UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: ISpyWithMyEye on April 08, 2020, 10:36:12 PM
-
As we all know, Nevill was beaten in the kitchen.
We all know Jeremy Bamber was found guilty at his trial in 1986
However, a few people seem to think it was Sheila who beat Nevill in the kitchen.
My question is: why wasn’t ONE trace of Sheila on Nevill’s body?
Not one hair, not one drop of her blood, no broken fingernail, and not ONE single fibre from her light blue nightdress.
Nevill wore dark blue pyjamas which were taken to forensics along with Sheila’s nightdress. So why didn’t they find ONE fibre of her nightdress on Nevill?
I know a few people suggest that Sheila did “ritual bathing” after supposedly killing her parents and her beloved little sons, but Nevill didn’t take a bath, so why didn’t they find any fibres of Sheilas nightdress on him? Nor ONE of her hairs?
-
There's no evidence the perp ever came into close contact with the victims whether it be to inflict the gsw's or the non gsw's NB sustained.
-
There's no evidence the perp ever came into close contact with the victims whether it be to inflict the gsw's or the non gsw's NB sustained.
With the gsw's there was always going to be at least the length of the rifle between him and them. With the non gsw's, I don't believe it to have been possible to have inflicted a brain exposing head wound by holding the barrel end of the rifle..................Sheila certainly couldn't have.
-
With the gsw's there was always going to be at least the length of the rifle between him and them. With the non gsw's, I don't believe it to have been possible to have inflicted a brain exposing head wound by holding the barrel end of the rifle..................Sheila certainly couldn't have.
The beating with the rifle butt came after a couple of GSW's I assume? There's no way, in my opinion, a woman of her stature could inflict such a wound to Nevil without him being incapacitated in some way. even logistically, rifle butt to head of a man over 6ft tall.
While he was on all fours or scrabbling around trying to get up, yes, possible, but again, in my opinion, not for a relatively slight woman to perpetrate in a double handed jabbing motion, it would have to be a double handed swing to attain enough momentum - and such a blow is relatively easy to evade / block when not incapacitated.
-
The beating with the rifle butt came after a couple of GSW's I assume? There's no way, in my opinion, a woman of her stature could inflict such a wound to Nevil without him being incapacitated in some way. even logistically, rifle butt to head of a man over 6ft tall.
While he was on all fours or scrabbling around trying to get up, yes, possible, but again, in my opinion, not for a relatively slight woman to perpetrate in a double handed jabbing motion, it would have to be a double handed swing to attain enough momentum - and such a blow is relatively easy to evade / block when not incapacitated.
Before all else, there isn't a balance between an angry and psychotic Sheila inflicting those terrible wounds, with a Sheila who calmly attempts to hide evidence of her crimes before shooting herself. It simply doesn't make sense.
It would make sense to believe the head wound, placed as it was, was carried out from behind him, but it begs the question why would he turn his back on someone with a gun? Perhaps, already wounded, disorientation/giddiness? But then, there's the question of his superior height. It makes better sense to believe he was already seated when the first blow struck. It seems to me that, at that point, a bullet to the back of the head would have sufficed. Jeremy clearly wanted to draw out his death to cause him as much suffering as possible.
-
The beating with the rifle butt came after a couple of GSW's I assume? There's no way, in my opinion, a woman of her stature could inflict such a wound to Nevil without him being incapacitated in some way. even logistically, rifle butt to head of a man over 6ft tall.
While he was on all fours or scrabbling around trying to get up, yes, possible, but again, in my opinion, not for a relatively slight woman to perpetrate in a double handed jabbing motion, it would have to be a double handed swing to attain enough momentum - and such a blow is relatively easy to evade / block when not incapacitated.
Nevill recieved 4 shots to his head in the kitchen, all fatal shots. Therefore it can be assumed he recieved 4 other shots elsewhere. One broke his jaw. Another broke his left arm. One went through his lip and the fourth grazed his left arm. (I think). Assuming there was a struggle after these four wounds were inflicted he would have been extremely incapacitated.
-
There's no evidence the perp ever came into close contact with the victims whether it be to inflict the gsw's or the non gsw's NB sustained.
The perp, Jeremy Bamber, smashed Nevill’s head to bits exposing his brain
The perp, Jeremy Bamber, struggled violently as Nevill tried to disarm him and get the gun off him
And you’re saying Jeremy wasn’t in close contact?
-
Before all else, there isn't a balance between an angry and psychotic Sheila inflicting those terrible wounds, with a Sheila who calmly attempts to hide evidence of her crimes before shooting herself. It simply doesn't make sense.
It would make sense to believe the head wound, placed as it was, was carried out from behind him, but it begs the question why would he turn his back on someone with a gun? Perhaps, already wounded, disorientation/giddiness? But then, there's the question of his superior height. It makes better sense to believe he was already seated when the first blow struck. It seems to me that, at that point, a bullet to the back of the head would have sufficed. Jeremy clearly wanted to draw out his death to cause him as much suffering as possible.
That’s exactly what the police officer said, April
He said, and I quote: “He certainly made Nevill and June suffer”
He must have released all his lent-up psychopathic hate in that attack. He even viciously beat Nevill AFTER he was dead.
But back to my question, considering such force was used and a struggle definitely took place, resulting in Nevill’s pyjamas falling down, its blatantly obvious that fibres from Sheila’s nightdress would have been on those pyjamas and probably in his hair too. Forensics absolutely love head hair for some reason...
So why wasn’t ANY of her nightdress fibres on Nevill? Not even one single hair of hers which WOULD have shed in such a violent struggle?
-
Nevill recieved 4 shots to his head in the kitchen, all fatal shots. Therefore it can be assumed he recieved 4 other shots elsewhere. One broke his jaw. Another broke his left arm. One went through his lip and the fourth grazed his left arm. (I think). Assuming there was a struggle after these four wounds were inflicted he would have been extremely incapacitated.
Nevill wasn’t incapacitated enough to make his way into the kitchen aftr being shot in the face and shoulder upstairs on the landing....
So how do you explain the fact not ONE pale blue fibre was found on Nevill?
Forensics say it’s actually impossible NOT to leave a fibre even if you’ve just brushed through a door, or simply gone into a room!
-
That’s exactly what the police officer said, April
He said, and I quote: “He certainly made Nevill and June suffer”
He must have released all his lent-up psychopathic hate in that attack. He even viciously beat Nevill AFTER he was dead.
But back to my question, considering such force was used and a struggle definitely took place, resulting in Nevill’s pyjamas falling down, its blatantly obvious that fibres from Sheila’s nightdress would have been on those pyjamas and probably in his hair too. Forensics absolutely love head hair for some reason...
So why wasn’t ANY of her nightdress fibres on Nevill? Not even one single hair of hers which WOULD have shed in such a violent struggle?
It's interesting that such store was placed on the one colourless, and subsequently, disappearing hair, allegedly attached to the silencer/moderator, whilst it appeared that there was no hair/blood/brain tissue attached to the stock which had had such violent contact with his skull. More interesting than why were there no traces of Sheila on Nevill, from such close proximity, why were there no traces of Nevill on Sheila?
-
As we all know, Nevill was beaten in the kitchen.
We all know Jeremy Bamber was found guilty at his trial in 1986
However, a few people seem to think it was Sheila who beat Nevill in the kitchen.
My question is: why wasn’t ONE trace of Sheila on Nevill’s body?
Not one hair, not one drop of her blood, no broken fingernail, and not ONE single fibre from her light blue nightdress.
Nevill wore dark blue pyjamas which were taken to forensics along with Sheila’s nightdress. So why didn’t they find ONE fibre of her nightdress on Nevill?
I know a few people suggest that Sheila did “ritual bathing” after supposedly killing her parents and her beloved little sons, but Nevill didn’t take a bath, so why didn’t they find any fibres of Sheilas nightdress on him? Nor ONE of her hairs?
As far as I know only the blood on the nightdress was tested. I can find no record of any clothes being examined for fibres or hairs.
-
As far as I know only the blood on the nightdress was tested. I can find no record of any clothes being examined for fibres or hairs.
What other clothes would there have been? I doubt she took more than one change of clothes with her -suggested by what appears to have been washed through leggings hanging from the banister rail- I can't think why anything, other than that which she was wearing would have need of being tested.
