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: Vertigo Swirl on April 16, 2020, 08:46:46 PM
-
There seems to be a view amongst some supporters that Nevill phoned Jeremy before he was shot, and said “Sheila’s going crazy, she’s got a gun”. In order for him to know she had a gun he would either have had to see her with one or have heard the shots. If he saw her with the gun first, then he must have encountered her downstairs before the shooting had begun, so why did he stay downstairs and not rush up the stairs as soon as he heard the first shot being fired? In fact why did he wait downstairs until all the shooting had finished upstairs, whilst still on the phone waiting for Sheila to come back downstairs and cut the phone off? Ah, but hang on, Nevill did go upstairs and get shot, which must have happened after the phone call that Sheila cut him off during because he wouldn’t have been able to speak after being shot, well why didn’t she shoot him downstairs then, why did she allow him to follow her up the stairs? No, I can’t make any of this make any sense. Help!
-
JB claimed NB said:
"Sheila's going crazy she's got the gun"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg202984#msg202984
-
JB claimed NB said:
"Sheila's going crazy she's got the gun"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg202984#msg202984
Which is quite close to what I wrote. Anything else to add?
-
Which is quite close to what I wrote. Anything else to add?
There are subtle nuances, though. Nevill knew about her mental frailty, and the fact of her recent breakdown and hospitalization. Under the circumstances, "Sheila is ill again and she has the gun" may have been a more appropriate claim than "Sheila's gone mad..............."
-
Which is quite close to what I wrote. Anything else to add?
No you said:
"Sheila's going crazy with a gun"
According to JB's first wit stat NB said:
"Sheila's going crazy she's got the gun"
The meanings are different.
-
No you said:
"Sheila's going crazy with a gun"
According to JB's first wit stat NB said:
"Sheila's going crazy she's got the gun"
The meanings are different.
Iwill amend my post and then we can continue from there. I take it you don’t think she was demonstrating craziness through her handling of the gun then.
-
Iwill amend my post and then we can continue from there. I take it you don’t think she was demonstrating craziness through her handling of the gun then.
I don't know what NB's definition of "crazy" was in relation to SC's mental illness.
I will add to your thread tomorrow or Sat as I start switching off at this time of night.
Have your read Farhad Emani's wit stat who was SC's boyfriend? He witnessed SC when she became psychotic.
-
I don't know what NB's definition of "crazy" was in relation to SC's mental illness.
I will add to your thread tomorrow or Sat as I start switching off at this time of night.
Have your read Farhad Emani's wit stat who was SC's boyfriend? He witnessed SC when she became psychotic.
No, I’m not interested. I am only interested in how she committed the killings based on the evidence including Jeremy’s claims wrt the phone call.
-
No you said:
"Sheila's going crazy with a gun"
According to JB's first wit stat NB said:
"Sheila's going crazy she's got the gun"
The meanings are different.
That doesn’t make sense though, does it?
Firstly, Nevill was ex-RAF and would have been trained in the correct terminology. In the RAF use of correct terms is very important — especially when talking on the radio. I know he was a pilot, but I suspect he was trained in firearms too. So it would have been ingrained in him to be precise. Remember, a gun is artillery, cannons etc. Something you CARRY is a rifle, a pistol or a weapon.
Then he spent around 30 years on the farm, shooting prey and going to shoots. He also had a collection of firearms throughout the years.
In shooting circles a Gun is what they call the person who’s holding the firearm; so whereas we, who don’t shoot, refer to firearms as guns, that isn’t actually correct. Nevill was educated, experienced in shooting, and mixed in the same circles.
So I doubt he ever referred to any of his firearms as a gun.
He’d have said something like: “Im going shooting with the Anschutz” or “I’m taking the semi-automatic”
Had Sheila been going berserk with that rifle, Nevill wouldn’t have said to Jeremy: “Sheila’s gone berserk — she’s got a gun”
It’s difficult to imagine what he’d have said, as it’s too ridiculous to even perceive he’d phone anyone at all leaving Sheila “going crazy with a gun”, but let’s suppose he would have phoned Jeremy instead of 999 or one of his neighbours, or farm workers two minutes away, he’d have most likely said: “Jeremy, get over here NOW! Sheila’s got hold of the Anschutz and is going hysterical”
He would not have said “Sheila has a gun” or “Sheila has the gun”
He just wouldn’t have.
But even trying to imagine what he’d have said is difficult, because it wouldn’t have crossed his mind to phone Jeremy — what could Jeremy have done that Nevill couldn’t? Nevill would have, and easily could have disarmed Sheila as soon as he saw her holding a rifle and going “crazy”. And he’d hardly leave her upstairs in that state, with a loaded weapon.
Jeremy claimed Nevill said Sheila was going crazy: he never said Nevill told him Sheila had shot anyone, so why wasn’t Nevill overpowering her upstairs before she started shooting? Why waste precious minutes phoning Jeremy of all people, leaving his wife, grandchildren and Sheila herself in grave danger, when he could have easily thrown himself sideways against the barrel and Sheila, and simply disarmed her in one swift manoeuvre?
Whichever way you try to fit the pieces together, they just don’t add up. None of it fits.
-
No, I’m not interested. I am only interested in how she committed the killings based on the evidence including Jeremy’s claims wrt the phone call.
In the lack of any evidence linking Sheila to the killings and everything we have learned which lay behind them, I am at a total loss in trying to think of any reasonable or even unreasonable hypothesis which would reflect the thread title.
I think it is impossible to think of Sheila as anything other than the victim of an horrific crime.
-
I don't know what NB's definition of "crazy" was in relation to SC's mental illness.
I will add to your thread tomorrow or Sat as I start switching off at this time of night.
Have your read Farhad Emani's wit stat who was SC's boyfriend? He witnessed SC when she became psychotic.
Was she with a gun at the time? one Swallow does not a summer make.
-
No you said:
"Sheila's going crazy with a gun"
According to JB's first wit stat NB said:
"Sheila's going crazy she's got the gun"
The meanings are different.
Is it not then within the bounds of possibility that if it where the case then "she's threatening to shoot or she is shooting" to be added.Bit of a slip up by JB imo.
-
Is it not then within the bounds of possibility that if it where the case then "she's threatening to shoot or she is shooting" to be added.Bit of a slip up by JB imo.
Including the line that she was shooting would have been too much information to pass on to police, given that the were already dead, and may have been for several hours.
-
Including the line that she was shooting would have been too much information to pass on to police, given that the were already dead, and may have been for several hours.
Quite agree,but I'm trying to understand the narrative from a supporters angle,JB want's to convince it was Sheila who committed the crime.
-
That doesn’t make sense though, does it?
Firstly, Nevill was ex-RAF and would have been trained in the correct terminology. In the RAF use of correct terms is very important — especially when talking on the radio. I know he was a pilot, but I suspect he was trained in firearms too. So it would have been ingrained in him to be precise. Remember, a gun is artillery, cannons etc. Something you CARRY is a rifle, a pistol or a weapon.
Then he spent around 30 years on the farm, shooting prey and going to shoots. He also had a collection of firearms throughout the years.
In shooting circles a Gun is what they call the person who’s holding the firearm; so whereas we, who don’t shoot, refer to firearms as guns, that isn’t actually correct. Nevill was educated, experienced in shooting, and mixed in the same circles.
So I doubt he ever referred to any of his firearms as a gun.
He’d have said something like: “Im going shooting with the Anschutz” or “I’m taking the semi-automatic”
Had Sheila been going berserk with that rifle, Nevill wouldn’t have said to Jeremy: “Sheila’s gone berserk — she’s got a gun”
It’s difficult to imagine what he’d have said, as it’s too ridiculous to even perceive he’d phone anyone at all leaving Sheila “going crazy with a gun”, but let’s suppose he would have phoned Jeremy instead of 999 or one of his neighbours, or farm workers two minutes away, he’d have most likely said: “Jeremy, get over here NOW! Sheila’s got hold of the Anschutz and is going hysterical”
He would not have said “Sheila has a gun” or “Sheila has the gun”
He just wouldn’t have.
But even trying to imagine what he’d have said is difficult, because it wouldn’t have crossed his mind to phone Jeremy — what could Jeremy have done that Nevill couldn’t? Nevill would have, and easily could have disarmed Sheila as soon as he saw her holding a rifle and going “crazy”. And he’d hardly leave her upstairs in that state, with a loaded weapon.
Jeremy claimed Nevill said Sheila was going crazy: he never said Nevill told him Sheila had shot anyone, so why wasn’t Nevill overpowering her upstairs before she started shooting? Why waste precious minutes phoning Jeremy of all people, leaving his wife, grandchildren and Sheila herself in grave danger, when he could have easily thrown himself sideways against the barrel and Sheila, and simply disarmed her in one swift manoeuvre?
Whichever way you try to fit the pieces together, they just don’t add up. None of it fits.
I can't see anything about the physical evidence in the above: blood stains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.
-
Which is quite close to what I wrote. Anything else to add?
I've told you how I think the killings were committed.
A shooting reconstruction should have taken place at the time so there's no expert evidence but I told you on another thread how I believe they were committed. I'll look up my old threads.
In a nutshell:
- NB makes the call to JB
- Whilst NB on call to JB, SC opens fire on June who was in bed with her head on the pillow. June sustains 6 gsw's
- NB hearing shots ring out, drops the phone and runs upstairs where he sustains 2 gsw's to his face on the landing.
- NB turns to retreat downstairs and when he's standing on the main staircase he sustains the 2 gsw's to his rear: shoulder and elbow/chest.
- NB makes it to the kitchen where he sustains the beating
- SC reloads and inflicts the 4 gsw's to the head
I arrived at the above based on the following:
- Layout of WHF
- Pathological evidence particularly wound tracks and trajectories.
- Casings
- Blood stains to carpets, kitchen floor and wallpaper in hall. Also lack of any trace of NB's blood in bedroom.
- Distance of shots
If you and/or others disagree perhaps you could give explain how you think SC or JB committed the killings.
-
That doesn’t make sense though, does it?
Firstly, Nevill was ex-RAF and would have been trained in the correct terminology. In the RAF use of correct terms is very important — especially when talking on the radio. I know he was a pilot, but I suspect he was trained in firearms too. So it would have been ingrained in him to be precise. Remember, a gun is artillery, cannons etc. Something you CARRY is a rifle, a pistol or a weapon.
Then he spent around 30 years on the farm, shooting prey and going to shoots. He also had a collection of firearms throughout the years.
In shooting circles a Gun is what they call the person who’s holding the firearm; so whereas we, who don’t shoot, refer to firearms as guns, that isn’t actually correct. Nevill was educated, experienced in shooting, and mixed in the same circles.
So I doubt he ever referred to any of his firearms as a gun.
He’d have said something like: “Im going shooting with the Anschutz” or “I’m taking the semi-automatic”
Had Sheila been going berserk with that rifle, Nevill wouldn’t have said to Jeremy: “Sheila’s gone berserk — she’s got a gun”
It’s difficult to imagine what he’d have said, as it’s too ridiculous to even perceive he’d phone anyone at all leaving Sheila “going crazy with a gun”, but let’s suppose he would have phoned Jeremy instead of 999 or one of his neighbours, or farm workers two minutes away, he’d have most likely said: “Jeremy, get over here NOW! Sheila’s got hold of the Anschutz and is going hysterical”
He would not have said “Sheila has a gun” or “Sheila has the gun”
He just wouldn’t have.
But even trying to imagine what he’d have said is difficult, because it wouldn’t have crossed his mind to phone Jeremy — what could Jeremy have done that Nevill couldn’t? Nevill would have, and easily could have disarmed Sheila as soon as he saw her holding a rifle and going “crazy”. And he’d hardly leave her upstairs in that state, with a loaded weapon.
Jeremy claimed Nevill said Sheila was going crazy: he never said Nevill told him Sheila had shot anyone, so why wasn’t Nevill overpowering her upstairs before she started shooting? Why waste precious minutes phoning Jeremy of all people, leaving his wife, grandchildren and Sheila herself in grave danger, when he could have easily thrown himself sideways against the barrel and Sheila, and simply disarmed her in one swift manoeuvre?
Whichever way you try to fit the pieces together, they just don’t add up. None of it fits.
Some ‘human beings’ can’t and won’t admit to being wrong, so they’ll go round and round trying to make it fit, no matter how many times you tell them.
“But what about when a person does push back against the facts, when they simply cannot admit they were wrong in any circumstance? What in their psychological makeup makes it impossible for them to admit they were wrong, even when it is obvious they were? And why does this happen so repetitively — why do they never admit they were wrong?
The answer is related to their ego, their very sense-of-self. Some people have such a fragile ego, such brittle self-esteem, such a weak "psychological constitution," that admitting they made a mistake or that they were wrong is fundamentally too threatening for their egos to tolerate. Accepting they were wrong, absorbing that reality, would be so psychologically shattering, their defense mechanisms do something remarkable to avoid doing so — they literally distort their perception of reality to make it (reality) less threatening. Their defense mechanisms protect their fragile ego by changing the very facts in their mind, so they are no longer wrong or culpable.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201811/why-certain-people-will-never-admit-they-were-wrong
-
Some ‘human beings’ can’t and won’t admit to being wrong, so they’ll go round and round trying to make it fit, no matter how many times you tell them.
“But what about when a person does push back against the facts, when they simply cannot admit they were wrong in any circumstance? What in their psychological makeup makes it impossible for them to admit they were wrong, even when it is obvious they were? And why does this happen so repetitively — why do they never admit they were wrong?
The answer is related to their ego, their very sense-of-self. Some people have such a fragile ego, such brittle self-esteem, such a weak "psychological constitution," that admitting they made a mistake or that they were wrong is fundamentally too threatening for their egos to tolerate. Accepting they were wrong, absorbing that reality, would be so psychologically shattering, their defense mechanisms do something remarkable to avoid doing so — they literally distort their perception of reality to make it (reality) less threatening. Their defense mechanisms protect their fragile ego by changing the very facts in their mind, so they are no longer wrong or culpable.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201811/why-certain-people-will-never-admit-they-were-wrong
I find that description fits some of those who are utterly convinced that Jeremy Bamber is guilty.
-
I find that description fits some of those who are utterly convinced that Jeremy Bamber is guilty.
IMO, it fits some people from both camps!
-
I find that description fits some of those who are utterly convinced that Jeremy Bamber is guilty.
IMO, it fits some people from both camps!
And the ‘fence sitters’ ?
-
And the ‘fence sitters’ ?
On a different forum, I found myself "shouted at" by both sides, for different reasons.
So, theoretically, a fence sitter like me could "shout at" both sides for different reasons, and be thoroughly pig headed.
No reason for me to do that, though.
-
I've told you how I think the killings were committed.
A shooting reconstruction should have taken place at the time so there's no expert evidence but I told you on another thread how I believe they were committed. I'll look up my old threads.
In a nutshell:
- NB makes the call to JB
- Whilst NB on call to JB, SC opens fire on June who was in bed with her head on the pillow. June sustains 6 gsw's
- NB hearing shots ring out, drops the phone and runs upstairs where he sustains 2 gsw's to his face on the landing.
- NB turns to retreat downstairs and when he's standing on the main staircase he sustains the 2 gsw's to his rear: shoulder and elbow/chest.
- NB makes it to the kitchen where he sustains the beating
- SC reloads and inflicts the 4 gsw's to the head
I arrived at the above based on the following:
- Layout of WHF
- Pathological evidence particularly wound tracks and trajectories.
- Casings
- Blood stains to carpets, kitchen floor and wallpaper in hall. Also lack of any trace of NB's blood in bedroom.
- Distance of shots
If you and/or others disagree perhaps you could give explain how you think SC or JB committed the killings.
Don't gloss over the twins killing's,you think Sheila did it,when and how would she have done this.
-
I've told you how I think the killings were committed.
A shooting reconstruction should have taken place at the time so there's no expert evidence but I told you on another thread how I believe they were committed. I'll look up my old threads.
In a nutshell:
- NB makes the call to JB
- Whilst NB on call to JB, SC opens fire on June who was in bed with her head on the pillow. June sustains 6 gsw's
- NB hearing shots ring out, drops the phone and runs upstairs where he sustains 2 gsw's to his face on the landing.
- NB turns to retreat downstairs and when he's standing on the main staircase he sustains the 2 gsw's to his rear: shoulder and elbow/chest.
- NB makes it to the kitchen where he sustains the beating
- SC reloads and inflicts the 4 gsw's to the head
I arrived at the above based on the following:
- Layout of WHF
- Pathological evidence particularly wound tracks and trajectories.
- Casings
- Blood stains to carpets, kitchen floor and wallpaper in hall. Also lack of any trace of NB's blood in bedroom.
- Distance of shots
If you and/or others disagree perhaps you could give explain how you think SC or JB committed the killings.
I would have thought that disarming Sheila first would have been more appropriate than allowing her, in her 'mad' state, to wander the house with a loaded firearm, whilst he took time out to make a call he couldn't even guarantee would be answered.
-
I would have thought that disarming Sheila first would have been more appropriate than allowing her, in her 'mad' state, to wander the house with a loaded firearm, whilst he took time out to make a call he couldn't even guarantee would be answered.
I wonder how difficult it actually is to disarm someone who is carrying a loaded firearm. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do it.
-
I wonder how difficult it actually is to disarm someone who is carrying a loaded firearm. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do it.
And I've never tried, nor had to. Nevill, if he'd surprised her by approaching from behind and was close enough to touch her it would have meant that the length of the barrel prohibited her from shooting either of them. He might have been able to wrestle her to the floor
-
I wonder how difficult it actually is to disarm someone who is carrying a loaded firearm. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do it.
I doubt that you're a strong male 6'4" farmer used to hard physical work who's adored and looked up to by your daughter.
-
Don't gloss over the twins killing's,you think Sheila did it,when and how would she have done this.
I'm not glossing over anything but the physical evidence doesn't reveal at what stage June sustained the two immediately fatal shots and the twins sustained their gsw's.
-
I would have thought that disarming Sheila first would have been more appropriate than allowing her, in her 'mad' state, to wander the house with a loaded firearm, whilst he took time out to make a call he couldn't even guarantee would be answered.
The physical evidence suggests otherwise.
-
The physical evidence suggests otherwise.
I don't know to which "physical evidence" you're referring. There must have been a window during which he, uninjured, could see for himself that Sheila was "going mad" -I doubt it JUST happened, nor that it happened simultaneously with the lifting of the gun, he may even have had the chance of removing the gun when he saw what was transpiring?- and could have intervened.
