Did June Suffer A Black Eye Prior to 7th Aug?

[Holly Goodhead]

Mike Tesko's claims re June's black eye:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8186.msg388050.html#msg388050

The bottom line is that June Bamber did have a black eye complex, that Jeremy said his mum had the black eye at the supper table, that on the following morning whilst DC Clark was taking Jeremy's witness statement that Jeremy told Clark his mum had got a black eye at that stage! Ann Eaton overheard Jeremy telling DC Clark this, and it was included in the original handwritten statement! There was no evidence given by the pathologist to show that the black eye complex had been caused during the shooting attack upon her just before her death, and cops edited any reference to June having already had the black eye complex at the supper table on the previous evening! The fact that she had got such a black eye beforehand was potentially beneficial to the defence case, and harmful to the prosevutions case! The answer which June gave to Jeremy that she had walked into a post, was another way of saying, mind your own business! It is rather telling that when one of the farm staff called by telephone that last evening and spoke to Neville Bamber that she reported that Neville was rather abrupt to her and that she got the impression that she might have interrupted an argument! This fits in with Jeremy returning to the farmhouse at supper time to find his parents sat around the table in the kitchen telling Sheila that she needed help to bring up the children! It should be obvious that Neville would have known that June had got the black eye and how she had got it! If Neville knew, there's a good chance June's sister Pamela Boutflour also was told about it! June wouldn't be making arrangements to go to her sisters on the following afternoon for tea and be bringing along Sheila and her two grandchildren if she had got a black eye without telling her sister first! I believe cops received information from the relatives about the black eye complex of June Bamber, how she got it, and whom by! It must have been Sheila who had hit her, and that's why that part of Jeremy's statement where he mentions it was edited out of the typed composite version created in his name by the cops!

FAO Mike  You are a complete moron.  You lack the intelligence, emotional and intellectual, to sit down quietly with documents and draw sensible conclusions even when it is is crystal clear - see attached.  Your hatred of the police prevents you assisting JB.

[scipio_usmc]

Mike Tesko's claims re June's black eye:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8186.msg388050.html#msg388050

The bottom line is that June Bamber did have a black eye complex, that Jeremy said his mum had the black eye at the supper table, that on the following morning whilst DC Clark was taking Jeremy's witness statement that Jeremy told Clark his mum had got a black eye at that stage! Ann Eaton overheard Jeremy telling DC Clark this, and it was included in the original handwritten statement! There was no evidence given by the pathologist to show that the black eye complex had been caused during the shooting attack upon her just before her death, and cops edited any reference to June having already had the black eye complex at the supper table on the previous evening! The fact that she had got such a black eye beforehand was potentially beneficial to the defence case, and harmful to the prosevutions case! The answer which June gave to Jeremy that she had walked into a post, was another way of saying, mind your own business! It is rather telling that when one of the farm staff called by telephone that last evening and spoke to Neville Bamber that she reported that Neville was rather abrupt to her and that she got the impression that she might have interrupted an argument! This fits in with Jeremy returning to the farmhouse at supper time to find his parents sat around the table in the kitchen telling Sheila that she needed help to bring up the children! It should be obvious that Neville would have known that June had got the black eye and how she had got it! If Neville knew, there's a good chance June's sister Pamela Boutflour also was told about it! June wouldn't be making arrangements to go to her sisters on the following afternoon for tea and be bringing along Sheila and her two grandchildren if she had got a black eye without telling her sister first! I believe cops received information from the relatives about the black eye complex of June Bamber, how she got it, and whom by! It must have been Sheila who had hit her, and that's why that part of Jeremy's statement where he mentions it was edited out of the typed composite version created in his name by the cops!

FAO Mike  You are a complete moron.  You lack the intelligence, emotional and intellectual, to sit down quietly with documents and draw sensible conclusions even when it is is crystal clear - see attached.  Your hatred of the police prevents you assisting JB.

It is honesty that he lacks.  He hopes others are too stupid/ignorant to learn/know the truth. Unfortunately there are people who are lacking in such intellect for example nugs and lookout who believe everything he says no matter how much evident is brought to bear to prove he is lying.

For the record even if the Pathologist had not assessed it as being likely that the black eye was from the bullet wounds that still would not in any way mean it was unrelated to the murders. There is no way to prove for sure that Nevill's burn marks didn't exist prior to the murders. That doesn't mean they were not inflicting during the course, most likely they were even though it is possible they predated such.

The black eye actually could be incriminatory to Jeremy for several reasons thus a reason to lie and later to ignore the issue entirely. For instance, Jeremy knowing she had a black eye before police released such evidence can be viewed as incriminatory because how would he know unless he were the killer?  That provides a reason to make up that the black eye predated the murders if he provided such detail by accident on his own.

