Jeremy and a shot gun:

[adam]

Ann Eaton testified that Jeremy asked her and her husband about buying a five bullet shot gun from them. This was just before the massacre.

The advantages of this is one bullet results in certain death. Whether in the head or torso. So no re loads needed if each bullet hits it target. 

It is much more realistic that Neville would be worried about Sheila with a shot gun.

Jeremy would have to justify why his shot gun was at WHF. That would not be hard. As he worked there & it was his family home. 

The gun would carry less bullets, so a potential re load if any bullets missed.  But he would have time to re load if Neville was out of the way. However if no re loads were needed, that would make it more likely Sheila was the killer. People have always found it hard believing Sheila could re load.

A shot gun is loud. And I am not sure a silencer can fit on one. But if Jeremy is quick and clinical, then people would be dead before fully waking up.

Using the shot gun means there are no rabbit stories. But that has never been believable.

I suspect Jeremy got too short notice about Sheila's visit. So had no time to purchase the gun. Using the rifle instead. Or he may have simply preferred the rifle, overestimating it's power.

Would other people use a shot gun or rifle ?

[Holly Goodhead]

Ann Eaton testified that Jeremy asked her and her husband about buying a five bullet shot gun from them. This was just before the massacre.

The advantages of this is one bullet results in certain death. Whether in the head or torso. So no re loads needed if each bullet hits it target. 

It is much more realistic that Neville would be worried about Sheila with a shot gun.

Jeremy would have to justify why his shot gun was at WHF. That would not be hard. As he worked there & it was his family home. 

The gun would carry less bullets, so a potential re load if any bullets missed.  But he would have time to re load if Neville was out of the way. However if no re loads were needed, that would make it more likely Sheila was the killer. People have always found it hard believing Sheila could re load.

A shot gun is loud. And I am not sure a silencer can fit on one. But if Jeremy is quick and clinical, then people would be dead before fully waking up.

Using the shot gun means there are no rabbit stories. But that has never been believable.

I suspect Jeremy got too short notice about Sheila's visit. So had no time to purchase the gun. Using the rifle instead. Or he may have simply preferred the rifle, overestimating it's power.

Would other people use a shot gun or rifle ?

As far as I'm aware JB sought PE's advice on buying a semi-auto to go shooting with the landlord from the Chequers.  PE was/is a registered gun dealer and pointed out that it was not considered sportsmanlike to use a semi-auto to shoot birds/game and so the idea was shelved.  I assume this was verified by EP taking a WS from the landlord at the chequers?

Surely any firearm is capable of effecting death with one bullet when headshots are involved?   The reason so many shots were needed is that a number of non-fatal shots were fired:

June: Chest x 2 "Relatively longer to effecct a fatal outcome"
         Abdomen
         Leg
         Arm
         Head x 2 "Probably cause death quite rapidly"

(Distance of shots:  "63. Of the seven injuries suffered by June Bamber, five were shots from the gun held at least one foot away from the body. The bullet wound between the eyes was fired from less than one foot away, and could have been with the gun in contact with the skin, although he viewed that as unlikely. Mr Fletcher was unable to estimate the range of the shot which had caused the injury to the right side of Mrs Bamber's chest".)

NB: Lip "Not immediately life threatening although could well have been if other injuries had not supervened"
      Jaw        "                                          "                                "
      Elbow
      Shoulder
      Head x 4 "Wounds taken together would have certainly proved fatal.  "Individually a wound in this area would be extrememly likely to prove fatal".

(Distance of shots: "64. In respect of the eight shots into Nevill Bamber's body, the six to his head and face were fired when the rifle was within a few inches of the skin. The remaining injuries to the arm were caused when the gun was at least two feet from the body".)

Surely anyone would be worried by anyone with a loaded firearm?  NB was probably extremely worried as he had been involved in a shooting accident whereby he blinded June's father, Leslie Speakman, in one eye.  If SC is responsible I guess you could liken her and NB to David and Goliath but SC was always going to have the upper hand with a loaded firearm.

I cant believe loading and firing any firearm is that complicated especially if you have been brought up in an environment where they have always been used.  We all use hundreds of bits of kit from car interiors/cabins to white goods to kitchen appliances to electronic devices to baby kit eg car seats, buggies etc.  Most of us just sort of pick it up as we go along and fathom it out. We dont read all the manuals and instruction booklets or even bother asking anyone. Perhaps a combination of observing others and intuition in that all these things have been designed by humans for humans.  I wouldn't mind betting all this talk about SC being incapable of loading the rifle originates from men and is nothing other than sexist rhetoric.  An experiment could have been undertaken whereby someone experienced with firearms loaded the gun in view of novices (SC would have witnessed on numerous occasions others loading firearms) and the novices were then asked to load the firearm.  Some men are stuck in the dark ages I am afraid, and if a female is petite and attractive, as SC was, they perceive the female as unintelligent and incapable of anything practical and physical.  I have pointed out on many occasions that the fact that all involved in the investigation were male other than WPC Jeapes and Glynis Howard is an extremely unhealthy aspect of this case.

If SC was responsible I don't see that she was under any pressure time wise to reload.  She may well have fiddled about with it in the kitchen to ensure she was familiar with its workings. Perhaps that is what woke NB and how he came to be in the kitchen where imo he called JB.  The initial shots to June and NB in the bedroom were sufficient to render both of them defenceless and vulnerable to further attack.

I have discussed the shooting rabbits with farmer friends and they have advised it would be the norm to spot rabbits around the yard and take a gun to shoot them.  No need for silencer or sights.  Rifle has a built in sight for close range.   Why would these people, who have farmed all their lives, tell me otherwise?  And no they don't know I'm a  "Jeremy supporter" that is my dirty little secret!

Thank you for the invite to London for tea and biscuits 

[Holly Goodhead]

Just remembered I think the idea that SC would be incapable of loading and firing the rifle originated from AE.  This then sowed a seed of doubt in the minds of EP.  I still maintain that the male dominated environment at EP (and within the judiciary) was extremely unhealthy.  Had female police officers been involved I am convinced they would have remained sceptical and checked out:

- claim SC incapable of loading and firing rifle
- claim SC would have damaged nails/polish
- claim SC was uncoordinated when it is obvious she was capable of fine motor movement from shaping her eyebrows and manicuring and polishing her nails (soc  photos).  Unlikely she paid for these services as she had limited funds but this of course could be checked out
- blood stained underwear/clothes in buckets supposedly menstrual blood

[puglove]

As far as I'm aware JB sought PE's advice on buying a semi-auto to go shooting with the landlord from the Chequers.  PE was/is a registered gun dealer and pointed out that it was not considered sportsmanlike to use a semi-auto to shoot birds/game and so the idea was shelved.  I assume this was verified by EP taking a WS from the landlord at the chequers?

Surely any firearm is capable of effecting death with one bullet when headshots are involved?   The reason so many shots were needed is that a number of non-fatal shots were fired:

June: Chest x 2 "Relatively longer to effecct a fatal outcome"
         Abdomen
         Leg
         Arm
         Head x 2 "Probably cause death quite rapidly"

(Distance of shots:  "63. Of the seven injuries suffered by June Bamber, five were shots from the gun held at least one foot away from the body. The bullet wound between the eyes was fired from less than one foot away, and could have been with the gun in contact with the skin, although he viewed that as unlikely. Mr Fletcher was unable to estimate the range of the shot which had caused the injury to the right side of Mrs Bamber's chest".)

NB: Lip "Not immediately life threatening although could well have been if other injuries had not supervened"
      Jaw        "                                          "                                "
      Elbow
      Shoulder
      Head x 4 "Wounds taken together would have certainly proved fatal.  "Individually a wound in this area would be extrememly likely to prove fatal".

(Distance of shots: "64. In respect of the eight shots into Nevill Bamber's body, the six to his head and face were fired when the rifle was within a few inches of the skin. The remaining injuries to the arm were caused when the gun was at least two feet from the body".)

Surely anyone would be worried by anyone with a loaded firearm?  NB was probably extremely worried as he had been involved in a shooting accident whereby he blinded June's father, Leslie Speakman, in one eye.  If SC is responsible I guess you could liken her and NB to David and Goliath but SC was always going to have the upper hand with a loaded firearm.

I cant believe loading and firing any firearm is that complicated especially if you have been brought up in an environment where they have always been used.  We all use hundreds of bits of kit from car interiors/cabins to white goods to kitchen appliances to electronic devices to baby kit eg car seats, buggies etc.  Most of us just sort of pick it up as we go along and fathom it out. We dont read all the manuals and instruction booklets or even bother asking anyone. Perhaps a combination of observing others and intuition in that all these things have been designed by humans for humans.  I wouldn't mind betting all this talk about SC being incapable of loading the rifle originates from men and is nothing other than sexist rhetoric.  An experiment could have been undertaken whereby someone experienced with firearms loaded the gun in view of novices (SC would have witnessed on numerous occasions others loading firearms) and the novices were then asked to load the firearm.  Some men are stuck in the dark ages I am afraid, and if a female is petite and attractive, as SC was, they perceive the female as unintelligent and incapable of anything practical and physical.  I have pointed out on many occasions that the fact that all involved in the investigation were male other than WPC Jeapes and Glynis Howard is an extremely unhealthy aspect of this case.

If SC was responsible I don't see that she was under any pressure time wise to reload.  She may well have fiddled about with it in the kitchen to ensure she was familiar with its workings. Perhaps that is what woke NB and how he came to be in the kitchen where imo he called JB.  The initial shots to June and NB in the bedroom were sufficient to render both of them defenceless and vulnerable to further attack.

I have discussed the shooting rabbits with farmer friends and they have advised it would be the norm to spot rabbits around the yard and take a gun to shoot them.  No need for silencer or sights.  Rifle has a built in sight for close range.   Why would these people, who have farmed all their lives, tell me otherwise?  And no they don't know I'm a  "Jeremy supporter" that is my dirty little secret!

Thank you for the invite to London for tea and biscuits 

The "rabbit" thing has always made me snork, Holl. I thought Bamber hated killing animals because he was such a "wuss"? He couldn't wait that night though, could he? After 9pm he saw 2 rabbits (presumably wearing little high-viz jackets) outside. He went to the study for his gun, then back to the kitchen and loaded the magazine. Meanwhile, the rabbits waited. And although the rabbits were close enough to the house to be seen by Hawkeye Bamber in the gathering dusk, fortunately they were too fat/obliging/elderly/hard of hearing to not be off like shit off a shovel the second that they heard him open the door and step outside. Have you SEEN the size of a rabbit's ears?

I think it's just more Bamberbollox that can be easily deconstructed.

[Holly Goodhead]

The "rabbit" thing has always made me snork, Holl. I thought Bamber hated killing animals because he was such a "wuss"? He couldn't wait that night though, could he? After 9pm he saw 2 rabbits (presumably wearing little high-viz jackets) outside. He went to the study for his gun, then back to the kitchen and loaded the magazine. Meanwhile, the rabbits waited. And although the rabbits were close enough to the house to be seen by Hawkeye Bamber in the gathering dusk, fortunately they were too fat/obliging/elderly/hard of hearing to not be off like shit off a shovel the second that they heard him open the door and step outside. Have you SEEN the size of a rabbit's ears?

I think it's just more Bamberbollox that can be easily deconstructed.

Yes conflicting info about an aversion to shooting and yet apparently wanted a semi-auto to take up shooting with the landlord of The Chequers and then his claim to bunny hunting on the night of the tragedy.  I'm sure I read he grew some cannabis plants around the barns so perhaps he was worried they would get stuck in!

It doesn't really make any sense to me that's why I asked my farmer friends but they seemed to think it was 'normal'.  Perhaps it was the way I asked the question 

Given that guns were plentiful at WHF in an unlocked cupboard why would JB bother with the gun/bunny story if it wasn't true?  No one could be sure that one of the adults wouldn't put it back and probably did (if it was left out) especially with the twins visiting.  If he's guilty doesn't it sound too obvious saying I left a gun out with ammo nearby?   &%+((£  Any yet conversely he supposedly put back in the cupboard a bloody, paint covered silencer with a hair attached  &%+((£

Night x

[puglove]

Yes conflicting info about an aversion to shooting and yet apparently wanted a semi-auto to take up shooting with the landlord of The Chequers and then his claim to bunny hunting on the night of the tragedy.  I'm sure I read he grew some cannabis plants around the barns so perhaps he was worried they would get stuck in!

It doesn't really make any sense to me that's why I asked my farmer friends but they seemed to think it was 'normal'.  Perhaps it was the way I asked the question 

Given that guns were plentiful at WHF in an unlocked cupboard why would JB bother with the gun/bunny story if it wasn't true?  No one could be sure that one of the adults wouldn't put it back and probably did (if it was left out) especially with the twins visiting.  If he's guilty doesn't it sound too obvious saying I left a gun out with ammo nearby?   &%+((£  Any yet conversely he supposedly put back in the cupboard a bloody, paint covered silencer with a hair attached  &%+((£

Night x

I think he did try to wipe what he could from the silencer - hence  the circular marks under the bible. And not, as suggested "Special Branch did it"!!       

Night Holl xxx

[Holly Goodhead]

I think he did try to wipe what he could from the silencer - hence  the circular marks under the bible. And not, as suggested "Special Branch did it"!!       

Night Holl xxx

I haven't heard about circular marks under the bible.  I find the bible difficult to get my head round in terms of blood staining found on pages etc.  By this I mean rotating images in my mind as to where the blood staining would fall if it was left open with the cover face up.

Steve_uk posted this  up recently:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWYT[Name removed]M2RiMjgtYjRkYi00MDMxLTg4NWEtYzMyMmYzYWZhZGVh/edit?ddrp=1&pli=1&hl=en

First time I've read this.  The most interesting thing for me is that Dr Gillingham is the first person to use the correct words to describe June and NB ie "adoptive mother" and "adoptive father".  Eg posters can observe Dr F use the word "adopted mother" to describe June in his WS.  A bit worrying given that he was the family psychiatrist!

I do wonder when SC met her birth mother Apr/May '85 if she discovered that her maternal birth grandfather had been a canon taking part in the Queen's Coronation, and then took on the role of prof of theology at McGill university, Montreal, how this played out with SC given that her psychological problems to some degree appear to have been bound up with misguided religion? 

Anyhow as the CoA doc said as far as anyone is aware SC had not received any formal training in theology to identify the pages and interpret the meanings which appear to lend to themes that had exorcised her with regard to good v evil/sin.  There again there's even less evidence that JB would have this sort of understanding.  June apparently attended weekly bible classes.  Had she been reading these pages?

Relevant section of CoA doc pertaining to bible:

Ground 9 – the Bible 405. Ground 9 is an allegation of non-disclosure relating to the Bible found beside Sheila Caffell's body. The precise complaint is that the prosecution failed to disclose at trial the pages at which the Bible had been opened. Mr Turner draws attention to two distinct matters, two photographs of the Bible and documents relating to an inquiry made to a local Rector about the relevant pages.

406. Photographs of the scene, which were before the jury at trial, clearly showed the Bible lying open but face down beside Sheila Caffell's body. Since the Bible was face down, it is not possible to ascertain from these photographs the pages at which the Bible lay open.

407. Two further photographs of the Bible have been located by those advising the appellant. When they were taken and by whom they were taken is not known. It is clear from the photographs themselves that they were not taken at the scene. But must have been taken at some other location following the removal of the Bible as a potential exhibit by the police. The photographs record the blood staining on the Bible. From this staining it is immediately obvious that the Bible has been shut whilst the blood remained wet because marks on one page are mirrored on the adjoining page.

408. The pages on which the heavy staining appears in these photographs are pages including part or all of Psalms 51-55. It is said that these pages are significant and represented "Sheila Caffell's suicide note". A number of passages are highlighted and it will suffice if we give one example, taken from verse 14 of Psalm 51:

"Save me from blood guiltiness O God…"

409. The evidence suggests that the two photographs were not brought to the attention of the defence and Mr Turner once more submits that the only explanation for this is wilful concealment by the police.

410. In addition complaint is made that a visit to discuss the relevant pages with the local Rector was not disclosed to the defence. This allegation stems from documents which came to light during the subsequent inquiries. These documents record that on a day ,which seems to be early in the inquiry into the shootings, DC Barlow was instructed by DI Miller to see the Rector to see if there was any significance in the open pages. Since at that stage the case was thought to be one in which Sheila Caffell had committed suicide, such an inquiry seems a natural one to have made. The only record of the outcome of that instruction appears in a note made by DC Barlow at a much later date which reads:

"I did see the Rector but he couldn't help us in any way on (the) point…"

411. Mr Barlow has since that time been forced to retire from the police force following a severe stroke. He does not now think that he did see the Rector. However, so far as we can tell, his record quoted above was not drawn to his attention and we conclude that he did see the Rector. We are not, however, surprised that a fruitless inquiry made almost 17 years ago does not stick in his memory following his enforced retirement from the police.

412. Mr Turner submits that there was a duty on the prosecution not only to disclose the photographs but also the fact of the visit to the Rector.

413. The only value of the photographs would be if the Bible itself was not available for inspection since if it was, the page at which it was open could very readily be found. We permitted both Mr Terzeon, the defence solicitor at trial, and Mr Edmund Lawson QC, junior counsel at trial, to give evidence about this aspect of the case. Mr Terzeon suggested that he had particularly wanted to ascertain the pages at which the Bible was open. He said that as a result he had asked the police and been told that the pages were not known. When he was asked why he had not looked at the Bible itself, he said that it was his recollection that it had been missing at the time.

414. If Mr Terzeon's recollection was right, we find it astonishing that nowhere is this recorded in any document nor does Mr Edmund Lawson have any recollection of any such problem. The fact that the police had lost an exhibit at some stage that the defence were anxious to view is we suggest the sort of detail that tends to stick in trial counsel's mind even when other details fade. Further Mr Terzeon had no recollection of the Bible being produced at trial as it undoubtedly was. If it had been missing and if the defence were attaching to it the importance that he now suggests, it must surely have come to his attention and would, we have no doubt, been carefully scrutinised. Such scrutiny would inevitably have revealed the relevant pages because the pages were so heavily bloodstained. Blood had also dripped down the edges of the pages on one of the sides when it was opened. Thus by turning to the end of this mark on the page edges one could immediately identify the bloodstained pages with little effort.

415. We are satisfied that whilst Mr Terzeon is doing his best to assist the court, his recollection in this regard is faulty. Even if he was right, any deficiency in this regard would have been cured when the Bible was produced at trial.

416. The fact that the defence made no play of the Bible's pages may very well have something to do with another aspect of the matter. The more each member of the court looked at the photographs in order to deal with this point, the more difficult we found it to reconcile the actual bloodstaining with the defence case. The largest area of blood seems to have got onto the Bible when it came into contact with a pool of blood beside the body. As already observed the Bible must have been shut whilst the blood was wet. It does not seem very likely that it was still wet hours after the event when the police might have handled it. If this is so, it was shut by someone and then reopened to lie beside the body after Sheila Caffell had been shot. These matters along with other considerations of a similar kind were placed before us by the prosecution on an application to call fresh evidence with which we will deal later. It did not, however, require fresh evidence for us to see that there was a potentially powerful point that might have been made in this regard by the prosecution at trial.

417. The explanation why the pages at which the Bible was open was not explored by the defence may be explicable by these matters. Counsel with the experience of Mr Rivlin QC, and with his acknowledged reputation for thoroughness, may well have decided that far from helping these matters might have presented a yet further major hurdle for the appellant to overcome and consequently decided to leave well alone. In any event we are satisfied that production of the original exhibit provided all the information that the photographs would have revealed and that there was no failure to disclose in this respect.

418. The information that the Rector had been visited was, on all the available evidence, of no help to anyone. The record shows that he could not help in any way. Thus there was nothing that could assist the defence and accordingly nothing that required to be disclosed.

419. We are satisfied, therefore, that there was no failure by the prosecution to disclose any material in this regard that required to be disclosed. Even if we had reached a different conclusion, we fail to see how it would have assisted the appellant. The pages only became relevant if Sheila Caffell had turned them up but that begged the very question that the jury were going to have to answer, namely who killed Sheila Caffell. Was it Sheila Caffell who opened the Bible as a part of her suicide or Jeremy Bamber who did it as part of a plan to make it look as if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide? Mr Turner suggests that if it was the appellant it is remarkable that he did not himself pursue this aspect of the matter. However for the appellant to suggest that these pages were of some critical significance required him to know what they were. If he was the killer, he could hardly make any great play of this aspect of the case without risking others realising that he had more knowledge about the matter than he would have had if he was innocent.

420. For these reasons, but particularly because we are satisfied that there was no failure to disclose matters of significance this ground fails. We should add that we were asked to hear evidence from Dr Ferguson in respect of the significance of these pages but we are satisfied that the evidence was available to the defence at trial and that in any event Dr Ferguson could not assist on the critical question as to who chose to open the Bible at this page. We, therefore, declined to hear this evidence.

421. For the sake of completeness, we should record that those acting for the appellant had obtained a statement from Dr Gillingham, a theologian, dealing with the theological significance of the pages at which the Bible was open. No application was made to us to admit this evidence. If it had been, we would have rejected the application. Such evidence could have been obtained for the trial because we are satisfied that the relevant passages could have been obtained by those acting for the appellant. In any event we do not consider that this evidence would have been admissible at trial because there was no evidence to suggest that Sheila Caffell had any particular theological training or expertise which would have enabled her to read more into the passages than would have been apparent to the jury from looking at the passages themselves. Further we have no doubt at all that even if admissible, this evidence could not have had any impact on the jury's verdict.

[puglove]

I haven't heard about circular marks under the bible.  I find the bible difficult to get my head round in terms of blood staining found on pages etc.  By this I mean rotating images in my mind as to where the blood staining would fall if it was left open with the cover face up.

Steve_uk posted this  up recently:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWYT[Name removed]M2RiMjgtYjRkYi00MDMxLTg4NWEtYzMyMmYzYWZhZGVh/edit?ddrp=1&pli=1&hl=en

First time I've read this.  The most interesting thing for me is that Dr Gillingham is the first person to use the correct words to describe June and NB ie "adoptive mother" and "adoptive father".  Eg posters can observe Dr F use the word "adopted mother" to describe June in his WS.  A bit worrying given that he was the family psychiatrist!

I do wonder when SC met her birth mother Apr/May '85 if she discovered that her maternal birth grandfather had been a canon taking part in the Queen's Coronation, and then took on the role of prof of theology at McGill university, Montreal, how this played out with SC given that her psychological problems to some degree appear to have been bound up with misguided religion? 

Anyhow as the CoA doc said as far as anyone is aware SC had not received any formal training in theology to identify the pages and interpret the meanings which appear to lend to themes that had exorcised her with regard to good v evil/sin.  There again there's even less evidence that JB would have this sort of understanding.  June apparently attended weekly bible classes.  Had she been reading these pages?

Relevant section of CoA doc pertaining to bible:

Ground 9 – the Bible 405. Ground 9 is an allegation of non-disclosure relating to the Bible found beside Sheila Caffell's body. The precise complaint is that the prosecution failed to disclose at trial the pages at which the Bible had been opened. Mr Turner draws attention to two distinct matters, two photographs of the Bible and documents relating to an inquiry made to a local Rector about the relevant pages.

406. Photographs of the scene, which were before the jury at trial, clearly showed the Bible lying open but face down beside Sheila Caffell's body. Since the Bible was face down, it is not possible to ascertain from these photographs the pages at which the Bible lay open.

407. Two further photographs of the Bible have been located by those advising the appellant. When they were taken and by whom they were taken is not known. It is clear from the photographs themselves that they were not taken at the scene. But must have been taken at some other location following the removal of the Bible as a potential exhibit by the police. The photographs record the blood staining on the Bible. From this staining it is immediately obvious that the Bible has been shut whilst the blood remained wet because marks on one page are mirrored on the adjoining page.

408. The pages on which the heavy staining appears in these photographs are pages including part or all of Psalms 51-55. It is said that these pages are significant and represented "Sheila Caffell's suicide note". A number of passages are highlighted and it will suffice if we give one example, taken from verse 14 of Psalm 51:

"Save me from blood guiltiness O God…"

409. The evidence suggests that the two photographs were not brought to the attention of the defence and Mr Turner once more submits that the only explanation for this is wilful concealment by the police.

410. In addition complaint is made that a visit to discuss the relevant pages with the local Rector was not disclosed to the defence. This allegation stems from documents which came to light during the subsequent inquiries. These documents record that on a day ,which seems to be early in the inquiry into the shootings, DC Barlow was instructed by DI Miller to see the Rector to see if there was any significance in the open pages. Since at that stage the case was thought to be one in which Sheila Caffell had committed suicide, such an inquiry seems a natural one to have made. The only record of the outcome of that instruction appears in a note made by DC Barlow at a much later date which reads:

"I did see the Rector but he couldn't help us in any way on (the) point…"

411. Mr Barlow has since that time been forced to retire from the police force following a severe stroke. He does not now think that he did see the Rector. However, so far as we can tell, his record quoted above was not drawn to his attention and we conclude that he did see the Rector. We are not, however, surprised that a fruitless inquiry made almost 17 years ago does not stick in his memory following his enforced retirement from the police.

412. Mr Turner submits that there was a duty on the prosecution not only to disclose the photographs but also the fact of the visit to the Rector.

413. The only value of the photographs would be if the Bible itself was not available for inspection since if it was, the page at which it was open could very readily be found. We permitted both Mr Terzeon, the defence solicitor at trial, and Mr Edmund Lawson QC, junior counsel at trial, to give evidence about this aspect of the case. Mr Terzeon suggested that he had particularly wanted to ascertain the pages at which the Bible was open. He said that as a result he had asked the police and been told that the pages were not known. When he was asked why he had not looked at the Bible itself, he said that it was his recollection that it had been missing at the time.

414. If Mr Terzeon's recollection was right, we find it astonishing that nowhere is this recorded in any document nor does Mr Edmund Lawson have any recollection of any such problem. The fact that the police had lost an exhibit at some stage that the defence were anxious to view is we suggest the sort of detail that tends to stick in trial counsel's mind even when other details fade. Further Mr Terzeon had no recollection of the Bible being produced at trial as it undoubtedly was. If it had been missing and if the defence were attaching to it the importance that he now suggests, it must surely have come to his attention and would, we have no doubt, been carefully scrutinised. Such scrutiny would inevitably have revealed the relevant pages because the pages were so heavily bloodstained. Blood had also dripped down the edges of the pages on one of the sides when it was opened. Thus by turning to the end of this mark on the page edges one could immediately identify the bloodstained pages with little effort.

415. We are satisfied that whilst Mr Terzeon is doing his best to assist the court, his recollection in this regard is faulty. Even if he was right, any deficiency in this regard would have been cured when the Bible was produced at trial.

416. The fact that the defence made no play of the Bible's pages may very well have something to do with another aspect of the matter. The more each member of the court looked at the photographs in order to deal with this point, the more difficult we found it to reconcile the actual bloodstaining with the defence case. The largest area of blood seems to have got onto the Bible when it came into contact with a pool of blood beside the body. As already observed the Bible must have been shut whilst the blood was wet. It does not seem very likely that it was still wet hours after the event when the police might have handled it. If this is so, it was shut by someone and then reopened to lie beside the body after Sheila Caffell had been shot. These matters along with other considerations of a similar kind were placed before us by the prosecution on an application to call fresh evidence with which we will deal later. It did not, however, require fresh evidence for us to see that there was a potentially powerful point that might have been made in this regard by the prosecution at trial.

417. The explanation why the pages at which the Bible was open was not explored by the defence may be explicable by these matters. Counsel with the experience of Mr Rivlin QC, and with his acknowledged reputation for thoroughness, may well have decided that far from helping these matters might have presented a yet further major hurdle for the appellant to overcome and consequently decided to leave well alone. In any event we are satisfied that production of the original exhibit provided all the information that the photographs would have revealed and that there was no failure to disclose in this respect.

418. The information that the Rector had been visited was, on all the available evidence, of no help to anyone. The record shows that he could not help in any way. Thus there was nothing that could assist the defence and accordingly nothing that required to be disclosed.

419. We are satisfied, therefore, that there was no failure by the prosecution to disclose any material in this regard that required to be disclosed. Even if we had reached a different conclusion, we fail to see how it would have assisted the appellant. The pages only became relevant if Sheila Caffell had turned them up but that begged the very question that the jury were going to have to answer, namely who killed Sheila Caffell. Was it Sheila Caffell who opened the Bible as a part of her suicide or Jeremy Bamber who did it as part of a plan to make it look as if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide? Mr Turner suggests that if it was the appellant it is remarkable that he did not himself pursue this aspect of the matter. However for the appellant to suggest that these pages were of some critical significance required him to know what they were. If he was the killer, he could hardly make any great play of this aspect of the case without risking others realising that he had more knowledge about the matter than he would have had if he was innocent.

420. For these reasons, but particularly because we are satisfied that there was no failure to disclose matters of significance this ground fails. We should add that we were asked to hear evidence from Dr Ferguson in respect of the significance of these pages but we are satisfied that the evidence was available to the defence at trial and that in any event Dr Ferguson could not assist on the critical question as to who chose to open the Bible at this page. We, therefore, declined to hear this evidence.

421. For the sake of completeness, we should record that those acting for the appellant had obtained a statement from Dr Gillingham, a theologian, dealing with the theological significance of the pages at which the Bible was open. No application was made to us to admit this evidence. If it had been, we would have rejected the application. Such evidence could have been obtained for the trial because we are satisfied that the relevant passages could have been obtained by those acting for the appellant. In any event we do not consider that this evidence would have been admissible at trial because there was no evidence to suggest that Sheila Caffell had any particular theological training or expertise which would have enabled her to read more into the passages than would have been apparent to the jury from looking at the passages themselves. Further we have no doubt at all that even if admissible, this evidence could not have had any impact on the jury's verdict.

If you look at the bible (sorry, I don't know how to post images), you can see circles in blood on the carpet, partly visible. MT reckoned that they were caused by Sheila writing "Special Branch did it" in her own blood as she died (ahem) but it's possible that they are from Bamber wiping blood from the end of the silencer after he realised he had to remove it after the first shot.

June was well-known for annotating her bibles, and also writing little notes and homilies on bits of paper. And I honestly think that you could turn to almost any page and find something doom and gloomy that could be interpreted to relate to Sheila.

I wonder if the blood drips on Sheila's wrist were there because Bamber was positioning her body to fake suicide and he placed her right hand as though she was holding the end of the barrel, and blood would have transferred from her neck/shoulder to her wrist, before he remembered that she was right-handed and that hand needed to be on the trigger. (Hope this makes sense).

[Holly Goodhead]

If you look at the bible (sorry, I don't know how to post images), you can see circles in blood on the carpet, partly visible. MT reckoned that they were caused by Sheila writing "Special Branch did it" in her own blood as she died (ahem) but it's possible that they are from Bamber wiping blood from the end of the silencer after he realised he had to remove it after the first shot.

June was well-known for annotating her bibles, and also writing little notes and homilies on bits of paper. And I honestly think that you could turn to almost any page and find something doom and gloomy that could be interpreted to relate to Sheila.

I wonder if the blood drips on Sheila's wrist were there because Bamber was positioning her body to fake suicide and he placed her right hand as though she was holding the end of the barrel, and blood would have transferred from her neck/shoulder to her wrist, before he remembered that she was right-handed and that hand needed to be on the trigger. (Hope this makes sense).

I could of sworn I made two posts earlier but they appear to have disappeared.  Hey ho!

I haven't read the bible other than Sunday school  and RE at school  . I would imagine it's on par with horoscopes in that you could take pages and find ways of applying them to anyone/their situation and 'find meaning'.  Perhaps a theologian could help.  Maybe I should speak with my local vicar and ask if he will join Blue/Red to debate the theological aspect of the case. 

I struggle to interpret the soc photos, blood staining on the bible, blood being transferred from right to left and vice-versa and SC's nightie being moved as per prosecutions case at CoA 2002.  I can't visualise these things. 

[Myster]

Maybe I should speak with my local vicar and ask if he will join Blue/Red to debate the theological aspect of the case. 

I struggle to interpret the soc photos, blood staining on the bible, blood being transferred from right to left and vice-versa and SC's nightie being moved as per prosecutions case at CoA 2002.  I can't visualise these things. 

No, no, please no!... we don't need confusing any more! It's bad enough having Jehova's call round and me pretending I'm not in. All you need to know is that the Bible was placed on top of the bloodstained carpet by JB to make it appear Sheila had some sort of religious brainstorm and so decided to go on a shooting spree.

I don't think her body or nightie was moved as it seems to have been in the dual photo. The images look as if they were taken from two positions. If you notice the different appearance of the bedside fabric pattern and the white pages of the bible, one pic taken looking towards the bedhead, the other looking towards the foot end. Shadows caused by the flash have also contributed to the slightly different appearance. Her right arm has definitely been moved though, because I think Cook mentioned about doing so to examine the wrist and/or enable the rifle to be removed and made safe.