-
On a different forum, I found myself "shouted at" by both sides, for different reasons.
So, theoretically, a fence sitter like me could "shout at" both sides for different reasons, and be thoroughly pig headed.
No reason for me to do that, though.
I do believe you are a genuine fence sitter Mrswah - some claim to be who are NOT!
-
I'm not glossing over anything but the physical evidence doesn't reveal at what stage June sustained the two immediately fatal shots and the twins sustained their gsw's.
NB makes the call to JB
- Whilst NB on call to JB, SC opens fire on June who was in bed with her head on the pillow. June sustains 6 gsw's
- NB hearing shots ring out, drops the phone and runs upstairs where he sustains 2 gsw's to his face on the landing.
- NB turns to retreat downstairs and when he's standing on the main staircase he sustains the 2 gsw's to his rear: shoulder and elbow/chest.
- NB makes it to the kitchen where he sustains the beating
- SC reloads and inflicts the 4 gsw's to the head
I arrived at the above based on the following:
- Layout of WHF
- Pathological evidence particularly wound tracks and trajectories.
- Casings
- Blood stains to carpets, kitchen floor and wallpaper in hall. Also lack of any trace of NB's blood in bedroom.
- Distance of shots
Pardon? June suffered 7 shots,presumably the seventh was the fatal one if shot in her bed and found at the foot of it on the floor.
-
Pardon? June suffered 7 shots,presumably the seventh was the fatal one if shot in her bed and found at the foot of it on the floor.
June sustained a total of 8 gsw's over 2 episodes evidenced by a trail of blood originating from her which dripped around the bed from one side to the other and back again. Either one of the two gsw's she sustained to her head would have immobilised her immediately.
-
I've told you how I think the killings were committed.
A shooting reconstruction should have taken place at the time so there's no expert evidence but I told you on another thread how I believe they were committed. I'll look up my old threads.
In a nutshell:
- NB makes the call to JB
- Whilst NB on call to JB, SC opens fire on June who was in bed with her head on the pillow. June sustains 6 gsw's
- NB hearing shots ring out, drops the phone and runs upstairs where he sustains 2 gsw's to his face on the landing.
- NB turns to retreat downstairs and when he's standing on the main staircase he sustains the 2 gsw's to his rear: shoulder and elbow/chest.
- NB makes it to the kitchen where he sustains the beating
- SC reloads and inflicts the 4 gsw's to the head
I arrived at the above based on the following:
- Layout of WHF
- Pathological evidence particularly wound tracks and trajectories.
- Casings
- Blood stains to carpets, kitchen floor and wallpaper in hall. Also lack of any trace of NB's blood in bedroom.
- Distance of shots
If you and/or others disagree perhaps you could give explain how you think SC or JB committed the killings.
Could you start at the very beginning please. Where was Nevill when SB seized the gun. What prompted Sheila to go crazy at 3am?
-
Could you start at the very beginning please. Where was Nevill when SB seized the gun. What prompted Sheila to go crazy at 3am?
I've no idea. I can only go on the physical evidence at soc which overwhelmingly places the perp in the main bedroom shooting out onto the landing where NB sustained his facial wounds. NB turned and when on the main staircase facing down he sustained the two gsw's to the rear.
-
I've no idea. I can only go on the physical evidence at soc which overwhelmingly places the perp in the main bedroom shooting out onto the landing where NB sustained his facial wounds. NB turned and when on the main staircase facing down he sustained the two gsw's to the rear.
Then how did he manage to speak, coherently, with Jeremy?
-
Then how did he manage to speak, coherently, with Jeremy?
He made the call prior to getting shot and just before arriving on the landing stairs.
-
He made the call prior to getting shot and just before arriving on the landing stairs.
It takes us right back to the point I made earlier, doesn't it, if you believe a call was made to Jeremy
I don't know to which "physical evidence" you're referring. There must have been a window during which he, uninjured, could see for himself that Sheila was "going mad" -I doubt it JUST happened, nor that it happened simultaneously with the lifting of the gun, he may even have had the chance of removing the gun when he saw what was transpiring?- and could have intervened.
-
It takes us right back to the point I made earlier, doesn't it, if you believe a call was made to Jeremy
The physical evidence by way of the layout of the farmhouse, blood stains and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.
-
I've no idea. I can only go on the physical evidence at soc which overwhelmingly places the perp in the main bedroom shooting out onto the landing where NB sustained his facial wounds. NB turned and when on the main staircase facing down he sustained the two gsw's to the rear.
What physical evidence places Sheila in the main bedroom shooting out? None, yet you have no qualms suggesting this is what happened, yet you can venture no hypothesis regarding where Nevill was when SB seized the gun. How did he know a) she had gone crazy and b) she had a gun prior to making the alleged phonecall?
-
The physical evidence by way of the layout of the farmhouse, blood stains and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.
Unfortunately, none of the above takes human reactions into consideration.
-
He made the call prior to getting shot and just before arriving on the landing stairs.
. You say Nevill dropped the phone (which contradicts JB’s evidence that in his view someone deliberately cut the call) so if he was on the phone to JB and didn’t hang up how was Jeremy able to call out to speak to JM?
-
What physical evidence places Sheila in the main bedroom shooting out? None, yet you have no qualms suggesting this is what happened, yet you can venture no hypothesis regarding where Nevill was when SB seized the gun. How did he know a) she had gone crazy and b) she had a gun prior to making the alleged phonecall?
I've based my reconstruction based on the physical evidence at soc:
- layout of farmhouse
- Bloodstains and lack of
- Casings
- Distance of shots
- Trajectories gsw's
- Wound tracks
The above all feature in the following and that's how you work out what happened if the data is available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction
The prosecution case at trial was that JB entered his parents room under stealth and opened fire. The defence didn't present any alternative to this.
-
June sustained a total of 8 gsw's over 2 episodes evidenced by a trail of blood originating from her which dripped around the bed from one side to the other and back again. Either one of the two gsw's she sustained to her head would have immobilised her immediately.
I can find lots of references to 7 shots,where do you get the 8 from?
June's body and clothing were heavily bloodstained; she was found in her nightdress with bare feet. The police believe she had been sitting up during part of the attack, based on the pattern of blood on her clothing. She was found lying on the floor by the door of the master bedroom. She had been shot seven times. One shot to her forehead, between her eyes, was fired from under one foot away. That and another shot to the right side of her head would both have caused her death quickly, the court heard. There were also shots to the right side of her lower neck, her right forearm, and two injuries on the right side of her chest and right knee.[110]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Farm_murders
-
I've based my reconstruction based on the physical evidence at soc:
- layout of farmhouse
- Bloodstains and lack of
- Casings
- Distance of shots
- Trajectories gsw's
- Wound tracks
The above all feature in the following and that's how you work out what happened if the data is available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction
The prosecution case at trial was that JB entered his parents room under stealth and opened fire. The defence didn't present any alternative to this.
Because there wasn't one perchance.
-
I've based my reconstruction based on the physical evidence at soc:
- layout of farmhouse
- Bloodstains and lack of
- Casings
- Distance of shots
- Trajectories gsw's
- Wound tracks
The above all feature in the following and that's how you work out what happened if the data is available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction
The prosecution case at trial was that JB entered his parents room under stealth and opened fire. The defence didn't present any alternative to this.
I can see why you’re avoiding the question and that’s because there really isn’t a plausible explanation.
-
June sustained a total of 8 gsw's over 2 episodes evidenced by a trail of blood originating from her which dripped around the bed from one side to the other and back again. Either one of the two gsw's she sustained to her head would have immobilised her immediately.
43. Mrs Bamber was bare footed and dressed in a nightdress. She had received seven gunshot wounds, of which one to her forehead and one to the right side of the head would have caused death very quickly. She also suffered shots to the right side of the lower part of her neck, the right forearm, two injuries to the right side of the chest and to the right knee. There was a great deal of blood on her body and clothing and from its pattern, it appeared that at some stage of the attack she had been in an upright position
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
43. Mrs Bamber was bare footed and dressed in a nightdress. She had received seven gunshot wounds, of which one to her forehead and one to the right side of the head would have caused death very quickly. She also suffered shots to the right side of the lower part of her neck, the right forearm, two injuries to the right side of the chest and to the right knee. There was a great deal of blood on her body and clothing and from its pattern, it appeared that at some stage of the attack she had been in an upright position
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
At trial it was determined from the pathological and ballistics evidence that June sustained an 8 gsw which was non-penetrative and caused a bruise only wound. It was thought at one time that the bruise was caused by one of the 7 gsw's but based on exited bullets and spent casings it was concluded 8 gsw's one resulting in a non-penetrative injury.
-
At trial it was determined from the pathological and ballistics evidence that June sustained an 8 gsw which was non-penetrative and caused a bruise only wound. It was thought at one time that the bruise was caused by one of the 7 gsw's but based on exited bullets and spent casings it was concluded 8 gsw's one resulting in a non-penetrative injury.
Any chance of you C&P that information for us, please.
-
From CAL..."In the Chelmsford and Essex Hospital mortuary, where all those present the previous day had assembled again, Dr Vanezis established that June had been shot seven times.Her wounds were above her right ear, to the right of her neck, the upper right of her chest, the lower right of her chest, her right forearm, the outer aspect of her right knee and between the eyes. The bullet to her forehead was recovered with further fragments from the left side of her skull, where another bullet was also found, having caused extensive damage to her brain and almost immediate incapacitation and unconsciousness. A bruise under her left breast was due to the ricochet of a bullet, while the severe bruising to her left eye was caused either by a blow or the impact of a gunshot."
-
From CAL..."In the Chelmsford and Essex Hospital mortuary, where all those present the previous day had assembled again, Dr Vanezis established that June had been shot seven times.Her wounds were above her right ear, to the right of her neck, the upper right of her chest, the lower right of her chest, her right forearm, the outer aspect of her right knee and between the eyes. The bullet to her forehead was recovered with further fragments from the left side of her skull, where another bullet was also found, having caused extensive damage to her brain and almost immediate incapacitation and unconsciousness. A bruise under her left breast was due to the ricochet of a bullet, while the severe bruising to her left eye was caused either by a blow or the impact of a gunshot."
Yes thanks but if you refer to trial testimony it was determined from the exited bullets and spent casings that the bruise wasn't from a ricochet but an indepdenet shot.
-
From CAL..."In the Chelmsford and Essex Hospital mortuary, where all those present the previous day had assembled again, Dr Vanezis established that June had been shot seven times.Her wounds were above her right ear, to the right of her neck, the upper right of her chest, the lower right of her chest, her right forearm, the outer aspect of her right knee and between the eyes. The bullet to her forehead was recovered with further fragments from the left side of her skull, where another bullet was also found, having caused extensive damage to her brain and almost immediate incapacitation and unconsciousness. A bruise under her left breast was due to the ricochet of a bullet, while the severe bruising to her left eye was caused either by a blow or the impact of a gunshot."
And yet Bamber knew about the black eye - odd that! %56&
-
From CAL..."In the Chelmsford and Essex Hospital mortuary, where all those present the previous day had assembled again, Dr Vanezis established that June had been shot seven times.Her wounds were above her right ear, to the right of her neck, the upper right of her chest, the lower right of her chest, her right forearm, the outer aspect of her right knee and between the eyes. The bullet to her forehead was recovered with further fragments from the left side of her skull, where another bullet was also found, having caused extensive damage to her brain and almost immediate incapacitation and unconsciousness. A bruise under her left breast was due to the ricochet of a bullet, while the severe bruising to her left eye was caused either by a blow or the impact of a gunshot."
Thank you, Myster.
So seven penetrating wounds and a bruise caused by a ricochet.
-
And yet Bamber knew about the black eye - odd that! %56&
Surely that speaks volumes when bearing in mind the beating Nevill took.
-
From CAL..."In the Chelmsford and Essex Hospital mortuary, where all those present the previous day had assembled again, Dr Vanezis established that June had been shot seven times.Her wounds were above her right ear, to the right of her neck, the upper right of her chest, the lower right of her chest, her right forearm, the outer aspect of her right knee and between the eyes. The bullet to her forehead was recovered with further fragments from the left side of her skull, where another bullet was also found, having caused extensive damage to her brain and almost immediate incapacitation and unconsciousness. A bruise under her left breast was due to the ricochet of a bullet, while the severe bruising to her left eye was caused either by a blow or the impact of a gunshot."
It shows how sloppy the trial was when the ballistics expert and the junior defence QC have NB sustaining an exit wound do his head.
-
And yet Bamber knew about the black eye - odd that! %56&
What are you referring to?
-
43. Mrs Bamber was bare footed and dressed in a nightdress. She had received seven gunshot wounds, of which one to her forehead and one to the right side of the head would have caused death very quickly. She also suffered shots to the right side of the lower part of her neck, the right forearm, two injuries to the right side of the chest and to the right knee. There was a great deal of blood on her body and clothing and from its pattern, it appeared that at some stage of the attack she had been in an upright position
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
8((()*/
-
Thank you, Myster.
So seven penetrating wounds and a bruise caused by a ricochet.
No. The pathologist was unable to conclude. The exited bullets and casings support 8 gsw's with one wound causing a non-penetrative injury.
-
What are you referring to?
Bamber mentioned June having a black eye when talking to the police the morning after the murders.
-
Yes thanks but if you refer to trial testimony it was determined from the exited bullets and spent casings that the bruise wasn't from a ricochet but an indepdenet shot.
It was beneficial to have the snippet of information under discussion supplied by Myster, thank you.
That saved me not a little time and there was absolutely no ambiguity about hitting on the correct information'
Don't independently aimed close range shots penetrate their target rather than giving a bruising slap? The pathologist didn't say how he determined what was an injury caused by a gun and what by a blow ...
-
8((()*/
June sustained 8 gsw's. 7 gsw's entered her body and three exited. 1 gsw caused a non-penetrative injury/bruise.
-
Any chance of you C&P that information for us, please.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11403.msg584132#msg584132
-
It was beneficial to have the snippet of information under discussion supplied by Myster, thank you.
That saved me not a little time and there was absolutely no ambiguity about hitting on the correct information'
Don't independently aimed close range shots penetrate their target rather than giving a bruising slap? The pathologist didn't say how he determined what was an injury caused by a gun and what by a blow ...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11403.msg584132#msg584132
-
No. The pathologist was unable to conclude. The exited bullets and casings support 8 gsw's with one wound causing a non-penetrative injury.
Mrs Bamber was shot seven times with three exit wound making ten holes in her body. The coup de grace probably right between her eyes!
Which raises the sickening thought for me that June and Nevill Bamber were tortured before they died ... or else why the overkill in both cases.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11403.msg584132#msg584132
Thank you ... Myster had already supplied the relevant information ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11403.msg584124#msg584124
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11403.msg584132#msg584132
Ditto ~ http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11403.msg584124#msg584124
-
Mrs Bamber was shot seven times with an exit wound making eight holes in her body. The coup de grace probably right between her eyes!
Which raises the sickening thought for me that June and Nevill Bamber were tortured before they died ... or else why the overkill in both cases.
No. June sustained 7 entry gsw's, 3 exit wounds and 1 non-penetrative gsw.
90. Dr Bradley, another Consultant Psychiatrist, was also called by the defence during the trial to give general evidence of the features of "altruistic" killings and to confirm that it was not unusual that a female murderer should not have a history of previous violence. He also gave evidence that where parents kill children there may be an element of "over-kill" or the infliction of excessive violence.
-
No. June sustained 7 entry gsw's, 3 exit wounds and 1 non-penetrative gsw.
90. Dr Bradley, another Consultant Psychiatrist, was also called by the defence during the trial to give general evidence of the features of "altruistic" killings and to confirm that it was not unusual that a female murderer should not have a history of previous violence. He also gave evidence that where parents kill children there may be an element of "over-kill" or the infliction of excessive violence.
Had he ever met with her?
-
Bamber mentioned June having a black eye when talking to the police the morning after the murders.
According to AE but he may have heard from or been told this by police officers.
He certainly never mentioned June having a black eye in his wit stats.
I thought you asked him about this and he said no?
-
Had he ever met with her?
Not Afaik.
-
According to AE but he may have heard from or been told this by police officers.
He certainly never mentioned June having a black eye in his wit stats.
I thought you asked him about this and he said no?
How would he have heard it from the police - it was the morning of the murders!
Again you just dismiss something important. Yes he did deny it, but admitted it to Mike T. I wish you could see what a complete liar Bamber is - I doubt you ever will though.
-
Not Afaik.
@)(++(*
-
Had he ever met with her?
No is the answer. He’d never met her!
-
Again you just dismiss something important.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
I think he surrounds himself with people who fill his head with rubbish.
-
@)(++(*
What is remotely amusing. You asked a question and I gave an honest answer.
All I've seen from this witness is the excerpt in the CoA doc.
-
No is the answer. He’d never met her!
Why ask if you know the answer?
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
You have taken a sentence from Caroline's post in an attempt to cause trouble. Please stop.
-
What is remotely amusing. You asked a question and I gave an honest answer.
All I've seen from this witness is the excerpt in the CoA doc.
I don’t believe you
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H8U7AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT100&lpg=PT100&dq=Dr+Bradley,+another+Consultant+Psychiatrist+jeremy+bamber&source=bl&ots=E-TGOK8bgU&sig=ACfU3U30kiA3zYnafmO3l_l3oJVFArvSVw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw9_GokPDoAhVRtXEKHWP_CPkQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Dr%20Bradley%2C%20another%20Consultant%20Psychiatrist%20jeremy%20bamber&f=false
I've read all 5 books. CAL and Wilkes are best imo but I would still look to confirm their claims with other sources.
-
. You say Nevill dropped the phone (which contradicts JB’s evidence that in his view someone deliberately cut the call) so if he was on the phone to JB and didn’t hang up how was Jeremy able to call out to speak to JM?
Bump.
-
I don’t believe you
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H8U7AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT100&lpg=PT100&dq=Dr+Bradley,+another+Consultant+Psychiatrist+jeremy+bamber&source=bl&ots=E-TGOK8bgU&sig=ACfU3U30kiA3zYnafmO3l_l3oJVFArvSVw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw9_GokPDoAhVRtXEKHWP_CPkQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Dr%20Bradley%2C%20another%20Consultant%20Psychiatrist%20jeremy%20bamber&f=false
How can I check info that doesn't exist?
-
Bump.
I don't think it's JB's evidence as such just his idea of what may have happened similar our views here.
