Shooting Reconstruction

[Holly Goodhead]

Don’t forget Jeremy Bamber dragged Sheila along the carpet: that was proved by the fact her nightdress was bunched up behind her back and he’d obviously pulled the front down after repositioning her

There were also drag marks on the carpet

So no-one knows how she was sitting/standing when he shot her dead

My guess is she was cowering beside the bed trying to hide & then after shooting her he had to lay her flat and place the rifle on her lap to make it look like suicide

No reliable info exists as to SC's found position and those items found on or near her person ie rifle and bible as there's much evidence from first respondents and an expert witness that SC was moved between first respondents finding her and soc images taken.

[Holly Goodhead]

No reliable info exists as to SC's found position and those items found on or near her person ie rifle and bible as there's much evidence from first respondents and an expert witness that SC was moved between first respondents finding her and soc images taken.

A/PS Woodcock, who was one of the first to enter WHF and observe SC noted her head slightly raised against the bedside cabinet.  And yet soc images depict her head flat on the floor.  I will refrain from uploading graphic soc images but newer members can find these online.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=166.0;attach=251

Either the above was not disclosed to JB's defence or it wasoverlooked.  Either way it was something the prosecution seized on at 2002 appeal and used it to its own advantage by suggesting it was JB who moved SC when in fact SC was moved at soc after first respondents entered.

518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[Caroline]

A/PS Woodcock, who was one of the first to enter WHF and observe SC noted her head slightly raised against the bedside cabinet.  And yet soc images depict her head flat on the floor.  I will refrain from uploading graphic soc images but newer members can find these online.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=166.0;attach=251

Either the above was not disclosed to JB's defence or it wasoverlooked.  Either way it was something the prosecution seized on at 2002 appeal and used it to its own advantage by suggesting it was JB who moved SC when in fact SC was moved at soc after first respondents entered.

518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

That isn't referring to her head having moved (which could have occurred when Craig examined her), it is referring to her body being pulled down so that her nightdress is gathered at the back.

[Holly Goodhead]

That isn't referring to her head having moved (which could have occurred when Craig examined her), it is referring to her body being pulled down so that her nightdress is gathered at the back.

No it isn't. He concludes after the second shot SC's head would have been propped against the bedside cabinet which is exactly as one of the first respondents, A/PS  Woodcock, describes it but fast forward some 2/3 hours when soc images were taken and SC's head is flat to the floor.  Those at soc clearly interfered with SC and as usual JB takes the blame.

518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.

[Caroline]

No it isn't. He concludes after the second shot SC's head would have been propped against the bedside cabinet which is exactly as one of the first respondents, A/PS  Woodcock, describes it but fast forward some 2/3 hours when soc images were taken and SC's head is flat to the floor.  Those at soc clearly interfered with SC and as usual JB takes the blame.

518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.

Read the next sentence Holly!

[Holly Goodhead]

Read the next sentence Holly!

What about it?

[Caroline]

No it isn't. He concludes after the second shot SC's head would have been propped against the bedside cabinet which is exactly as one of the first respondents, A/PS  Woodcock, describes it but fast forward some 2/3 hours when soc images were taken and SC's head is flat to the floor.  Those at soc clearly interfered with SC and as usual JB takes the blame.

518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.

What about it?

They aren't just talking about her head falling to one side.

[Myster]

You can't tell anything from the shell casings - for instance the shots fired at Sheila are on both sides of her body and the argument used is one of them must have bounced. Also, there was a bed cover on the floor next to June's side of the bed - did the casings fall on the cover or were they underneath - were they disturbed by the cover?

Regarding Sheila, I do believe that at least one of the casings, DRH.1, must have rebounded off the side of the bed to land where it did.  It's accepted, I think, that the final two shots to June's head occurred whilst she was lying immobilised in the doorway, with the shooter standing above her and rifle pointing downwards.  The fully-opened door itself was blocking any ejected casings from travelling to where the largest number were located, between the bed and large clothes cupboard. Therefore, the only ones they could be were either DRH.3 and 4, or DRH.13 and 14, which makes Holly's theory that Nevill was shot four times whilst coming upstairs then descending, untenable.  Picture yourself standing just inside or outside the bedroom doorway, or on the threshold, with the rifle pointing at June's head, and think which direction the two casings would travel and where they would land. Furthermore, the actual police diagram shows that DRH.13 and 14 resulted from the final two shots at June.  They were there to examine the scene and carnage, we weren't.

[Myster]

A fairly accurate ITV WHF re-creation of June Bamber's body, the door blocking stray ejected casings from landing between bed and wardrobe to the right. In the real CS photo her head was more towards the threshold, but I didn't want to post that here...

[barrier]

A fairly accurate ITV WHF re-creation of June Bamber's body, the door blocking stray ejected casings from landing between bed and wardrobe to the right. In the real CS photo her head was more towards the threshold, but I didn't want to post that here...

Was Sheilas nightdress examined for blood splatter from any of her supposed victims(Bamber defence) to me theres not a cat in hells chance of no blood splatter,look at the amount of blood on the Junes nightdress.
Why not post the real photos?

[Angelo222]

Was Sheilas nightdress examined for blood splatter from any of her supposed victims(Bamber defence) to me theres not a cat in hells chance of no blood splatter,look at the amount of blood on the Junes nightdress.
Why not post the real photos?

Yes, it was examined.  The only blood on Sheila was her own and all that originated from the two gunshots to her neck.

Supporters theorise that she changed clothes after shooting everyone and after the fight in the kitchen but no other blood soaked clothing was ever found. Just another supporter dead end I'm afraid.  The evidence is very clear, Sheila could never have been the killer.

[barrier]

Yes, it was examined.  The only blood on Sheila was her own and all that originated from the two gunshots to her neck.

Supporters theorise that she changed clothes after shooting everyone and after the fight in the kitchen but no other blood soaked clothing was ever found. Just another supporter dead end I'm afraid.  The evidence is very clear, Sheila could never have been the killer.

Thanks,not the best of defences for Bambers apologist's is it,going beserk with a gun then all calmness to change,did Bambers defence offer any thoughts on this.

[Myster]

Was Sheilas nightdress examined for blood splatter from any of her supposed victims(Bamber defence) to me theres not a cat in hells chance of no blood splatter,look at the amount of blood on the Junes nightdress.
Why not post the real photos?

Zip file attached...

[barrier]

@Myster 

[Holly Goodhead]

Yes, it was examined.  The only blood on Sheila was her own and all that originated from the two gunshots to her neck.

Supporters theorise that she changed clothes after shooting everyone and after the fight in the kitchen but no other blood soaked clothing was ever found. Just another supporter dead end I'm afraid.  The evidence is very clear, Sheila could never have been the killer.

I have never claimed SC washed or changed.  I believe her found condition was entirely consistent with her as perp.

Blood spatter isn't a one size fits all.  It's dependent on many factors especially calibre of firearm and velocity of ammo.

Even if SC's nightdress contained microscopic blood stains from others how do you think this would have been detected in 85/6?  The type of testing used then was blood serology which required blood stains to be of a certain size to achieve any sort of result.  Had the nightdress not been destroyed against all protocols it could now be retested using DNA.

Hanratty's appeal was declined based on DNA testing as exhibits had rightfully been retained.  Not so in this case and one wonders why?!