Furthermore, he didn't know it was caused by the bullet he could have thought it was inflicted during a struggle he had with her. Sheila having a struggle with both parents yet no evidence of such on her suggests she didn't do anything.  So there is a reason to want to hide that the killer fought both parents.  Another reason to lie of course is to provide the false suggestion Sheila had erupted prior to the murders.  That's a pretty obvious lie that could help further convince police Sheila was physically dangerous. 

What should be of interest is whether Jeremy told police before or after the family told him June had a black eye because if it was before then that is more evidence of Jeremy's guilt since only the killer would know she had a black eye. 

[Caroline]

It is honesty that he lacks.  He hopes others are too stupid/ignorant to learn/know the truth. Unfortunately there are people who are lacking in such intellect for example nugs and lookout who believe everything he says no matter how much evident is brought to bear to prove he is lying.

For the record even if the Pathologist had not assessed it as being likely that the black eye was from the bullet wounds that still would not in any way mean it was unrelated to the murders. There is no way to prove for sure that Nevill's burn marks didn't exist prior to the murders. That doesn't mean they were not inflicting during the course, most likely they were even though it is possible they predated such.

The black eye actually could be incriminatory to Jeremy for several reasons thus a reason to lie and later to ignore the issue entirely. For instance, Jeremy knowing she had a black eye before police released such evidence can be viewed as incriminatory because how would he know unless he were the killer?  That provides a reason to make up that the black eye predated the murders if he provided such detail by accident on his own.

Furthermore, he didn't know it was caused by the bullet he could have thought it was inflicted during a struggle he had with her. Sheila having a struggle with both parents yet no evidence of such on her suggests she didn't do anything.  So there is a reason to want to hide that the killer fought both parents.  Another reason to lie of course is to provide the false suggestion Sheila had erupted prior to the murders.  That's a pretty obvious lie that could help further convince police Sheila was physically dangerous. 

What should be of interest is whether Jeremy told police before or after the family told him June had a black eye because if it was before then that is more evidence of Jeremy's guilt since only the killer would know she had a black eye.

It was before, it was while he was giving his first statement - even before Julie had identified the bodies.

[scipio_usmc]

It was before, it was while he was giving his first statement - even before Julie had identified the bodies.

Unless someone can come up with evidence that the police told him she had a black eye before he claimed she had one prior to the murders this is very bad for Jeremy.

[Caroline]

Unless someone can come up with evidence that the police told him she had a black eye before he claimed she had one prior to the murders this is very bad for Jeremy.

I agree.

[Holly Goodhead]

I agree.

Where's the evidence JB claimed June had a black eye on 6th Aug?  I certainly don't regard Mike or AE as reliable sources.  There's nothing in JB's WS's.  I don't recall anything in his police interviews either? 

[scipio_usmc]

Where's the evidence JB claimed June had a black eye on 6th Aug?  I certainly don't regard Mike or AE as reliable sources.  There's nothing in JB's WS's.  I don't recall anything in his police interviews either?

Mike and AE are not even remotely on the same level. You are free to discount AE all you like but seem to do so out of bias.  Most people see no reason to discount AE outright but rather to discount things she says that can be shown to be wrong since people can make mistakes. Mike is a proven liar who intentionally lies to advance his own agenda so can't be trusted period.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

Mike and AE are not even remotely on the same level. You are free to discount AE all you like but seem to do so out of bias.  Most people see no reason to discount AE outright but rather to discount things she says that can be shown to be wrong since people can make mistakes. Mike is a proven liar who intentionally lies to advance his own agenda so can't be trusted period.

And you're bias free?

Anthony Arlidge QC for the prosecution asked Dr Vanezis:

Q:  That is not a blow from the outside?  A:  No

AE

On one part of his statement he told the police officers that Aunt June Bamber had black eye and when Jeremy had asked her to account for it she had apparently said, I hit a post.

Jeremy told the officers that he thought that there was more to her injury but Aunt June Bamber was not going to tell him.

I formed the opinion that Jeremy was insinuating that Sheila had hit Aunt June Bamber.  I asked the police officers if my Aunt June Bamber had a black eye but they couldn't tell me.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2199

If JB told officers that June sustained a black eye prior to 7th Aug then why isn't it in his WS?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5631.msg200221#msg20022

Mike claims police edited it out JB's WS but Mike is a moron and as you said a proven liar so anything he states means squat.

[Caroline]

Where's the evidence JB claimed June had a black eye on 6th Aug?  I certainly don't regard Mike or AE as reliable sources.  There's nothing in JB's WS's.  I don't recall anything in his police interviews either?

I think Jeremy will be more familiar than most with the injuries sustained by the victims and would know that June did indeed have a black eye and yet, he denied knowing about it when I asked - I can see no reason for him to deny it and find it suspicious. As far as AE's claim goes, I believe he did mention the black eye, just as he mentioned the cash in his dads wallet and then denied that. There are just too many of these instances - of course people can forget various elements but not these kinds of details.

[Holly Goodhead]

I think Jeremy will be more familiar than most with the injuries sustained by the victims and would know that June did indeed have a black eye and yet, he denied knowing about it when I asked - I can see no reason for him to deny it and find it suspicious. As far as AE's claim goes, I believe he did mention the black eye, just as he mentioned the cash in his dads wallet and then denied that. There are just too many of these instances - of course people can forget various elements but not these kinds of details.

Well I'm not a pathologist so I would have no idea how long a bruise takes to appear from gunshot and whether other unrelated gsw's and/or death speed up the appearance, slow it down or make no difference. 

What I do know is that at least one of the two police officers present at GH on 7th Aug: DS Jones and DC Clark also went inside WHF on 7th Aug prior to attending GH.  Imo it is quite possible that this officer made reference to June having a black eye in the presence of all those at GH incl JB and AE and like many aspects of the case it has taken on a life of its own.

Re communication with JB I will start up a new thread to avoid going off-topic.

[Caroline]

Well I'm not a pathologist so I would have no idea how long a bruise takes to appear from gunshot and whether other unrelated gsw's and/or death speed up the appearance, slow it down or make no difference. 

What I do know is that at least one of the two police officers present at GH on 7th Aug: DS Jones and DC Clark also went inside WHF on 7th Aug prior to attending GH.  Imo it is quite possible that this officer made reference to June having a black eye in the presence of all those at GH incl JB and AE and like many aspects of the case it has taken on a life of its own.

Re communication with JB I will start up a new thread to avoid going off-topic.

Without any kind of confirmation that it just pure assumption. It doesn't make sense for Jeremy to have heard it from an officer because he claimed it was present whilst she was alive. He said he asked June about it and she said she walked into a post

[Holly Goodhead]

Without any kind of confirmation that it just pure assumption. It doesn't make sense for Jeremy to have heard it from an officer because he claimed it was present whilst she was alive. He said he asked June about it and she said she walked into a post

But what confirmation do we have from JB about any of the above?

[scipio_usmc]

And you're bias free?

Anthony Arlidge QC for the prosecution asked Dr Vanezis:

Q:  That is not a blow from the outside?  A:  No

AE

On one part of his statement he told the police officers that Aunt June Bamber had black eye and when Jeremy had asked her to account for it she had apparently said, I hit a post.

Jeremy told the officers that he thought that there was more to her injury but Aunt June Bamber was not going to tell him.

I formed the opinion that Jeremy was insinuating that Sheila had hit Aunt June Bamber.  I asked the police officers if my Aunt June Bamber had a black eye but they couldn't tell me.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2199

If JB told officers that June sustained a black eye prior to 7th Aug then why isn't it in his WS?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5631.msg200221#msg20022

Mike claims police edited it out JB's WS but Mike is a moron and as you said a proven liar so anything he states means squat.

Yes I am bias free and as such I understand that witness statements only contain points that police and the witness think are most significant.  Why do you think that it is preferred to tape witness interviews?  Police notes often miss things.  After someone is questioned and they finally write up a statement they don't put in everything they told police, they can't even remember everything they told police nor will police remember everything they said only the things the police consider most significant.  Notes can even include misinterpretations which is another reason to tape questioning. Taping is a double edged sword. It protects you from police lying about what you said but also prevents you from lying and denying things you said that you regret.


It is not credible that AE made up that Jeremy said June had a black eye prior to the murders. Police didn't consider that too significant because it would not be related to the murders directly. While AE didn't make it up it is possible for her to be wrong.  It is possible for police to have told Jeremy June had a black eye and to have asked if it predated the murders or not.  Since they didn't consider the black eye important as to identifying the killer I doubt they did that though. If he said outright that he saw his sister punch his mother and give her a black eye then they would have had reason to note that because that would support their vision at the time of Sheila being violent.  AE said she got the impression he was trying to imply Sheila could have given June the black eye not stating he witnessed such. That could have gone over the head of police or police could have understood the 
implication but decided it was not worth writing down since it was not supported by anything.