A tel eng was called at trial:
68. There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone.
-
No. June sustained 7 entry gsw's, 3 exit wounds and 1 non-penetrative gsw.
90. Dr Bradley, another Consultant Psychiatrist, was also called by the defence during the trial to give general evidence of the features of "altruistic" killings and to confirm that it was not unusual that a female murderer should not have a history of previous violence. He also gave evidence that where parents kill children there may be an element of "over-kill" or the infliction of excessive violence.
I shall amend my post to suit.
What does a 'non- penetrative' gunshot wound look like?
-
I shall amend my post to suit.
What does a 'non- penetrative' gunshot wound look like?
Please refer to A in the following:
-
I don't think it's JB's evidence as such just his idea of what may have happened similar our views here.
A tel eng was called at trial:
68. There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone.
What did Jeremy say he did immediately after receiving the call from Nevill?
-
What did Jeremy say he did immediately after receiving the call from Nevill?
Tried to call him back
-
No. June sustained 7 entry gsw's, 3 exit wounds and 1 non-penetrative gsw.
90. Dr Bradley, another Consultant Psychiatrist, was also called by the defence during the trial to give general evidence of the features of "altruistic" killings and to confirm that it was not unusual that a female murderer should not have a history of previous violence. He also gave evidence that where parents kill children there may be an element of "over-kill" or the infliction of excessive violence.
And from the Psychiatrist who had treated and knew Sheila intimately we have the very firm assertion that he did not recognise her capability of doing what Jeremy had tried to pin on her nor had she ever shown any signs of violence at any time.
88. When told on 8 August 1985 that Sheila Caffell had killed her parents and children and then herself, Dr Ferguson said this did not fit "his concept" of his patient. He did not feel she was someone who would actually be violent to her children or towards her father, although she was a highly disturbed woman and had expressed disturbed feelings towards her mother.
89. In cross-examination Dr Ferguson agreed that Mrs Caffell's condition was well known to her family. There had never been manifestations of violence either when her illness was being managed or when in a highly disturbed state in hospital. In the context of what was alleged to have occurred Dr Ferguson found it possible to conceive of Sheila Caffell wanting to harm her mother or herself but "difficult to conceptualise her harming her children or her father". He had always felt Sheila loved and cared for her children and saw her father as a very secure, caring and strong support in her life.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
Please refer to A in the following:
Thank you. But actually I found B-C-D-E-F-G-H informative and of far more interest for me would be where it continues over the page to I - J etc and onwards to the conclusion.
Do you have the link? Thank you.
-
And from the Psychiatrist who had treated and knew Sheila intimately we have the very firm assertion that he did not recognise her capability of doing what Jeremy had tried to pin on her nor had she ever shown any signs of violence at any time.
88. When told on 8 August 1985 that Sheila Caffell had killed her parents and children and then herself, Dr Ferguson said this did not fit "his concept" of his patient. He did not feel she was someone who would actually be violent to her children or towards her father, although she was a highly disturbed woman and had expressed disturbed feelings towards her mother.
89. In cross-examination Dr Ferguson agreed that Mrs Caffell's condition was well known to her family. There had never been manifestations of violence either when her illness was being managed or when in a highly disturbed state in hospital. In the context of what was alleged to have occurred Dr Ferguson found it possible to conceive of Sheila Caffell wanting to harm her mother or herself but "difficult to conceptualise her harming her children or her father". He had always felt Sheila loved and cared for her children and saw her father as a very secure, caring and strong support in her life.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
374. However, Mr Turner sought permission to call before us further psychiatric evidence, primarily from Dr Ferguson. In the statement tendered to this court in support of this application Dr Ferguson suggests that if he had been aware of the letter from Colin Caffell with the possible scenario that he might take over full time care of the children from Sheila coupled with the possibility that Nevill Bamber might have pleaded Colin Caffell's case, he would have suggested that this could have had a potentially catastrophic effect on Sheila Caffell. This would have been partly because she would have been resistant to the suggestion of having her children removed from her care and partly because it might have transformed her image of her father from a support and mentor into that of a hostile figure.
375. However, it is clear that Dr Ferguson had already dealt with a broadly similar scenario in his evidence in chief. The evidence runs:
"Q. Having regard to your knowledge of Sheila, do you follow, how would you have expected her to have reacted to a suggestion that the children should be removed from her care?
A. I would have expected her, were this to be put to her suddenly, to be a very substantial threat and I would have expected her to react very strongly to what to her would be the loss of her children. I would not have expected her to be passive about that. "
376. He went on to say he had no way of knowing what form a strong reaction would take, whether it would be to become more psychotic, or more helpless or angry. He took the view that it would however be a very strong threat. He was asked by the trial judge what her likely response would have been to the prospect of daytime foster parenting. The Doctor replied that he did not think that she would have interpreted that as losing her children, and indeed she acknowledged considerable help in that regard.
-
Thank you. But actually I found B-C-D-E-F-G-H informative and of far more interest for me would be where it continues over the page to I - J etc and onwards to the conclusion.
Do you have the link? Thank you.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11403.msg584132#msg584132
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11403.msg584132#msg584132
Thank you.
-
Tried to call him back
If the phone had been dangling he would have got straight through when he tried to call him back and would have heard noises within the house. I wonder why he did not mention this in his statement.
-
If the phone had been dangling he would have got straight through when he tried to call him back and would have heard noises within the house. I wonder why he did not mention this in his statement.
Because there was no call.
-
Because there was no call.
Well quite but I’m interested in hearing the excuse from the supporter.
-
I've told you how I think the killings were committed.
A shooting reconstruction should have taken place at the time so there's no expert evidence but I told you on another thread how I believe they were committed. I'll look up my old threads.
In a nutshell:
- NB makes the call to JB
- Whilst NB on call to JB, SC opens fire on June who was in bed with her head on the pillow. June sustains 6 gsw's
- NB hearing shots ring out, drops the phone and runs upstairs where he sustains 2 gsw's to his face on the landing.
- NB turns to retreat downstairs and when he's standing on the main staircase he sustains the 2 gsw's to his rear: shoulder and elbow/chest.
- NB makes it to the kitchen where he sustains the beating
- SC reloads and inflicts the 4 gsw's to the head
I arrived at the above based on the following:
- Layout of WHF
- Pathological evidence particularly wound tracks and trajectories.
- Casings
- Blood stains to carpets, kitchen floor and wallpaper in hall. Also lack of any trace of NB's blood in bedroom.
- Distance of shots
If you and/or others disagree perhaps you could give explain how you think SC or JB committed the killings.
Nevill Bamber according to your scenario was either already downstairs with Sheila, who “went crazy” and grabbed a gun but didn’t shoot Nevill at that point choosing instead to turn her back on him and go upstairs, leaving him downstairs where he had the opportunity of following her to prevent her going even crazier with a gun but instead decides to phone his son, only going upstairs minutes later when he hears shots OR
He was upstairs when Sheila came into the master bedroom, she didn’t fire any shots at that point and somehow Nevill managed to get past her to to go downstairs leaving her in the bedroom with his wife, so that he could phone his son and it was only when he heard shots being fired that he decided to return upstairs.
Neither of these scenarios works for me. Holly, how about you?
-
I have found Holly’s theory and it seems she has put her money on the first scenario I painted
“It seems clear to me that NB and SC were downstairs. NB phoned JB. Meanwhile SC goes upstairs and shoots June *5 or 6 times. NB races upstairs and as he approaches the bedroom door he is stood on the landing stairs putting SC in an elevated position at the bedroom door which accounts for the downward trajectories of NB's lip and jaw gsw's. NB then turns and is positioned on the main stairs facing down towards the hall when SC repositions herself either on the winder stairs or main stairs and fires down hitting the rear of NB's shoulder and elbow/chest which again accounts for the downward trajectories to the rear of his body.
Once NB and SC are in the kitchen poor NB is so badly injured he is unable to put up any sort of resistance and is beaten with the rifle and then sustains the four gsw's to the head.
June staggers around the bed clutching the bible but drops it pretty much where it was found. She manages to stagger back to the corner of the bed near the door where she sustains the two fatal gsw's to her head.
After the twins are shot SC enters the main bedroom via the box room and takes her own life. When she enters the main bedroom she inadvertently moves the bible with the door causing the mirror staining.
I think it was all over very quickly and more than likely before the police and JB arrived.”
So we have to accept that for reasons unknown both Nevill and Sheila found themselves downstairs at 3 in the morning, and that for reasons unknown and witnessed by Nevill Sheila picked up gun, attached magazine, did not turn it on Nevill at that point (would have been a good idea seeing as how he was her biggest threat) and instead turned her back on him (leaving him downstairs with the phone and other guns), went upstairs, Nevill picked up phone, Jeremy answered (was his phone next to his bed, if not how long before Nevill got through?) Nevill said the immortal words “Sheila’s gone crazy, she’s got a gun”, moments later heard gunshots but didn’t mention these to Jeremy, dropped phone and decided it was time to tackle Sheila. Meanwhile Jeremy hung up his phone, dialled Nevill back immediately but got an engaged tone despite the phone being off the hook, he rang a couple of times having a last number redial button on his phone which he says took 20 or 30 seconds, hung up again and was able to phone his girlfriend. 10 minutes later he gets through to the police.
No, I’m not buying that, it doesn’t sound plausible at all.
-
I have found Holly’s theory and it seems she has put her money on the first scenario I painted
“It seems clear to me that NB and SC were downstairs. NB phoned JB. Meanwhile SC goes upstairs and shoots June *5 or 6 times. NB races upstairs and as he approaches the bedroom door he is stood on the landing stairs putting SC in an elevated position at the bedroom door which accounts for the downward trajectories of NB's lip and jaw gsw's. NB then turns and is positioned on the main stairs facing down towards the hall when SC repositions herself either on the winder stairs or main stairs and fires down hitting the rear of NB's shoulder and elbow/chest which again accounts for the downward trajectories to the rear of his body.
Once NB and SC are in the kitchen poor NB is so badly injured he is unable to put up any sort of resistance and is beaten with the rifle and then sustains the four gsw's to the head.
June staggers around the bed clutching the bible but drops it pretty much where it was found. She manages to stagger back to the corner of the bed near the door where she sustains the two fatal gsw's to her head.
After the twins are shot SC enters the main bedroom via the box room and takes her own life. When she enters the main bedroom she inadvertently moves the bible with the door causing the mirror staining.
I think it was all over very quickly and more than likely before the police and JB arrived.”
So we have to accept that for reasons unknown both Nevill and Sheila found themselves downstairs at 3 in the morning, and that for reasons unknown and witnessed by Nevill Sheila picked up gun, attached magazine, did not turn it on Nevill at that point (would have been a good idea seeing as how he was her biggest threat) and instead turned her back on him (leaving him downstairs with the phone and other guns), went upstairs, Nevill picked up phone, Jeremy answered (was his phone next to his bed, if not how long before Nevill got through?) Nevill said the immortal words “Sheila’s gone crazy, she’s got a gun”, moments later heard gunshots but didn’t mention these to Jeremy, dropped phone and decided it was time to tackle Sheila. Meanwhile Jeremy hung up his phone, dialled Nevill back immediately but got an engaged tone despite the phone being off the hook, hung up again and was able to phone the police.
No, I’m not buying that, it doesn’t sound plausible at all.
Jeremy's phone was downstairs and no, it doesn't sound plausible because instead of calling Jeremy, he'd have stopped her picking it up in the first place, never mind stopped her from going upstairs with it.
-
I can't see anything about the physical evidence in the above: blood stains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.
That’s because I wasn't discussing them, Holly
I can do a new post on those — although they’ve all been documented for 35 years...😊
-
I don't know what NB's definition of "crazy" was in relation to SC's mental illness.
I will add to your thread tomorrow or Sat as I start switching off at this time of night.
Have your read Farhad Emani's wit stat who was SC's boyfriend? He witnessed SC when she became psychotic.
Yes, Holly
On just one occasion — when Sheila wasn’t on her medication — she did go psychotic. In fact, she was in a terrible state — crying, hysterical, talking incoherently — but she didn’t attempt to hurt anyone. She didn’t hurt the twins, Farhad, herself — nor threatened to.
Farhad called her doctor, and eventually she had a home visit and was given medication. But she wasn’t certified; she wasn’t in danger to herself or to others; and it quickly calmed down.
-
That’s because I wasn't discussing them, Holly
I can do a new post on those — although they’ve all been documented for 35 years...😊
No expert evidence exists as to exactly how JB supposedly committed these crimes based on the physical evidence.
People will say JB bust into the bedroom and shot NB and June. They overlook facts like the gsw's NB sustained to his face were inflicted when the barrel was within inches of his face and the trajectories were around 10 to 12 degrees below the horizontal. The gsw's NB sustained to his rear were fired when the barrel was about 2 feet away from the body. The rifle is 48" in length. The pathologist said the wound NB sustained to his shoulder was fired from above. NB was 6'4", JB 6'0" and SC 5'7". How did NB receive this gsw in the bedroom? Even if you put JB/SC on top of the wardrobe I doubt you could get the downward trajectory that correlates with the wound track. You certainly wouldn't get it by them standing on the bed or chair.
-
Yes, Holly
On just one occasion — when Sheila wasn’t on her medication — she did go psychotic. In fact, she was in a terrible state — crying, hysterical, talking incoherently — but she didn’t attempt to hurt anyone. She didn’t hurt the twins, Farhad, herself — nor threatened to.
Farhad called her doctor, and eventually she had a home visit and was given medication. But she wasn’t certified; she wasn’t in danger to herself or to others; and it quickly calmed down.
I don't recall Freddy saying SC was crying. You are correct she didn't harm anyone but he did fear for his safety and that of others. SC would not allow the doctors near her:
-
And last page
-
I don't recall Freddy saying SC was crying. You are correct she didn't harm anyone but he did fear for his safety and that of others. SC would not allow the doctors near her:
Very much doubt he was being honest here but by suggesting he feared for his safety makes it appear he’s the victim and it keeps attention away from what’s he’s done
Wasn’t he her supplier or a drugs dealer or something?
When did this event occur and when did he make his statement? Did he tell anyone he feared for his safety at the time?
And if he feared for his safety he presumably never saw her again afterwards?
-
Yes, Holly
On just one occasion — when Sheila wasn’t on her medication — she did go psychotic. In fact, she was in a terrible state — crying, hysterical, talking incoherently — but she didn’t attempt to hurt anyone. She didn’t hurt the twins, Farhad, herself — nor threatened to.
Farhad called her doctor, and eventually she had a home visit and was given medication. But she wasn’t certified; she wasn’t in danger to herself or to others; and it quickly calmed down.
What did his previous partners say about him and what have they said since?
Is he a reliable witness Holly?
-
No expert evidence exists as to exactly how JB supposedly committed these crimes based on the physical evidence.
People will say JB bust into the bedroom and shot NB and June. They overlook facts like the gsw's NB sustained to his face were inflicted when the barrel was within inches of his face and the trajectories were around 10 to 12 degrees below the horizontal. The gsw's NB sustained to his rear were fired when the barrel was about 2 feet away from the body. The rifle is 48" in length. The pathologist said the wound NB sustained to his shoulder was fired from above. NB was 6'4", JB 6'0" and SC 5'7". How did NB receive this gsw in the bedroom? Even if you put JB/SC on top of the wardrobe I doubt you could get the downward trajectory that correlates with the wound track. You certainly wouldn't get it by them standing on the bed or chair.
You have Sheila shooting him on the stairs, why not Jeremy?
-
So we have to accept that for reasons unknown both Nevill and Sheila found themselves downstairs at 3 in the morning, and that for reasons unknown and witnessed by Nevill Sheila picked up gun, attached magazine, did not turn it on Nevill at that point (would have been a good idea seeing as how he was her biggest threat) and instead turned her back on him (leaving him downstairs with the phone and other guns), went upstairs, Nevill picked up phone, Jeremy answered (was his phone next to his bed, if not how long before Nevill got through?) Nevill said the immortal words “Sheila’s gone crazy, she’s got a gun”, moments later heard gunshots but didn’t mention these to Jeremy, dropped phone and decided it was time to tackle Sheila. Meanwhile Jeremy hung up his phone, dialled Nevill back immediately but got an engaged tone despite the phone being off the hook, he rang a couple of times having a last number redial button on his phone which he says took 20 or 30 seconds, hung up again and was able to phone his girlfriend. 10 minutes later he gets through to the police.
No, I’m not buying that, it doesn’t sound plausible at all.
It doesn’t
-
Sheila was presumably mad with rage and this is what prompts her to pick up the gun and put in the magazine, an action she must have committed deftly or Nevill would surely have stopped her, and then proceeds upstairs. How long would it have taken her to leave Nevill and go upstairs, in seconds?
-
You have Sheila shooting him on the stairs, why not Jeremy?
The physical evidence positions NB on the landing stairs which immediately precede the entrance to the main bedroom when he stained the two face wounds. The physical evidence positions the perp just inside the main main bedroom firing out onto the landing.
If JB why was NB coming up the landing stairs and JB already in the main bedroom?
As per the physical evidence June was shot with her head on the pillow. If she hadn't been shot before NB sustained the face wounds what was she doing? And if 6 cartridges hadn't been inflicted on June before NB sustained the facial wounds why didn't JB continue firing shots at NB before he arrived in the kitchen?
What was SC doing when all this was going on?
-
The physical evidence positions NB on the landing stairs which immediately precede the entrance to the main bedroom when he stained the two face wounds. The physical evidence positions the perp just inside the main main bedroom firing out onto the landing.
If JB why was NB coming up the landing stairs and JB already in the main bedroom?
As per the physical evidence June was shot with her head on the pillow. If she hadn't been shot before NB sustained the face wounds what was she doing? And if 6 cartridges hadn't been inflicted on June before NB sustained the facial wounds why didn't JB continue firing shots at NB before he arrived in the kitchen?
What was SC doing when all this was going on?
Holly, Myster has had to point out to you a fractured skull means broken bones
There’s no point keep giving your lay persons views if you appear to fail to grasp the basics
You’re not revising your prior
-
The physical evidence positions NB on the landing stairs which immediately precede the entrance to the main bedroom when he stained the two face wounds. The physical evidence positions the perp just inside the main main bedroom firing out onto the landing.
If JB why was NB coming up the landing stairs and JB already in the main bedroom?
