Author Topic: Some Basic Questions  (Read 1912 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2018, 02:57:12 AM »
Most murder cases are in essence very simple

Could you please, just briefly, give me a summary of your professional experience in criminal detection, in support of this assertion you make?  I'm not being facetious, I'm just very interested in this idea that murder cases are in essence very simple.  I have no experience of police or investigative work whatsoever, but general life experience and common-sense would tell me that murder investigations in which the happenings are a mystery are going to be factually complex and intellectually-challenging. 

No need to reveal your identity and you can keep it brief.  I assume you must have worked as a detective (or in a closely-related role) on murder/manslaughter and unlawful killing investigations?

and the White House Farm murders are no different.  As pointed out above, the only two people who could have carried out the murders were Jeremy or Sheila. 

I agree this is probably the case, but I disagree that it is strictly the case. I have explained above why.  I believe third party involvement is possible, but I'm not seriously advancing any theories in that regard, so it's a minor point.

In claiming that his father telephoned him, Jeremy Bamber inadvertently ruled out any third party.

No he didn't.  You, and probably almost everybody who has commented on this case - including the police and courts - are wrong on this point.

This is also backed up by the fact that the farmhouse was locked from the inside putting Sheila in the frame. 

Now you are making sense.  I agree that if the farmhouse was fully locked, then third party involvement can be excluded, but then that naturally raises the question: was the farmhouse locked?  We might never have the answer to that question.

However, Jeremy Bamber knew how to get into the farmhouse even after all the doors had been bolted and locked from within, this thus puts him in the frame also.

I also agree with you on this point, but it doesn't prove he did.

Bearing the above in mind, we know that the killer had a physical altercation with Nevill Bamber over the kitchen table where several objects were broke and a glass ceiling light fixture was shattered.

Excellent!  Now all you need to do is tell me where the forensic evidence is.  See my complaint above.  If Bamber had an altercation with Nevill, there will be forensic traces of Bamber all over the place, yes?  Doubtful that Bamber, having just shot five people, would be on his hands and knees, with a pair of tweezers, picking up his own hairs or that he could remove fingerprint and maybe blood traces from the items broken.  Indeed, as you seem to be confirming, the crime scene was a mess.  If Bamber is the killer, then forensic scruple doesn't seem to have been his strong point - he supposedly left a moderator lying around with blood in it - yet oddly, the police came up with nothing in that department on Bamber himself.  Why?

A petite Sheila Caffell could not have won such a fight with her adoptive father who was much taller and stronger than she was.  In any event, a forensic examination of Sheila's remains did not reveal any signs of a struggle or blood from her father on her or her nightdress.  In addition, barefooted Sheila had no glass shards on her feet which she would have had if she been involved in a fight in the kitchen.

I think you make this point well, but I have three observations:

First, the fact that Nevill was taller/stronger does not preclude the possibility of an altercation.  Daughters do have physical 'fights' with their male immediate family members - especially brothers, but sometimes even fathers - and in their own minds, it might not matter that the man or teenage brother, or whatever, is stronger.  In fact, that might add to a sense that she can 'push the envelope' a little.  Isn't it true that Sheila had mental health issues, or do I have that wrong (apologies if I'm wrong on that point)?

Second, also the fact that Nevill was stronger does not preclude the possibility that, if she did carry out these killings, Sheila might have got the best of him by arming herself.  For the purposes of our hypothetical scenario of Sheila as killer, we must remember that Nevill was a Magistrate, therefore he would have had to be doubly cautious for that reason and on account that Sheila had a gun.  Also, like any man, Nevill would have been quite reticent, maybe even reluctant, about harming Sheila.  His aim would have been to overpower her, but we go back to the fact that in our scenario she is the one with a gun.  (For now, I will assume it's the only gun in the house: I did query that point above, but have not had a reply).

Maybe Sheila managed to fend Nevill off and then kill him, despite him being stronger?  Maybe that explains the mess in the kitchen?  Thinking about it, would an altercation between Jeremy, a strong young man, and Nevill, an elderly man, result in such a struggle?  Wouldn't Jeremy be able to overpower him easily?  I know when I was about the age Jeremy was at that time, I could have overpowered my late father very easily, had I wanted to, and he was only in his late 40s/early 50s.

