Profiling

[John]

Good point Angelo,
moreover, David Boutflour when sitting talking with Jeremy at his cottage shortly after the murders, noticed some scratches on the palm of one of Bamber's hands. Without being prompted Bamber showed him the scratches and offered the explanation that he caught it 'on some barbed wire while working at the farm' and no more was said of it. Stan Jones much later theorised that the scratch(es) could have been made by the sight on end of the barrel of the .22 Anschutz rifle when Nevil unexpectedly fought for his life in the kitchen and probably managed, at one point, to wrest the rifle from Bamber's grasp, When Bamber gained control he swung the gun like a club holding it by the barrel. His hands (one now un-gloved in the struggle) centrifugal force dictates that his hands would have been sliding along the slick barrel with each successive and more ferocious swing. This would have meant that his now sliding grip would have come into contact with the small protruding sight at the end of the barrel with some force and would have undoubtedly scratched Bamber's palm. Although Jones did examine or maybe mention the marks to Bamber it was a pity that more wasn't made of this by DS Jones, but perhaps he knew that it could easily be explained away. (as Bamber had done with Boutflour)  >@@(*&)

Hi Ian, I think I welcomed you back already      Are you still working overseas?


I subscribe to what you have just posted but I didn't realise that Jeremy had other marks on the inside of his hand.  I wonder is that the same hand?

What you have explained certainly makes very great sense, he would be holding the rifle by the barrel and swinging it like a club against Nevill and managed to clip the glass lamp shade.  It must have taken quite a bit of force to break that piece off the stock too.  I assume the stock must have come into contact with some very hard object to do such damage.

[Eleanor]

There must have been a fight of some kind with an object of some kind, to break the lamp shade.  So why not a fight over the gun.  Hardly likely to have been Sheila in that case.
Just musing.

[Holly Goodhead]

Jeremy definitely had no visible marks to his face eg fingernail scratches, cuts from the broken lampshade, bruising from potential scuffle with Mr Bamber etc.  How did he protect his face and eyes?  Could he have worn a drysuit or wetsuit hood?

 
a simple balaclava might have been enough to protect his face from scratches

Agreed Iggy68 but I believe Jeremy was very image conscious so he probably wanted it all matching.  Typical psychopath - shallow

[Holly Goodhead]

There must have been a fight of some kind with an object of some kind, to break the lamp shade.  So why not a fight over the gun.  Hardly likely to have been Sheila in that case.
Just musing.

Eleanor I think I read somewhere that the lampshade may have already been broken as there was no glass found on the floor.  I think when the relatives went in on the Friday they noticed the broken lampshade and assumed it was broken in the scuffle between Mr Bamber and either Jeremy or Sheila.  I am not sure how reliable this is though.  I'm new to the case.  Perhaps one of the more experienced posters will know.   

[Eleanor]

There must have been a fight of some kind with an object of some kind, to break the lamp shade.  So why not a fight over the gun.  Hardly likely to have been Sheila in that case.
Just musing.

Eleanor I think I read somewhere that the lampshade may have already been broken as there was no glass found on the floor.  I think when the relatives went in on the Friday they noticed the broken lampshade and assumed it was broken in the scuffle between Mr Bamber and either Jeremy or Sheila.  I am not sure how reliable this is though.  I'm new to the case.  Perhaps one of the more experienced posters will know.   

Someone cited Sheila's innocence because she couldn't have been in the kitchen because there was no glass on her feet or clothing.  So now I am lost again.  That was my main reason for thinking her innocent.

