Author Topic: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?  (Read 6008 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #15 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.
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline John

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #16 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. 
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #17 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.
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline John

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #18 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.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #19 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-))
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline John

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #20 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.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #21 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
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline John

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #22 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?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #23 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.
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #24 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
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #25 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.     
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #26 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)-)))
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline puglove

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #27 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.
......thunderclouds over Essex....out by Christmas.....blah blah blah......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Offline Myster

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #28 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.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 08:08:34 PM by Myster »

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: The scuffle in the kitchen- why did it happen?
« Reply #29 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.

 

       
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 09:55:43 PM by scipio_usmc »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli