Sheila re loading. Twice.

[david1819]

Which new evidence is this?  Three questionable burn marks on Nevill Bamber's back, or dubious gun shot deposits on Sheila's neck. Those have already been rejected by the CCRC and Appeal Court, and have also seen the departure of his latest legal representative from the case.

"Sheila: photographic evidence and time of death

Some of the evidence not made available to the defence before 2005 were photographs of Sheila taken by a police photographer at around 9 am on 7 August. In a letter to the Home Secretary in August 2005, Bamber's lawyers said these photographs had only recently been passed to the defence, and showed that Sheila's blood was still wet. They argued that, had she been killed before 3:30 am as the prosecution said, her blood would have congealed by 9 am. They also cited a statement from one of the first officers to enter the house at 7:34 am, PC Peter Woodcock, whose witness statement was first discovered by the defence in a box of papers in July 2005, though the defence team acknowledged the statement may have been part of the trial bundle. The statement was dated 20 September 1985 and said of Sheila: "She had what appeared to be two bullet holes under her chin and blood leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks." In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police."

http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bamber-jeremy.htm

[Myster]

Those expert opinions are nine years old and if they had any relevance his representatives would have made use of them by now. The fact that they haven't shows that they're worthless. Who's to say that what looks like fresh blood is simply a reflection from the camera flash of dried blood?

[david1819]

Those expert opinions are nine years old and if they had any relevance his representatives would have made use of them by now. The fact that they haven't shows that they're worthless. Who's to say that what looks like fresh blood is simply a reflection from the camera flash of dried blood?

This was sent to the home secretary by his representatives they have made use of it. I have seen this photo in news articles.  two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli think otherwise, its not just the a question of dry or wet blood there was no rigor mortis and the skin was not discoloured while photos of the other bodies showed the opposite.

There are 406 crime scene photos but most are not avalible to us. vast majority we have never seen

[John]

Sheila may have been alive but brain dead for quite a while after she was shot.  It is a distinct possibility which even the experts cannot discount.  Fact is nobody knows, not even Jeremy Bamber.

[scipio_usmc]

We will need to know via medical records when her last injection was. if she was so tired and drowsy how and why did she attend the party?

I already provided you with the answer she was injected July 11, 1985 which was 3 weeks before the murders and the medicine lasted 6 weeks.  Moreover, the medicine was found in her system at autopsy.  Furthermore, there are no accounts of her having any episodes after she left the hospital in March 1985 so nothing to indicate at any time her medication wasn't working.  Trying to claim she didn't have enough in her system is a complete waste of time and has no evidentiary basis. 

Being drowsy and wanting to go to bed early doesn't preclude her from still trying to have a life. 

This is what blows my mind! Why on earth would Jeremy tell anyone? He plans this elaborate murder covering his tracks ensuring minimal detection only to tell someone afterwards he done it? It don't make sense. How on earth could Julie in her right mind react to such news? Gets a call from her then boyfiend saying he murdered his entire family including two six year old boys. Then she stays with him feeling safe and not in danger of her own life knowing her partner is a mass murderer?

Why does any criminal tell about their plans?  A combination of being arrogant, stupid, wanting to brag and wanting to complain.

Julie had mixed feelings. She loved him enough to keep quiet at first and even try to cover for him.  She expected him to marry her, they had been engaged  in the past in fact but he broke the engagement because his family liked the idea of him marrying her and he didn't want to placate them.

She said that she felt guilty over time and could not keep living the lie and thus they broke up. But if you read between the lines it appears to me she was willing to live with the guilt if he was willing to marry her but since it was evidence he was just having fun and didn't intend to marry her she decided to cut her losses and not take the turmoil of knowing what he did.

So she actually did what he hoped- at first. When the tide turned he was so stupid he didn't think that police would believe her when she changed her story so was not worried about the prospects of her doing so.  He was convinced that he pulled off the perfect crime he didn't know about his mistakes yet. Neither did th epolice know most of them either the lab figured it out subsequently.   