I try to evaluate based on what is most likely true. I don't judge based on bias.

Being free of bias means I am not wed to a position for the sake of the position.

Vanezis felt the black eye was internal because bullets can cause such damage.  A body is not hollow. When a bullet passes through a body the material it is going through doesn't magically vanish it is pushed to the sides of the bullet.  That material is thus pushed into other material. So a bullet to the side of the head can push material towards the front of the head (where the eyes are) as well as towards the brain.  Does a bullet through the head always cause black eye(s)?  No it can but doesn't always.  Can someone get a black eye form being punched without there being significant damage to the skin that demonstrates it was caused by an external injury/  Yes there are not always abrasions to the skin.  Can a doctor assess that a black eye was caused by a bullet though it was actually caused externally? Yes. The way doctors operate is if they see no proof it is external but have an internal cause that could have caused it they will say it most likely was internally caused. Most likely it was but is still possible it was externally caused. I mention the possibility for the sake of accuracy. 

I don't know whether June got out of bed before Jeremy left the room or not.  It is possible she got up or possible she didn't.  If she did get up when Jeremy was in the room then she would have been blocking Jeremy's exit and he would have been blocking her path to the other side of the bed.  That certainly sets the stage for a physical struggle.  He could have punched or pushed her without leaving any obvious damage that could be attributed to such. We can't just say that because there was no obvious damage that had to be associated with a struggle that there was no physical confrontation of any kind and that she had to get out of bed after he left.  We have no way to know. Accepting the limitations the evidence can provide is not being biased but rather being realistic.   

Let's pretend Jeremy didn't clean his clothing, police had seized it before he could remove it and had some spatter from June on his clothing indicating he had an physical altercation with her. Even though she had no obvious damage from such altercation would it disprove the altercation happened?  She was bleeding from numerous gunshot wounds hence why her blood would get on him during an altercation.  We are always working with limitations. Only Jeremy knows whether she got up and actively went towards him or was in his way as he tried to exit.  He could have fired all the shots while they were in bed then ran away.


Most fail to consider he possibility of him running away before the parents got up and think they got up and Nevill left with Jeremy chasing him.  That requires Nevill to have gotten past Jeremy and Jeremy past June. I don't say that out of bias but because it is what would be true if they were right.

I personally think that Jeremy ran away to get more ammo when he realized the gun was empty and his parents not dead and that Nevill followed him to try to prevent him from reloading.  I doubt Nevill fought his way past Jeremy and bouncing off walls he managed to get to the kitchen before Jeremy could catch him and beat him to death. While I see this as most likely what happened it doesn't mean I am right there is still a chance that there was a confrontation in the bedroom and that Nevill got away and went to try to arm himself.  Only Jeremy knows for sure.  All we can do is posit the various possibilities, not say for sure which happened.

[Holly Goodhead]

Yes I am bias free and as such I understand that witness statements only contain points that police and the witness think are most significant.  Why do you think that it is preferred to tape witness interviews?  Police notes often miss things.  After someone is questioned and they finally write up a statement they don't put in everything they told police, they can't even remember everything they told police nor will police remember everything they said only the things the police consider most significant.  Notes can even include misinterpretations which is another reason to tape questioning. Taping is a double edged sword. It protects you from police lying about what you said but also prevents you from lying and denying things you said that you regret.


It is not credible that AE made up that Jeremy said June had a black eye prior to the murders. Police didn't consider that too significant because it would not be related to the murders directly. While AE didn't make it up it is possible for her to be wrong.  It is possible for police to have told Jeremy June had a black eye and to have asked if it predated the murders or not.  Since they didn't consider the black eye important as to identifying the killer I doubt they did that though. If he said outright that he saw his sister punch his mother and give her a black eye then they would have had reason to note that because that would support their vision at the time of Sheila being violent.  AE said she got the impression he was trying to imply Sheila could have given June the black eye not stating he witnessed such. That could have gone over the head of police or police could have understood the 
implication but decided it was not worth writing down since it was not supported by anything.

I try to evaluate based on what is most likely true. I don't judge based on bias.

Being free of bias means I am not wed to a position for the sake of the position.

Vanezis felt the black eye was internal because bullets can cause such damage.  A body is not hollow. When a bullet passes through a body the material it is going through doesn't magically vanish it is pushed to the sides of the bullet.  That material is thus pushed into other material. So a bullet to the side of the head can push material towards the front of the head (where the eyes are) as well as towards the brain.  Does a bullet through the head always cause black eye(s)?  No it can but doesn't always.  Can someone get a black eye form being punched without there being significant damage to the skin that demonstrates it was caused by an external injury/  Yes there are not always abrasions to the skin.  Can a doctor assess that a black eye was caused by a bullet though it was actually caused externally? Yes. The way doctors operate is if they see no proof it is external but have an internal cause that could have caused it they will say it most likely was internally caused. Most likely it was but is still possible it was externally caused. I mention the possibility for the sake of accuracy. 