Third, what Sheila's remains reveal is that she was shot.  I see no reason why her clothing would include traces of her father's blood, given the manner in which we would presume she would have shot him - if she did (and I am NOT saying she did).  And I don't see what "signs of a struggle" would entail, but let's say we can agree on that point, I don't believe the absence of superficial signs of a struggle proves she didn't struggle with her father and other individuals in the house.  The lack of glass shards on her feet would only be significant if she should have had such on her feet, which in turn depends on where the glass was in the kitchen in relation to her.  My point is that it's not conclusive.  A different example I would come up with is the lack of torn clothing - that doesn't prove that she didn't struggle, either with Bamber (assuming he is the culprit) or with Nevill (assuming she is the culprit). 

These points are indisputable and cannot be explained away.

Sorry to disagree, but this case is NOT indisputable.  Bamber has not confessed or made admissions.  He vigorously protests his innocence and there are points of issue with almost everything you have said here.

As a consequence and taking everything into consideration, as Sheila could not have been the killer then it had to have been her brother Jeremy Bamber by default or someone contracted by him.  Either way, he is still guilty.

I am not interested in pronouncing the guilt or innocence of people.  You may have some kind of personal interest in the case.  If you are a member of the victims' family, then I sincerely apologise and offer you my genuine condolences. 
« Last Edit: March 21, 2018, 03:05:07 AM by LuminousWanderer »

Offline sika

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2018, 07:20:15 AM »
Am I correct in thinking that the scene wasn't thoroughly, forensically examined? 

Other than the silencer, which was obviously recovered some time after the clean up, we seem to have nothing more than a few photographs. 

How long did it take for 'the relatives' to raise their concerns about Jeremy, to the Police?

Offline APRIL

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2018, 08:29:48 AM »
Re Nevill -allegedly- saying "THE gun" as opposed to "A gun". THE gun may well have been an earlier bone of contention between Nevill and Jeremy. It's not impossible that Nevill had told Jeremy to put THE gun away, as in he was fed up with tidying up behind him. Psychologically, though, it may be Jeremy's way of reminding us -as a part of his alibi, it's an important part of the story- that he'd left A gun laying around and it was this -THE gun- that Sheila was said to have been in possession of.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2018, 09:44:33 AM by APRIL »

Offline adam

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2018, 10:07:57 AM »
Most murder cases are in essence very simple and the White House Farm murders are no different.  As pointed out above, the only two people who could have carried out the murders were Jeremy or Sheila.  In claiming that his father telephoned him, Jeremy Bamber inadvertently ruled out any third party. This is also backed up by the fact that the farmhouse was locked from the inside putting Sheila in the frame.  However, Jeremy Bamber knew how to get into the farmhouse even after all the doors had been bolted and locked from within, this thus puts him in the frame also.

Bearing the above in mind, we know that the killer had a physical altercation with Nevill Bamber over the kitchen table where several objects were broke and a glass ceiling light fixture was shattered. A petite Sheila Caffell could not have won such a fight with her adoptive father who was much taller and stronger than she was.  In any event, a forensic examination of Sheila's remains did not reveal any signs of a struggle or blood from her father on her or her nightdress.  In addition, barefooted Sheila had no glass shards on her feet which she would have had if she been involved in a fight in the kitchen.

These points are indisputable and cannot be explained away. As a consequence and taking everything into consideration, as Sheila could not have been the killer then it had to have been her brother Jeremy Bamber by default or someone contracted by him.  Either way, he is still guilty.

There is more evidence against Bamber than there is for virtually all other crimes. Both forensic & circumstantial. Even crimes where the criminals pleaded guilty.

Bamber protests his innocence & like any other convicted criminal in a famous case who does this, will attract a few supporters.  Supporting him for different reasons such as 'gut feelings', conspiracy theories, wanting a purpose in life or believing they are smarter than the law.  Always trying to find a way to achieve the impossible.

LuminousWanderer is obviously not very well read on the case & is looking for a way out for Bamber. Going through things which have been discussed before.

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1937
  • Total likes: 40
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2018, 11:53:15 AM »
There is more evidence against Bamber than there is for virtually all other crimes. Both forensic & circumstantial. Even crimes where the criminals pleaded guilty.

I agree Adam.