-
What other clothes would there have been? I doubt she took more than one change of clothes with her -suggested by what appears to have been washed through leggings hanging from the banister rail- I can't think why anything, other than that which she was wearing would have need of being tested.
I was referring to those on the bodies.
-
I was referring to those on the bodies.
Not finding any isn't indicative of there being none.
-
As far as I know only the blood on the nightdress was tested. I can find no record of any clothes being examined for fibres or hairs.
Surely, fibres and hairs would have been looked for and tested??? In the days before DNA was used in forensic testing, fibres would have been very important??
-
There's no evidence the perp ever came into close contact with the victims whether it be to inflict the gsw's or the non gsw's NB sustained.
Venezis indicates that Nevill was possibly punched in the face - there is evidence.
-
Surely, fibres and hairs would have been looked for and tested??? In the days before DNA was used in forensic testing, fibres would have been very important??
I haven't seen any evidence that they were.
-
Not finding any isn't indicative of there being none.
Either they didn't look or they looked and didn't find, so there's no evidence either way.
-
The beating with the rifle butt came after a couple of GSW's I assume? There's no way, in my opinion, a woman of her stature could inflict such a wound to Nevil without him being incapacitated in some way. even logistically, rifle butt to head of a man over 6ft tall.
While he was on all fours or scrabbling around trying to get up, yes, possible, but again, in my opinion, not for a relatively slight woman to perpetrate in a double handed jabbing motion, it would have to be a double handed swing to attain enough momentum - and such a blow is relatively easy to evade / block when not incapacitated.
Indeed, and there would be some blood splats on Sheila's night dress from that'manic' attack.
-
There's no evidence the perp ever came into close contact with the victims whether it be to inflict the gsw's or the non gsw's NB sustained.
That is because the 'evidence' was removed/cleaned.
"I know a few people suggest that Sheila did “ritual bathing” after supposedly killing her parents and her beloved little sons, but Nevill didn’t take a bath, so why didn’t they find any fibres of Sheilas nightdress on him? Nor ONE of her hairs? "
Why would she take a bath and hide evidence if she was deranged on a slaughter trip and was going to kill herself. Fact: people in the mindset before committing suicide are NOT thinking rationally.
Hmm wheres me gloves and apron must do a clean up here before I Shoot myself - twice!
I also question the extreme violence used to slaughter innocent people by a timid depressed female.
My guess, I am allowed to guess, if she was going to kill anyone ,especially her children, she would use a less violent means perhaps poison.
-
There's no evidence the perp ever came into close contact with the victims whether it be to inflict the gsw's or the non gsw's NB sustained.
Vanezis was under the impression that Nevill was punched in the face - I think that's pretty close.
-
That’s exactly what the police officer said, April
He said, and I quote: “He certainly made Nevill and June suffer”
He must have released all his lent-up psychopathic hate in that attack. He even viciously beat Nevill AFTER he was dead.
But back to my question, considering such force was used and a struggle definitely took place, resulting in Nevill’s pyjamas falling down, its blatantly obvious that fibres from Sheila’s nightdress would have been on those pyjamas and probably in his hair too. Forensics absolutely love head hair for some reason...
So why wasn’t ANY of her nightdress fibres on Nevill? Not even one single hair of hers which WOULD have shed in such a violent struggle?
Do you not think it’s possible that his pyjama bottoms were pulled down deliberately after death as the final humiliation?
-
Do you not think it’s possible that his pyjama bottoms were pulled down deliberately after death as the final humiliation?
Undoubtedly.
-
That’s exactly what the police officer said, April
He said, and I quote: “He certainly made Nevill and June suffer”
He must have released all his lent-up psychopathic hate in that attack. He even viciously beat Nevill AFTER he was dead.
But back to my question, considering such force was used and a struggle definitely took place, resulting in Nevill’s pyjamas falling down, its blatantly obvious that fibres from Sheila’s nightdress would have been on those pyjamas and probably in his hair too. Forensics absolutely love head hair for some reason...
So why wasn’t ANY of her nightdress fibres on Nevill? Not even one single hair of hers which WOULD have shed in such a violent struggle?
Because Sheila is completely innocent and had nothing to do with the murders.
-
As we all know, Nevill was beaten in the kitchen.
We all know Jeremy Bamber was found guilty at his trial in 1986
However, a few people seem to think it was Sheila who beat Nevill in the kitchen.
My question is: why wasn’t ONE trace of Sheila on Nevill’s body?
Not one hair, not one drop of her blood, no broken fingernail, and not ONE single fibre from her light blue nightdress.
Nevill wore dark blue pyjamas which were taken to forensics along with Sheila’s nightdress. So why didn’t they find ONE fibre of her nightdress on Nevill?
I know a few people suggest that Sheila did “ritual bathing” after supposedly killing her parents and her beloved little sons, but Nevill didn’t take a bath, so why didn’t they find any fibres of Sheilas nightdress on him? Nor ONE of her hairs?
I don't think SC had a "ritual bath". I think her found state is entirely consistent with her as the perp.
-
I don't think SC had a "ritual bath". I think her found state is entirely consistent with her as the perp.
How many crime scenes have you seen to be able to determine that?
-
I don't think SC had a "ritual bath". I think her found state is entirely consistent with her as the perp.
At least one of the attending police officers was surprised by her found state - how do you account for that?
-
That is because the 'evidence' was removed/cleaned.
"I know a few people suggest that Sheila did “ritual bathing” after supposedly killing her parents and her beloved little sons, but Nevill didn’t take a bath, so why didn’t they find any fibres of Sheilas nightdress on him? Nor ONE of her hairs? "
Why would she take a bath and hide evidence if she was deranged on a slaughter trip and was going to kill herself. Fact: people in the mindset before committing suicide are NOT thinking rationally.
Hmm wheres me gloves and apron must do a clean up here before I Shoot myself - twice!
I also question the extreme violence used to slaughter innocent people by a timid depressed female.
My guess, I am allowed to guess, if she was going to kill anyone ,especially her children, she would use a less violent means perhaps poison.
I don't think you need to look any further than this post for discounting Sheila.
-
Do you not think it’s possible that his pyjama bottoms were pulled down deliberately after death as the final humiliation?
This is also my thought.
-
I don't think you need to look any further than this post for discounting Sheila.
What would you expect to find on SC's nightdress as perp?
-
What would you expect to find on SC's nightdress as perp?
I don't know, I'm no forensic expert. Bullet lubrication? I was commenting on the notion that Sheila would take a bath prior to shooting her family, then herself in the neck. Twice.
Has it even been demonstrated as logistically possible? The overall length of the weapon would mean she would have to use her thumb to pull the trigger. Bearing in mind she would then have to have the wherewithal to reload in between shots (not sure if this is true - having expended 2 magazines, but only one was found?)
-
I don't know, I'm no forensic expert. Bullet lubrication? I was commenting on the notion that Sheila would take a bath prior to shooting her family, then herself in the neck. Twice.
Has it even been demonstrated as logistically possible? The overall length of the weapon would mean she would have to use her thumb to pull the trigger. Bearing in mind she would then have to have the wherewithal to reload in between shots (not sure if this is true - having expended 2 magazines, but only one was found?)
I visited a gun shop and loaded the exact same cartridges into the exact same mag. I did not sustain any visible debris to my hands and loading the cartridges was as easy as putting batteries into a TV remote. In fact I would say easier since it is only possible to load them the right way unlike batteries.
Manufacturers key features on cartridges:
https://eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow/
-
I don't know, I'm no forensic expert. Bullet lubrication? I was commenting on the notion that Sheila would take a bath prior to shooting her family, then herself in the neck. Twice.
Has it even been demonstrated as logistically possible? The overall length of the weapon would mean she would have to use her thumb to pull the trigger. Bearing in mind she would then have to have the wherewithal to reload in between shots (not sure if this is true - having expended 2 magazines, but only one was found?)
No measurements of SC's arm span were taken but judging by soc images I don't think anyone doubted she could have pulled the trigger twice. The pathologist didn't see any problem from a physiological perspective. The magazine was capable of holding 10 cartridges with 1 in the breach.
-
I visited a gun shop and loaded the exact same cartridges into the exact same mag. I did not sustain any visible debris to my hands and loading the cartridges was as easy as putting batteries into a TV remote. In fact I would say easier since it is only possible to load them the right way unlike batteries.