As per the physical evidence June was shot with her head on the pillow. If she hadn't been shot before NB sustained the face wounds what was she doing? And if 6 cartridges hadn't been inflicted on June before NB sustained the facial wounds why didn't JB continue firing shots at NB before he arrived in the kitchen?
What was SC doing when all this was going on?
Who said Nevill was coming up the stairs? He could have been on the stairs trying to escape and turned to plead with Jeremy to stop, or because he heard Sheila and turned, or any other possible reason. Why couldn’t June have been shot first? How many bullets were in the gun when it was taken upstairs?
-
Who said Nevill was coming up the stairs? He could have been on the stairs trying to escape and turned to plead with Jeremy to stop, or because he heard Sheila and turned, or any other possible reason. Why couldn’t June have been shot first? How many bullets were in the gun when it was taken upstairs?
Those are questions that can't be answered and the main question about who. was holding the rifle at the time would still be in question after a reconstruction.
-
Thank you, Myster.
So seven penetrating wounds and a bruise caused by a ricochet.
The police officers said that “Jeremy made June and Nevill suffer” prior to finishing them off.
I don’t know if that was his intention — I suspect not — he wanted to shoot them dead immediately, I’d have thought. But he obviously was furious they weren’t fatally shot, and the anger & fear inside him gave him a mad adrenaline surge — which is why he punched June in the face so very, very hard, and beat Nevill to a pulp in the kitchen. He’d gone deranged with fury that his “perfect plan” wasn’t going as he’d thought.
-
The police officers said that “Jeremy made June and Nevill suffer” prior to finishing them off.
I don’t know if that was his intention — I suspect not — he wanted to shoot them dead immediately, id have thought. But he obviously was furious they went fatally shot, and the and anger & fear inside him gave him a mad dive adrenaline surge — which is why he punched June in the face so very, very hard, and beat Nevill to a pulp in the kitchen. He’d gone deranged with fury that his “perfect plan” wasn’t going as he’d thought.
I think your summation is probably very close to the truth. In my opinion he obviously didn't expect anyone to survive the initial head shots and the fact they did must have upset him greatly. From his point of view just something else which they did to thwart and annoy him.
-
The police officers said that “Jeremy made June and Nevill suffer” prior to finishing them off.
I don’t know if that was his intention — I suspect not — he wanted to shoot them dead immediately, id have thought. But he obviously was furious they went fatally shot, and the and anger & fear inside him gave him a mad dive adrenaline surge — which is why he punched June in the face so very, very hard, and beat Nevill to a pulp in the kitchen. He’d gone deranged with fury that his “perfect plan” wasn’t going as he’d thought.
The pathologist made clear the injuries to June's eyes were caused solely by the gunshots.
The pathologist makes no mention of beating NB to a pulp. He does however state he saw nothing that a woman of SC's build was incapable of inflicting.
Source: report May 86 and trial testimony.
-
The pathologist made clear the injuries to June's eyes were caused solely by the gunshots.
The pathologist makes no mention of beating NB to a pulp. He does however state he saw nothing that a woman of SC's build was incapable of inflicting.
Source: report May 86 and trial testimony.
The pathologist also said June had sustained a heavy blow to her eye, typical of that caused by a fist.
You’re so pedantic, Holly...you know full well the pathologist listed all the appalling violent injuries Nevill received in the kitchen. Stop trying to downplay his injuries — everyone can see what you’re trying to do.
You also deliberately fail to mention what the pathologist, Vanezis said AFTER having seen the crime scene; the rifle; the silencer; where Sheila was found dead; how she was laying...everything...and he said that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Sheila to have murdered everyone and then committed suicide, by shooting herself TWICE
I have the link and I will DEFINITELY post that up, though you’ve obviously seen it...haven’t you, eh?
-
The pathologist made clear the injuries to June's eyes were caused solely by the gunshots.
The pathologist makes no mention of beating NB to a pulp. He does however state he saw nothing that a woman of SC's build was incapable of inflicting.
Source: report May 86 and trial testimony.
And therefore it follows that he saw nothing that a man of JB’s build was incapable of inflicting either.
-
The pathologist made clear the injuries to June's eyes were caused solely by the gunshots.
The pathologist makes no mention of beating NB to a pulp. He does however state he saw nothing that a woman of SC's build was incapable of inflicting.
Source: report May 86 and trial testimony.
Holly, that's just pedantic. The pathologist may NOT have made "mention of beating Nevill to a pulp" but it doesn't require huge imagination to see that a beating causing brain exposure, is exactly that.
-
Holly, that's just pedantic. The pathologist may NOT have made "mention of beating Nevill to a pulp" but it doesn't require huge imagination to see that a beating causing brain exposure, is exactly that.
I'm not interested in imagination or melo-drama. I'm interested in facts. And I know for a fact there's nothing in the pathological evidence alone that points to JB or SC. If there was I doubt I would be here now.
-
I'm not interested in imagination or melo-drama. I'm interested in facts. And I know for a fact there's nothing in the pathological evidence alone that points to JB or SC. If there was I doubt I would be here now.
The pathologist, and the guy who "only had experience of using an air-rifle when he was a boy" beg to differ.
From CAL...
"Sheila’s turquoise nightdress was also tested for firearm residue and oil. None was detected, although the 1986 internal review stated that ‘the significance of this would depend on the position of the gun in relation to her body and the nightdress at the time it was fired.’ But Fletcher remains confident that wax discharged from the fired bullets would have resulted in ‘some of that material ending up on the shooter. I tested the surface of Sheila’s nightdress and I got no indication, either visual or chemical, of lead or wax material. I would have expected to find it, especially with the number of shots that were fired. I tested it thoroughly and there was no evidence of the spots of waxy material that showed up on the test fires.’ The blood on the nightdress was Sheila’s own; both Fletcher and Vanezis agree that had she been the killer, blood from the other victims would have been detected on the garment."
-
I'm not interested in imagination or melo-drama. I'm interested in facts. And I know for a fact there's nothing in the pathological evidence alone that points to JB or SC. If there was I doubt I would be here now.
So a beating which exposed Nevill's brain is nothing more than imagination or melodrama?
-
So a beating which exposed Nevill's brain is nothing more than imagination or melodrama?
According to Holly, she sees it as Nevill being “roughed up” a bit...
-
No expert evidence exists as to exactly how JB supposedly committed these crimes based on the physical evidence.
People will say JB bust into the bedroom and shot NB and June. They overlook facts like the gsw's NB sustained to his face were inflicted when the barrel was within inches of his face and the trajectories were around 10 to 12 degrees below the horizontal. The gsw's NB sustained to his rear were fired when the barrel was about 2 feet away from the body. The rifle is 48" in length. The pathologist said the wound NB sustained to his shoulder was fired from above. NB was 6'4", JB 6'0" and SC 5'7". How did NB receive this gsw in the bedroom? Even if you put JB/SC on top of the wardrobe I doubt you could get the downward trajectory that correlates with the wound track. You certainly wouldn't get it by them standing on the bed or chair.
Nevill wasn’t shot in the bedroom — he was shot on the landing. Whatever are you talking about? You’ve even admitted yourself that Nevill wasn’t shot in the bedroom: not one spot of his blood was found there, and all the casings where he was shot upstairs were found on the landing and stairs.
It’s blatantly obvious, as I explained in my previous post, that after Jeremy crept in and aimed bullets to his parents’ sleeping heads — in which it was dark too — he only managed to hit June’s head. Nevill would have then jumped up immediately and Jeremy needed to back away from the door onto the landing, otherwise he’d not have been able to shoot Nevill — as you say, the rifle was 4ft in length, without the silencer, bringing it to possibly 5ft. Jeremy needed distance to shoot Nevill, hence why he stood back on the landing and as Nevill rushed out the bedroom door that’s when Jeremy shot him him twice in the face.
Nevill tried to get downstairs to call 999 or/and arm himself, and Jeremy then shot Nevill in his arm/shoulder — and Jeremy would have been above Nevill as he did so.
The reason Jeremy poleaxed Nevill in the kitchen with the rifle, was that he’d run out of bullets.
I don’t see what you can’t comprehend about that?
I also suspect that after Jeremy beat Nevill to a pulp and rendered him unconscious, he deliberately wedged his floppy body on that upturned chair, folded him over and shoved his face in the coal scuttle out of sadistic fury, and then after reloading shot the final bullets into his head whilst he was in that grotesque position.
-
Nevill wasn’t shot in the bedroom — he was shot on the landing. Whatever are you talking about? You’ve even admitted yourself that Nevill wasn’t shot in the bedroom: not one spot of his blood was found there, and all the casings where he was shot upstairs were found on the landing and stairs.
It’s blatantly obvious, as I explained in my previous post, that after Jeremy crept in and aimed bullets to his parents’ sleeping heads — in which it was dark too — he only managed to hit June’s head. Nevill would have then jumped up immediately and Jeremy needed to back away from the door onto the landing, otherwise he’d not have been able to shoot Nevill — as you say, the rifle was 4ft in length, without the silencer, bringing it to possibly 5ft. Jeremy needed distance to shoot Nevill, hence why he stood back on the landing and as Nevill rushed out the bedroom door that’s when Jeremy shot him him twice in the face.
Nevill tried to get downstairs to call 999 or/and arm himself, and Jeremy then shot Nevill in his arm/shoulder — and Jeremy would have been above Nevill as he did so.
The reason Jeremy poleaxed Nevill in the kitchen with the rifle, was that he’d run out of bullets.
I don’t see what you can’t comprehend about that?
I also suspect that after Jeremy beat Nevill to a pulp and rendered him unconscious, he deliberately wedged his floppy body on that upturned chair, folded him over and shoved his face in the coal scuttle out of sadistic fury, and then after reloading shot the final bullets into his head whilst he was in that grotesque position.
No casings were found on the landing and just one on the stairs.
-
No casings were found on the landing and just one on the stairs.
So what?
-
No casings were found on the landing and just one on the stairs.
I suggest you re-read the OFFICIAL reports, instead of that rubbish his campaign team make up or distort
-
So what?
G-Unit won’t have it, despite all the forensics....
Nevill wasn’t shot in the bedroom
It’s pointless trying to educate her as she refuses to believe the facts
-
Due to the current activity levels on the board we need to maintain the following rule set out on the homepage:
* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
Going forward I will be removing all posts that are off topic.
Thanks.
-
Due to the current activity levels on the board we need to maintain the following rule set out on the homepage:
* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
Going forward I will be removing all posts that are off topic.
Thanks.
No one was off topic here. By posting this message on every thread you have actually made it harder to follow which conversations are live, perhaps that was the intention?
-
No one was off topic here. By posting this message on every thread you have actually made it harder to follow which conversations are live, perhaps that was the intention?
She’s sabotaging the posts that proves Jeremy Bamber’s guilt
-
She’s sabotaging the posts that proves Jeremy Bamber’s guilt
More conspiracy theories.
What, can't you read past one post to the next?
-
Nevill wasn’t shot in the bedroom — he was shot on the landing. Whatever are you talking about? You’ve even admitted yourself that Nevill wasn’t shot in the bedroom: not one spot of his blood was found there, and all the casings where he was shot upstairs were found on the landing and stairs.
It’s blatantly obvious, as I explained in my previous post, that after Jeremy crept in and aimed bullets to his parents’ sleeping heads — in which it was dark too — he only managed to hit June’s head. Nevill would have then jumped up immediately and Jeremy needed to back away from the door onto the landing, otherwise he’d not have been able to shoot Nevill — as you say, the rifle was 4ft in length, without the silencer, bringing it to possibly 5ft. Jeremy needed distance to shoot Nevill, hence why he stood back on the landing and as Nevill rushed out the bedroom door that’s when Jeremy shot him him twice in the face.
Nevill tried to get downstairs to call 999 or/and arm himself, and Jeremy then shot Nevill in his arm/shoulder — and Jeremy would have been above Nevill as he did so.
The reason Jeremy poleaxed Nevill in the kitchen with the rifle, was that he’d run out of bullets.
I don’t see what you can’t comprehend about that?
I also suspect that after Jeremy beat Nevill to a pulp and rendered him unconscious, he deliberately wedged his floppy body on that upturned chair, folded him over and shoved his face in the coal scuttle out of sadistic fury, and then after reloading shot the final bullets into his head whilst he was in that grotesque position.
So you're saying that Nevill was in bed when his wife was shot, and he then went downstairs and left her?
-
So you're saying that Nevill was in bed when his wife was shot, and he then went downstairs and left her?
If you read my post you’d know I never said that at all!
I said Nevill jumped up to try and disarm Jeremy but the coward had ran backwards into the landing giving himself enough space to shoot Nevill.
Nevill didn’t leave June for goodness sake! Jeremy shot her dead at the door ...Nevill had to endure the horror of witnessing that!
That evil cowardly lump is a monster.
-
If you read my post you’d know I never said that at all!
I said Nevill jumped up to try and disarm Jeremy but the coward had ran backwards into the landing giving himself enough space to shoot Nevill.
Nevill didn’t leave June for goodness sake! Jeremy shot her dead at the door ...Nevill had to endure the horror of witnessing that!
That evil cowardly lump is a monster.
There weren't four empty cartridge cases on the landing or stairs, so where did they go? June couldn't have been dead at that point because she got up and walked around the bed and back again. When did she do that?
-
She’s sabotaging the posts that proves Jeremy Bamber’s guilt
Nonsense !
-
There weren't four empty cartridge cases on the landing or stairs, so where did they go? June couldn't have been dead at that point because she got up and walked around the bed and back again. When did she do that?
I suggest you read Appendix 1 of CAL’s book which explains it all very clearly in my view.
-
So you're saying that Nevill was in bed when his wife was shot, and he then went downstairs and left her?
After being shot himself, Nevill went in pursuit of Jeremy who had by then gone downstairs to reload.
-
After being shot himself, Nevill went in pursuit of Jeremy who had by then gone downstairs to reload.
I couldn't get my head around that; why not shove a load of rounds in his pockets prior to the killing spree?
(This is The General asking this time)
-
I couldn't get my head around that; why not shove a load of rounds in his pockets prior to the killing spree?
(This is The General asking this time)
guess wetsuits don’t have pockets.
-
If you read my post you’d know I never said that at all!
I said Nevill jumped up to try and disarm Jeremy but the coward had ran backwards into the landing giving himself enough space to shoot Nevill.
Nevill didn’t leave June for goodness sake! Jeremy shot her dead at the door ...Nevill had to endure the horror of witnessing that!
That evil cowardly lump is a monster.
So Jeremy fired at Nevill (inside the bedroom) from the landing? How did the cartridge cases end up in the bedroom then?
-
So Jeremy fired at Nevill (inside the bedroom) from the landing? How did the cartridge cases end up in the bedroom then?
In fairness the cases eject out right with some velocity. They could ricochet quite a distance.
Were both SC and JB right handed?
-
In fairness the cases eject out right with some velocity. They could ricochet quite a distance.
Were both SC and JB right handed?
Nevertheless if Jeremy was on the landing the cases wouldn't go into the bedroom, they would go onto the stairs.
-
There seems to be a view amongst some supporters that Nevill phoned Jeremy before he was shot, and said “Sheila’s going crazy, she’s got a gun”. In order for him to know she had a gun he would either have had to see her with one or have heard the shots. If he saw her with the gun first, then he must have encountered her downstairs before the shooting had begun, so why did he stay downstairs and not rush up the stairs as soon as he heard the first shot being fired? In fact why did he wait downstairs until all the shooting had finished upstairs, whilst still on the phone waiting for Sheila to come back downstairs and cut the phone off? Ah, but hang on, Nevill did go upstairs and get shot, which must have happened after the phone call that Sheila cut him off during because he wouldn’t have been able to speak after being shot, well why didn’t she shoot him downstairs then, why did she allow him to follow her up the stairs? No, I can’t make any of this make any sense. Help!
Just a reminder about what this thread is about, which I apparently started (though I don’t know why I’vd given it the title it has been given - was it changed?).
-
If Nevill was downstairs when he saw Sheila going crazy and taking a gun upstairs, why was his first action to phone his son, and not follow her up the stairs?
-
Just a reminder about what this thread is about, which I apparently started (though I don’t know why I’vd given it the title it has been given - was it changed?).
Was this the thread you set up 'How did Sheila commit the killings?' I spent ages looking for it yesterday 8(8-))
-
guess wetsuits don’t have pockets.
A bandolier was found hanging up on the unused staircase leading out the kitchen.
-
Was this the thread you set up 'How did Sheila commit the killings?' I spent ages looking for it yesterday 8(8-))
Probably. It certainly wasn’t me who renamed it though.
-
If Nevill was downstairs when he saw Sheila going crazy and taking a gun upstairs, why was his first action to phone his son, and not follow her up the stairs?
Re one of your earlier posts, there's no evidence SC cut the phone off? A GPO operator was able to listen in on the line which I don't believe would be possible had a call been made and then cut off senders end? Regardless there's no evidence SC cut the phone off. It's not something I believe happened.
The small calibre rifle with subsonic ammo sans silencer has a quiet muzzle blast. Tne bedroom was some distance from the kitchen and obviously you're looking at a solidly built farmhouse not a Wimpy 2 bed new build. It could be that NB didn't hear the first shots to June.
The rifle will sound totally different inside a property with soft furnishings and furniture than it will sound when fired outside.
-
I couldn't get my head around that; why not shove a load of rounds in his pockets prior to the killing spree?
(This is The General asking this time)
Perhaps he didn't anticipate how many rounds he would require.
-
Perhaps he didn't anticipate how many rounds he would require.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11191.msg570652#msg570652
-
Re one of your earlier posts, there's no evidence SC cut the phone off? A GPO operator was able to listen in on the line which I don't believe would be possible had a call been made and then cut off senders end? Regardless there's no evidence SC cut the phone off. It's not something I believe happened.
The small calibre rifle with subsonic ammo sans silencer has a quiet muzzle blast. Tne bedroom was some distance from the kitchen and obviously you're looking at a solidly built farmhouse not a Wimpy 2 bed new build. It could be that NB didn't hear the first shots to June.
The rifle will sound totally different inside a property with soft furnishings and furniture than it will sound when fired outside.
If the phone didn’t cut off how come Bamber claimed he got an engaged signal when he phoned back and how was Bamber able to phone JM (or was it the police?) if the line to WHF was still connected to his phone?
Furthermore if Nevill didn’t see Sheila go upstairs with a gun how would he know a) that it was Sheila firing it and b) that she had “gone crazy”?
-
In fairness the cases eject out right with some velocity. They could ricochet quite a distance.