Jeremy Bamber has made numerous Freudian slips over the years and continues to do so

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6620.0

An example:
Caroline posts -
"According to AE's statement (taken between 8th and 13th Sept) she asked Jeremy why he didn't go to WHF as allegedly requested by Nevill's phone call - Jeremy replied that he was frightened that the call may have been a trick in order to lure him to the farm so Sheila could 'shoot him too'. At this point (after the supposed call from Nevill) Jeremy isn't supposed to know that anyone had been shot!

Luminouswanderer does not appear to have taken the above into account?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2018, 11:57:40 AM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1937
  • Total likes: 40
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2018, 12:00:28 PM »
Could you please, just briefly, give me a summary of your professional experience in criminal detection, in support of this assertion you make?  I'm not being facetious, I'm just very interested in this idea that murder cases are in essence very simple.  I have no experience of police or investigative work whatsoever, but general life experience and common-sense would tell me that murder investigations in which the happenings are a mystery are going to be factually complex and intellectually-challenging. 

No need to reveal your identity and you can keep it brief.  I assume you must have worked as a detective (or in a closely-related role) on murder/manslaughter and unlawful killing investigations?

I agree this is probably the case, but I disagree that it is strictly the case. I have explained above why.  I believe third party involvement is possible, but I'm not seriously advancing any theories in that regard, so it's a minor point.

No he didn't.  You, and probably almost everybody who has commented on this case - including the police and courts - are wrong on this point.

Now you are making sense.  I agree that if the farmhouse was fully locked, then third party involvement can be excluded, but then that naturally raises the question: was the farmhouse locked?  We might never have the answer to that question.

I also agree with you on this point, but it doesn't prove he did.

Excellent!  Now all you need to do is tell me where the forensic evidence is.  See my complaint above.  If Bamber had an altercation with Nevill, there will be forensic traces of Bamber all over the place, yes?  Doubtful that Bamber, having just shot five people, would be on his hands and knees, with a pair of tweezers, picking up his own hairs or that he could remove fingerprint and maybe blood traces from the items broken.  Indeed, as you seem to be confirming, the crime scene was a mess.  If Bamber is the killer, then forensic scruple doesn't seem to have been his strong point - he supposedly left a moderator lying around with blood in it - yet oddly, the police came up with nothing in that department on Bamber himself.  Why?

I think you make this point well, but I have three observations:

First, the fact that Nevill was taller/stronger does not preclude the possibility of an altercation.  Daughters do have physical 'fights' with their male immediate family members - especially brothers, but sometimes even fathers - and in their own minds, it might not matter that the man or teenage brother, or whatever, is stronger.  In fact, that might add to a sense that she can 'push the envelope' a little.  Isn't it true that Sheila had mental health issues, or do I have that wrong (apologies if I'm wrong on that point)?

Second, also the fact that Nevill was stronger does not preclude the possibility that, if she did carry out these killings, Sheila might have got the best of him by arming herself.  For the purposes of our hypothetical scenario of Sheila as killer, we must remember that Nevill was a Magistrate, therefore he would have had to be doubly cautious for that reason and on account that Sheila had a gun.  Also, like any man, Nevill would have been quite reticent, maybe even reluctant, about harming Sheila.  His aim would have been to overpower her, but we go back to the fact that in our scenario she is the one with a gun.  (For now, I will assume it's the only gun in the house: I did query that point above, but have not had a reply).

Maybe Sheila managed to fend Nevill off and then kill him, despite him being stronger?  Maybe that explains the mess in the kitchen?  Thinking about it, would an altercation between Jeremy, a strong young man, and Nevill, an elderly man, result in such a struggle?  Wouldn't Jeremy be able to overpower him easily?  I know when I was about the age Jeremy was at that time, I could have overpowered my late father very easily, had I wanted to, and he was only in his late 40s/early 50s.

Third, what Sheila's remains reveal is that she was shot.  I see no reason why her clothing would include traces of her father's blood, given the manner in which we would presume she would have shot him - if she did (and I am NOT saying she did).  And I don't see what "signs of a struggle" would entail, but let's say we can agree on that point, I don't believe the absence of superficial signs of a struggle proves she didn't struggle with her father and other individuals in the house.  The lack of glass shards on her feet would only be significant if she should have had such on her feet, which in turn depends on where the glass was in the kitchen in relation to her.  My point is that it's not conclusive.  A different example I would come up with is the lack of torn clothing - that doesn't prove that she didn't struggle, either with Bamber (assuming he is the culprit) or with Nevill (assuming she is the culprit). 