Manufacturers key features on cartridges:
https://eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow/
Of course, the circumstances were entirely different. Even that you clearly weren't in the grip of psychosis I don't imagine they allowed you to take the gun outside and load it on your own. I guess you received some sort of guidance -instruction on how to? I'm inclined to think that your dexterity exceeded Sheila's.
-
I visited a gun shop and loaded the exact same cartridges into the exact same mag. I did not sustain any visible debris to my hands and loading the cartridges was as easy as putting batteries into a TV remote. In fact I would say easier since it is only possible to load them the right way unlike batteries.
Manufacturers key features on cartridges:
https://eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow/ (https://eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow/)
The spring in the magazine of yours might have been well-used and lost it strength, unlike a newly manufactured one.
But did you try to fix it three times to an Anschutz then fire each bullet without being shown?
-
The spring in the magazine of yours might have been well-used and lost it strength, unlike a newly manufactured one.
But did you try to fix it three times to an Anschutz then fire each bullet without being shown?
I don't believe it's possible to compare anyone else's experience of loading a magazine with Sheila's.
-
I visited a gun shop and loaded the exact same cartridges into the exact same mag. I did not sustain any visible debris to my hands and loading the cartridges was as easy as putting batteries into a TV remote. In fact I would say easier since it is only possible to load them the right way unlike batteries.
Manufacturers key features on cartridges:
https://eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow/
Sounds great. Now do that a minimum of two times whilst slaughtering an entire family. Takes a level of learned proprioception and skill.
Besides, whether you thought you had debris on you or not, you did.
-
I don't believe it's possible to compare anyone else's experience of loading a magazine with Sheila's.
J Bamber is the benchmark.
-
Sounds great. Now do that a minimum of two times whilst slaughtering an entire family. Takes a level of learned proprioception and skill.
Besides, whether you thought you had debris on you or not, you did.
NB and June were severely incapacitated from the first round. The twins were sleeping but I'm not sure what SC was doing? Ie I don't see any urgency with reloading? What urgency do you see?
I said no visible debris. The only reliable forensic test used to determine whether someone has discharged a firearm is a test for gunshot residue and this was not carried out in this case.
-
NB and June were severely incapacitated from the first round. The twins were sleeping but I'm not sure what SC was doing? Ie I don't see any urgency with reloading? What urgency do you see?
I said no visible debris. The only reliable forensic test used to determine whether someone has discharged a firearm is a test for gunshot residue and this was not carried out in this case.
If NB was severely incapacitated from the first round how did he get downstairs? Tell is when the reloads happened and where NB was at the time.
-
NB and June were severely incapacitated from the first round. The twins were sleeping but I'm not sure what SC was doing? Ie I don't see any urgency with reloading? What urgency do you see?
I said no visible debris. The only reliable forensic test used to determine whether someone has discharged a firearm is a test for gunshot residue and this was not carried out in this case.
Did you fire 25 shots when you handled this gun?
-
I don't believe it's possible to compare anyone else's experience of loading a magazine with Sheila's.
It's not remotely complicated. There's no evidence SC suffered learning difficulties and/or problems with manual dexterity.
-
Did you fire 25 shots when you handled this gun?
I didn't say I handled a gun. I said I loaded the cartridges into the magazine. The purpose of the exercise was to determine whether or not I sustained any visible debris to my hands as Malcolm Fletcher claimed at trial.
-
I visited a gun shop and loaded the exact same cartridges into the exact same mag. I did not sustain any visible debris to my hands and loading the cartridges was as easy as putting batteries into a TV remote. In fact I would say easier since it is only possible to load them the right way unlike batteries.
Manufacturers key features on cartridges:
https://eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow/
Key word again is 'visible'. Were your hands swabbed and tested for residue? Also. residue is also transferred after firing the weapon - did you fire it?
-
I didn't say I handled a gun. I said I loaded the cartridges into the magazine. The purpose of the exercise was to determine whether or not I sustained any visible debris to my hands as Malcolm Fletcher claimed at trial.
So the ballistics expert was lying in your opinion, based on your one go at loading a magazine years after the event?
-
I didn't say I handled a gun. I said I loaded the cartridges into the magazine. The purpose of the exercise was to determine whether or not I sustained any visible debris to my hands as Malcolm Fletcher claimed at trial.
Not really like for like then is it?
-
I didn't say I handled a gun. I said I loaded the cartridges into the magazine. The purpose of the exercise was to determine whether or not I sustained any visible debris to my hands as Malcolm Fletcher claimed at trial.
It sounds rather like an attempt to prove Malcolm Fletcher wrong.
-
Key word again is 'visible'. Were your hands swabbed and tested for residue? Also. residue is also transferred after firing the weapon - did you fire it?
Malcolm Fletcher claimed at trial that he sustained black debris to his hands having loaded the cartridges into the magazine. I wanted to check this out for myself and as it turned out my hands were free of any visible debris.
What debris is transferred to the hands after discharging the rifle other than potentially gunshot resdue which wasn't tested for.
-
It sounds rather like an attempt to prove Malcolm Fletcher wrong.
Malcolm Fletcher's testimony at trial was arguably the most important and yet there was no evidence he was appropriately qualified. He told the court he had worked in the firearms department for 13 years and had a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy. Nothing about what exactly his experience involved, high level qualifications, membership of professional bodies or peer reviewed papers.
By his own admission the mechanism of how the blood ended up in the silencer was complicated and not fully appreciated:
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated.
-
Malcolm Fletcher's testimony at trial was arguably the most important and yet there was no evidence he was appropriately qualified. He told the court he had worked in the firearms department for 13 years and had a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy. Nothing about what exactly his experience involved, high level qualifications, membership of professional bodies or peer reviewed papers.
By his own admission the mechanism of how the blood ended up in the silencer was complicated and not fully appreciated:
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated.
If you gave me a £1 for every time you repeated that, I'd be a millionaire.
-
Malcolm Fletcher claimed at trial that he sustained black debris to his hands having loaded the cartridges into the magazine. I wanted to check this out for myself and as it turned out my hands were free of any visible debris.
What debris is transferred to the hands after discharging the rifle other than potentially gunshot resdue which wasn't tested for.
So how does the fact that you didn't get reside on your hands mean that Fletcher didn't?
I didn't say it wasn't tested for I asked if YOU fired the rifle and then had your hands tested for residue? Clearly you didn't and as such, your exercise isn't valid. Firing the gun 25 times would have left some residue on Sheila's hands/hand - ie. burnt and unburnt particles from the explosive primer.
-
Malcolm Fletcher's testimony at trial was arguably the most important and yet there was no evidence he was appropriately qualified. He told the court he had worked in the firearms department for 13 years and had a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy. Nothing about what exactly his experience involved, high level qualifications, membership of professional bodies or peer reviewed papers.
By his own admission the mechanism of how the blood ended up in the silencer was complicated and not fully appreciated:
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated.
13 years of practical experience
-
So how does the fact that you didn't get reside on your hands mean that Fletcher didn't?
The experiment was done on a like for like basis ie same cartridges, same mag and loading a full mag. It didn't surprise me as the manufacturers key features doc state they are designed to prevent residues transferring.
I didn't say it wasn't tested for I asked if YOU fired the rifle and then had your hands tested for residue? Clearly you didn't and as such, your exercise isn't valid. Firing the gun 25 times would have left some residue on Sheila's hands/hand - ie. burnt and unburnt particles from the explosive primer.
It is valid. MF's claims of black discolouration relate to loading the cartridges into the mag not firing the rifle. How could he fire the rifle at trial in the courtroom?
-
Malcolm Fletcher's testimony at trial was arguably the most important and yet there was no evidence he was appropriately qualified. He told the court he had worked in the firearms department for 13 years and had a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy. Nothing about what exactly his experience involved, high level qualifications, membership of professional bodies or peer reviewed papers.
By his own admission the mechanism of how the blood ended up in the silencer was complicated and not fully appreciated:
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated.
But despite not reeling off a stream of letters following his name, I believe he had them. He would most certainly have had experience gained from whatever his position at the start. To me, his confidence shows in his willing admission about the complication of blood in the silencer. He didn't try to bluff his way through it.
-
The experiment was done on a like for like basis ie same cartridges, same mag and loading a full mag. It didn't surprise me as the manufacturers key features doc state they are designed to prevent residues transferring.
It is valid. MF's claims of black discolouration relate to loading the cartridges into the mag not firing the rifle. How could he fire the rifle at trial in the courtroom?
I didn't say anything about firing the rifle in the courtroom.
You didn't use the same cartridges - you used the same type and they weren't even from the same batch. How could they be all those years later? You also didn't use the same magazine - you may have used a similar magazine, but not the same one. This is the thing you don't seem to understand about tests and experiments, you think because you didn't get residue on your hands, that he couldn't have either - this is way tests are replicated many, many times. Why should someone take the results of what you found, over what he found?
-
As far as I know only the blood on the nightdress was tested. I can find no record of any clothes being examined for fibres or hairs.
That’s because NO clothing was found of Sheila’s that contained gun residue, people’s blood, fibres from Nevill’s pyjamas...nothing.
The only clothing found of Sheila’s was her underwear which she’d put in a bucket of water to soak, as she’d stained it with her menstrual blood. You know, the sort of thing you do when you’re planning on killing everyone including yourself...you soak your undies for the wash the next day 🙄
-
What other clothes would there have been? I doubt she took more than one change of clothes with her -suggested by what appears to have been washed through leggings hanging from the banister rail- I can't think why anything, other than that which she was wearing would have need of being tested.
They didn’t find any of Sheila’s clothes out of the very few she took with her that showed signs of having dried bloodstains on them
-
I was referring to those on the bodies.
Sheilas nightdress was forensically tested.
They attach sticky tape all over and pull fibres off to check for cross contamination
-
Indeed, and there would be some blood splats on Sheila's night dress from that'manic' attack.
Absolutely!
Including human tissue such as brain
-
Do you not think it’s possible that his pyjama bottoms were pulled down deliberately after death as the final humiliation?
I suspect they could have been — it’s the sort of thing a sadistic psychopath would do.
I also suspect Jeremy pushed Nevill’s face into the coal bucket.
By rights, after a violent beating and being shot too, your body would just collapse into a heap on the floor, and he seemed to be in a very unnatural position. That chart was upturned too, so how on earth could he have landed on it like that without falling off?
He must have been put in that position, and obviously you’d need strength to do that.
-
That is because the 'evidence' was removed/cleaned.
"I know a few people suggest that Sheila did “ritual bathing” after supposedly killing her parents and her beloved little sons, but Nevill didn’t take a bath, so why didn’t they find any fibres of Sheilas nightdress on him? Nor ONE of her hairs? "
Why would she take a bath and hide evidence if she was deranged on a slaughter trip and was going to kill herself. Fact: people in the mindset before committing suicide are NOT thinking rationally.
Hmm wheres me gloves and apron must do a clean up here before I Shoot myself - twice!
I also question the extreme violence used to slaughter innocent people by a timid depressed female.
My guess, I am allowed to guess, if she was going to kill anyone ,especially her children, she would use a less violent means perhaps poison.
Excellent points, MT!
This “ritual bathing” is nonsense too. If anyone was having a psychotic rage they wouldn’t be thinking clearly at all, and even if they DID run a bath or shower, they’d leave their bloodied clothes in a pile on the floor.
Nor would they put their wristw..ch back on after bathing, then walk into where June lay dead, shoot themselves on the opposite side of the bed, then when that didn’t kill them outright, potter downstairs to find another bullet and hide the silencer, then go back up to the same exact spot where they first lay and shoot themselves again.
It’s absolute rubbish!
Nor would she have “staged” the Bible next to her....it’s so obvious it was Jeremy, and how he carried out the murders actually shows how HIS mind works.
-
I don't think SC had a "ritual bath". I think her found state is entirely consistent with her as the perp.
You haven’t answered my question, Holly
Why were no fibres from Sheila’s nightdress found on Nevill ?
Not even just one of her hairs?
-
I don't know, I'm no forensic expert. Bullet lubrication? I was commenting on the notion that Sheila would take a bath prior to shooting her family, then herself in the neck. Twice.
Has it even been demonstrated as logistically possible? The overall length of the weapon would mean she would have to use her thumb to pull the trigger. Bearing in mind she would then have to have the wherewithal to reload in between shots (not sure if this is true - having expended 2 magazines, but only one was found?)
Only one magazine was found? what did Sheila do with the other one, after she killed herself?
I wonder that Sheila, who according to JB is great with guns, didn't sit up and put the gun to her mouth and pull the trigger. Instant death instead of having two goes.
-
Not really like for like then is it?
Quite.
Plus, Holly mentions “visible” debris...
Forensics took swabs and studied them under a microscope — and still there was no gun residue.
But Holly carried out a pointless exercise
-
I visited a gun shop and loaded the exact same cartridges into the exact same mag. I did not sustain any visible debris to my hands and loading the cartridges was as easy as putting batteries into a TV remote. In fact I would say easier since it is only possible to load them the right way unlike batteries.
Manufacturers key features on cartridges:
https://eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow/
You’re talking about VISIBLE debris, Holly...🙄
You can go and do as many exercises as you like, but your findings are of no consequence because Sheila’s hands were FORENSICALLY tested, and it proved she hadn’t handled the gun.
And you only did your test in a shop, you weren’t psychotic as you claim Sheila was.
Ballistic EXPERTS who tested the gun by loading magazines insisted it was stiff and would be difficult for a novice to do. Not just that, but each leading became harder and harder. One split his fingernails, and also dropped some of the bullets...and you’re expecting people to believe Sheila didn’t drop one bullet when the Haloperidol gave her the effects of someone with Parkinson’s disease?
Sheila had also never used a gun, ever, so she had no idea....plus, for someone who’s a total novice how could she have hit EVERY target, whilst being psychotic and suffering the “shakes”?
-
No measurements of SC's arm span were taken but judging by soc images I don't think anyone doubted she could have pulled the trigger twice. The pathologist didn't see any problem from a physiological perspective. The magazine was capable of holding 10 cartridges with 1 in the breach.
The pathologist measured Sheilas height (5”7” and a half) and she was in proportion, so maybe there was no need to measure her arm span at that time. Besides, it became scientifically established that Sheila’s blood was inside the moderator, thus why she could NOT have shot herself.
I don’t know what you mean when Vanezis said Sheila was “physiologically” able to shoot herself. Physiological is the effect the mind has on bodily reactions, so what you’ve quoted doesn’t makes sense, have you the source for that ?
Also, Vanezis said all this BEFORE he’d seen the soc and gun.
When he DID see the soc, photographs, and later the silencer, he said Sheila could NOT have shot herself.
You’re posting historical news that was incorrect and preceded his new report after discovering the full facts.
-
NB and June were severely incapacitated from the first round. The twins were sleeping but I'm not sure what SC was doing? Ie I don't see any urgency with reloading? What urgency do you see?
I said no visible debris. The only reliable forensic test used to determine whether someone has discharged a firearm is a test for gunshot residue and this was not carried out in this case.
So your test was pointless, Holly. Would you agree?
Sheila was forensically tested — you weren’t l
As for urgency....are you suggesting if someone is psychotic and going berserk they’d stop between shootings, maybe roll a cigarette, make a coffee, then casually reload all calm?
-
It's not remotely complicated. There's no evidence SC suffered learning difficulties and/or problems with manual dexterity.
Sheila had tremors and shaking due to medication. Whatever are you on about?
-
Sheila had tremors and shaking due to medication. Whatever are you on about?
It was witnessed by others. It's in their statements.
-
It was witnessed by others. It's in their statements.
It hurts Holly to admit that, so she ignores it
-
Only one magazine was found? what did Sheila do with the other one, after she killed herself?
I wonder that Sheila, who according to JB is great with guns, didn't sit up and put the gun to her mouth and pull the trigger. Instant death instead of having two goes.
You’d think she’d have thrown them on the floor — being in a psychotic rage and all that...
Your other very, very interesting point about why wouldn’t Sheila have shot herself in the mouth should be highlighted.
Studies prove that when people shoot themselves dead (it’s always men, usually, who kill themselves by gun), their most favoured method is shooting themselves in their mouth, and the second favourite is the temple.
Sheila could not possibly have pulled the trigger by aiming at her neck (BIG slip up for dim Jeremy), so if she’d really tried to kill herself she’d have found it easier to go for her mouth or temple.
Another thing: she bled profusely after the first shot which caused huge swelling to her neck. Are we supposed to believe she just lay there semi-conscious; touched the bullet wound with her right hand as blood spurted out and trailed down her forearm; then realising she wasn’t dead but in pain, shock, trembling and shaking, weak as a kitten and choking with blood, her head at an angle and partially paralysed, she managed to put her hand down again, fumble around for the rifle without seeing it, placed another bullet into the cartridge (all with just one hand), cock it, then aimed it at her neck again and pulled the trigger?
Maybe Holly can arrange a reconstruction of that too...
-
Can we stay on topic please.
-
I was forgetting about the small holes found on SC's nightdress surrounded by black particles? What caused them?
-
I was forgetting about the small holes found on SC's nightdress surrounded by black particles? What caused them?
She was shot wasn’t she?
-
She was shot wasn’t she?
Not in the location the holes and black particles were found in.
None of the other victims sustained holes and black. particles to their nightwear.
-
Not in the location the holes and black particles were found in.
None of the other victims sustained holes and black. particles to their nightwear.
So what are you suggesting?
-
Not in the location the holes and black particles were found in.
None of the other victims sustained holes and black. particles to their nightwear.
Particles of what?
-
So what are you suggesting?
It was discussed here in some detail:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8279.msg410906#msg410906
-
I was forgetting about the small holes found on SC's nightdress surrounded by black particles? What caused them?
I haven’t read that.
Please provide evidence.
Before you do (if you can...) I can tell you now that small holes surrounded by black particles are caused by cigarettes.
I had a tenant who I eventually evicted as he smoked roll-ups secretly in bed, and caused small black holes with black surrounds over a crisp white beautiful duvet cover which cost an arm and leg, and I was fuming. Besides smoking in bed and destroying expensive bedding he took tye battery out the fire alarm. He was a total fire risk.
Anyway, that’s off topic, but IF there were holes like that in Sheila’s nightdress it would have definitely been cigarette burns where lit tobacco flicked from her cigarettes.
-
I haven’t read that.
Please provide evidence.
Before you do (if you can...) I can tell you now that small holes surrounded by black particles are caused by cigarettes.
I had a tenant who I eventually evicted as he smoked roll-ups secretly in bed, and caused small black holes with black surrounds over a crisp white beautiful duvet cover which cost an arm and leg, and I was fuming. Besides smoking in bed and destroying expensive bedding he took tye battery out the fire alarm. He was a total fire risk.
Anyway, that’s off topic, but IF there were holes like that in Sheila’s nightdress it would have definitely been cigarette burns where lit tobacco flicked from her cigarettes.
That does sound like a reasonable explanation.I wonder what others are on offer...
-
That does sound like a reasonable explanation.I wonder what others are on offer...
Commonly known as potholes. Usually when smoking the old Red Leb resin. Doesn't happen as much now apparently, due to the proliferation of grass derivative.
-
I haven’t read that.
Please provide evidence.
Before you do (if you can...) I can tell you now that small holes surrounded by black particles are caused by cigarettes.
I had a tenant who I eventually evicted as he smoked roll-ups secretly in bed, and caused small black holes with black surrounds over a crisp white beautiful duvet cover which cost an arm and leg, and I was fuming. Besides smoking in bed and destroying expensive bedding he took tye battery out the fire alarm. He was a total fire risk.
Anyway, that’s off topic, but IF there were holes like that in Sheila’s nightdress it would have definitely been cigarette burns where lit tobacco flicked from her cigarettes.
My psychology stats lecturer used to have shirts and sweaters covered with these holes @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I was forgetting about the small holes found on SC's nightdress surrounded by black particles? What caused them?
Holly, I did ask you for source/evidence to these small holes allegedly found on Sheila’s nightdress, but you haven’t presented them to us: are you still looking for them?
-
Holly, I did ask you for source/evidence to these small holes allegedly found on Sheila’s nightdress, but you haven’t presented them to us: are you still looking for them?
Follow the link that Holly posted above!
-
Follow the link that Holly posted above!
Only just noticed this, thank you, MrsWah!
I read the link to the discussion Holly put up where this was discussed in 2017
It appears others believed these tiny holes were caused by cigarettes too, and they were right. I’ve seen same holes with my own eyes on bed linen, and no amount of washing will remove the black burnt edges surrounding the holes, simply because they’ve been burned and irreparable.Similar to a scorch mark: you can’t wash it away as the material is permanently damaged.
-
Only just noticed this, thank you, MrsWah!
I read the link to the discussion Holly put up where this was discussed in 2017
It appears others believed these tiny holes were caused by cigarettes too, and they were right. I’ve seen same holes with my own eyes on bed linen, and no amount of washing will remove the black burnt edges surrounding the holes, simply because they’ve been burned and irreparable.Similar to a scorch mark: you can’t wash it away as the material is permanently damaged.
This appears to happen when the material has an element of 'poly' in it. The nylon constituent causes the material to melt, rather than burn.
-
This appears to happen when the material has an element of 'poly' in it. The nylon constituent causes the material to melt, rather than burn.
It happens in cotton and linen too, April.
But especially in polyester type materials, which I’d imagine Sheila’s nightdress had a mixture of cotton & poly. Whatever, they’re definitely typical sparks from cigarettes, especially roll-ups, which tend to float down a lot when they’re inhaling. An elderly friend of the family was always flicking them off his jumper as he had a roll-up in his mouth ?>)()<
-
Only just noticed this, thank you, MrsWah!
I read the link to the discussion Holly put up where this was discussed in 2017
It appears others believed these tiny holes were caused by cigarettes too, and they were right. I’ve seen same holes with my own eyes on bed linen, and no amount of washing will remove the black burnt edges surrounding the holes, simply because they’ve been burned and irreparable.Similar to a scorch mark: you can’t wash it away as the material is permanently damaged.
Others formed a range of opinions.
-
Others formed a range of opinions.
Yep, and reached no conclusions...
I still say they’d be cigarette burns & the forensics obviously didn’t find them significant ; they didn’t contain blood, gun residue — so I expect the only sensible opinion is that they were cigarette burns. Sheila was a chain smoker, don’t forget.
-
I don't believe SC's nightdress was tested for GSR? But let's assume it was, given SC sustained 2 contact gsw's and was in an environment where the rifle was discharged numerous times ie 8 gsw's June it wouldn't really tell us much since GSR forms a cloud upon discharge and deposits indiscriminately on anything in the vicinity.
In terms of MF's claims re waxy substance and gun oil afaik these are not established scientific tests routinely used by independent forensic service providers? Which begs the question why MF would expect to find such debris when the rest of the forensic science community wouldn't be looking?
List of UK based forensic service providers. Afaik the only reliable test used to determine whether someone has recently discharged a firearm is a test for GSR.
https://www.justicedirectory.co.uk/directory/forensic-services/
In terms of whether SC's nightdress was free from victims' blood, other than her own, how would we know when the type of tests used in 85/86 required stains of a certain size and quality? If the nightdress hadn't been destroyed by Essex Police against all protocols it could be tested using DNA tests.
-
Can we stay on topic please.
I am staying on topic: Sheila’s nightdress
So please answer my question: why were none of the fibres found on Nevill?
-
I don't believe SC's nightdress was tested for GSR? But let's assume it was, given SC sustained 2 contact gsw's and was in an environment where the rifle was discharged numerous times ie 8 gsw's June it wouldn't really tell us much since GSR forms a cloud upon discharge and deposits indiscriminately on anything in the vicinity.
In terms of MF's claims re waxy substance and gun oil afaik these are not established scientific tests routinely used by independent forensic service providers? Which begs the question why MF would expect to find such debris when the rest of the forensic science community wouldn't be looking?
List of UK based forensic service providers. Afaik the only reliable test used to determine whether someone has recently discharged a firearm is a test for GSR.
https://www.justicedirectory.co.uk/directory/forensic-services/
In terms of whether SC's nightdress was free from victims' blood, other than her own, how would we know when the type of tests used in 85/86 required stains of a certain size and quality? If the nightdress hadn't been destroyed by Essex Police against all protocols it could be tested using DNA tests.
Her nightdress WAS tested for gsr!!
How can you SAY that when you know it was!!!
-
Her nightdress WAS tested for gsr!!
How can you SAY that when you know it was!!!
Please post up the forensic examination.
-
Please post up the forensic examination.
Good luck with that.
-
Please post up the forensic examination.
You’ve already seen it, Holly....everyone has
If you haven’t, then you need to back to the beginning...
But I will find it for you, just to educate you 8**8:/:
-
I am staying on topic: Sheila’s nightdress
So please answer my question: why were none of the fibres found on Nevill?