Were both SC and JB right handed?
Yes.
-
Re one of your earlier posts, there's no evidence SC cut the phone off? A GPO operator was able to listen in on the line which I don't believe would be possible had a call been made and then cut off senders end? Regardless there's no evidence SC cut the phone off. It's not something I believe happened.
The small calibre rifle with subsonic ammo sans silencer has a quiet muzzle blast. Tne bedroom was some distance from the kitchen and obviously you're looking at a solidly built farmhouse not a Wimpy 2 bed new build. It could be that NB didn't hear the first shots to June.
The rifle will sound totally different inside a property with soft furnishings and furniture than it will sound when fired outside.
The operator could cut into the line even if it had been disconnected by cutting off the call.
-
The operator could cut into the line even if it had been disconnected by cutting off the call.
Not sure how people can refute EVIDENCE *%87
THE PHOTOGRAPH shows the handle off the cradle — Jeremy had taken it off the hook to try and make it look like Nevill had been attacked whilst on the phone to him
But Nevill never phoned Jeremy, the jury realised that, and had Sheila crept up behind Nevill why would she press the phone down? Jeremy told police Nevill was talking, saying “Sheila’s gone berserk. She’s got the gun” and he then said the line went dead like someone had cut it off...
What rubbish lies that vile man comes out with
And as if Nevill would have had his back to the door when a supposedly “crazy person with a gun” was going berserk!
Jeremy dialled his home number after killing everyone, waited for his answerphone to pick it up, immediately cut the call off and left the phone off the hook.
-
If the phone didn’t cut off how come Bamber claimed he got an engaged signal when he phoned back and how was Bamber able to phone JM (or was it the police?) if the line to WHF was still connected to his phone?
Furthermore if Nevill didn’t see Sheila go upstairs with a gun how would he know a) that it was Sheila firing it and b) that she had “gone crazy”?
Bumping for Holly.
-
Bumping for Holly.
Still no answer from Holly (or General), VS?
There’s a surprise
-
Still no answer from Holly (or General), VS?
There’s a surprise
I had to start a new thread to get an answer.
-
Still no answer from Holly (or General), VS?
There’s a surprise
Are you inviting The General to respond? Be careful what you wish for is my advice.
-
Are you inviting The General to respond? Be careful what you wish for is my advice.
Why? Is the General such a powerful force he will destroy ISpy with one withering put down?
-
Why? Is the General such a powerful force he will destroy ISpy with one withering put down?
Are you saying The General isn't masterful?
-
Are you saying The General isn't masterful?
Did I say he wasn’t? I’m sure he’s positively Heathcliffian in his musky, masculine masterfulness but let us not get too giddy about it, eh?
-
Just Holly's type, oozing rugged masculinity ...https://youtu.be/XmuMd4FnnYo?t=51 (https://youtu.be/XmuMd4FnnYo?t=51)
-
Just Holly's type, oozing rugged masculinity ...https://youtu.be/XmuMd4FnnYo?t=51 (https://youtu.be/XmuMd4FnnYo?t=51)
Frightfully!
-
Why? Is the General such a powerful force he will destroy ISpy with one withering put down?
His response would certainly bear no resemblance to Holly's, as you well know.
-
Just Holly's type, oozing rugged masculinity ...https://youtu.be/XmuMd4FnnYo?t=51 (https://youtu.be/XmuMd4FnnYo?t=51)
Ooops!! Myster, I had to read that twice. I wasn't sure what you were saying!!!!!
-
Why? Is the General such a powerful force he will destroy ISpy with one withering put down?
(&^&
-
Are you inviting The General to respond? Be careful what you wish for is my advice.
My advice to you, G-Unit, is to pipe down
You’re making yourself a laughing stock — though I doubt your friend would find you a joke if you had the guts to tell her you back-heeled her little dog in its nose. Still smirking about that, are you?
-
His response would certainly bear no resemblance to Holly's, as you well know.
I know that but why the implicit threat in your post "be careful what you wish for"?
-
I know that but why the implicit threat in your post "be careful what you wish for"?
Yes, I wondered that - I thought G was against goading.
-
The more I think about it, the less plausible Holly's scenario becomes.
Without exception, every Bamber supporter is always forced to take the least likely explanation.
However, if Bamber didn't do it, there must be a plausible way that SC did.. so here is my jackanory version.. I'm afraid I have left a few holes.
Sheila has gone to bed around 10-11 ( I think ) - but she gets up in the night, goes downstairs and starts crashing around or talking to herself waking NB who either gets out of bed and goes downstairs or is already there because he fell asleep in his chair.
Let's say she already has the gun and put the cartridge in before NB wakes up. She doesn't find and put the moderator on.( it's definitely a frame) He confronts her and she is holding the gun under her chin. She isn't making any sense and he can't get through to her. She isn't making too much noise and waking up June who is still in bed so it's a muffled kind of "going crazy" - not the shouty hysterical kind of crazy she had been prone to. He can't get too close because he is afraid she will pull the trigger and she backs away and barricades herself in the lounge or something.
"Hmm" thinks Nevill, "I need some help here, I can't wake June cos she needs her beauty sleep..if only there was some kind of emergency service to contact in this situation... there's only one hero that can save the day, Sheila is always happy when she sees Jem!" He picks up the phone. He has just enough time to blurt out the immortal words when he realises that Sheila is already halfway up the stairs so he cuts the call, thoughtfully leaving the line clear for super Jem to be able to ring Julie but leaves the handset on the worktop and races upstairs to tell Sheila the good news that her favourite brother is coming round. He doesn't make it to the bedroom before he gets shot a couple of times and turns around and gets shot twice more as he races back down to the phone to ring Jeremy back and tell him to bring some elastoplasts, but he isn't fast enough and he is too injured to put up much of a fight.
After battering the father she loves and always turned to when she was having an episode, while skillfully avoiding the broken glass and sugar on the floor, she calmly reloads, finishes him off and then goes upstairs to finish off June and the kids she adores. Then she goes back downstairs to reload again,decides to lift NB onto the coal scuttle, smokes a cigar and burns NBs back with it before wandering back upstairs,where she fires a few more rounds just to make sure they are all dead and after having a good wash and touching up her nail polish, shoots herself with the last two bullets.
Meanwhile, in Goldhanger, Jeremy phones Julie for a quick chat, forgetting to mention that his father had called, it wasn't a big deal, His father was always phoning in the small hours saying Sheila had gone crazy with a gun.. he didn't sound terrified or anything..
My point is, you can just about make a plausible scenario where SC has a gun and NB is downstairs but it starts to fall down at the point NB is supposed to phone JB because in order for that to be remotely plausible, Sheila cannot have fired any shots at anyone and neither can she have threatened to shoot anyone else. NB would have had to have some reason to think it safe to turn his back on her. I also question Holly's version that he drops the phone upon hearing shots upstairs because it changes the situation in which he made the call after he has said the first 7 words. Why not "Sheila's gone crazy, she's got the gun..(bang)...........Help, she's upstairs call the police"
-
The more I think about it, the less plausible Holly's scenario becomes.
Without exception, every Bamber supporter is always forced to take the least likely explanation.
However, if Bamber didn't do it, there must be a plausible way that SC did.. so here is my jackanory version.. I'm afraid I have left a few holes.
Sheila has gone to bed around 10-11 ( I think ) - but she gets up in the night, goes downstairs and starts crashing around or talking to herself waking NB who either gets out of bed and goes downstairs or is already there because he fell asleep in his chair.
Let's say she already has the gun and put the cartridge in before NB wakes up. She doesn't find and put the moderator on.( it's definitely a frame) He confronts her and she is holding the gun under her chin. She isn't making any sense and he can't get through to her. She isn't making too much noise and waking up June who is still in bed so it's a muffled kind of "going crazy" - not the shouty hysterical kind of crazy she had been prone to. He can't get too close because he is afraid she will pull the trigger and she backs away and barricades herself in the lounge or something.
"Hmm" thinks Nevill, "I need some help here, I can't wake June cos she needs her beauty sleep..if only there was some kind of emergency service to contact in this situation... there's only one hero that can save the day, Sheila is always happy when she sees Jem!" He picks up the phone. He has just enough time to blurt out the immortal words when he realises that Sheila is already halfway up the stairs so he cuts the call, thoughtfully leaving the line clear for super Jem to be able to ring Julie but leaves the handset on the worktop and races upstairs to tell Sheila the good news that her favourite brother is coming round. He doesn't make it to the bedroom before he gets shot a couple of times and turns around and gets shot twice more as he races back down to the phone to ring Jeremy back and tell him to bring some elastoplasts, but he isn't fast enough and he is too injured to put up much of a fight.
After battering the father she loves and always turned to when she was having an episode, while skillfully avoiding the broken glass and sugar on the floor, she calmly reloads, finishes him off and then goes upstairs to finish off June and the kids she adores. Then she goes back downstairs to reload again,decides to lift NB onto the coal scuttle, smokes a cigar and burns NBs back with it before wandering back upstairs,where she fires a few more rounds just to make sure they are all dead and after having a good wash and touching up her nail polish, shoots herself with the last two bullets.
Meanwhile, in Goldhanger, Jeremy phones Julie for a quick chat, forgetting to mention that his father had called, it wasn't a big deal, His father was always phoning in the small hours saying Sheila had gone crazy with a gun.. he didn't sound terrified or anything..
My point is, you can just about make a plausible scenario where SC has a gun and NB is downstairs but it starts to fall down at the point NB is supposed to phone JB because in order for that to be remotely plausible, Sheila cannot have fired any shots at anyone and neither can she have threatened to shoot anyone else. NB would have had to have some reason to think it safe to turn his back on her. I also question Holly's version that he drops the phone upon hearing shots upstairs because it changes the situation in which he made the call after he has said the first 7 words. Why not "Sheila's gone crazy, she's got the gun..(bang)...........Help, she's upstairs call the police"
I don't think there is anything that hangs right with Holly's scenario. In my opinion, it is so obvious that Bamber executed the assassinations, including Sheila's with her in mind as the scapegoat, that there is something vaguely obscene in attempting to perpetuate his narrative on his behalf.
I don't think Sheila would have or could have inflicted the beating on her father that he endured nor do I think she had the expertise to handle the rifle in the way it was.
-
Are you inviting The General to respond? Be careful what you wish for is my advice.
Are you speaking from experience, G-Unit?
Let me tell you now, I’m not intimidated by anyone — least of all General — and you’d do well to remember that.
I’ve noticed General hasn’t been around...maybe Holly has decided to give him the weekend off? @)(++(*
-
The more I think about it, the less plausible Holly's scenario becomes.
Without exception, every Bamber supporter is always forced to take the least likely explanation.
However, if Bamber didn't do it, there must be a plausible way that SC did.. so here is my jackanory version.. I'm afraid I have left a few holes.
Sheila has gone to bed around 10-11 ( I think ) - but she gets up in the night, goes downstairs and starts crashing around or talking to herself waking NB who either gets out of bed and goes downstairs or is already there because he fell asleep in his chair.
Let's say she already has the gun and put the cartridge in before NB wakes up. She doesn't find and put the moderator on.( it's definitely a frame) He confronts her and she is holding the gun under her chin. She isn't making any sense and he can't get through to her. She isn't making too much noise and waking up June who is still in bed so it's a muffled kind of "going crazy" - not the shouty hysterical kind of crazy she had been prone to. He can't get too close because he is afraid she will pull the trigger and she backs away and barricades herself in the lounge or something.
"Hmm" thinks Nevill, "I need some help here, I can't wake June cos she needs her beauty sleep..if only there was some kind of emergency service to contact in this situation... there's only one hero that can save the day, Sheila is always happy when she sees Jem!" He picks up the phone. He has just enough time to blurt out the immortal words when he realises that Sheila is already halfway up the stairs so he cuts the call, thoughtfully leaving the line clear for super Jem to be able to ring Julie but leaves the handset on the worktop and races upstairs to tell Sheila the good news that her favourite brother is coming round. He doesn't make it to the bedroom before he gets shot a couple of times and turns around and gets shot twice more as he races back down to the phone to ring Jeremy back and tell him to bring some elastoplasts, but he isn't fast enough and he is too injured to put up much of a fight.
After battering the father she loves and always turned to when she was having an episode, while skillfully avoiding the broken glass and sugar on the floor, she calmly reloads, finishes him off and then goes upstairs to finish off June and the kids she adores. Then she goes back downstairs to reload again,decides to lift NB onto the coal scuttle, smokes a cigar and burns NBs back with it before wandering back upstairs,where she fires a few more rounds just to make sure they are all dead and after having a good wash and touching up her nail polish, shoots herself with the last two bullets.
Meanwhile, in Goldhanger, Jeremy phones Julie for a quick chat, forgetting to mention that his father had called, it wasn't a big deal, His father was always phoning in the small hours saying Sheila had gone crazy with a gun.. he didn't sound terrified or anything..
My point is, you can just about make a plausible scenario where SC has a gun and NB is downstairs but it starts to fall down at the point NB is supposed to phone JB because in order for that to be remotely plausible, Sheila cannot have fired any shots at anyone and neither can she have threatened to shoot anyone else. NB would have had to have some reason to think it safe to turn his back on her. I also question Holly's version that he drops the phone upon hearing shots upstairs because it changes the situation in which he made the call after he has said the first 7 words. Why not "Sheila's gone crazy, she's got the gun..(bang)...........Help, she's upstairs call the police"
I’ve actually seen people on here come up with similar scenarios, and they’re being serious! @)(++(*
-
I don't think there is anything that hangs right with Holly's scenario. In my opinion, it is so obvious that Bamber executed the assassinations, including Sheila's with her in mind as the scapegoat, that there is something vaguely obscene in attempting to perpetuate his narrative on his behalf.
How is my reconstruction perpetuating JB's narrative when he doesn't even believe NB sustained any gsw's upstairs?
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us with your own reconstruction based on the physical evidence: blood stains and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.
And if the case/posts so upset your sensibilities pray tell why why you continue to participate?
I don't think Sheila would have or could have inflicted the beating on her father that he endured nor do I think she had the expertise to handle the rifle in the way it was.
You thinking something doesn't make it so. We have a significant amount of material here from 2 eminent pathologists: Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight both of whom thought SC capable of carrying out what took place.
-
I don't think there is anything that hangs right with Holly's scenario. In my opinion, it is so obvious that Bamber executed the assassinations, including Sheila's with her in mind as the scapegoat, that there is something vaguely obscene in attempting to perpetuate his narrative on his behalf.
I don't think Sheila would have or could have inflicted the beating on her father that he endured nor do I think she had the expertise to handle the rifle in the way it was.
The pathologist didn't rule out the possibility that Sheila Caffell overpowered her father. Her psychologist acknowledged that she was capable of harming her mother and her children. Those who suggested she had no interest in or expertise with the rifle were giving an opinion, they didn't actually know.
-
How is my reconstruction perpetuating JB's narrative when he doesn't even believe NB sustained any gsw's upstairs?
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us with your own reconstruction based on the physical evidence: blood stains and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.
And if the case/posts so upset your sensibilities pray tell why why you continue to participate?
You thinking something doesn't make it so. We have a significant amount of material here from 2 eminent pathologists: Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight both of whom thought SC capable of carrying out what took place.
Arrange a reconstruction of Sheila beating Nevill to a pulp, then.
Then her shooting herself — twice
-
The pathologist didn't rule out the possibility that Sheila Caffell overpowered her father. Her psychologist acknowledged that she was capable of harming her mother and her children. Those who suggested she had no interest in or expertise with the rifle were giving an opinion, they didn't actually know.
That’s a lie!
Show proof of where Sheila’s psychiatrist said that! Go on!
You’re lying, and that’s so, so low and desperate
He NEVER said that all — he said the very opposite!
You need to be careful; people watch these forums...if you don’t mind being sued for libel that’s your choice, but enough is enough! You need to learn to READ.
I’ve copied this, by the way...
-
The pathologist didn't rule out the possibility that Sheila Caffell overpowered her father. Her psychologist acknowledged that she was capable of harming her mother and her children. Those who suggested she had no interest in or expertise with the rifle were giving an opinion, they didn't actually know.
There is nothing wrong with an informed opinion, you seem to set great store by the psychologist and the pathologist, why not those who had actually known her for years?
-
The pathologist didn't rule out the possibility that Sheila Caffell overpowered her father. Her psychologist acknowledged that she was capable of harming her mother and her children. Those who suggested she had no interest in or expertise with the rifle were giving an opinion, they didn't actually know.
I think he included the rider of under certain circumstances in which certain criteria were met.
-
There is nothing wrong with an informed opinion, you seem to set great store by the psychologist and the pathologist, why not those who had actually known her for years?
That’s not an informed opinion, though, VS.
Dr Vanezis never said Sheila would harm her children — ever.
I’m forwarding her libellous comment on...
She’s gone too far now
-
That’s not an informed opinion, though, VS.
Dr Vanezis never said Sheila would harm her children — ever.
I’m forwarding her libellous comment on...
She’s gone too far now
You'll need to show where I said that about Dr Vanezis, which will be a problem for you because I didn't. 8(>((
-
The pathologist didn't rule out the possibility that Sheila Caffell overpowered her father. Her psychologist acknowledged that she was capable of harming her mother and her children. Those who suggested she had no interest in or expertise with the rifle were giving an opinion, they didn't actually know.
So who were you referring to here, G-Unit?
“Her psychologist “
You know full well, and once your IP is discovered you’ll understand how costly libellous comments against experts are....
-
There is nothing wrong with an informed opinion, you seem to set great store by the psychologist and the pathologist, why not those who had actually known her for years?
Knowing someone doesn't mean you know all about them.
-
So who were you referring to here, G-Unit?
“Her psychologist “
You know full well, and once your IP is discovered you’ll understand how costly libellous comments against experts are....
Was her psychologist Dr Vanezis oh clever one?
-
Was her psychologist Dr Vanezis oh clever one?
Sheila didn’t have a psychologist
-
You quoted him, you fool
Look, why don’t you stop replying to me
I don’t like your views, you don’t like mine — so let’s leave it at that, eh
It’s difficult to argue with an intelligent person, but to argue with an idiot is impossible...so I’ve given up on you, OK?
I've given up on you too in that I think you're taking most of us for fools regardless of our views on JB. Devils advocate springs to mind.
I don't mind admitting I find many of your posts amusing but as a moderator I have to balance this with what others rightly expect of the forum as set out in the rules:
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.
