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 24, 2020, 08:33:43 AM
-
It seems I need to start a new thread to discuss this so here goes, my question from another thread:
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”?
-
If Sheila had locked herself into a downstairs room with the gun and he couldn't get her out Nevill may well have phoned his son. As to the phone, the BT engineer explained that the connection would clear after a couple of minutes.
-
If Sheila had locked herself into a downstairs room with the gun and he couldn't get her out Nevill may well have phoned his son. As to the phone, the BT engineer explained that the connection would clear after a couple of minutes.
Correct. In those days there were tariff pulses and after a few it would automatically hang up (16 minutes?) - otherwise people would get £3 million bills off BT for not hanging up correctly.
-
It seems I need to start a new thread to discuss this so here goes, my question from another thread:
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”?
Re: the phone - Bamber would have been able to call Julie - there is testimony by a BT expert - I will try and find it for you.
-
If Sheila had locked herself into a downstairs room with the gun and he couldn't get her out Nevill may well have phoned his son. As to the phone, the BT engineer explained that the connection would clear after a couple of minutes.
What for?
-
That scenario is in YOUR head, G-Unit
Stick to facts, not fairytales and wishful thinking. Even your fairytales are laughable.
I can’t post on here anymore — I just can’t bear reading such sh*t from people who are deluded
Have fun everyone
&^&*%
-
If Sheila had locked herself into a downstairs room with the gun and he couldn't get her out Nevill may well have phoned his son. As to the phone, the BT engineer explained that the connection would clear after a couple of minutes.
Are you suggesting Bamber didn’t call his dad straight back like he said he did but waited a couple of minutes?
Don’t you think Nevill might have mentioned that Sheila had locked herself in a room downstairs?
-
Correct. In those days there were tariff pulses and after a few it would automatically hang up (16 minutes?) - otherwise people would get £3 million bills off BT for not hanging up correctly.
16 minutes or 2 minutes?
-
16 minutes or 2 minutes?
Don't know. Between 2 and 16 minutes.
The concept being, the line would have been cut off (between 2 and 16 minutes).
-
Don't know. Between 2 and 16 minutes.
The concept being, the line would have been cut off (between 2 and 16 minutes).
It would be good to get that one nailed because the worst case scenario is that Jeremy didn’t call his dad back for over 16 minutes ( not that he ever actually did, of course)
-
It would be good to get that one nailed because the worst case scenario is that Jeremy didn’t call his dad back for over 16 minutes ( not that he ever actually did, of course)
It's in the book. I read it, but can't remember the duration....could be 6 minutes
-
It would be good to get that one nailed because the worst case scenario is that Jeremy didn’t call his dad back for over 16 minutes ( not that he ever actually did, of course)
A while ago, I tracked down a telephone engineer who worked on the same type of exchanges and the one in Maldon.
This is what he said - just to add that the Maldon exchange wasn't maned 24/7 so there was no one to physically end the call or apply the howler.
"Right here is the info on Maldon which looks to be a small exchange.
In 1980 it was a Strowger electromechanical exchange with 1098 business
lines and 4170 Residential lines. That old Strowger didn't have
automatic lock-out or parking. Just a lamp to show the engineer that a
line hadn't replaced the phone. He may or may not have bothered to look
at it. They didn't bother with a solitary one, only if there was a lot,
showing a cable fault. He could have applied a howler to the line from
a test set, no indication of how long it had been off-the-hook. The
later ones before system X didn't have logging of events, and they
wouldn't have bothered to record it for some legal reason, not knowing
about the possibility."
-
Mr Adcock, the telecom manager, asked the engineering group responsible for the exchanges. They said it would take between one and two minutes to clear the Goldhanger line so a call could be made. [w/s 3/10/86]
-
Mr Adcock, the telecom manager, asked the engineering group responsible for the exchanges. They said it would take between one and two minutes to clear the Goldhanger line so a call could be made. [w/s 3/10/86]
In which case Bamber could not have called his father straight back as he said.
-
In which case Bamber could not have called his father straight back as he said.
He didn't call him back at all because Nevill didn't call him in the first place.
-
I was always taught that one should be able to debate both sides but whenever I try to argue for Bambers innocence, I immediately get stuck with the phone call.
Not only does it make no sense for Nevill to turn his back on an armed and dangerous Sheila to try and rouse his son in the middle of the night, the timings of JBs two calls are too uncertain to be able to draw any firm conclusions.
This is not helped by sloppy record keeping by the police and muddied further by Bamber changing his story to fit with the ludicrously misrepresented call log "evidence" that Nevill called police himself at 3.26.