Did anyone look for fibres on Nevill?
-
Did anyone look for fibres on Nevill?
No not Afaik but I'm not sure what happened would lend to fibre transfer.
-
Don’t be so naive
Of course forensics did!
It’s all reported too
I don’t do donkey work for anyone — you’ve all got Google....you’ll find t
I expect they did it when they were (not) testing for DNA.
-
Don’t be so naive
Of course forensics did!
It’s all reported too
I don’t do donkey work for anyone — you’ve all got Google....you’ll find t
You’ve already seen it, Holly....everyone has
If you haven’t, then you need to back to the beginning...
But I will find it for you, just to educate you 8**8:/:
-
Did anyone look for fibres on Nevill?
That’s what forensics are for, MrsWah
That’s why they they examine everything: skin, clothes, hair in minuscule detail
That’s what they’re trained to do: they’re specialists 😊
-
That’s what forensics are for, MrsWah
That’s why they they examine everything: skin, clothes, hair in minuscule detail
That’s what they’re trained to do: they’re specialists 😊
Ah, but did they?
-
Ah, but did they?
With hindsight, definitely, no. But given that it was a cut and dried case of murder/suicide, what would have been the point of looking for anything else. Had the funerals/cremations not been arranged with such unseemly haste, the bodies could have told another story.
-
With hindsight, definitely, no. But given that it was a cut and dried case of murder/suicide, what would have been the point of looking for anything else. Had the funerals/cremations not been arranged with such unseemly haste, the bodies could have told another story.
Forensics examined Sheila’s nightdress for everything....blood, human tissue, gunshot residue, fibres, everything...they even scrutinised the tiny cigarette burn holes that had possibly been there for weeks/months
-
Forensics examined Sheila’s nightdress for everything....blood, human tissue, gunshot residue, fibres, everything...they even scrutinised the tiny cigarette burn holes that had possibly been there for weeks/months
You will no doubt be able and willing to provide links to where your claims are confirmed. If not, then they cannot be taken as truth.
-
Forensics examined Sheila’s nightdress for everything....blood, human tissue, gunshot residue, fibres, everything...they even scrutinised the tiny cigarette burn holes that had possibly been there for weeks/months
"Forensics examined Sheila's nightdress for everything" which fell withing the parameters of Sheila having committed the crime. Who knows how much further they might have gone had they been aware of another suspect.
-
"Forensics examined Sheila's nightdress for everything" which fell withing the parameters of Sheila having committed the crime. Who knows how much further they might have gone had they been aware of another suspect.
Well, they did still have it when Bamber became a suspect - as we all know, the case wasn't a shining moment EP.
-
Well, they did still have it when Bamber became a suspect - as we all know, the case wasn't a shining moment EP.
April, you haven’t replied to Caroline.
She told you that Sheila’s nightdress was still in the possession of the forensic team and prosecution team when Jeremy was suspected, charged — and later convicted.
Are you still suggesting they didn’t forensically test every square centimetre of that nightdress?
Out of curiosity, are you a supporter of the mass murderer, Jeremy Bamber?
-
Absolutely NOTHING you say can be taken as truth, because you’re ignorant about much of the case; and you make up fantasies inside that head of yours.
Instead of constantly asking me for links, why don’t you THOROUGHLY READ the FACTS — you may be able to understand a little better then.
Post according to the rules of the forum and I won't need to ask for links. You could start by telling us how you know that clothing was examined for fibres.
-
Post according to the rules of the forum and I won't need to ask for links. You could start by telling us how you know that clothing was examined for fibres.
Where does it say in the rules that everyone has to post links?
Please post it up for me.
-
Re: the small burn holes in Sheila's nightdress -
These sound like blim burns to me - caused by burning cannabis resin falling out of a doobie. ?>)()<
-
Re: the small burn holes in Sheila's nightdress -
These sound like blim burns to me - caused by burning cannabis resin falling out of a doobie. ?>)()<
Yep, either that or from tiny flecks of the roll ups Sheila liked to smoke.
I said that before, but his supporters didn’t want to believe it. They were hoping it was something else...🙄
-
Where does it say in the rules that everyone has to post links?
Please post it up for me.
Off you pop.
The rules of this forum are very straightforward. Please treat all members with respect, avoid speculation and ensure that any material posted is accompanied by the relevant links.
Please avoid conflict and do not enter into prolonged arguments over matters which are speculative or cannot be corroborated at this time.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.msg34336#msg34336
-
Where does it say in the rules that everyone has to post links?
Please post it up for me.
Please read the forum rules, I Spy.
-
According to Dr V he seemed to be of the opinion the blood stain on SC's nightdress, which he likened to a palm print, originated from NB.
In his notes he stated:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
He wrote the notes as he carried out the pm's. NB was first on 7th Aug and then SC the same day. Pm's for June and the twins were carried out the following day.
Therefore when he wrote the above in his notes he cannot have been referring to June, whose hands were blood stained, as her pm was carried after SC's.
He cannot have been referring to SC's hands as he confirmed both were not contaminated.
He did however confirm NB's right hand was blood stained So this can only mean he was referring to NB's right hand and the transfer stain from NB's right hand to SC's nightdress must have taken place when the pair were in the kitchen and SC was raining down blows to NB with a blunt instrument, thought to be the rifle, before she inflicted the 4 gsw's to NB's head.
-
According to Dr V he seemed to be of the opinion the blood stain on SC's nightdress, which he likened to a palm print, originated from NB. NB’s blood ?
In his notes he stated:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
He wrote the notes as he carried out the pm's. NB was first on 7th Aug and then SC the same day. Pm's for June and the twins were carried out the following day.
Therefore when he wrote the above in his notes he cannot have been referring to June, whose hands were blood stained, as her pm was carried after SC's.
He cannot have been referring to SC's hands as he confirmed both were not contaminated.
He did however confirm NB's right hand was blood stained So this can only mean he was referring to NB's right hand
or the killers - didn’t Bamber tell JM a glove slipped off?
-
or the killers - didn’t Bamber tell JM a glove slipped off?
That is what she said - yes.
-
or the killers - didn’t Bamber tell JM a glove slipped off?
How does JM claiming a glove slipped off in the kitchen when MM was supposedly raining down blows on NB with a blunt instrument equate to JB's blood stained handprint on SC's nightdress?
-
How does JM claiming a glove slipped off in the kitchen when MM was supposedly raining down blows on NB with a blunt instrument equate to JB's blood stained handprint on SC's nightdress?
JM came to believe Bamber murdered his family Holly
Ergo Bamber’s glove came off
-
JM came to believe Bamber murdered his family Holly
Ergo Bamber’s glove came off
Did she? I thought she came to believe MM murdered JB's family on his behalf?
-
Did she? I thought she came to believe MM murdered JB's family on his behalf?
That was initially, there was a time she realised that the hit man story was BS and that Bamber himself was responsible.
-
Did she? I thought she came to believe MM murdered JB's family on his behalf?
This is absolute nonsense
If she came to believe this why would she go onto be the main prosecution witness at his murder trial ?
*&^^&
-
This is absolute nonsense
If she came to believe this why would she go onto be the main prosecution witness at his murder trial ?
*&^^&
Why not? Presumably, she believed that whether JB had got MM to do the murders, or whether he did them himself, he was still guilty.
-
Did she? I thought she came to believe MM murdered JB's family on his behalf?
It may have run something like this:- JB voices to JM, his plans for being rid of his family. When the family is killed, JM must have had her suspicions in order for her to ask JB if her was responsible. It's possible JB had a momentary 'wobble' and told her he'd hired MM which may have satisfied her temporarily, until it dawned on her that he'd lied. It may have been only when she was able to take a step back that it became clear?
-
Why not? Presumably, she believed that whether JB had got MM to do the murders, or whether he did them himself, he was still guilty.
MM provided a strong albi, proving he was not anywhere near White House Farm when the murders took place
-
MM provided a strong albi, proving he was not anywhere near White House Farm when the murders took place
Sure, but Julie didn't know that.
-
Sure, but Julie didn't know that.
As I have previously stated, she came to realise that Jeremy was responsible and not MM.
-
Sure, but Julie didn't know that.
It’s very simple
JB lied to Julie and made out he’d hired MM as his hitman
You know that, surely?