Sorry to disagree, but this case is NOT indisputable.  Bamber has not confessed or made admissions.  He vigorously protests his innocence and there are points of issue with almost everything you have said here.

I am not interested in pronouncing the guilt or innocence of people. You may have some kind of personal interest in the case.  If you are a member of the victims' family, then I sincerely apologise and offer you my genuine condolences.

Are these your projections Luminouswanderer?



"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1937
  • Total likes: 40
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2018, 12:02:06 PM »
I have started to read up on the Bamber case and have formed some initial impressions. 

First, I am not going to get dragged into partisan discussions and exchanges that speculate about Bamber's culpability. I was not there.  I don't know if he is guilty or not. If you are 'emotional' or 'partisan' about this case, I'd prefer that you don't reply to this thread.  My interest in this case is purely in terms of whether the convictions are legally safe. 

If that offends you, or if any other aspect of my post offends you, then I apologise, but that being the case, please ignore this thread rather than reply.

Certainly, based on what we know at present, we are not here dealing with a miscarriage of justice: there is no incontestable evidence for Bamber's innocence.  However I do think there is a question mark over the safety of the convictions.  I am not convinced that the convictions can be sustained.  That, of course, would not make Bamber an innocent man, but as already stated, that is not my concern.

Some questions that spring to mind are below.  These will seem basic to experienced commenters here - for which, apologies in advance - but please appreciate that there is so much information online about this case now and much of it is confusing and contradictory, and I am approaching this case from the position of a novice.  My wish is to cut through the mass of facts, theories and speculation, in order to isolate what, I believe, are the real issues. 

Nothing too specific - whether as to the absence or inclusion of an issue here - should be read into these questions.  I will expand on my thoughts later.

Questions:

Q1. Is there any forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber directly to the crime scene or presumed murder weapon, or both? 

Q2. Were contact wounds inflicted on any of the victims?  If so, which of the victims?

Q3. Has it been established that the moderator contained Sheila's blood?  If so, is this point accepted by Bamber?

Q4. What exactly did Nevill Bamber say in the relevant middle-of-the-night phone call, according to Jeremy Bamber - to the best of his recollection - and what exactly did Jeremy Bamber say to Nevill Bamber in that same call?  Has this recollection of Bamber's changed in any respect?  If so, what are his different versions of the conversation?

Q5. What is the police explanation for the telephone logs? This is serious evidence that cannot be dismissed lightly.  The entries appear to prove that two telephone calls were logged that evening, one from Nevill Bamber, the other from Jeremy Bamber.

Q6. Has there been any investigation as to whether Bamber could, in fact, have dialled 999 and instead got through to a local police station (i.e. his call was diverted to a local police operator)?

Q7. Has it been established that Bamber stood to inherit some or all of his adoptive parents' estate in the event of their deaths?  If so, what was the intended distribution? To whom in addition to Bamber and in what proportions?  What was the extent of Bamber's knowledge, factual and legal, as to this inheritance?  What was Sheila's position in the event of the death of her parents?

Q8. Is it known whether Bamber received substantial cash or other gifts of significant monetary value from his parents prior to their deaths?  If so, what are the details?

Q9. Is it known whether Sheila had ever handled a gun or firearm?  If she did, how often and what were the circumstances?

Q10. If we assume Sheila was not responsible, is there any plausible competing case theory other than that Bamber did it?

I may have more questions later, but that will do for now.  I will be very grateful to anybody who can assist me in understanding this case further by answering my questions.

Are you legally qualified?
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1937
  • Total likes: 40
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2018, 12:13:38 PM »
Could you please, just briefly, give me a summary of your professional experience in criminal detection, in support of this assertion you make?  I'm not being facetious, I'm just very interested in this idea that murder cases are in essence very simple.  I have no experience of police or investigative work whatsoever, but general life experience and common-sense would tell me that murder investigations in which the happenings are a mystery are going to be factually complex and intellectually-challenging. 

No need to reveal your identity and you can keep it brief.  I assume you must have worked as a detective (or in a closely-related role) on murder/manslaughter and unlawful killing investigations?

I agree this is probably the case, but I disagree that it is strictly the case. I have explained above why.  I believe third party involvement is possible, but I'm not seriously advancing any theories in that regard, so it's a minor point.

No he didn't.  You, and probably almost everybody who has commented on this case - including the police and courts - are wrong on this point.