Members will receive warnings if their conduct is not conducive to the well being of this forum and bans will only be introduced as a last resort measure.
Happy posting!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.msg34336#msg34336
Times up my friend. Its your choice: if you wish to continue posting here please either follow the rules or anticipate sanctions.
-
Sheila didn’t have a psychologist
Whoops! You're absolutely right, I meant psychiatrist. (Dr Vanezis was/is a pathologist mind).
-
How is my reconstruction perpetuating JB's narrative when he doesn't even believe NB sustained any gsw's upstairs?
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us with your own reconstruction based on the physical evidence: blood stains and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.
And if the case/posts so upset your sensibilities pray tell why why you continue to participate?
You thinking something doesn't make it so. We have a significant amount of material here from 2 eminent pathologists: Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight both of whom thought SC capable of carrying out what took place.
Nota bene
It is not for you to question my participation ... or the participation of any other member in any conversation on any board on the forum particularly it seems when it does not fit with what I believe is your rather limited and narrow viewpoint.
I will continue to post within the rules as I see fit without your imprimatur. Thank you ... and thank God for 'sensibilities' which I find is something quite lacking on behalf of Bamber's victims in some posts.
In my opinion Nevill Bamber for example has been discussed ignoring the living human being he was until the moment the life was shot and battered out of him by his killer son; and I find it very difficult to reconcile anyone condoning that heinous crime in the face of all the evidence - not academic but factual - there is to the contrary.
-
The pathologist didn't rule out the possibility that Sheila Caffell overpowered her father. Her psychologist acknowledged that she was capable of harming her mother and her children. Those who suggested she had no interest in or expertise with the rifle were giving an opinion, they didn't actually know.
Yet another post trying to shift the blame from the patently guilty perpetrator to the patently innocent victim.
I don't know what savegary Sheila Caffell witnessed on the night she was slaughtered along with her parents and her two little boys ... but she must certainly have known something horrific beyond belief was going on.
It was all happening to her and to her family not in a nightmare but in real life. Unthinkable!!!
-
Nota bene
It is not for you to question my participation ... or the participation of any other member in any conversation on any board on the forum particularly it seems when it does not fit with what I believe is your rather limited and narrow viewpoint.
I will continue to post within the rules as I see fit without your imprimatur. Thank you ... and thank God for 'sensibilities' which I find is something quite lacking on behalf of Bamber's victims in some posts.
In my opinion Nevill Bamber for example has been discussed ignoring the living human being he was until the moment the life was shot and battered out of him by his killer son; and I find it very difficult to reconcile anyone condoning that heinous crime in the face of all the evidence - not academic but factual - there is to the contrary.
Any discussion of murder will of necessity involve discussing a previously 'living human being' will it not? You appear to believe that the evidence was irrefutable, but if it was no appeals would have been granted imo. Questioning the strength of the evidence doesn't equate to condoning a crime either.
-
Yet another post trying to shift the blame from the patently guilty perpetrator to the patently innocent victim.
I don't know what savegary Sheila Caffell witnessed on the night she was slaughtered along with her parents and her two little boys ... but she must certainly have known something horrific beyond belief was going on.
It was all happening to her and to her family not in a nightmare but in real life. Unthinkable!!!
I respect your right to believe that one person was guilty and one innocent beyond doubt. I reject your right to expect others to share your conviction.
-
Nota bene
It is not for you to question my participation ... or the participation of any other member in any conversation on any board on the forum particularly it seems when it does not fit with what I believe is your rather limited and narrow viewpoint.
I will continue to post within the rules as I see fit without your imprimatur. Thank you ... and thank God for 'sensibilities' which I find is something quite lacking on behalf of Bamber's victims in some posts.
In my opinion Nevill Bamber for example has been discussed ignoring the living human being he was until the moment the life was shot and battered out of him by his killer son; and I find it very difficult to reconcile anyone condoning that heinous crime in the face of all the evidence - not academic but factual - there is to the contrary.
I couldn’t agree more with what you’ve said, Brietta, and it’s refreshing to see there’s a healthy balance of people on here who remember that Nevilll Bamber was a kind, decent, caring, hardworking gentleman who cherished his family and only wanted the best for them.
None of us are perfect or infallible, but Nevill did what he believed was the very best in trying to steer Jeremy onto the right path — for his own good and wellbeing.
Jeremy repaid that love Nevill bestowed on him by cutting his life short in the most horrific and painful way possible. Not only did Nevill suffer the horror of seeing his beloved wife, June shot dead, he was beaten brutally and must have suffered excruciating pain.
I haven’t even started on June, Sheila, and the twins....but for those who mock our legal system and think we’d allow an evil mass murderer freedom he denied to five people (two who were little older than babies) are sorely mistaken.
-
Yet another post trying to shift the blame from the patently guilty perpetrator to the patently innocent victim.
I don't know what savegary Sheila Caffell witnessed on the night she was slaughtered along with her parents and her two little boys ... but she must certainly have known something horrific beyond belief was going on.
It was all happening to her and to her family not in a nightmare but in real life. Unthinkable!!!
If it is all so patently obvious as you seem to think perhaps you could explain how initially the police surgeon, all officers, bar 1, and the pathologist thought they were dealing with 4 murders and a suicide for over a month.
About a month after the murders a DCI new to the case was appointed to review all the evidence and concluded SC was responsible.
The case turned on two highly contentious issues: Julie Mugford's testimony and a silencer.
-
I've given up on you too in that I think you're taking most of us for fools regardless of our views on JB. Devils advocate springs to mind.
I don't mind admitting I find many of your posts amusing but as a moderator I have to balance this with what others rightly expect of the forum as set out in the rules:
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.
Members will receive warnings if their conduct is not conducive to the well being of this forum and bans will only be introduced as a last resort measure.
Happy posting!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.msg34336#msg34336
Times up my friend. Its your choice: if you wish to continue posting here please either follow the rules or anticipate sanctions.
Holly,
I most certainly don’t take most of you as fools; if that were the case I wouldn’t contribute.
There’s many people on here who give valid arguments, views, ideas, including factual evidence. But there’s also some who appear so enamoured by JB that they can’t bear to hear the truth about him.
You frequently reprimand me, but when someone has a pop at my views, you never say a word — that shows you’re biased. So how can this be an unbiased forum?
You may be surprised to learn that I don’t enjoy conflict, despite you calling me Devil’s Advocate. But you should realise as a moderator, that when members discuss such a heartbreaking event emotions run high — that’s normal, Im sure you’ll agree. I’ve frequently ignored little swipes I’ve had from certain members as they’re not worthy of a response, but you must see they goad, yet you don’t give them warnings or sanctions. That smacks of favouritism and is unfair and immature. Worse, you could well be missing valid points you’ve never even considered...
Also, your point about not speculating is bizarre to me: why are you and a few favoured others allowed to speculate, but not me? You make hypothesis all the time: suggesting this, that and the other — and it all stems from your imagination. One can’t post links to one’s imagination can they? Yes, you post links/screenshots to some official documents which most members have already seen, and that’s your choice as I don’t read them when I know what they are — and you're probably posting them for new members, so that’s good of you.
But to order me to post links/facts/screenshots when you yourself ignore requests to post the same when someone questions some of your hypothesis is hypocritical.
If I’m not goaded I won’t react will I? So I suggest you say much the same to them as you have me.
Have a good day!
-
Yet another post trying to shift the blame from the patently guilty perpetrator to the patently innocent victim.
I don't know what savegary Sheila Caffell witnessed on the night she was slaughtered along with her parents and her two little boys ... but she must certainly have known something horrific beyond belief was going on.
It was all happening to her and to her family not in a nightmare but in real life. Unthinkable!!!
Nobody apart from Jeremy Bamber knows , with absolute certainty, who is "patently guilty " and "patently innocent" in this case. Even he, perhaps, has come to believe something that isn't true!
-
Holly,
I most certainly don’t take most of you as fools; if that were the case I wouldn’t contribute.
There’s many people on here who give valid arguments, views, ideas, including factual evidence. But there’s also some who appear so enamoured by JB that they can’t bear to hear the truth about him.
You frequently reprimand me, but when someone has a pop at my views, you never say a word — that shows you’re biased. So how can this be an unbiased forum?
You may be surprised to learn that I don’t enjoy conflict, despite you calling me Devil’s Advocate. But you should realise as a moderator, that when members discuss such a heartbreaking event emotions run high — that’s normal, Im sure you’ll agree. I’ve frequently ignored little swipes I’ve had from certain members as they’re not worthy of a response, but you must see they goad, yet you don’t give them warnings or sanctions. That smacks of favouritism and is unfair and immature. Worse, you could well be missing valid points you’ve never even considered...
Also, your point about not speculating is bizarre to me: why are you and a few favoured others allowed to speculate, but not me? You make hypothesis all the time: suggesting this, that and the other — and it all stems from your imagination. One can’t post links to one’s imagination can they? Yes, you post links/screenshots to some official documents which most members have already seen, and that’s your choice as I don’t read them when I know what they are — and you're probably posting them for new members, so that’s good of you.
But to order me to post links/facts/screenshots when you yourself ignore requests to post the same when someone questions some of your hypothesis is hypocritical.
If I’m not goaded I won’t react will I? So I suggest you say much the same to them as you have me.
Have a good day!
Unlike other forums this forum has always been anti JB. Currently I'm the only regular poster who supports JB. AA also supports JB but posts irregularly. G-Unit and Mrswah are undecided. The rest are anti JB or at least post in this vein. In other words you are in the majority here and yet you only seem to hurl insults at the minority who disagree with you?
I haven't seen anyone insult you but if they have or do then please report it by using the 'Report to moderator' function and your report will be investigated.
With regard to cites, sources etc I've posted the forum rules above. Anyone can launch onto a forum and write lengthy posts making all sorts of claims but we're interested in quality over quantity and fact based posts. Eg you claim SC had her nails professionally manicured in MV but when asked for evidence your stock answer appears to be "I'll find it for you" but then nothing is forthcoming even after several requests.
With regard to my approach to moderating I think I apply a 'light touch' to the rules set out by John. John will know I rarely pm him about moderating and contrary to your opinion the only poster I've ever put forward for some sort of ban was a 'supporter'. I also prevented another 'supporter' from using emoticons and gifs to goad.
I accept everyone has their own style of posting and you're free to choose yours so long as you adhere to the high level rules set out on the homepage.
Maybe we could all come to some sort of agreement over when cites and sources are required? Everyone?
-
Holly,
I most certainly don’t take most of you as fools; if that were the case I wouldn’t contribute.
There’s many people on here who give valid arguments, views, ideas, including factual evidence. But there’s also some who appear so enamoured by JB that they can’t bear to hear the truth about him.
You frequently reprimand me, but when someone has a pop at my views, you never say a word — that shows you’re biased. So how can this be an unbiased forum?
You may be surprised to learn that I don’t enjoy conflict, despite you calling me Devil’s Advocate. But you should realise as a moderator, that when members discuss such a heartbreaking event emotions run high — that’s normal, Im sure you’ll agree. I’ve frequently ignored little swipes I’ve had from certain members as they’re not worthy of a response, but you must see they goad, yet you don’t give them warnings or sanctions. That smacks of favouritism and is unfair and immature. Worse, you could well be missing valid points you’ve never even considered...
Also, your point about not speculating is bizarre to me: why are you and a few favoured others allowed to speculate, but not me? You make hypothesis all the time: suggesting this, that and the other — and it all stems from your imagination. One can’t post links to one’s imagination can they? Yes, you post links/screenshots to some official documents which most members have already seen, and that’s your choice as I don’t read them when I know what they are — and you're probably posting them for new members, so that’s good of you.
But to order me to post links/facts/screenshots when you yourself ignore requests to post the same when someone questions some of your hypothesis is hypocritical.
If I’m not goaded I won’t react will I? So I suggest you say much the same to them as you have me.
Have a good day!
If something is claimed to be a fact then it's possible to provide a link to the source of that fact. If something is an opinion or speculation it's possible to make that clear by posting 'in my opinion' or 'I think'.
It's not rocket science and it ensures that forum rules are adhered to.
-
If it is all so patently obvious as you seem to think perhaps you could explain how initially the police surgeon, all officers, bar 1, and the pathologist thought they were dealing with 4 murders and a suicide for over a month.
About a month after the murders a DCI new to the case was appointed to review all the evidence and concluded SC was responsible.
The case turned on two highly contentious issues: Julie Mugford's testimony and a silencer.
You precis your opinion in your post as you interpret it but having had the benefit of reading the events for myself please note that I have reached a totally different interpretation of events which takes me not a million miles away from the conclusion of Judge and majority Jury regarding mass killer Bamber.
I would be obliged if you would respect that because at the end of the day my opinion might be no worse informed than yours.
I don’t know where the initial shots were pumped into Nevill Bamber’s body: neither do you.
I don’t know the sequence the shots were fired in: neither do you. The experts have given an indication of what they think may have happened but the only expert who can give a definitive answer to that conundrum is the killer Bamber and he is still blaming his victim.
I couldn’t begin to attempt to justify the savage beating meted out to Nevill Bamber … broken nose et al as recorded in evidence but which seems to have dropped off some radars … wasn’t yours one? Forgive me if I’ve misremembered that as there appears to be a lot of it going about.
In my opinion many of your posts not only fly in the face of reason but actually impart disinformation which reflects your interpretation of events and not necessarily the spirit or the reality of the facts we have. Else why do you resist the notion of Bamber's guilt as confirmed by the judge and majority jury at his trial; the failed appeals despite which you appear to hold the belief that yet another appeal is in order.
-
Nobody apart from Jeremy Bamber knows , with absolute certainty, who is "patently guilty " and "patently innocent" in this case. Even he, perhaps, has come to believe something that isn't true!
I have no doubt that Jeremy Bamber knows from start to finish exactly what the truth is ... please do not forget that he engineered the false information which directed the police in the direction of Sheila Cappell, using her fragile mental health as his despicable lever.
-
You precis your opinion in your post as you interpret it but having had the benefit of reading the events for myself please note that I have reached a totally different interpretation of events which takes me not a million miles away from the conclusion of Judge and majority Jury regarding mass killer Bamber.
I would be obliged if you would respect that because at the end of the day my opinion might be no worse informed than yours.
I don’t know where the initial shots were pumped into Nevill Bamber’s body: neither do you.
I don’t know the sequence the shots were fired in: neither do. The experts have given an indication of what they think may have happened but the only expert who can give a definitive answer to that conundrum is the killer Bamber and he is still blaming his victim.
I couldn’t begin to attempt to justify the savage beating … broken nose et al as recorded in evidence but which seems to have dropped off some radars … wasn’t yours one? Forgive me if I’ve misremembered that as there appears to be a lot of it going about.
In my opinion many of your posts not only fly in the face of reason but actually impart disinformation which reflects your interpretation of events and not necessarily the spirit or the reality of the facts we have. Else why do you resist the notion of Bamber's guilt as confirmed by the judge and majority jury at his trial; the failed appeals despite which you appear to hold the belief that yet another appeal is in order.
But we're not talking about my precis, opinions or posts. I put to you a question which you've ignored:
If it is all so patently obvious as you seem to think perhaps you could explain how initially the police surgeon, all officers, bar 1, and the pathologist thought they were dealing with 4 murders and a suicide for over a month.
About a month after the murders a DCI new to the case was appointed to review all the evidence and concluded SC was responsible.
I've asked you to put forward your own reconstruction based on the physical evidence at soc. If you think JB was responsible then it should be easy for to to reconstruct based on the totality of the physical evidence: blood stains and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks?
I've also asked you to identify which injuries either Dr Vanezis or Prof Knight claimed SC was incapable of inflicting on NB or any of the other victims including herself?
The fact JB's case has been all round the houses for years on end is not at all unusual. It happens with all high profile long running MOJ's even when cases are relatively straightforward which this case isn't.
-
But we're not talking about my precis, opinions or posts. I put to you a question which you've ignored:
If it is all so patently obvious as you seem to think perhaps you could explain how initially the police surgeon, all officers, bar 1, and the pathologist thought they were dealing with 4 murders and a suicide for over a month.
About a month after the murders a DCI new to the case was appointed to review all the evidence and concluded SC was responsible.
I've asked you to put forward your own reconstruction based on the physical evidence at soc. If you think JB was responsible then it should be easy for to to reconstruct based on the totality of the physical evidence: blood stains and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks?
I've also asked you to identify which injuries either Dr Vanezis or Prof Knight claimed SC was incapable of inflicting on NB or any of the other victims including herself?
The fact JB's case has been all round the houses for years on end is not at all unusual. It happens with all high profile long running MOJ's even when cases are relatively straightforward which this case isn't.
I'll answer it for you, Bamber was lucky that he managed to convince the head of the investigation, who was unwilling to look at any other scenario - so, until b both Jones and the family managed to go over his head and some of the forensics came back - they believed Jeremy's tall tale.
Why would Vanezis talk about injuries Sheila was unable to inflict? That's not his job but he has recently commented on this and I will post later when I have access to my laptop.
-
If it is all so patently obvious as you seem to think perhaps you could explain how initially the police surgeon, all officers, bar 1, and the pathologist thought they were dealing with 4 murders and a suicide for over a month.
About a month after the murders a DCI new to the case was appointed to review all the evidence and concluded SC was responsible.
The case turned on two highly contentious issues: Julie Mugford's testimony and a silencer.
Forensic and pathological evidence is not the panacea that TV shows such as CSI and Silent Witness have lead us to believe and cases are rarely solved in the first few weeks. One thing common to those TV shows though is that the protagonists often learn the hard way about making assumptions instead of following the evidence.
As you rightly point out, the physical evidence did not initially ring any alarm bells, Sheila could have battered her already injured father, swinging the rifle over her head like a club as evidenced by the broken lampshade and she could have shot herself twice but Taff Jones and others were blinkered to other possibilities by the assumptions made at the very beginning.
It's disingenuous to say that the case turned on only two issues and ignore the emerging pattern of evidence over the course of that month and beyond -
Dr Vanesis said he would have expressed concerns about the clean state of SC had he been called to the scene.
The complete lack of any forensic evidence on Sheila, no blood, wax on her nightie or lead on her hands from supposedly loading the cartridges, no cuts on her feet despite there being broken glass all over the kitchen. (No sugar either)
The admissions made by JB himself after JM had grassed him up regarding entering WHF via the windows, the burglary ridiculously passed off as "testing security" and sneaking a peak at the wills in the safe.
The hacksaw blade that was found to match scratch marks on the window catch.