In the second photo there's a line of blood spots on the carpet next to her right calf. Wonder if these dropped when she was sitting upright and just after she received the first neck shot, which might also explain those blood runs on her right forearm? (rather than your theory, pugs).  Or on the other hand they could have been from NB's wounds if he was standing stationary with shock for a second or two before managing to escape?

[puglove]

No, no, please no!... we don't need confusing any more! It's bad enough having Jehova's call round and me pretending I'm not in. All you need to know is that the Bible was placed on top of the bloodstained carpet by JB to make it appear Sheila had some sort of religious brainstorm and so decided to go on a shooting spree.

I don't think her body or nightie was moved as it seems to have been in the dual photo. The images look as if they were taken from two positions. If you notice the different appearance of the bedside fabric pattern and the white pages of the bible, one pic taken looking towards the bedhead, the other looking towards the foot end. Shadows caused by the flash have also contributed to the slightly different appearance. Her right arm has definitely been moved though, because I think Cook mentioned about doing so to examine the wrist and/or enable the rifle to be removed and made safe.



In the second photo there's a line of blood spots on the carpet next to her right calf. Wonder if these dropped when she was sitting upright and just after she received the first neck shot, which might also explain those blood runs on her right forearm? (rather than your theory, pugs).  Or on the other hand they could have been from NB's wounds if he was standing stationary with shock for a second or two before managing to escape?

I've always thought that all those drips came from Ralph (they are relatively uniform) but you could be right, Myster, they could be from Sheila. But would there also be drops on the lap of her nightie or on her legs? I guess it would depend on how she was sitting, at what angle.

Another way that the drips could have landed on her wrist is if Sheila grabbed the barrel as Bamber pushed it into her throat before the first shot. That might also explain why that shot was in the wrong position.

And re: the silencer - Bamber HAD to put it away, he couldn't "lose" it because that would have been a dead give-away, that silencer had to be at WHF. Bamber hurriedly wiped it as well as he could, and Scipio has explained that the blood inside couldn't have been planted.

[adam]

I've always thought that all those drips came from Ralph (they are relatively uniform) but you could be right, Myster, they could be from Sheila. But would there also be drops on the lap of her nightie or on her legs? I guess it would depend on how she was sitting, at what angle.

Another way that the drips could have landed on her wrist is if Sheila grabbed the barrel as Bamber pushed it into her throat before the first shot. That might also explain why that shot was in the wrong position.

And re: the silencer - Bamber HAD to put it away, he couldn't "lose" it because that would have been a dead give-away, that silencer had to be at WHF. Bamber hurriedly wiped it as well as he could, and Scipio has explained that the blood inside couldn't have been planted.

Was there only one silencer at WHF that fitted that rifle ?

If so he had to leave it there. The silencer was in a box, underneath other boxes, guns & a dartboard. At the back of the gun cupboard. As if it was hidden away.

Thought the silencer would be permanently on a rifle that is used for shooting vermin.

[Holly Goodhead]

No, no, please no!... we don't need confusing any more! It's bad enough having Jehova's call round and me pretending I'm not in. All you need to know is that the Bible was placed on top of the bloodstained carpet by JB to make it appear Sheila had some sort of religious brainstorm and so decided to go on a shooting spree.

I don't think her body or nightie was moved as it seems to have been in the dual photo. The images look as if they were taken from two positions. If you notice the different appearance of the bedside fabric pattern and the white pages of the bible, one pic taken looking towards the bedhead, the other looking towards the foot end. Shadows caused by the flash have also contributed to the slightly different appearance. Her right arm has definitely been moved though, because I think Cook mentioned about doing so to examine the wrist and/or enable the rifle to be removed and made safe.



In the second photo there's a line of blood spots on the carpet next to her right calf. Wonder if these dropped when she was sitting upright and just after she received the first neck shot, which might also explain those blood runs on her right forearm? (rather than your theory, pugs).  Or on the other hand they could have been from NB's wounds if he was standing stationary with shock for a second or two before managing to escape?

Yes I agree the photographer is in a different position for the two photos. This can be evidenced by the fact that more of the spine of the bible is visible in the lhs photo.  Also SC's hair can be seen in lhs photo.  Why is bottom rhc missing in rhs photo?

Yes SC's arm/hand have clearly been moved between photos.  Can we be sure that the police officer responsible wore gloves and didn't in his haste to make safe the gun use his bare hands?  Then backtracked and wiped the rifle thus removing all prints except one from each of SC and JB?  It does appear to me that the gun has moved slightly in that it has caused more rucking around SC's leg nearest the bed in the rhs photo?

The following vid clip at 6.50 in shows Mick Gradwell, retired detective superintendent, and PS Bews commenting on the above photos:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-video

I think the photos are complex if you don't have the necessary training/experience.  Posters who think JB is not guilty will say RM has not occurred and blood running looks wet.  Posters who think JB is guilty will say RM has occurred and blood looks dried and cracked.  Surely new technologies could enhance the existing photos and with the help of a photographic expert could shed new light on the photos?  (Is there a name for such a person?)

Five carpet samples were taken for forensic analysis and all showed June's blood group/type only.  It doesn't appear that a sample was taken to incl those spots near SC?  I guess it was assumed they were from her?  I don't think they could be from NB as surely the spots would continue round the foot of the bed and to June's side and the door/exit?  Dr V has stated that NB's facial shots caused substantial loss of blood as the injured areas have a rich blood supply.  What I would like to know is how long it would take in terms of time and distance before blood from these injuries would find its way way to the ground?  They were certainly visible on the kitchen floor away from NB's resting place.  I wonder if blood was found on the landing, stairs and hall (other than wallpaper) but why no blood in the bedroom or none that was detected?