[starryian]

Good point Angelo,
moreover, David Boutflour when sitting talking with Jeremy at his cottage shortly after the murders, noticed some scratches on the palm of one of Bamber's hands. Without being prompted Bamber showed him the scratches and offered the explanation that he caught it 'on some barbed wire while working at the farm' and no more was said of it. Stan Jones much later theorised that the scratch(es) could have been made by the sight on end of the barrel of the .22 Anschutz rifle when Nevil unexpectedly fought for his life in the kitchen and probably managed, at one point, to wrest the rifle from Bamber's grasp, When Bamber gained control he swung the gun like a club holding it by the barrel. His hands (one now un-gloved in the struggle) centrifugal force dictates that his hands would have been sliding along the slick barrel with each successive and more ferocious swing. This would have meant that his now sliding grip would have come into contact with the small protruding sight at the end of the barrel with some force and would have undoubtedly scratched Bamber's palm. Although Jones did examine or maybe mention the marks to Bamber it was a pity that more wasn't made of this by DS Jones, but perhaps he knew that it could easily be explained away. (as Bamber had done with Boutflour)  >@@(*&)

Hi Ian, I think I welcomed you back already      Are you still working overseas?


I subscribe to what you have just posted but I didn't realise that Jeremy had other marks on the inside of his hand.  I wonder is that the same hand?

What you have explained certainly makes very great sense, he would be holding the rifle by the barrel and swinging it like a club against Nevill and managed to clip the glass lamp shade.  It must have taken quite a bit of force to break that piece off the stock too.  I assume the stock must have come into contact with some very hard object to do such damage.

Hi John
Yes still overseas until the summer when I return to good old Blighty and devote some serious time to the excellent points raised on the forum. A very shrewd observation John, yes the glass lampshade - I'd quite forgotten that. It was probably broken as a result of the rifle being used as a club by Bamber. It also shows just how much Bamber was swinging it, and how far back each swing was aimed. The sheer ferociousness of the battering that Nevil received resulted in the wooden stock of the rifle being splintered and broken (a large piece was later discovered on the kitchen floor, as was Nevil's bloody wristw..ch (under a rug) This aspect of the crime was the turning point for me when I first read it, way back when. It was just not credible that the waif-like Sheila would have been able to muster such force 1. To wrest the rifle back from his strong grasp and 2. To batter him unconscious with unimaginable ferocity and callousness. I suspect that Bamber frogmarched Nevil to the kitchen in order to construct his later alibi of a distressed call from the farm. This was after shooting and wounding him in the bedroom. Bamber's plan almost went awry due to the fact that he had Nevil where he wanted him in the kitchen (by the sideboard as Nevil's blood was found here) and pulled the trigger and got the 'dead man's click' - He'd run out of bullets. Nevil saw his chance and went for it - severely injured though he was - grabbed the rifle. The two fought - one for life the other for death. After finally wresting the weapon from the severely injured man, Bamber proceeded to batter him - I believe it was here that Bamber sustained the scratches on the palm of his hand-  until he was no longer a threat swinging the rifle like a club. The gunshot wounds to Nevil suggest that he was shot primarily where he sat or lay - across a chair, but (this is where I am almost certain) Bamber shot Nevil while he was standing on the other side of the kitchen table (the ballistic evidence substantiates this) There was a reason why Bamber did not finish Nevil off at close range and stood the other side of the table; because that's where the ammo was; on top of the kitchen sideboard, hastily pulled out of it's box. This was certainly not the work of a deranged woman, the evidence does not bear this out at all, but a young, fit determined and ruthless man. That man can only have been Jeremy Bamber.

[starryian]

There must have been a fight of some kind with an object of some kind, to break the lamp shade.  So why not a fight over the gun.  Hardly likely to have been Sheila in that case.
Just musing.

You're right Eleanor. The fight was over possession of the gun. Nevil was 6ft 4" tall, some 15 stones and very strong. A common myth is that Nevil was 'very old' He was not. Nevil had just turned 61, not even retirement age for a man.
To put this into perspective Sir Paul McCartney is 72 years old (we all love him) - some 11 years older than Nevil. He plays sell out concerts around the world and is still a huge draw and shows no signs of slowing down.(I am a big fan) 
Workwise, Nevil Bamber was much the same. He had a work ethic that put men half his age to shame. He would regularly show the casual workers on the farm how to throw an impossibly heavy bail of hay onto a tractor trailer (no mean feat) and accomplish this with relative ease.
In short Nevil was a strong, powerful, working man. The 8 stone uncoordinated and waif-like Sheila Caffell would have been absolutely no match for him at all - deranged or not. This wholly absurd suggestion was what DS Stan Jones first suspect all was not what it seemed at the farm.

[Holly Goodhead]

Gosh Starryian your posts above almost freaked me out as I felt we were there witnessing the event.

The pathologists report (page 10) states that Mr Bamber put up a "spirited defence".  He also states that he was unable to tell whether Sheila had been murdered or committed suicide.  If he thought Sheila could not have been the perpetrator due to the "spirited defence" surely he would have said?  A pathologist is after all highly skilled and trained in such matters are they not?

I think some view women as passive due to the way they were portrayed in the media.  I am very petite and feminine and yet I play fly-half for my uni's rugby team.  I'm around 1.61 meteres and 53 kg and yet when I train with the team I can lift heavier weights that some of the bigger girls. 

The US now allows women to fight on the front line.  There is virtually nothing a woman can't do that a man can and vice-versa.  To say otherwise I think could be seen as sexist.

[John]

Eleanor I think I read somewhere that the lampshade may have already been broken as there was no glass found on the floor.  I think when the relatives went in on the Friday they noticed the broken lampshade and assumed it was broken in the scuffle between Mr Bamber and either Jeremy or Sheila.  I am not sure how reliable this is though.  I'm new to the case.  Perhaps one of the more experienced posters will know.   

No Holly, glass was all over the floor.  If I may borrow from one of Ian's earlier posts...

A very good point. Furthermore after thinking this through carefully you may also like to consider this point. During the struggle in the kitchen a glass, ornamental lampshade hanging at least 7-8 feet above the kitchen table was broken. This can clearly be seen in crime scene photos. The glass was the type that is thin and will fragment exponentially and into a multitude of small pieces when broken violently and will spread over a wide area. The TFT mentioned in their logs that on their journey through the kitchen a 'crunching noise was widely heard' . It was inconceivable that Sheila Caffell did not show any signs of having walked upon or trod on this glass if she was present in the kitchen. The barefoot Sheila would have almost certainly have acquired at the very least; small nicks on the bottoms of her feet along with other glass residue (from the broken sugar bowl found at the scene) None was ever found. In fact, her feet were perfectly clean. Totally inconsistent with her alleged presence in the kitchen. My conclusion is straightforward and hardly surprising - Sheila was not present in the kitchen and therefore could not have murdered her father. Due to his phone call to the police claiming that 'Sheila had gone nuts with the gun' along with his claim that his father make a phone call (the kitchen phone was the only usable phone found in the house); leaves only ONE individual that could have done the deed - Jeremy Bamber. It is highly improbable to arrive to any other conclusion.

[Eleanor]

Eleanor I think I read somewhere that the lampshade may have already been broken as there was no glass found on the floor.  I think when the relatives went in on the Friday they noticed the broken lampshade and assumed it was broken in the scuffle between Mr Bamber and either Jeremy or Sheila.  I am not sure how reliable this is though.  I'm new to the case.  Perhaps one of the more experienced posters will know.   

No Holly, glass was all over the floor.  If I may borrow from one of Ian's earlier posts...

A very good point. Furthermore after thinking this through carefully you may also like to consider this point. During the struggle in the kitchen a glass, ornamental lampshade hanging at least 7-8 feet above the kitchen table was broken. This can clearly be seen in crime scene photos. The glass was the type that is thin and will fragment exponentially and into a multitude of small pieces when broken violently and will spread over a wide area. The TFT mentioned in their logs that on their journey through the kitchen a 'crunching noise was widely heard' . It was inconceivable that Sheila Caffell did not show any signs of having walked upon or trod on this glass if she was present in the kitchen. The barefoot Sheila would have almost certainly have acquired at the very least; small nicks on the bottoms of her feet along with other glass residue (from the broken sugar bowl found at the scene) None was ever found. In fact, her feet were perfectly clean. Totally inconsistent with her alleged presence in the kitchen. My conclusion is straightforward and hardly surprising - Sheila was not present in the kitchen and therefore could not have murdered her father. Due to his phone call to the police claiming that 'Sheila had gone nuts with the gun' along with his claim that his father make a phone call (the kitchen phone was the only usable phone found in the house); leaves only ONE individual that could have done the deed - Jeremy Bamber. It is highly improbable to arrive to any other conclusion.