So when JB told Julie MM was worried because one of his gloves slipped off when he was violently attacking a Nevill, he was actually talking about HIMSELF. But he couldn’t say that to Julie, could he? *%87
Julie knew for a fact that MM hadn’t carried out the murders soon after going to the police, because when she told them JB had said he’d hired MM to kill them all, the police immediately arrested him. MM had a cast iron alibi which the police verified that SAME day, and released MM straight away as they knew he’d nothing to do with it.
So Julie was aware in the early days of the arrests that Jeremy had lied to her about hiring a hitman.
It’s soooo easy to understand.
-
A woman scorned is just as likely to give up the secrets she has been carrying as to make up a maliscious lie.
Sure, JM had a motive to bury JB but what did she have against MM? What if he hadn't had alibi?
It seems to me far more likely that she only named MM because that's what JB told her while feeding her a lot of other misinformation in the process.
-
A woman scorned is just as likely to give up the secrets she has been carrying as to make up a maliscious lie.
Sure, JM had a motive to bury JB but what did she have against MM? What if he hadn't had alibi?
It seems to me far more likely that she only named MM because that's what JB told her while feeding her a lot of other misinformation in the process.
And same applies to a ‘man scorned’ in fact;
2006 - “THEY say "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but now scientists aren't so sure.
For while tales abound of women who when wronged send husbands' suits to charity shops or sow their carpets with cress seeds, new evidence shows that when it comes to revenge, it's men you should watch out for.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/hell-really-hath-no-fury-2358883
-
And same applies to a ‘man scorned’ in fact;
2006 - “THEY say "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but now scientists aren't so sure.
For while tales abound of women who when wronged send husbands' suits to charity shops or sow their carpets with cress seeds, new evidence shows that when it comes to revenge, it's men you should watch out for.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/hell-really-hath-no-fury-2358883
Quite right Nicholas, I didn't mean to sound misogynistic and hope that I didn't. The most horrific stories of post relationship revenge more usually involve men, with murder frequently being the ultimate act of scorn and control.
It's funny how there is no corresponding well worn phrase regarding men. "Hell hath no fury like a man scorned" has never been said by anyone, ever, but is probably more true when it comes to serious and violent revenge.
-
Quite right Nicholas, I didn't mean to sound misogynistic and hope that I didn't. The most horrific stories of post relationship revenge more usually involve men, with murder frequently being the ultimate act of scorn and control.
It's funny how there is no corresponding well worn phrase regarding men. "Hell hath no fury like a man scorned" has never been said by anyone, ever, but is probably more true when it comes to serious and violent revenge.
There is, here https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/jan/19/research.highereducation in a Guardian header
”Hell hath no fury like a man scorned”
“The Germans call it schadenfreude - gaining pleasure from someone else's pain - and according to neuroscientists men enjoy it much more than women.
-
There is, here https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/jan/19/research.highereducation in a Guardian header
”Hell hath no fury like a man scorned”
“The Germans call it schadenfreude - gaining pleasure from someone else's pain - and according to neuroscientists men enjoy it much more than women.
I'm not sure if how it was depicted in the ITV drama is accurate or not, but maybe Bamber enjoyed upsetting Ann Eaton by having Crispy put down.
-
I'm not sure if how it was depicted in the ITV drama is accurate or not, but maybe Bamber enjoyed upsetting Ann Eaton by having Crispy put down.
She never mentioned being upset. Perhaps it was artistic licence?
-
She never mentioned being upset. Perhaps it was artistic licence?
Maybe he enjoyed the thought of his mother being upset.
-
Maybe he enjoyed the thought of his mother being upset.
She wasn't his mother.
-
She wasn't his mother.
Maybe that's why he found it so easy to shoot her 7 times in cold blood.
-
I was discussing Ann Eaton's supposed feelings.
-
I was discussing Ann Eaton's supposed feelings.
You were commenting on his relationship (or lack there of) with June.
-
I was discussing Ann Eaton's supposed feelings.
I was discussing JB taking a possible psychopathic delight in causing further misery by having Crispy put down.
If it didn't upset AE maybe he liked the thought of June watching his callous disregard for her memory from the afterlife.
Apart from destroying the evidence, maybe that's why he had them cremated too, taking some twisted pleasure in imagining their reaction.
Also he was showing how he was in control with the power of life and death ( I'm the boss now - like his suit )
-
I was discussing JB taking a possible psychopathic delight in causing further misery by having Crispy put down.
If it didn't upset AE maybe he liked the thought of June watching his callous disregard for her memory from the afterlife.
Apart from destroying the evidence, maybe that's why he had them cremated too, taking some twisted pleasure in imagining their reaction.
Also he was showing how he was in control with the power of life and death ( I'm the boss now - like his suit )
I agree - one last kick in the teeth.
-
I was discussing JB taking a possible psychopathic delight in causing further misery by having Crispy put down.
If it didn't upset AE maybe he liked the thought of June watching his callous disregard for her memory from the afterlife.
Apart from destroying the evidence, maybe that's why he had them cremated too, taking some twisted pleasure in imagining their reaction.
Also he was showing how he was in control with the power of life and death ( I'm the boss now - like his suit )
You said "I'm not sure if how it was depicted in the ITV drama is accurate or not, but maybe Bamber enjoyed upsetting Ann Eaton by having Crispy put down."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11337.msg586478#msg586478
That is what I replied to, by pointing out that she never mentioned being upset afaik.
-
You said "I'm not sure if how it was depicted in the ITV drama is accurate or not, but maybe Bamber enjoyed upsetting Ann Eaton by having Crispy put down."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11337.msg586478#msg586478
That is what I replied to, by pointing out that she never mentioned being upset afaik.
It's catching! 8)--))
-
A woman scorned is just as likely to give up the secrets she has been carrying as to make up a maliscious lie.
Sure, JM had a motive to bury JB but what did she have against MM? What if he hadn't had alibi?
It seems to me far more likely that she only named MM because that's what JB told her while feeding her a lot of other misinformation in the process.
It’s ridiculous for anyone to think a young woman would accuse her ex-boyfriend of such a heinous, heinous crime just because he supposedly ended the relationship. She wouldn’t have accused him of something as serious as that!
Besides losing him altogether and never being able to get back with him, she would have been charged with perjury and ended up in prison herself.
And she certainly wouldn’t have said Jeremy told her MM did it and get him put away too!
She knew things about the murders, including Jeremy’s means of entry that she could have possibly known unless Jeremy had told her.
His CT try to make out Julie was mad enough to say all that, but they can never answer how she knew things only Jeremy knew about the murders. It’s also been twisted by Jeremy, who claims he dumped her, but it was actually she who walked away from HIM. Yes, she was upset at the brutal way he treated her, and she was once in love with him so she was hurt too, but this “scorned woman” rumour isn’t actually accurate.
-
Incidentally, Holly said on another thread which I can’t find, that Jeremy had never been abusive or violent.
That’s not true.
Julie said how he twisted her arm up behind her back when they arguing, and besides the pain as he kept it twisted he terrified her by how he stared at her and what he said, so much so, that she feared he might kill her too.
No wonder she walked away from him and was put in a safe house.
-
You said "I'm not sure if how it was depicted in the ITV drama is accurate or not, but maybe Bamber enjoyed upsetting Ann Eaton by having Crispy put down."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11337.msg586478#msg586478
That is what I replied to, by pointing out that she never mentioned being upset afaik.
To which I replied, perhaps he
To which I replied:
Maybe he enjoyed the thought of his mother being upset.
Seem we just got our wires crossed G Unit 8((()*/
(I'll have to practice with the quote thing!)
-
Incidentally, Holly said on another thread which I can’t find, that Jeremy had never been abusive or violent.
That’s not true.
Julie said how he twisted her arm up behind her back when they arguing, and besides the pain as he kept it twisted he terrified her by how he stared at her and what he said, so much so, that she feared he might kill her too.
No wonder she walked away from him and was put in a safe house.
Put in a safe house where? I thought she was at college.
-
Incidentally, Holly said on another thread which I can’t find, that Jeremy had never been abusive or violent.
That’s not true.
Julie said how he twisted her arm up behind her back when they arguing, and besides the pain as he kept it twisted he terrified her by how he stared at her and what he said, so much so, that she feared he might kill her too.
No wonder she walked away from him and was put in a safe house.
There is also the time they had a fight in the supermarket and hit each other on the nose, according to his police interview.