JB breaking in to WHF after his arrest to get his car documents - or pretending he did to explain any forensic evidence that he didn't know had not yet been found.
The bike at Goldhanger that had mud on the sides of the tyres.
The parts of his wetsuit found at WHF
The evidence of JMs flatmates that cast doubt on the timing of the call to her and thus JBs account of NBs supposed call and when he called the police, which he already contradicted himself with between interviews.
The mysterious lack of towels in his bathroom - who doesn't leave a hand towel in the bathroom? JBs explanation that he kept them in the airing cupboard lacks sense -bath towels yes, but who would go to the toilet, wash their hands and then go to the airing cupboard to dry them? ( I think the washing machine had been on too but not sure )
Bamber beratting PC West and asking what was taking so long, "my father sounded terrified" - directly contradicting his own tardy actions.
Bamber standing outside telling police about all the guns in the house and that SC was familiar with them all but later admitting he had never seen her fire one as an adult.
Stan Jones overhearing JB laughing on the morning of the murders that set him on his trail.
JM was not the only witness to give evidence of JBs expressed dislike of his family either - he would bitch about them to anyone that would listen.
Once the police started to look at JB with suspicion, things changed until the conclusion EP had been on the wrong track couldn't be ignored.
-
Forensic and pathological evidence is not the panacea that TV shows such as CSI and Silent Witness have lead us to believe and cases are rarely solved in the first few weeks. One thing common to those TV shows though is that the protagonists often learn the hard way about making assumptions instead of following the evidence.
As you rightly point out, the physical evidence did not initially ring any alarm bells, Sheila could have battered her already injured father, swinging the rifle over her head like a club as evidenced by the broken lampshade and she could have shot herself twice but Taff Jones and others were blinkered to other possibilities by the assumptions made at the very beginning.
It's disingenuous to say that the case turned on only two issues and ignore the emerging pattern of evidence over the course of that month and beyond -
Dr Vanesis said he would have expressed concerns about the clean state of SC had he been called to the scene.
The complete lack of any forensic evidence on Sheila, no blood, wax on her nightie or lead on her hands from supposedly loading the cartridges, no cuts on her feet despite there being broken glass all over the kitchen. (No sugar either)
The admissions made by JB himself after JM had grassed him up regarding entering WHF via the windows, the burglary ridiculously passed off as "testing security" and sneaking a peak at the wills in the safe.
The hacksaw blade that was found to match scratch marks on the window catch.
JB breaking in to WHF after his arrest to get his car documents - or pretending he did to explain any forensic evidence that he didn't know had not yet been found.
The bike at Goldhanger that had mud on the sides of the tyres.
The parts of his wetsuit found at WHF
The evidence of JMs flatmates that cast doubt on the timing of the call to her and thus JBs account of NBs supposed call and when he called the police, which he already contradicted himself with between interviews.
The mysterious lack of towels in his bathroom - who doesn't leave a hand towel in the bathroom? JBs explanation that he kept them in the airing cupboard lacks sense -bath towels yes, but who would go to the toilet, wash their hands and then go to the airing cupboard to dry them? ( I think the washing machine had been on too but not sure )
Bamber beratting PC West and asking what was taking so long, "my father sounded terrified" - directly contradicting his own tardy actions.
Bamber standing outside telling police about all the guns in the house and that SC was familiar with them all but later admitting he had never seen her fire one as an adult.
Stan Jones overhearing JB laughing on the morning of the murders that set him on his trail.
JM was not the only witness to give evidence of JBs expressed dislike of his family either - he would bitch about them to anyone that would listen.
Once the police started to look at JB with suspicion, things changed until the conclusion EP had been on the wrong track couldn't be ignored.
Well said CS - all of those things took a while to gather from individual circumstances to a tight case of circumstantial evidence. People don't realise that most cases are built on the same kind of evidence. This is no different - it isn't unique, the unique aspect is the fact that Bamber refuses to accept responsibility because he will be considered a child killer - which is what he is.
-
Yet another post trying to shift the blame from the patently guilty perpetrator to the patently innocent victim.
I don't know what savegary Sheila Caffell witnessed on the night she was slaughtered along with her parents and her two little boys ... but she must certainly have known something horrific beyond belief was going on.
It was all happening to her and to her family not in a nightmare but in real life. Unthinkable!!!
So true, and so horrific, Brietta.
I can’t understand how some people can be so callous and cruel...
It’s bloodcurdling to think some people sympathise with the man who took their lives after terrorising and beating them.
-
So true, and so horrific, Brietta.
I can’t understand how some people can be so callous and cruel...
It’s bloodcurdling to think some people ymapthise with the man who took their lives after terrorising and beating them.
Ted Bundy
-
So true, and so horrific, Brietta.
I can’t understand how some people can be so callous and cruel...
It’s bloodcurdling to think some people ymapthise with the man who took their lives after terrorising and beating them.
Who is ymathising with whom?
-
Who is ymathising with whom?
Opps! The spelling/typo police have arrived - again, I thought you didn't like goading?
-
If it is all so patently obvious as you seem to think perhaps you could explain how initially the police surgeon, all officers, bar 1, and the pathologist thought they were dealing with 4 murders and a suicide for over a month.
About a month after the murders a DCI new to the case was appointed to review all the evidence and concluded SC was responsible.
The case turned on two highly contentious issues: Julie Mugford's testimony and a silencer.
Ah, but they didn’t, Holly
It was only Taff who had the seemingly emotional problem
All the other officers suspected Jeremy from when he first pooped up slowly in his car to meet them: it was Taff Jones who put EP to shame, hence why they got rid of him and brought another DCI in to take over.
It was after that when it all unravelled, and Jeremy was arrested.
Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, was perturbed when he did the the post mortems (he said so) and only reluctantly agreed on the first day that it “could” be murder/suicide, as Taff INSISTED it was, and showed Dr Vanezis no photographs nor took him to the soc.
The next day Vanezis was FURIOUS (read CAL’s book) when he went to WHF with police and after seeing soc realised it was impossible for Sheila to have murdered anyone and then killed herself. Taff turned up, purple with rage, and spat “What’s HE doing here?!!!l
Is that the normal reaction of a DCI?
If I didn’t know, I’d think he was in cahoots with JB!
Thank God he got slung off and the perp, Jeremy Bamber was eventually arrested and charged. Jeremy Bamber is dangerous, and that’s why the Home Secretary ordered that he must never be released.
-
If something is claimed to be a fact then it's possible to provide a link to the source of that fact. If something is an opinion or speculation it's possible to make that clear by posting 'in my opinion' or 'I think'.
It's not rocket science and it ensures that forum rules are adhered to.
I only learned last week through your post about the claim that NB's nose was broken originated from the CoA doc. I knew it wasn't in any of Dr V's notes, statements, reports or trial testimony but had no idea where the myth originated from.
-
Ah, but they didn’t, Holly
It was only Taff who had the seemingly emotional problem
All the other officers suspected Jeremy from when he first pooped up slowly in his car to meet them: it was Taff Jones who put EP to shame, hence why they got rid of him and brought another DCI in to take over.
It was after that when it all unravelled, and Jeremy was arrested.
Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, was perturbed when he did the the post mortems (he said so) and only reluctantly agreed on the first day that it “could” be murder/suicide, as Taff INSISTED it was, and showed Dr Vanezis no photographs nor took him to the soc.
The next day Vanezis was FURIOUS (read CAL’s book) when he went to WHF with police and after seeing soc realised it was impossible for Sheila to have murdered anyone and then killed herself. Taff turned up, purple with rage, and spat “What’s HE doing here?!!!l
Is that the normal reaction of a DCI?
If I didn’t know, I’d think he was in cahoots with JB!
Thank God he got slung off and the perp, Jeremy Bamber was eventually arrested and charged. Jeremy Bamber is dangerous, and that’s why the Home Secretary ordered that he must never be released.
The above is all part of the mythology that surrounds the case.
Firstly Chief Sup Harris arrived at soc long before DCI Jones and he, along with police surgeon Ian Craig, deemed the case murder/suicide.
4 officers attended throughout the 5 post-mortems: DI Miller, DI Cook, DC Hammersly and DC Bird and all were of the opinion the case was murder/suicide.
When Dr V attended WHF the following day, having completed the pm's a candid discussion was entered into with a number of officers and the only dissenter was DS Jones who Dr V said offered nothing of evidential value.
-
If it is all so patently obvious as you seem to think perhaps you could explain how initially the police surgeon, all officers, bar 1, and the pathologist thought they were dealing with 4 murders and a suicide for over a month.
About a month after the murders a DCI new to the case was appointed to review all the evidence and concluded SC was responsible.
The case turned on two highly contentious issues: Julie Mugford's testimony and a silencer.
Well, before you make sweeping claims, perhaps we could take a closer look at "................initially, the police surgeon (et al)......................thought they were dealing with 4 murders and as suicide for over a month".
We can assume that when the first police arrived at the scene, they had scant knowledge of the problem. Enter Jeremy. ALL their initial knowledge came from him. This knowledge would have filtered it's way down to ALL personnel on scene. I'm willing to bet, that not one of them disputed that information, that they all accepted it to be true. It probably, for a while, became a mantra, apart from the fact that they'd have had to adhere to accepted belief. Beliefs are accepted until they're questioned, or given reason to question. Within that month, 2, who hadn't believed Jeremy from the start -and weren't present at WHF- were able to make their voices heard.
-
Unlike other forums this forum has always been anti JB. Currently I'm the only regular poster who supports JB. AA also supports JB but posts irregularly. G-Unit and Mrswah are undecided. The rest are anti JB or at least post in this vein. In other words you are in the majority here and yet you only seem to hurl insults at the minority who disagree with you?
I haven't seen anyone insult you but if they have or do then please report it by using the 'Report to moderator' function and your report will be investigated.
With regard to cites, sources etc I've posted the forum rules above. Anyone can launch onto a forum and write lengthy posts making all sorts of claims but we're interested in quality over quantity and fact based posts. Eg you claim SC had her nails professionally manicured in MV but when asked for evidence your stock answer appears to be "I'll find it for you" but then nothing is forthcoming even after several requests.
With regard to my approach to moderating I think I apply a 'light touch' to the rules set out by John. John will know I rarely pm him about moderating and contrary to your opinion the only poster I've ever put forward for some sort of ban was a 'supporter'. I also prevented another 'supporter' from using emoticons and gifs to goad.
I accept everyone has their own style of posting and you're free to choose yours so long as you adhere to the high level rules set out on the homepage.
Maybe we could all come to some sort of agreement over when cites and sources are required? Everyone?
I’m willing to provide links when I have them at hand, but I’m not going to search through hundreds of documents/screenshots simply because you don’t want to belive me, Holly. I’ve spent a huge amount of my time on here, and that’s my choice, I know that, but I’m usually busy with other things too and can’t afford the time to search through hundreds and hundreds of documents whilst neglecting important things.
Of course, if I can find them quickly, I’d happily give links (which I have done frequently) but as this is a discussion board and not a court , I don’t see why I should show evidence when anyone can Google as well as I can and see they’re correct; plus, some on here — including yourself — give scenarios (which I seldom do) and expect people to consider them seriously when you’ve dreamt them up.
As regards quality of posts, posting screenshots of minutes from a court can be boring and long-winded to many: yes, many of my posts may be long, but that shows I’ve taken time to explain rather than than just giving a retort that’s of no value. If you find it tiresome reading through explanations, I can try and shorten them for you. But maybe you won’t understand the point I’m making if I leave details out. I’m sure you know court proceedings can drag on forever, and many people find much of it boring, but it’s essential to listen otherwise you’ll never get a true understanding of the facts. But this isn’t a court, Holly — it’s a forum — and we’re not under the same restrictions.
Finally, I really can’t be bothered to report someone for making a stupid swipe....this is an adult forum, not a playground. If I may be so bold, perhaps you could lighten up a little and instead of wearing your Admins hat and monitoring who’s been “playing up” , then issuing warnings and sanctions to behave, you’d fare better in the long run. Who knows: you may get your own fanny club! That’s providing you don’t start issuing penalty fines...no-one likes traffic wardens
-
So if EP believed JB hook line and sinker why did DCI Jones check all the windows and doors?
Why did soc officers swing into action taking hundreds of images, collecting and documenting exhibits for forensic examination?
The case has and will always hang on the blood/silencer evidence. If it didn't the CCRC would not have referred the case to CoA in 2002 on the back of this.
-
Who is ymathising with whom?
Your friend’s little dog who you kicked in his nose
Yyyyyyelp!
-
Forensic and pathological evidence is not the panacea that TV shows such as CSI and Silent Witness have lead us to believe and cases are rarely solved in the first few weeks. One thing common to those TV shows though is that the protagonists often learn the hard way about making assumptions instead of following the evidence.
As you rightly point out, the physical evidence did not initially ring any alarm bells, Sheila could have battered her already injured father, swinging the rifle over her head like a club as evidenced by the broken lampshade and she could have shot herself twice but Taff Jones and others were blinkered to other possibilities by the assumptions made at the very beginning.
It's disingenuous to say that the case turned on only two issues and ignore the emerging pattern of evidence over the course of that month and beyond -
Dr Vanesis said he would have expressed concerns about the clean state of SC had he been called to the scene.
The complete lack of any forensic evidence on Sheila, no blood, wax on her nightie or lead on her hands from supposedly loading the cartridges, no cuts on her feet despite there being broken glass all over the kitchen. (No sugar either)
The admissions made by JB himself after JM had grassed him up regarding entering WHF via the windows, the burglary ridiculously passed off as "testing security" and sneaking a peak at the wills in the safe.
The hacksaw blade that was found to match scratch marks on the window catch.
JB breaking in to WHF after his arrest to get his car documents - or pretending he did to explain any forensic evidence that he didn't know had not yet been found.
The bike at Goldhanger that had mud on the sides of the tyres.
The parts of his wetsuit found at WHF
The evidence of JMs flatmates that cast doubt on the timing of the call to her and thus JBs account of NBs supposed call and when he called the police, which he already contradicted himself with between interviews.
The mysterious lack of towels in his bathroom - who doesn't leave a hand towel in the bathroom? JBs explanation that he kept them in the airing cupboard lacks sense -bath towels yes, but who would go to the toilet, wash their hands and then go to the airing cupboard to dry them? ( I think the washing machine had been on too but not sure )
Bamber beratting PC West and asking what was taking so long, "my father sounded terrified" - directly contradicting his own tardy actions.
Bamber standing outside telling police about all the guns in the house and that SC was familiar with them all but later admitting he had never seen her fire one as an adult.
Stan Jones overhearing JB laughing on the morning of the murders that set him on his trail.
JM was not the only witness to give evidence of JBs expressed dislike of his family either - he would bitch about them to anyone that would listen.
Once the police started to look at JB with suspicion, things changed until the conclusion EP had been on the wrong track couldn't be ignored.
Agree with you, CS.
But Dr Vanezis certainly didn’t agree that Sheila could have beaten Nevill with the ferocity he received when he inspected the soc.
Nor could she have have reached the lampshade in her struggle, and Nevill couldn’t have because if he had managed to grab the gun from her hands he’d still be alive now.
But everything else you said is absolutely correct.
How anyone can refute that is beyond me...
-
So if EP believed JB hook line and sinker why did DCI Jones check all the windows and doors?
Why did soc officers swing into action taking hundreds of images, collecting and documenting exhibits for forensic examination?
The case has and will always hang on the blood/silencer evidence. If it didn't the CCRC would not have referred the case to CoA in 2002 on the back of this.
Holly, FIVE people had been shot dead.
Did you expect the police to call the undertakers, remove the bodies, then just close the doors?
Of course they had to search the property, take photographs and exhibits.
-
So if EP believed JB hook line and sinker why did DCI Jones check all the windows and doors?
Why did soc officers swing into action taking hundreds of images, collecting and documenting exhibits for forensic examination?
The case has and will always hang on the blood/silencer evidence. If it didn't the CCRC would not have referred the case to CoA in 2002 on the back of this.
Why did the CCRC send Simon Halls murder conviction to the CoA Holly?
And what lessons, if any, do you think they’ve learned since then?
-
I’m willing to provide links when I have them at hand, but I’m not going to search through hundreds of documents/screenshots simply because you don’t want to belive me, Holly. I’ve spent a huge amount of my time on here, and that’s my choice, I know that, but I’m usually busy with other things too and can’t afford the time to search through hundreds and hundreds of documents whilst neglecting important things.
Of course, if I can find them quickly, I’d happily give links (which I have done frequently) but as this is a discussion board and not a court , I don’t see why I should show evidence when anyone can Google as well as I can and see they’re correct; plus, some on here — including yourself — give scenarios (which I seldom do) and expect people to consider them seriously when you’ve dreamt them up.
As regards quality of posts, posting screenshots of minutes from a court can be boring and long-winded to many: yes, many of my posts may be long, but that shows I’ve taken time to explain rather than than just giving a retort that’s of no value. If you find it tiresome reading through explanations, I can try and shorten them for you. But maybe you won’t understand the point I’m making if I leave details out. I’m sure you know court proceedings can drag on forever, and many people find much of it boring, but it’s essential to listen otherwise you’ll never get a true understanding of the facts. But this isn’t a court, Holly — it’s a forum — and we’re not under the same restrictions.
Finally, I really can’t be bothered to report someone for making a stupid swipe....this is an adult forum, not a playground. If I may be so bold, perhaps you could lighten up a little and instead of wearing your Admins hat and monitoring who’s been “playing up” , then issuing warnings and sanctions to behave, you’d fare better in the long run. Who knows: you may get your own fanny club! That’s providing you don’t start issuing penalty fines...no-one likes traffic wardens
But you seem to think you are above the high level rules of the forum which you're not.
The rules are not overly pedantic or prescriptive. They have been put in place for the benefit and protection of everyone.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.msg34336#msg34336
My reconstruction is based on all the physical evidence collected and documented from the soc. Others might disagree with my interpretation of how I've weaved them together but the individual strands are all documented in the material.
-
Agree with you, CS.
But Dr Vanezis certainly didn’t agree that Sheila could have beaten Nevill with the ferocity he re received when he inspected the sic.
Nor could she have have reached the lampshade in her struggle, and Nevill couldn’t have because if he had managed to grab the gun from her hands he’d still be alive now.
But everything else you said is absolutely correct.
How anyone can refute that is beyond me...