Both camps are guilty of the same mentality. Going round in circles making claims and counter claims going from one subject to another with circumstantial theories and ideas about what took place without resulting in any solid conclusions. All I know is that Jeremy's conviction is unsafe, What was used to convict him has come under serious scrutiny and the appeals courts have unfairly moved the goal post for him. I don't really take a solid stance on weather it was Jeremy or Shelia, But he should be given a second trial. Its a dilemma for the Crown prison service, keep an innocent man behind bars or let a killer go free? they will be accused of wrongdoing either way

You are the one going in circles.  Facts have been presented to you and yet you have ignored them and asked the same questions again.  There is nothing at all to indicate Jeremy is innocent or that he is the victim of a MOJ.

The things you have raised to suggest such are all BS that his defenders have made up not anything actually solid.  Those who say he is guilty point out the evidence used to convict him.  People like you read the BS claims of defenders that misrepresent things and then use those misrepresentations as the basis of claiming he was the victim of a MOJ. The dance is indeed old but the leading is being done by those who defend Bamber.

[scipio_usmc]

"Sheila: photographic evidence and time of death

Some of the evidence not made available to the defence before 2005 were photographs of Sheila taken by a police photographer at around 9 am on 7 August. In a letter to the Home Secretary in August 2005, Bamber's lawyers said these photographs had only recently been passed to the defence, and showed that Sheila's blood was still wet. They argued that, had she been killed before 3:30 am as the prosecution said, her blood would have congealed by 9 am. They also cited a statement from one of the first officers to enter the house at 7:34 am, PC Peter Woodcock, whose witness statement was first discovered by the defence in a box of papers in July 2005, though the defence team acknowledged the statement may have been part of the trial bundle. The statement was dated 20 September 1985 and said of Sheila: "She had what appeared to be two bullet holes under her chin and blood leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks." In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police."

http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bamber-jeremy.htm

This is a perfect example of how people read nonsense from he Bamber page and then adopt it.

1) Prior to these photos being taken a doctor examined Sheila and stated in his report that the blood on her body was dry.

2) The blood appears dry on the undoctored photos when the color filters are changed is when the blood looks very red red.

3) There is no way to tell from a photo whether blood is wet or dry it is a function that has to be done in person.  In person all the witnesses say it was dry including the doctor who declared her dead at 8:45AM.

There is no scientific basis to say a photo shows wet blood and the photo thus can't be used to contradict the testimony of the doctor and police.  The court was quite right to reject such nonsense.

Here is the photo in question that the defense claims proves the blood was wet:



That photo doesn't demonstrate the blood is wet the claim it does is just an allegation that has no scientific basis.

Here is what was published in the news after the photo was enhanced using filters:


 

[david1819]

Sheila may have been alive but brain dead for quite a while after she was shot.  It is a distinct possibility which even the experts cannot discount.  Fact is nobody knows, not even Jeremy Bamber.

Are you being serious? Your claiming Shelia could have been brain dead but still be alive a breathing for several hours with two bullet wounds to the neck and major blood loss?

scipio_usmc - medical experts Professor Marco Meloni and Professor Cavalli reported that the photos indicate Shelia died less than two hours after the photo was taken at 8-9am. Your opinion on the other hand has no expert or professional credibility its just your opinion.

Having read through this forums many reasons and 'facts' why Shelia could not have done this,

My Take:

Show me the proof that the Titanic hit an iceberg! Where is this iceberg?! Did anyone take a picture at the moment the ship hit the iceberg?! If not, then there is no 'documentary evidence' - probably never happened! The witnesses are all suspect and completely unreliable - that's why their testimonies about the sinking are all different! Show me on the wreckage anything that proves it hit an iceberg - there is nothing! A myth! Where are all these supposed 1500 people? Are there pictures of masses of floating bodies? There's no proof anyone was on the ship! There's no proof it wasn't blasted by a UFO!

Too much time is spent in circular, asinine arguments with people who can't comprehend a mother could possibly have done this.