Now you are making sense.  I agree that if the farmhouse was fully locked, then third party involvement can be excluded, but then that naturally raises the question: was the farmhouse locked?  We might never have the answer to that question.

I also agree with you on this point, but it doesn't prove he did.

Excellent!  Now all you need to do is tell me where the forensic evidence is.  See my complaint above.  If Bamber had an altercation with Nevill, there will be forensic traces of Bamber all over the place, yes?  Doubtful that Bamber, having just shot five people, would be on his hands and knees, with a pair of tweezers, picking up his own hairs or that he could remove fingerprint and maybe blood traces from the items broken.  Indeed, as you seem to be confirming, the crime scene was a mess.  If Bamber is the killer, then forensic scruple doesn't seem to have been his strong point - he supposedly left a moderator lying around with blood in it - yet oddly, the police came up with nothing in that department on Bamber himself.  Why?

I think you make this point well, but I have three observations:

First, the fact that Nevill was taller/stronger does not preclude the possibility of an altercation.  Daughters do have physical 'fights' with their male immediate family members - especially brothers, but sometimes even fathers - and in their own minds, it might not matter that the man or teenage brother, or whatever, is stronger.  In fact, that might add to a sense that she can 'push the envelope' a little.  Isn't it true that Sheila had mental health issues, or do I have that wrong (apologies if I'm wrong on that point)?

Second, also the fact that Nevill was stronger does not preclude the possibility that, if she did carry out these killings, Sheila might have got the best of him by arming herself.  For the purposes of our hypothetical scenario of Sheila as killer, we must remember that Nevill was a Magistrate, therefore he would have had to be doubly cautious for that reason and on account that Sheila had a gun.  Also, like any man, Nevill would have been quite reticent, maybe even reluctant, about harming Sheila.  His aim would have been to overpower her, but we go back to the fact that in our scenario she is the one with a gun.  (For now, I will assume it's the only gun in the house: I did query that point above, but have not had a reply).

Maybe Sheila managed to fend Nevill off and then kill him, despite him being stronger?  Maybe that explains the mess in the kitchen?  Thinking about it, would an altercation between Jeremy, a strong young man, and Nevill, an elderly man, result in such a struggle?  Wouldn't Jeremy be able to overpower him easily?  I know when I was about the age Jeremy was at that time, I could have overpowered my late father very easily, had I wanted to, and he was only in his late 40s/early 50s.

Third, what Sheila's remains reveal is that she was shot.  I see no reason why her clothing would include traces of her father's blood, given the manner in which we would presume she would have shot him - if she did (and I am NOT saying she did).  And I don't see what "signs of a struggle" would entail, but let's say we can agree on that point, I don't believe the absence of superficial signs of a struggle proves she didn't struggle with her father and other individuals in the house.  The lack of glass shards on her feet would only be significant if she should have had such on her feet, which in turn depends on where the glass was in the kitchen in relation to her.  My point is that it's not conclusive.  A different example I would come up with is the lack of torn clothing - that doesn't prove that she didn't struggle, either with Bamber (assuming he is the culprit) or with Nevill (assuming she is the culprit). 

Sorry to disagree, but this case is NOT indisputable.  Bamber has not confessed or made admissions.  He vigorously protests his innocence and there are points of issue with almost everything you have said here.

I am not interested in pronouncing the guilt or innocence of people.  You may have some kind of personal interest in the case.  If you are a member of the victims' family, then I sincerely apologise and offer you my genuine condolences.

It's common for many prisoners to not confess to their crimes and maintain their innocence.

There are points of issue with almost everything John has said in your opinion. Maybe you should familiarise yourself with some of the Court of appeals docs and those written by the CCRC in relation to this case?

Maybe it is you who has some kind of personal interest in this case and are unable to be objective in this case?

Further re Jeremy Bamber and his Freudian slips http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5265.0.html

Caroline posts - "They say every criminal makes at least one mistake which gives them away. It may be subtle and on the face of it, may seem unimportant until you think about it. The following excerpt from one of Ann Eaton's statements has bugged me since first reading it - a perfectly innocent comment about his father's wallet doesn't seem too sinister on the surface. However, how did Jeremy know how much was in the wallet? Is it likely that Neville would broadcast the contents of his wallet? Such things are surely not discussed - but Jeremy knew how much was in the wallet and the other contents - as though he had recently looked inside it.   