AFAIK, Vanesis didn't disagree either, just as he couldn't rule out murder or suicide from his examinations. The prosecution didn't argue that Sheila couldn't possibly have beaten her already injured father, they argued that it was much more likely to have been Jeremy - who was also visibly uninjured. There is no reason to assume the struggle was anything but brief and one sided. A good left hook from NB might have changed the whole picture but there is no evidence he got the chance.
I'm afraid I don't understand the idea that only Jeremy could have smashed the lightshade with a 4ft rifle?
-
Why did the CCRC send Simon Halls murder conviction to the CoA Holly?
And what lessons, if any, do you think they’ve learned since then?
SH's conviction was upheld so no lessons to be learned.
-
The case has and will always hang on the blood/silencer evidence. If it didn't the CCRC would not have referred the case to CoA in 2002 on the back of this.
Why did the CCRC send Simon Halls murder conviction to the CoA Holly?
And what lessons, if any, do you think they’ve learned since then?
SH's conviction was upheld so no lessons to be learned.
Bambers convictions were ‘upheld so no lessons to be learned’
And - unlike the Bamber case - the CCRC began a second review not long after the CoA upheld the murder conviction
-
But you seem to think you are above the high level rules of the forum which you're not.
The rules are not overly pedantic or prescriptive. They have been put in place for the benefit and protection of everyone.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.msg34336#msg34336
My reconstruction is based on all the physical evidence collected and documented from the soc. Others might disagree with my interpretation of how I've weaved them together but the individual strands are all documented in the material.
You’re being presumptuous again, Holly.
I most certainly do not think I’m above everyone — that’s in YOUR head. I was brought up to treat everyone equally, and I do, but if rude people want to goad me, I will react, usually subtly as I have self-respect. It’s always on social media that strangers occasionally have a swipe, and I usually ignore them as they’re of no consequence. You may be surprised to know I have a huge following on SM, but I’m anonymous here which is just as I like it. If I revealed the thousands of of people who followed me (or let them know) you’d be bombarded with people who would probably agree with every post I made. And I don’t want that as it’s such a serious subject.
And I’m not arrogant in any shape or form, but equally, if someone is disrespectful I will retaliate. Why should I allow someone to be rude simply because they disagree with my views? I respect everyone, whoever they are, unless they act disrespectfully and goad/insult me. I don’t tolerate bullies; they’re cowardly weaklings and I refuse to be disrespected by such people.
If someone is pleasant, I’ll be pleasant back. It’s as simple as that.
You may find this strange, but I admire you in many ways, despite how I can’t fathom out why you’re so intent in helping a mass murderer to to try and get free. You’re rather complex. And that’s intriguing. You claim you’re doing it because you’re adopted, but that doesn’t add up. There’s something else you’re doing it for — it could be you're infatuated; it could be you want to write a book; it could be several things...but I don’t believe you’ve spent years of of your life out of sympathy because you wrongly believe he is innocent. You’re not that gullible.
-
Knowing someone doesn't mean you know all about them.
Nor does being their psychologist but presumably you would defer to them as the experts when it came to your own family members?
-
Opps! The spelling/typo police have arrived - again, I thought you didn't like goading?
Only when it's directed at her.
-
AFAIK, Vanesis didn't disagree either, just as he couldn't rule out murder or suicide from his examinations. The prosecution didn't argue that Sheila couldn't possibly have beaten her already injured father, they argued that it was much more likely to have been Jeremy - who was also visibly uninjured. There is no reason to assume the struggle was anything but brief and one sided. A good left hook from NB might have changed the whole picture but there is no evidence he got the chance.
I'm afraid I don't understand the idea that only Jeremy could have smashed the lightshade with a 4ft rifle?
Dr Vanezis didn’t rule ANYTHING out when doing the post mortems: he was guided by Taff Jones who was present at the PM, who told Dr Vanezis it was definitely a murder/suicide. Dr Vanezis was unsure, given the injuries he saw, but as Taff was so insistent — and had brought no photographs of the soc with the victims in situ, nor brought the rifle (murder weapon) Dr Vanezis reluctantly agreed with Taff that it was possible Sheila had committed the murders and then killed herself. But he stressed it was unusual and very strange, and so unusual for a suicide victim to shoot themselves twice.
Dr Vanezis had no reason to doubt Taff; he was a DCI and accepted his account. But he didn’t know at that time how rumours were flying around about Taff’s bizarre behaviour. Some even thought he may have had a brain tumour, but that’s never been established. It’s possible he was in the midst of a breakdown: who knows? Whatever, his behaviour was so bizarre that he was soon thrown off the case and told to take leave...
However, when Dr Vanezis visited WHF the next day with police officers, it became apparent to him that Sheila could not possibly have killed herself, nor beaten Nevill to a pulp. He was horrified. He was angry too. He made a complaint because Taff hadn’t given him any of the photographic evidence; the rifle itself; when he carried out the post mortems. Dr Vanezis had vast experience: he was a lecturer and had carried out thousands of post mortems. He said later that had he seen the soc and rifle, he’d have known immediately that Sheila could not possibly have killed herself, nor beaten Nevill so violently.
Police also proved that Sheila couldn’t have reached the light fitting which smashed into smithereens. Yes, it’s possible in the violent struggle that Nevill could have, but that means he’d have had more control over the rifle and have been able to disarm her. Indeed, Nevill could have disarmed her when she supposedly cut the line off as he was supposedly talking to Jeremy — so the fact he didn’t proves he was overpowered by someone much stronger, bigger and taller than Sheila.
As for suggesting the struggle was brief and one-sided, that would mean Sheila had the strength of Superman and poleaxed Nevill in seconds. That’s simply not true. The struggle went on long enough for Nevill to fight his attacker to the extent that they fought fiercely for the rifle, so much so, that it caused gauges in the underside of the mantel. That wasn’t brief...
Nor could it have been brief for chairs to overturn; the large heavy dining table to veer across the room; stalls to upend; cutlery and bowls to smash down causing glass, china and sugar to scatter all across the floor; the kitchen mat to slide across the room, and ornaments to fall and smash.
You need to remember that Sheila was half Nevill’s size, she was weak, shaky, listless and had no coordination. She was heavily tranquillised which is also debilitating, and what’s more, she adored her father...
You might think under the circumstances a good left hook from Nevill would have been the last resort to end the struggle, but Sheila had not one mark on her face...
Jeremy was apparently wearing a rubber scuba mask along with his wetsuit, so even if Nevill got the chance to punch him, during being poleaxed across the skull exposing his brain, and then shot four times in the head, it’s unlikely any punches would have even reached Jeremy....
I think logic tells us who the murdered was, CS.
And that’s why the jury found Jeremy Bamber guilty.
-
Dr Vanezis didn’t rule ANYTHING out when doing the post mortems: he was guided by Taff Jones who was present at the PM, who told Dr Vanezis it was definitely a murder/suicide. Dr Vanezis was unsure, given the injuries he saw, but as Taff was so insistent — and had brought no photographs of the soc with the victims in situ, nor brought the rifle (murder weapon) Dr Vanezis reluctantly agreed with Taff that it was possible Sheila had committed the murders and then killed herself. But he stressed it was unusual and very strange, and so unusual for a suicide victim to shoot themselves twice.
Dr Vanezis had no reason to doubt Taff; he was a DCI and accepted his account. But he didn’t know at that time how rumours were flying around about Taff’s bizarre behaviour. Some even thought he may have had a brain tumour, but that’s never been established. It’s possible he was in the midst of a breakdown: who knows? Whatever, his behaviour was so bizarre that he was soon thrown off the case and told to take leave...
However, when Dr Vanezis visited WHF the next day with police officers, it became apparent to him that Sheila could not possibly have killed herself, nor beaten Nevill to a pulp. He was horrified. He was angry too. He made a complaint because Taff hadn’t given him any of the photographic evidence; the rifle itself; when he carried out the post mortems. Dr Vanezis had vast experience: he was a lecturer and had carried out thousands of post mortems. He said later that had he seen the soc and rifle, he’d have known immediately that Sheila could not possibly have killed herself, nor beaten Nevill so violently.
Police also proved that Sheila couldn’t have reached the light fitting which smashed into smithereens. Yes, it’s possible in the violent struggle that Nevill could have, but that means he’d have had more control over the rifle and have been able to disarm her. Indeed, Nevill could have disarmed her when she supposedly cut the line off as he was supposedly talking to Jeremy — so the fact he didn’t proves he was overpowered by someone much stronger, bigger and taller than Sheila.
As for suggesting the struggle was brief and one-sided, that would mean Sheila had the strength of Superman and poleaxed Nevill in seconds. That’s simply not true. The struggle went on long enough for Nevill to fight his attacker to the extent that they fought fiercely for the rifle, so much so, that it caused gauges in the underside of the mantel. That wasn’t brief...
Nor could it have been brief for chairs to overturn; the large heavy dining table to veer across the room; stalls to upend; cutlery and bowls to smash down causing glass, china and sugar to scatter all across the floor; the kitchen mat to slide across the room, and ornaments to fall and smash.
You need to remember that Sheila was half Nevill’s size, she was weak, shaky, listless and had no coordination. She was heavily tranquillised which is also debilitating, and what’s more, she adored her father...
You might think under the circumstances a good left hook from Nevill would have been the last resort to end the struggle, but Sheila had not one mark on her face...
Jeremy was apparently wearing a rubber scuba mask along with his wetsuit, so even if Nevill got the chance to punch him, during being poleaxed across the skull exposing his brain, and then shot four times in the head, it’s unlikely any punches would have even reached Jeremy....
I think logic tells us who the murdered was, CS.
And that’s why the jury found Jeremy Bamber guilty.
You're making things up. Those present at the post mortem were DI Miller, DI Cook, DS Davidson and PC Wright.
-
But you seem to think you are above the high level rules of the forum which you're not.
The rules are not overly pedantic or prescriptive. They have been put in place for the benefit and protection of everyone.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.msg34336#msg34336
My reconstruction is based on all the physical evidence collected and documented from the soc. Others might disagree with my interpretation of how I've weaved them together but the individual strands are all documented in the material.
As are other people's.
-
You’re being presumptuous again, Holly.
I most certainly do not think I’m above everyone — that’s in YOUR head. I was brought up to treat everyone equally, and I do, but if rude people want to goad me, I will react, usually subtly as I have self-respect. It’s always on social media that strangers occasionally have a swipe, and I usually ignore them as they’re of no consequence. You may be surprised to know I have a huge following on SM, but I’m anonymous here which is just as I like it. If I revealed the thousands of of people who followed me (or let them know) you’d be bombarded with people who would probably agree with every post I made. And I don’t want that as it’s such a serious subject.
And I’m not arrogant in any shape or form, but equally, if someone is disrespectful I will retaliate. Why should I allow someone to be rude simply because they disagree with my views? I respect everyone, whoever they are, unless they act disrespectfully and goad/insult me. I don’t tolerate bullies; they’re cowardly weaklings and I refuse to be disrespected by such people.
If someone is pleasant, I’ll be pleasant back. It’s as simple as that.
You may find this strange, but I admire you in many ways, despite how I can’t fathom out why you’re so intent in helping a mass murderer to to try and get free. You’re rather complex. And that’s intriguing. You claim you’re doing it because you’re adopted, but that doesn’t add up. There’s something else you’re doing it for — it could be you're infatuated; it could be you want to write a book; it could be several things...but I don’t believe you’ve spent years of of your life out of sympathy because you wrongly believe he is innocent. You’re not that gullible.
I didn't say you think you're above everyone. I said you think you're above the forum rules and you're not no matter who you are or what your following is on sm.
Please stick to the rules:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.msg34336#msg34336
-
Dr Vanezis didn’t rule ANYTHING out when doing the post mortems: he was guided by Taff Jones who was present at the PM, who told Dr Vanezis it was definitely a murder/suicide. Dr Vanezis was unsure, given the injuries he saw, but as Taff was so insistent — and had brought no photographs of the soc with the victims in situ, nor brought the rifle (murder weapon) Dr Vanezis reluctantly agreed with Taff that it was possible Sheila had committed the murders and then killed herself. But he stressed it was unusual and very strange, and so unusual for a suicide victim to shoot themselves twice.
Dr Vanezis had no reason to doubt Taff; he was a DCI and accepted his account. But he didn’t know at that time how rumours were flying around about Taff’s bizarre behaviour. Some even thought he may have had a brain tumour, but that’s never been established. It’s possible he was in the midst of a breakdown: who knows? Whatever, his behaviour was so bizarre that he was soon thrown off the case and told to take leave...
However, when Dr Vanezis visited WHF the next day with police officers, it became apparent to him that Sheila could not possibly have killed herself, nor beaten Nevill to a pulp. He was horrified. He was angry too. He made a complaint because Taff hadn’t given him any of the photographic evidence; the rifle itself; when he carried out the post mortems. Dr Vanezis had vast experience: he was a lecturer and had carried out thousands of post mortems. He said later that had he seen the soc and rifle, he’d have known immediately that Sheila could not possibly have killed herself, nor beaten Nevill so violently.
Police also proved that Sheila couldn’t have reached the light fitting which smashed into smithereens. Yes, it’s possible in the violent struggle that Nevill could have, but that means he’d have had more control over the rifle and have been able to disarm her. Indeed, Nevill could have disarmed her when she supposedly cut the line off as he was supposedly talking to Jeremy — so the fact he didn’t proves he was overpowered by someone much stronger, bigger and taller than Sheila.
As for suggesting the struggle was brief and one-sided, that would mean Sheila had the strength of Superman and poleaxed Nevill in seconds. That’s simply not true. The struggle went on long enough for Nevill to fight his attacker to the extent that they fought fiercely for the rifle, so much so, that it caused gauges in the underside of the mantel. That wasn’t brief...
Nor could it have been brief for chairs to overturn; the large heavy dining table to veer across the room; stalls to upend; cutlery and bowls to smash down causing glass, china and sugar to scatter all across the floor; the kitchen mat to slide across the room, and ornaments to fall and smash.
You need to remember that Sheila was half Nevill’s size, she was weak, shaky, listless and had no coordination. She was heavily tranquillised which is also debilitating, and what’s more, she adored her father...
You might think under the circumstances a good left hook from Nevill would have been the last resort to end the struggle, but Sheila had not one mark on her face...
Jeremy was apparently wearing a rubber scuba mask along with his wetsuit, so even if Nevill got the chance to punch him, during being poleaxed across the skull exposing his brain, and then shot four times in the head, it’s unlikely any punches would have even reached Jeremy....
I think logic tells us who the murdered was, CS.
And that’s why the jury found Jeremy Bamber guilty.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=206.msg2231#msg2231
-
Dr Vanezis didn’t rule ANYTHING out when doing the post mortems: he was guided by Taff Jones who was present at the PM, who told Dr Vanezis it was definitely a murder/suicide. Dr Vanezis was unsure, given the injuries he saw, but as Taff was so insistent — and had brought no photographs of the soc with the victims in situ, nor brought the rifle (murder weapon) Dr Vanezis reluctantly agreed with Taff that it was possible Sheila had committed the murders and then killed herself. But he stressed it was unusual and very strange, and so unusual for a suicide victim to shoot themselves twice.
Dr Vanezis had no reason to doubt Taff; he was a DCI and accepted his account. But he didn’t know at that time how rumours were flying around about Taff’s bizarre behaviour. Some even thought he may have had a brain tumour, but that’s never been established. It’s possible he was in the midst of a breakdown: who knows? Whatever, his behaviour was so bizarre that he was soon thrown off the case and told to take leave...
However, when Dr Vanezis visited WHF the next day with police officers, it became apparent to him that Sheila could not possibly have killed herself, nor beaten Nevill to a pulp. He was horrified. He was angry too. He made a complaint because Taff hadn’t given him any of the photographic evidence; the rifle itself; when he carried out the post mortems. Dr Vanezis had vast experience: he was a lecturer and had carried out thousands of post mortems. He said later that had he seen the soc and rifle, he’d have known immediately that Sheila could not possibly have killed herself, nor beaten Nevill so violently.
Police also proved that Sheila couldn’t have reached the light fitting which smashed into smithereens. Yes, it’s possible in the violent struggle that Nevill could have, but that means he’d have had more control over the rifle and have been able to disarm her. Indeed, Nevill could have disarmed her when she supposedly cut the line off as he was supposedly talking to Jeremy — so the fact he didn’t proves he was overpowered by someone much stronger, bigger and taller than Sheila.
As for suggesting the struggle was brief and one-sided, that would mean Sheila had the strength of Superman and poleaxed Nevill in seconds. That’s simply not true. The struggle went on long enough for Nevill to fight his attacker to the extent that they fought fiercely for the rifle, so much so, that it caused gauges in the underside of the mantel. That wasn’t brief...
Nor could it have been brief for chairs to overturn; the large heavy dining table to veer across the room; stalls to upend; cutlery and bowls to smash down causing glass, china and sugar to scatter all across the floor; the kitchen mat to slide across the room, and ornaments to fall and smash.
You need to remember that Sheila was half Nevill’s size, she was weak, shaky, listless and had no coordination. She was heavily tranquillised which is also debilitating, and what’s more, she adored her father...
You might think under the circumstances a good left hook from Nevill would have been the last resort to end the struggle, but Sheila had not one mark on her face...
Jeremy was apparently wearing a rubber scuba mask along with his wetsuit, so even if Nevill got the chance to punch him, during being poleaxed across the skull exposing his brain, and then shot four times in the head, it’s unlikely any punches would have even reached Jeremy....
I think logic tells us who the murdered was, CS.
And that’s why the jury found Jeremy Bamber guilty.
Hi Spy,
Sorry but Taff wasn't at the autopsy.
-
But you seem to think you are above the high level rules of the forum which you're not.
The rules are not overly pedantic or prescriptive. They have been put in place for the benefit and protection of everyone.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.msg34336#msg34336
My reconstruction is based on all the physical evidence collected and documented from the soc. Others might disagree with my interpretation of how I've weaved them together but the individual strands are all documented in the material.
I certainly don’t think I’m above the rules at all — I’m not a narcissist, Holly...
I show respect to everyone, providing they show respect to me...and I respect rules.
I’m not sure what your planned attempt at a reconstruction 35 years after JB killed his family has anything to do with your scolding me: I can only assume you took umbrage to my suggestion that a reconstruction would be on value, but I did say I thought one of Sheila beating her father senseless and unconscious, and then shooting herself — twice — may actually be a brilliant idea. It would show Sheila was capable of that, and that would help Jeremy Bamber’s cause: why are you upset about my that? 🤷♀️