I strongly suggest you all read up the case of Andrea Yates

http://murderpedia.org/female.Y/y/yates-andrea.htm
http://www.examiner.com/article/andrea-yates-what-the-world-does-not-want-to-see

Yates was a schizophrenic mother who killed all 5 of her children in one afternoon. She claimed the devil had possessed her children, Plus everyone who knew Andre Yates could not believe she could have committed this crime.

Sounds familiar?

Once you understand that people with these complex conditions do commit these crimes you will realise the gravity of doubt on Jeremy's conviction. I don't know what happened that night but I'm not convinced Jeremy committed this act nor am I convinced he is innocent, Many people I introduce to this case come to the same conclusion and cant make up their minds. Some people on the other hand take sides and believe what they want to believe.

Than again what if he is innocent? and is 30 years behind bars enough to give him the benefit of the doubt?
I really don't know. I don't think any judge wants this bizarre case on their shoulders.

[Myster]

The Andrea Yates murders bear no resemblance to this case. She drowned five children in her bath.

Sheila Caffell had never used the Anschutz, had no idea how to use it, nor had the co-ordination or experience to reload it at least twice. Colin Caffell knew this better than anyone else. Add to that, there was no evidence of any blood from the people she supposedly killed spattered on her nightdress, no lead residue of measurable quantity or any bullet oil on her fingers had she loaded the magazine, only one fingerprint on the butt when there should have been many.

I don't know how many times these facts have to be repeated to you for it to sink in!

[scipio_usmc]

Are you being serious? Your claiming Shelia could have been brain dead but still be alive a breathing for several hours with two bullet wounds to the neck and major blood loss?

scipio_usmc - medical experts Professor Marco Meloni and Professor Cavalli reported that the photos indicate Shelia died less than two hours after the photo was taken at 8-9am. Your opinion on the other hand has no expert or professional credibility its just your opinion.

Don't you mean she died 2 hours before the photo was taken?  They didn't assert she died after the photo was taken.

Funny how you say you require proof but believe any stupid claim you hear when you think it supports what you want to assert.

There is no recognized science of looking at a photo showing dried blood and calculating the time the blood dried by just looking at the photo. Someone claiming they caa do such are full of crap.  I will flip the script on you and challenge you to post studiens and materials from scientific literature that details a recognized science of looking at blood in a photo and claculating when it dried.  You won't find any which is why the courts laughed at the claims. In order to be used in court a scientific forumal must be well established as valid.

For you to take such junk scienve and say you believe it just demonstrates how gullible you are despite protesting otherwise or how dishonest you are that you will knowingly adopt BS just because it suits your agenda.
But it gets worse. 

The photo was not taken between 8 and 9 the photographer was not even on the scene yet.  The photos were taken around 11.  So in order for Laurel and Hardy to be correct about the wounds being 2 hours old ofr less that requires the wounds to have been delivered AFTER Dr Craig observed the wounds, dry blood and declared her dead at 8:45AM.  Anyone who believes the wounds appeared after Dr Craig saw her has far more severe mental problems than Sheila did.

Having read through this forums many reasons and 'facts' why Shelia could not have done this,

My Take:

Show me the proof that the Titanic hit an iceberg! Where is this iceberg?! Did anyone take a picture at the moment the ship hit the iceberg?! If not, then there is no 'documentary evidence' - probably never happened! The witnesses are all suspect and completely unreliable - that's why their testimonies about the sinking are all different! Show me on the wreckage anything that proves it hit an iceberg - there is nothing! A myth! Where are all these supposed 1500 people? Are there pictures of masses of floating bodies? There's no proof anyone was on the ship! There's no proof it wasn't blasted by a UFO!

Too much time is spent in circular, asinine arguments with people who can't comprehend a mother could possibly have done this.

I strongly suggest you all read up the case of Andrea Yates

http://murderpedia.org/female.Y/y/yates-andrea.htm
http://www.examiner.com/article/andrea-yates-what-the-world-does-not-want-to-see

Yates was a schizophrenic mother who killed all 5 of her children in one afternoon. She claimed the devil had possessed her children, Plus everyone who knew Andre Yates could not believe she could have committed this crime.

Sounds familiar?