Surely knowledge about soc and forensics has moved on in the last 30 years and specialists should be able to say with some certainty how those spots of blood came to be there?

Re whether SC and/or her nightie was moved (other than above).  The prosecution attempted to bring in a  new ground/point at the CoA 2002 appeal.  This has to do with her nightie but I haven't read it properly yet:

Prosecution application to call fresh evidence 514. It remains for us to give reasons why we refused an application to call fresh evidence made by the prosecution. Of course, in the light of our conclusions as to the merit of the appeal, this now becomes academic but it is right that we should indicate the nature of the application and our reasons for rejecting it albeit that they can now be given relatively briefly.

515. Mr Temple sought the court's leave to call Mr Martyn Ismail, a Senior Scientific Officer and Major Crime Service Manager with the Forensic Science Service to give evidence as to conclusions that could be drawn from a study of the distribution of blood staining associated with the body of Sheila Caffell, as depicted in the photographs. That application was opposed by Mr Turner. It was conceded that following the decision of this court in the case of Hanratty to which reference has already been made the court does have power to admit fresh evidence in support of a conviction where that evidence has become available since trial (see paragraphs 101 and 102 of the judgment in Hanratty).

516. Mr Turner's first objection was that this was not evidence that could not have been called by the prosecution at trial. He submitted that evidence of blood staining interpretation was available in the 1980s and the fact that the prosecution had not sought to look at this dimension of the case at that time should not mean that they can now introduce the evidence to support their case, if it was viewed by the court as unsafe to rely on the convictions in other respects. Mr Temple contended that whilst the study of and drawing inferences from blood staining patterns may have been available in the 1980s, it was in its relative infancy and with the passage of time since that era, the skills have become more developed so that in consequence greater reliance can be placed on such evidence. He relied in this regard on a statement from Mr Ismail which accepts that there have been references to the interpretation of blood patterns going back to the story of Cain & Abel in the Bible and that the first scientific work was published in 1939 but contends that in the United Kingdom, the first practical courses on the subject were not run until 1988. He concludes:

"In 1985 forensic scientists in this country would have been trained to interpret blood patters at scenes and on objects such as clothing and weapons. However, in my opinion, scientists today are more aware of the potential of blood distribution and practitioners are more confident in its use due (to) greater support and background knowledge."

517. Mr Turner's further ground for opposing the admission of this evidence was that it was not a matter that could be fully considered without placing it against many other aspects of the evidence called at trial, such as the pathologist's evidence and the evidence as to how the crime scene may have been altered between the moment when the farmhouse was entered and the taking of the photographs. He argued that unlike a distinct piece of evidence such as the DNA evidence in Hanratty, it was wholly impossible for the court to gauge the impact that this evidence might have had on the jury without the court being in a position to hear all these other aspects of the evidence that were before the jury. He pointed to a number of specific areas in which he argued that the evidence of Mr Ismail was capable of attack by reference to other evidence in the case. The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print. He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:

"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "

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.

519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.

520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.

[Holly Goodhead]

I've always thought that all those drips came from Ralph (they are relatively uniform) but you could be right, Myster, they could be from Sheila. But would there also be drops on the lap of her nightie or on her legs? I guess it would depend on how she was sitting, at what angle.

Another way that the drips could have landed on her wrist is if Sheila grabbed the barrel as Bamber pushed it into her throat before the first shot. That might also explain why that shot was in the wrong position.

And re: the silencer - Bamber HAD to put it away, he couldn't "lose" it because that would have been a dead give-away, that silencer had to be at WHF. Bamber hurriedly wiped it as well as he could, and Scipio has explained that the blood inside couldn't have been planted.

Yes I agree I think if JB was responsible he could not have afforded to 'lose' the silencer.

Scipio claims that the blood could not have been planted but I have yet to see any evidence from those involved in forensically analysing the silencer that this is the case.  Blood found in and on the silencer was described as "smears", "blob" and a "flake".  There's nothing to show that the distribution of blood was such that it could only be there as a result of blowback from the rifle.  Also as I understand it the silencer can easily be dissembled and reassembled with the internal baffles inter-changeable.  I think blood was found on baffles 5 - 7 but as far as I can see there was nothing to stop anyone from dissembling the silencer, emptying out the baffles, dobbing a couple in blood and reassembling the silencer so that the blood appeared on baffles 5 - 7.  Might not have happened that way but I haven't seen anything to show that it wasn't possible.   

[Myster]

Yes I agree I think if JB was responsible he could not have afforded to 'lose' the silencer.

Scipio claims that the blood could not have been planted but I have yet to see any evidence from those involved in forensically analysing the silencer that this is the case.  Blood found in and on the silencer was described as "smears", "blob" and a "flake".  There's nothing to show that the distribution of blood was such that it could only be there as a result of blowback from the rifle.  Also as I understand it the silencer can easily be dissembled and reassembled with the internal baffles inter-changeable.  I think blood was found on baffles 5 - 7 but as far as I can see there was nothing to stop anyone from dissembling the silencer, emptying out the baffles, dobbing a couple in blood and reassembling the silencer so that the blood appeared on baffles 5 - 7.  Might not have happened that way but I haven't seen anything to show that it wasn't possible.

Three videos for your perusal - the first two about the assembly of a Parker-Hale moderator, the last one about Eley .22 subsonic ammunition with a short close-up showing the bullet size.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdaUzpkc2io&list=UU36xCznYtlnnI6lXowfpkUA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGrGCnStmrk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF4nvNWxqPo