Thank God for that.  I was only just in the process of changing my mind about Mr. Jeremy Bamber, something that I do not do easily.
To me The Glass on the kitchen floor is the deciding factor.

[Holly Goodhead]

Eleanor I think I read somewhere that the lampshade may have already been broken as there was no glass found on the floor.  I think when the relatives went in on the Friday they noticed the broken lampshade and assumed it was broken in the scuffle between Mr Bamber and either Jeremy or Sheila.  I am not sure how reliable this is though.  I'm new to the case.  Perhaps one of the more experienced posters will know.   

No Holly, glass was all over the floor.  If I may borrow from one of Ian's earlier posts...

A very good point. Furthermore after thinking this through carefully you may also like to consider this point. During the struggle in the kitchen a glass, ornamental lampshade hanging at least 7-8 feet above the kitchen table was broken. This can clearly be seen in crime scene photos. The glass was the type that is thin and will fragment exponentially and into a multitude of small pieces when broken violently and will spread over a wide area. The TFT mentioned in their logs that on their journey through the kitchen a 'crunching noise was widely heard' . It was inconceivable that Sheila Caffell did not show any signs of having walked upon or trod on this glass if she was present in the kitchen. The barefoot Sheila would have almost certainly have acquired at the very least; small nicks on the bottoms of her feet along with other glass residue (from the broken sugar bowl found at the scene) None was ever found. In fact, her feet were perfectly clean. Totally inconsistent with her alleged presence in the kitchen. My conclusion is straightforward and hardly surprising - Sheila was not present in the kitchen and therefore could not have murdered her father. Due to his phone call to the police claiming that 'Sheila had gone nuts with the gun' along with his claim that his father make a phone call (the kitchen phone was the only usable phone found in the house); leaves only ONE individual that could have done the deed - Jeremy Bamber. It is highly improbable to arrive to any other conclusion.

Thank God for that.  I was only just in the process of changing my mind about Mr. Jeremy Bamber, something that I do not do easily.
To me The Glass on the kitchen floor is the deciding factor.

Eleanor hi.  I have read that a bowl of sugar was knocked off the kitchen table by the raid team upon entering and that this can account for the crunching sound and possible broken crockery.  Unsure about this though.  Best to rely on one of the more experienced posters.  My knowledge about this case is better than the McCann case but still limited.  I hadn't heard of this case up until a month ago. 

[starryian]

Gosh Starryian your posts above almost freaked me out as I felt we were there witnessing the event.

The pathologists report (page 10) states that Mr Bamber put up a "spirited defence".  He also states that he was unable to tell whether Sheila had been murdered or committed suicide.  If he thought Sheila could not have been the perpetrator due to the "spirited defence" surely he would have said?  A pathologist is after all highly skilled and trained in such matters are they not?

I think some view women as passive due to the way they were portrayed in the media.  I am very petite and feminine and yet I play fly-half for my uni's rugby team.  I'm around 1.61 meteres and 53 kg and yet when I train with the team I can lift heavier weights that some of the bigger girls. 

The US now allows women to fight on the front line.  There is virtually nothing a woman can't do that a man can and vice-versa.  To say otherwise I think could be seen as sexist.

Hi Holly and thank you for the reply. I stand by what I say there is no way that Sheila could have physically have tackled Nevil. This is not a generic statement regarding all women, but one merely pointed towards the evidence of Sheila and her condition at the time she was murdered. She was left physically weak and very uncoordinated due to her medication. There is absolutely nothing sexist about it.

[Eleanor]

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.

[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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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