Did he count it after killing five people, leaving it behind to claim later? And in his haste to find it, did he make a Freudian slip?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2018, 12:24:01 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1937
  • Total likes: 40
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2018, 12:32:08 PM »
Then the same question to you: would you accept that, when considered in isolation, the lack of direct forensic evidence against Bamber is a major flaw in the Crown's case, given the facts alleged by the police?

But not Sheila?  If not Sheila, then doesn't the blood found in the moderator present a glaring paradox?  How did it get there?

It's the last sentence of your response that I think unravels this.  What you're really telling us is that the blood found was not definitely Sheila's.  A more neutral way of saying the same thing would be: We don't know whose blood it was.

Noted.  The gun?  Did the family have only one gun in the house?  Wouldn't he have said: "She's got one of my guns..."?

This doesn't address the telephone logs.  How do you explain the entries in the log that appear to record the call from Nevill?  Why are you so sure that Nevill could not have dialled 999? 

Yes, but Bamber was confused about this, and (in my view, unfairly) has had his statements on the point nick-picked.  Was it actually his own admission or did he in fact dial 999 and then later was told he had been speaking to the local station, and he then tried to explain this, having forgotten what he actually did?  Perfectly plausible.
People under stress can have defective memories on such points.  He was woken in the middle of the night, would have been tired and disoriented.  It's not difficult to see that he might have got it completely wrong about a detail like this, or made an odd decision about who to ring, etc.

Anyway, my question was whether anybody had looked into the possibility.  Looks like nobody has.

Noted.  The question this raises in my mind is would he be so callous as to kill the others as well as (bad enough) his adoptive parents, and would he have done this knowing that somewhere down the line he was inheriting 50% anyway?  The other gentleman who replied to me above explained that Bamber was already being kept by Nevill.  I'm not convinced that the financial motive is as straight-forward as often presented.  You could argue that he simply killed for the inheritance and there was no more to it, in which case his actions were naive as much as evil, but you could equally turn that logic on its side and point out that Bamber was already a kept man and just had to wait.  Motive is not probative anyway, of course.

Noted.

Noted, but again, like the commenter above, you contradict yourself.  You plaintively ask how anyone could know Sheila's experience with firearms, before giving me a potted rundown of her experience - with firearms!  I'm not convinced that Sheila was naive with firearms.

Sorry, but again on this point I must Ė very respectfully Ė disagree: not necessarily with your conclusion, but with your reasoning, which I find faulty. 

If we start from the assumption that Bamber is telling the truth about the phone call, that means we know Sheila was going crazy with the rifle.  That does not mean she killed anybody with the rifle, or even fired it Ė that would just be a further assumption on your part.  I accept that, if Bamber is telling the truth, it probably does follow in reality that Sheila was the killer, but it neednít follow.  To be clear, there is an assumption at work that has led you to that conclusion, and assumptions of that kind can be dangerous.

If we start from the premise that the telephone logs are correct on their face, ergo Bamber is telling the truth, that raises an obvious question: how did Sheila manage to kill all those people?  You will circumvent this difficulty by saying: Oh, thatís easy, Bamber ISNíT telling the truth and we can resolve the equation by making him responsible and fitting the evidence around that hypothesis: which is exactly what the police did.  Iím not necessarily doubting your judgement in that regard Ė you may well be right Ė but Iím saying that that is not the only way of resolving the equation.

It seems to me that the key fact here is that the farmhouse was supposedly locked-up from the inside.  That, and not the phone call, is what leads people to the conclusion that Bamber is the only alternative to Sheila.  But do we know if the farmhouse actually was fully locked, all entrances?

Do you have excuses for the numerous contradictions Jeremy Bamber has made?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6631.0

Numerous Freudian slips and contradictions etc made by Jeremy Bamber are surely all basic questions any jury member or indeed non legally qualified person would want answers to?

« Last Edit: March 21, 2018, 12:39:29 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2018, 12:48:11 PM »
There is more evidence against Bamber than there is for virtually all other crimes. Both forensic & circumstantial. Even crimes where the criminals pleaded guilty.

That's a sweeping statement of amazing encyclopaedic scope.  You must realise that all you are doing there is expressing an idle opinion that is completely worthless.

protests his innocence & like any other convicted criminal in a famous case who does this, will attract a few supporters.  Supporting him for different reasons such as 'gut feelings', conspiracy theories, wanting a purpose in life or believing they are smarter than the law.  Always trying to find a way to achieve the impossible.