-
It’s ridiculous for anyone to think a young woman would accuse her ex-boyfriend of such a heinous, heinous crime just because he supposedly ended the relationship. She wouldn’t have accused him of something as serious as that!
Besides losing him altogether and never being able to get back with him, she would have been charged with perjury and ended up in prison herself.
And she certainly wouldn’t have said Jeremy told her MM did it and get him put away too!
She knew things about the murders, including Jeremy’s means of entry that she could have possibly known unless Jeremy had told her.
His CT try to make out Julie was mad enough to say all that, but they can never answer how she knew things only Jeremy knew about the murders. It’s also been twisted by Jeremy, who claims he dumped her, but it was actually she who walked away from HIM. Yes, she was upset at the brutal way he treated her, and she was once in love with him so she was hurt too, but this “scorned woman” rumour isn’t actually accurate.
I am sure there is a thread for discussing JM in depth somewhere but I agree with all you say.
She told the police how she had put a pillow over his face so that he would stay with her forever and also told the police all about her own crimes. Her WS all have the ring of truth to me and seem to be a young woman getting a lot off her chest. She could have made up much more damaging claims if she was really intent on framing him.
-
Put in a safe house where? I thought she was at college.
After Julie confessed to police what Jeremy had told her and done, they put her in a safe house. And they were right to. Jeremy was bailed and immediately tried to look for Julie to speak to her...I doubt very much he’d have harmed her as he was already up to his neck in it, but he’d have tried to manipulate her and begged her to withdraw her statement.
-
After Julie confessed to police what Jeremy had told her and done, they put her in a safe house. And they were right to. Jeremy was bailed and immediately tried to look for Julie to speak to her...I doubt very much he’d have harmed her as he was already up to his neck in it, but he’d have tried to manipulate her and begged her to withdraw her statement.
He’d already manipulated her but would have carried on manipulating her
As he did with Anji and Virginia Greaves
-
I am sure there is a thread for discussing JM in depth somewhere but I agree with all you say.
She told the police how she had put a pillow over his face so that he would stay with her forever and also told the police all about her own crimes. Her WS all have the ring of truth to me and seem to be a young woman getting a lot off her chest. She could have made up much more damaging claims if she was really intent on framing him.
Indeed.
Julie revealed things that were embarrassing for her: she volunteered that information — she didn’t have to even mention it. She simply told the truth about everything — warts and all.
Those aren’t the actions of someone lying...
-
I am sure there is a thread for discussing JM in depth somewhere but I agree with all you say.
She told the police how she had put a pillow over his face so that he would stay with her forever and also told the police all about her own crimes. Her WS all have the ring of truth to me and seem to be a young woman getting a lot off her chest. She could have made up much more damaging claims if she was really intent on framing him.
Which is how she was portrayed in the series. I'd never been able to fully 'read' Julie prior to the actor's depiction of her. Now I see why. Supporters, and for a long time I was one, have her as being a strong controlling woman who dominated Jeremy and had counsel helpless, in her presence, to do their job. From the little I know of her background, nothing could be further from the truth. The series has Stan Jones picking up on a rather timid and subservient girl needing to offload but unable to summon up the courage.
-
Which is how she was portrayed in the series. I'd never been able to fully 'read' Julie prior to the actor's depiction of her. Now I see why. Supporters, and for a long time I was one, have her as being a strong controlling woman who dominated Jeremy and had counsel helpless, in her presence, to do their job. From the little I know of her background, nothing could be further from the truth. The series has Stan Jones picking up on a rather timid and subservient girl needing to offload but unable to summon up the courage.
Julie, IMO, was yet another young and naïve girl who, tragically, chose the wrong man!
-
Julie, IMO, was yet another young and naïve girl who, tragically, chose the wrong man!
And from what has emerged of Jeremy's character, her character type, however contradictory the mask, is exactly the type he'd have sought out.
-
Julie, IMO, was yet another young and naïve girl who, tragically, chose the wrong man!
Bamber targeted JM - she didn’t choose him
Predatory psychopaths target their victims
-
He might have targeted her---I don't know the ins and outs of how they met.
She obviously fell under his spell though, and chose to go on seeing him. She either loved him, or believed she did.
I'm not blaming her for that: at the age of 20, I , too, made an unwise choice (fortunately, NOT with such disastrous results). It is just very sad.
-
He might have targeted her---I don't know the ins and outs of how they met.
She obviously fell under his spell though, and chose to go on seeing him. She either loved him, or believed she did.
I'm not blaming her for that: at the age of 20, I , too, made an unwise choice (fortunately, NOT with such disastrous results). It is just very sad.
People are still falling under his spell.
-
He might have targeted her---I don't know the ins and outs of how they met.
She obviously fell under his spell though, and chose to go on seeing him. She either loved him, or believed she did.
I'm not blaming her for that: at the age of 20, I , too, made an unwise choice (fortunately, NOT with such disastrous results). It is just very sad.
They met when they were both working part-time at a pizza restaurant - Sloppy Joe's. JM was a waitress and JB a cocktail barman. SJ's was owned by Michael Deckers and Malcolm Waters. Liz Rimington was manager and a good friend of JM's. Michael, Malcolm, Liz and JB shared a house. LR invited JM round to the house with a view to pairing up JM and JB.
-
People are still falling under his spell.
I’m not convinced in the slightest Mark Newby has fallen under Bamber’s ‘spell’
I’m of the belief he has an ulterior motive for choosing to represent Bamber, especially with regards ‘disclosure’
-
They met when they were both working part-time at a pizza restaurant - Sloppy Joe's. JM was a waitress and JB a cocktail barman. SJ's was owned by Michael Deckers and Malcolm Waters. Liz Rimington was manager and a good friend of JM's. Michael, Malcolm, Liz and JB shared a house. LR invited JM round to the house with a view to pairing up JM and JB.
Hadn’t Bamber already targeted Liz Rimington
JM didn't come forward, it was supposedly her friend Liz Rimmington, who had sex with JB whilst he was in a relationship with JM, who supposedly contacted the police asking for DS Jones.
What evidence exists showing LR or anyone contacted the police and it wasn't the other way round? All JB's circle who gave evidence against him were to some degree involved with recreational drugs which may well have been used against them.
NOT supposedly... Actually! Liz Rimington rang Witham asking for Stan Jones. He wasn't in, but at home, and as soon as he heard from Witham he contacted Liz at the phone number she left with the duty sergeant.
You either believe Wilkes, or you don't.
Suspect Liz Rimington had suspicions of her own about Bamber - some friend she turned out to be *&^^&
Did her witness statement state she’d had sex with Bamber - if not why not?
-
Hadn’t Bamber already targeted Liz Rimington
Suspect Liz Rimington had suspicions of her own about Bamber - some friend she turned out to be *&^^&
Did her witness statement state she’d had sex with Bamber - if not why not?
I haven't seen her statement but according to CAL, she admitted to an affair with Bamber and that JUlie knew nothing about it.
-
I haven't seen her statement but according to CAL, she admitted to an affair with Bamber and that JUlie knew nothing about it.
As I said, some friend
Have her statements also been withheld by Bamber and his CT?
-
As I said, some friend
Have her statements also been withheld by Bamber and his CT?
Carol Ann Lee does state in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section of her book, ‘The Murders at White House Farm’ that Bamber ‘generously shared a large amount of documentation’ with her
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA420&lpg=PA420&dq=simon+mckay+jeremy+bamber&source=bl&ots=jQH_J4C9C1&sig=ACfU3U0lr0W87bDvDZJA7GPHr83uxZ-k4A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqlpTono7pAhUPXsAKHd42DmM4FBDoATAEegQIBhAB#v=onepage&q=simon%20mckay%20jeremy%20bamber&f=false
Am guessing he gave her a copy of Virginia Greaves statement then - but where’s Anji’s ?
Didn’t realise JM also did an interview for ‘She Magazine’ in 1987 (Courtesy of CAL)
-
They met when they were both working part-time at a pizza restaurant - Sloppy Joe's. JM was a waitress and JB a cocktail barman. SJ's was owned by Michael Deckers and Malcolm Waters. Liz Rimington was manager and a good friend of JM's. Michael, Malcolm, Liz and JB shared a house. LR invited JM round to the house with a view to pairing up JM and JB.
Holly how did Bamber and JM get together in the first place ?
Was it via Sloppy Joes or through Liz Rimmimgton’s invite ‘to the house with a view to pairing up JM & JB?