I don't know whether June got out of bed before Jeremy left the room or not.  It is possible she got up or possible she didn't.  If she did get up when Jeremy was in the room then she would have been blocking Jeremy's exit and he would have been blocking her path to the other side of the bed.  That certainly sets the stage for a physical struggle.  He could have punched or pushed her without leaving any obvious damage that could be attributed to such. We can't just say that because there was no obvious damage that had to be associated with a struggle that there was no physical confrontation of any kind and that she had to get out of bed after he left.  We have no way to know. Accepting the limitations the evidence can provide is not being biased but rather being realistic.   

Let's pretend Jeremy didn't clean his clothing, police had seized it before he could remove it and had some spatter from June on his clothing indicating he had an physical altercation with her. Even though she had no obvious damage from such altercation would it disprove the altercation happened?  She was bleeding from numerous gunshot wounds hence why her blood would get on him during an altercation.  We are always working with limitations. Only Jeremy knows whether she got up and actively went towards him or was in his way as he tried to exit.  He could have fired all the shots while they were in bed then ran away.


Most fail to consider he possibility of him running away before the parents got up and think they got up and Nevill left with Jeremy chasing him.  That requires Nevill to have gotten past Jeremy and Jeremy past June. I don't say that out of bias but because it is what would be true if they were right.

I personally think that Jeremy ran away to get more ammo when he realized the gun was empty and his parents not dead and that Nevill followed him to try to prevent him from reloading.  I doubt Nevill fought his way past Jeremy and bouncing off walls he managed to get to the kitchen before Jeremy could catch him and beat him to death. While I see this as most likely what happened it doesn't mean I am right there is still a chance that there was a confrontation in the bedroom and that Nevill got away and went to try to arm himself.  Only Jeremy knows for sure.  All we can do is posit the various possibilities, not say for sure which happened.

But as I said to Caroline above what confirmation is there from JB that he mentioned to anyone June had a black eye on 6th Aug?  If he was bandying it about as AE claimed surely he would get it in his WS?

Afaik there's no record of it anywhere other from AE? 

Nothing from JB's WS's or police interviews.  Nothing from any of the other lay prosecution witnesses eg JM et al or police. 

I'm inclined to think AE was mistaken in the same way she was mistaken about the gun case/cupboard but that's of course a whole different story thread and to coin a symbol from Mike '!'

[scipio_usmc]

But as I said to Caroline above what confirmation is there from JB that he mentioned to anyone June had a black eye on 6th Aug?  If he was bandying it about as AE claimed surely he would get it in his WS?

Afaik there's no record of it anywhere other from AE? 

Nothing from JB's WS's or police interviews.  Nothing from any of the other lay prosecution witnesses eg JM et al or police. 

I'm inclined to think AE was mistaken in the same way she was mistaken about the gun case/cupboard but that's of course a whole different story thread and to coin a symbol from Mike '!'

You are describing AE being mistaken about Jeremy saying the black eye predated the murder.  It is highly unlikely that Jeremy said she had no black eye prior to the murders and yet AE screwed up and falsely remembered him saying the black eye predated the murder.  This is simply not likely at all nor is it likely she made the claim up from thin air and that the black eye was not mentioned at all by him.

It is clear to me he did discuss the black eye and did say it was prior to the murders thus catching AE's attention. I don't view it as credible that she made it up or got it wrong.  A lot of things caught her attention that police ignored because they simply believed Sheila did it.  That is where police look their worst actually. They failed to follow up with Jeremy on issues they should have. 

For instance, they never followed up with him about his initial lie to police that she fired all the weapons in the house and he trained her how to use them did they?  By the time of his statements he thought the better of it and dropped the claim he trained her and also that she fired the weapons. I think you would agree that they should have asked him to account for the dramatic change.

Your best bet is to say maybe police told him she had a black eye and asked him if she had it prior to the murders. 
That fails to explain why he lied about her having it prior but would prevent it from proving he had knowledge only the killer would know if he broached it before police noted June had a black eye. 

Why would Jeremy lie about the black eye being prior to the murders- there are 2 possibilities:

1) to make police think Sheila had beaten June prior to the murders to get them to further believe she was violent

2) thinking it must have happened while June was beaten and thus to try to conceal that June was beaten during the course of the murders