I've already stated my purpose: which is to form my own view about the legal safety of Bamber's convictions.  Inevitably, this means I am going to want to 'test' the assumptions being made here. The reason you disagree with this approach is because, like John (see above) you have appointed yourself judge and jury, because it fulfils your emotional needs.  Yours is not a rational or intellectual approach to the case.

LuminousWanderer is obviously not very well read on the case & is looking for a way out for Bamber. Going through things which have been discussed before.

This is nonsense.  I have no view about his guilt or innocence, and if at any stage my comments come across as leaning towards Bamber, that will only be because there is a clear bias on this Forum against him, which I need to compensate for.  It arises from the tone of the Forum, no other reason. 

For instance, somebody on here might say: "Bamber definitely did X and absolutely is guilty, no question".  If I am approaching the Bamber case as a skeptic, I will then have to respond by demolishing this, not because I think Bamber is innocent (I take no view one way or the other), but because the initial statement requires it.

I notice there is also another forum on the web where the bias is in the other direction, towards Bamber.  If I was posting on there, the compensation would go the other way, and probably commenters of low intelligence, like you, would accuse me of being 'anti-Bamber'.  I can't win! 

Again, to reiterate - I am neither pro- nor anti-Bamber.  I'm not taking sides.

Do you actually have anything useful to say about this case, or are you just opinionating?

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2018, 12:56:24 PM »
Am I correct in thinking that the scene wasn't thoroughly, forensically examined? 

Other than the silencer, which was obviously recovered some time after the clean up, we seem to have nothing more than a few photographs. 

How long did it take for 'the relatives' to raise their concerns about Jeremy, to the Police?

I think the lack of direct forensic implication of Bamber is a major hole in the Crown's case.  Quite simply, there is nothing to link Jeremy Bamber to the crime.

But probably Bamber came under suspicion from the start.  To be fair, he is intuitively a reasonable suspect and personally I would be wary of going down this route of 'blaming the relatives' without hard proof.  My interest here is in the legal safety of the conviction, therefore hard evidence. 

If you want to develop your comment further, you could for instance try and find out what forensic work was done at the crime scene, when and how police suspicions about Bamber formed, and also when and what the relatives were saying to the police, when they became involved, what the statements say, etc.

Did any evidence change hands between the police and the relatives?  We know about the moderator.  Anything else?

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1937
  • Total likes: 40
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2018, 12:59:48 PM »
Then the same question to you: would you accept that, when considered in isolation, the lack of direct forensic evidence against Bamber is a major flaw in the Crown's case, given the facts alleged by the police?

But not Sheila?  If not Sheila, then doesn't the blood found in the moderator present a glaring paradox?  How did it get there?

It's the last sentence of your response that I think unravels this.  What you're really telling us is that the blood found was not definitely Sheila's.  A more neutral way of saying the same thing would be: We don't know whose blood it was.

Noted.  The gun?  Did the family have only one gun in the house?  Wouldn't he have said: "She's got one of my guns..."?

This doesn't address the telephone logs.  How do you explain the entries in the log that appear to record the call from Nevill?  Why are you so sure that Nevill could not have dialled 999? 

Yes, but Bamber was confused about this, and (in my view, unfairly) has had his statements on the point nick-picked.  Was it actually his own admission or did he in fact dial 999 and then later was told he had been speaking to the local station, and he then tried to explain this, having forgotten what he actually did?  Perfectly plausible.
People under stress can have defective memories on such points.  He was woken in the middle of the night, would have been tired and disoriented.  It's not difficult to see that he might have got it completely wrong about a detail like this, or made an odd decision about who to ring, etc.

Anyway, my question was whether anybody had looked into the possibility.  Looks like nobody has.

Noted.  The question this raises in my mind is would he be so callous as to kill the others as well as (bad enough) his adoptive parents, and would he have done this knowing that somewhere down the line he was inheriting 50% anyway?  The other gentleman who replied to me above explained that Bamber was already being kept by Nevill.  I'm not convinced that the financial motive is as straight-forward as often presented.  You could argue that he simply killed for the inheritance and there was no more to it, in which case his actions were naive as much as evil, but you could equally turn that logic on its side and point out that Bamber was already a kept man and just had to wait.  Motive is not probative anyway, of course.

Noted.