Once you understand that people with these complex conditions do commit these crimes you will realise the gravity of doubt on Jeremy's conviction. I don't know what happened that night but I'm not convinced Jeremy committed this act nor am I convinced he is innocent, Many people I introduce to this case come to the same conclusion and cant make up their minds. Some people on the other hand take sides and believe what they want to believe.

Than again what if he is innocent? and is 30 years behind bars enough to give him the benefit of the doubt?
I really don't know. I don't think any judge wants this bizarre case on their shoulders.

My take is that you are a hypocrite who is totally full of crap.

This board has thousands of posts that lay out solid evidence proving Sheila could not have committed the crimes and that Jeremy did. Today alone I provided a very detailed list of phsical evidence that proves her innocense and his guilt.  DId you address any of that?  No because you can't instead you dishonestly pretend that the arguments put forth by me and others here is that a mother wouldn't kill her kids.

Why did you do that?  Because you can't refute the actual evidence that we cited so instead you create a strawman argument to attack.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

No newbies who watched me shoot could appreciate the things I did because I did them so fast.  It takes actually training someone for them to understand how to use a weapon including how to remove the magazine for a weapon that has a detachable magazine.

As I posted in the past, US President Gerald Ford survived an assassination attempt because the would be killer, who was accustomed to people using guns around her but not semi autos)  didn't know she had to manually chamber a round first. 

At any rate, when did she see someone chamber a round in a semi-automatic rifle? 

The first semi-auto the family owned was purchased late November 1984. That gun was purchased for Jeremy and barely used. There is no evidence anyone except Jeremy and Anthony used it.

Even Jeremy's fairytale about the rabbit featured him inserting the magazine into the gun in a different room than Sheila was in so that lie doesn't provide a way to claim she saw him chamber a round. 

But hey when did you ever ry to look at it rationally...

You seem to think you have to be some sort of intellectual giant to chamber a round, load and attach a magazine, aim and fire.  You don't.  The process is intuitive and straightforward.  Most would have some idea from watching movies.  Those brought up in an environment where gun usage was common place it would be second nature.  The mechanical process is no more or less complicated than operating every day equipment including baby care equipment.

I believe there's a perception that firearms are the domain of males and females are incapable of operating such based on typical gender stereo-typing.  More so if a female is attractive and feminine.  Especially in countries like England where usage of firearms is strictly controlled.  Not true of course - a female is just as capable of picking up a firearm and firing it.  For those with training they can become as proficient as a male 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6CBKUM9gk8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZE-EDGw2vo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9swOszwXhgc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hPvF9DWcRc

[adam]

You seem to think you have to be some sort of intellectual giant to chamber a round, load and attach a magazine, aim and fire.  You don't.  The process is intuitive and straightforward.  Most would have some idea from watching movies.  Those brought up in an environment where gun usage was common place it would be second nature.  The mechanical process is no more or less complicated than operating every day equipment including baby care equipment.

I believe there's a perception that firearms are the domain of males and females are incapable of operating such based on typical gender stereo-typing.  More so if a female is attractive and feminine.  Especially in countries like England where usage of firearms is strictly controlled.  Not true of course - a female is just as capable of picking up a firearm and firing it.  For those with training they can become as proficient as a male 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6CBKUM9gk8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZE-EDGw2vo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9swOszwXhgc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hPvF9DWcRc

I would prefer to not have to re load.  Like Keanu Reeves in the Matrix. He would just throw away an empty gun and use another one he had on him.

[Holly Goodhead]

I would prefer to not have to re load.  Like Keanu Reeves in the Matrix. He would just throw away an empty gun and use another one he had on him.

Might save your nails too 

See the female attach the magazine and chamber the round:

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

[Holly Goodhead]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDFsE86uMEQ

[Myster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69wWI5e1bQ

All those earlier videos you posted are from the U.S.A. where (some) children are taught to use weapons responsibly from an early age.  As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions Sheila Caffell was unfamiliar with the new Anschutz, and unlike the healthy young American women in the videos was not fit enough because of her medication to use it on August 7th '85.

[Holly Goodhead]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdAI9j_lDbc

See her long varnished nails