governor, who may have an election on the horizon and wants to appear 'tough on crime' (A certain George W. Bush was a class example of this. He refused to grant clemency to all of those who appealed during his tenure as Governor of Texas) Personally I believe the judical system in many countries are appalling. Norway seems to have completely lost the plot. Neo Nazi Anders Brievik was recently found guilty of the murders of 77 - yes that is 77 people whom he callously shot dead one by one in the infamous massacre a few years back, received 21 years, less than a person convicted of manslaughter or distributing Class A drugs in the US.
Now until we have a sensible, credible and accountable judiciary miscarriages of justice will undoubtedly occur (The most heartbreaking was the case of Stefan Kizsco who served 16 years in prison after he was wrongly convicted of the sexual assault and murder of 11 year old Lesley Molseed. His ordeal was described by one MP as "the worst miscarriage of justice of all time" Another man was later charged and convicted of her murder. The years of incarceration for something he had not done had both mentally and emotionally destroyed him. Kiszko became a virtual recluse and showed little interest in anything or anyone. Tragically Stefan died just one year after he was released and before he had received a penny in compensation for his suffering. I think it fair to say that we are all here to prevent another case like that of poor Stefan Kizsco.

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly, since you have raised the issue of the smashed glass light shade and suggested that there was no glass found on the kitchen floor I must draw your attention to the trial transcript below when the then SOCO DC Hammersley was questioned at trial.

I don't know who told you that there was no glass on the floor but they were wrong.  There was also crockery scattered about the kitchen floor.

There exists somewhere photographs of this but they are yet to appear.

Thank you for supplying this John.  As I said in my post #33 I was unsure about the lampshade.

[John]

I think the 'no glass on the floor' to be yet another myth in the Jeremy Bamber case.  I would love to know where you heard it though?

Could it have been a seminar at Bristol Uni??   >@@(*&)