Noted, but again, like the commenter above, you contradict yourself.  You plaintively ask how anyone could know Sheila's experience with firearms, before giving me a potted rundown of her experience - with firearms!  I'm not convinced that Sheila was naive with firearms.

Sorry, but again on this point I must Ė very respectfully Ė disagree: not necessarily with your conclusion, but with your reasoning, which I find faulty. 

If we start from the assumption that Bamber is telling the truth about the phone call, that means we know Sheila was going crazy with the rifle.  That does not mean she killed anybody with the rifle, or even fired it Ė that would just be a further assumption on your part.  I accept that, if Bamber is telling the truth, it probably does follow in reality that Sheila was the killer, but it neednít follow.  To be clear, there is an assumption at work that has led you to that conclusion, and assumptions of that kind can be dangerous.

If we start from the premise that the telephone logs are correct on their face, ergo Bamber is telling the truth, that raises an obvious question: how did Sheila manage to kill all those people?  You will circumvent this difficulty by saying: Oh, thatís easy, Bamber ISNíT telling the truth and we can resolve the equation by making him responsible and fitting the evidence around that hypothesis: which is exactly what the police did.  Iím not necessarily doubting your judgement in that regard Ė you may well be right Ė but Iím saying that that is not the only way of resolving the equation.

It seems to me that the key fact here is that the farmhouse was supposedly locked-up from the inside.  That, and not the phone call, is what leads people to the conclusion that Bamber is the only alternative to Sheila.  But do we know if the farmhouse actually was fully locked, all entrances?

Why did Jeremy Bamber insist on having things like carpets and bedding from WHF burned so soon after the murders?

And why has he never commented on this fact since his conviction?

If he were innocent surely he would have regret in this regard?



"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2018, 01:03:42 PM »
I agree Adam.

Jeremy Bamber has made numerous Freudian slips over the years and continues to do so

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6620.0

An example:
Caroline posts -
"According to AE's statement (taken between 8th and 13th Sept) she asked Jeremy why he didn't go to WHF as allegedly requested by Nevill's phone call - Jeremy replied that he was frightened that the call may have been a trick in order to lure him to the farm so Sheila could 'shoot him too'. At this point (after the supposed call from Nevill) Jeremy isn't supposed to know that anyone had been shot!

Luminouswanderer does not appear to have taken the above into account?

The projection is found in this post.  I am asking questions about the case because I want to form an opinion about the legal safety of the conviction.  You, on the other hand, have appointed yourself as judge and jury.  If you have something relevant to say, then say it.  This is not a wrestling bout, or shouldn't be.  It's people like you who turn it into one.

Turning to the information you provide, what do you mean by a "Freudian slip"?  You may want to examine your use of the phrase, as it's more helpful to Bamber than you realise.  Verily, Bamber may have made a Freudian slip there.  He was recollecting a night in which he claims (I'm not suggesting he is telling the truth) that he had received a call from Nevill telling him that Sheila was going mad with the gun.  That being the case, he WOULD have had fearful feelings of being shot.  The subconscious feelings at work might have been a more deep-seated and irrational anxiety about his adoptive family, whom he was in tension with and whom he might have feared could kill him to secure his inheritance.

Looking at it that way, Bamber's hesitant and apparently odd behaviour on receiving the very strange call from Nevill doesn't seem so out-of-place.  Not that I am affirming Bamber's version of events, of course.


Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6134
  • Total likes: 114
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2018, 01:03:51 PM »
Nevill - No contact shots.

June - No contact shots.

Daniel - No contact shots.

Nicholas - Contact shot into head. Location very unlikely to cause blood back splatter.

Sheila - Contact shot into neck. Location very likely to result in blood back splatter. Due to high blood flow and arteries.

At the end of the day the distance of shots was gauged by Malcolm Fletcher based on the abrasion rings and powder tattooing depicted in soc images.  This is MF "Small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy". 

Most likely anatomical location for 'drawback' to occur is the head.  Although I have read hair can impede blood flight. 

     
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1937
  • Total likes: 40
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2018, 01:04:46 PM »
I think the lack of direct forensic implication of Bamber is a major hole in the Crown's case.  Quite simply, there is nothing to link Jeremy Bamber to the crime.

Your statement is not legally factual

Quite simply, a jury found Jeremy Bamber guilty in a court of law therefore the Crowns case was clearly stronger than that of the defence.
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"