In his first WS, he claimed that after trying to return NBs 3.10am call and getting the engaged tone, he "immediately" called the police and then called JM at 3.25 for some "reassurance" ( but not mentioning anything about Sheila or a gun )
After his arrest, he admits that he had to look up the number in the phone book and this took 10 minutes. He says that he called Julie before he called the police but only for a minute or two "because he had to call the police" - again there is no mention of any guns in this conversation in which he is seeking advice/reassurance from JM. Nor is there any mention of his attempt to phone Witham but getting no answer.
When he is challenged about the changed order of his calls, he claims he is muddled up and that his original WS was correct despite his apparent certainty in both of his accounts.
I don't want to write an essay in my first post so will conclude with this passage from the appeal judgement regarding how long it would take to reset the line although I think the point is moot. If NB did call and terminated it but left the receiver off the hook then JBs description of getting the engaged tone would fit. If the receiver was not terminated at the callers end, Bamber would have had to replace his receiver for 1-2 minutes before he could call but he makes no mention of remaining connected and we cannot know the actual state of the telephones that night.
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.
-
According to JM's first wit stat she was half asleep and not fully aware of what JB said.
The tel eng doesn't actually state the length of time the receiver (JB) would need to replace the handset on the hook to clear the line to call out if the caller (NB) hadn't returned the handset to hook. It is dependent on the 'force release' which is up to 2 minutes but the minimum period was unknown'.
-
I can vaguely remember the old telephones and if you were calling someone and then making another call straight after, you wouldn't put the receiver on the hook, you would depress the force release buttons with a finger for a couple of seconds to clear the line and get the dial tone while still holding the handset to make the second call.
I seem to recall JB claiming to hear Crispy in the background after NB spoke at one point but can't think where I saw this and could be wrong - if JB said this then all of his WS and interview accounts are wrong as he would have had to clear the line himself before calling back to get the engaged tone.
Like I say, the point is moot because we shall never know for certain whether NB supposedly dropped the phone without depressing the force release, pressed the FR intending to make another call but then dropped the receiver in a hurry, someone else pressed the FR or, my favoured scenario; NB simply didn't make any calls that night, he was too busy getting shot by his greedy thieving son.
-
I remember the 80's very well. If the phone was left off the hook after a call it would make a noise to alert you; a continuous loud tone.
-
I can vaguely remember the old telephones and if you were calling someone and then making another call straight after, you wouldn't put the receiver on the hook, you would depress the force release buttons with a finger for a couple of seconds to clear the line and get the dial tone while still holding the handset to make the second call.
I seem to recall JB claiming to hear Crispy in the background after NB spoke at one point but can't think where I saw this and could be wrong - if JB said this then all of his WS and interview accounts are wrong as he would have had to clear the line himself before calling back to get the engaged tone.
Like I say, the point is moot because we shall never know for certain whether NB supposedly dropped the phone without depressing the force release, pressed the FR intending to make another call but then dropped the receiver in a hurry, someone else pressed the FR or, my favoured scenario; NB simply didn't make any calls that night, he was too busy getting shot by his greedy thieving son.
It was the GPO operator who heard Crispy having opened up the line to listen in.
But the point is, I think, the 'force-release' mechanism was on a loop of up to 2 mins but the eng was unable to quote a minimum so JB could have replaced the handset, picked it up immediately and dialled out.
If JB received such a tel call do we know for sure he called back straight away and didn't do some other thing eg go to the loo?
This is why imo a reconstruction is so important. If it places NB on the landing stairs with the perp firing out from the bedroom it lends support to JB's claim of a tel call ie NB possibly coming up the main staircase from the kitchen having made the tel call to NB with SC already in the bedroom shooting June until she turns her attention to NB on the landing.
-
No mention about making any deposit here... https://soundcloud.com/you/tracks (https://soundcloud.com/you/tracks)
-
It was the GPO operator who heard Crispy having opened up the line to listen in.
But the point is, I think, the 'force-release' mechanism was on a loop of up to 2 mins but the eng was unable to quote a minimum so JB could have replaced the handset, picked it up immediately and dialled out.
If JB received such a tel call do we know for sure he called back straight away and didn't do some other thing eg go to the loo?
This is why imo a reconstruction is so important. If it places NB on the landing stairs with the perp firing out from the bedroom it lends support to JB's claim of a tel call ie NB possibly coming up the main staircase from the kitchen having made the tel call to NB with SC already in the bedroom shooting June until she turns her attention to NB on the landing.
Are you suggesting that a reconstruction would involve Bamber himself, who might suddenly conveniently remember 35 years after the event that his first action on hearing his distressed father’s call was to go to the toilet?
-
I was always taught that one should be able to debate both sides but whenever I try to argue for Bambers innocence, I immediately get stuck with the phone call.
Not only does it make no sense for Nevill to turn his back on an armed and dangerous Sheila to try and rouse his son in the middle of the night, the timings of JBs two calls are too uncertain to be able to draw any firm conclusions.
This is not helped by sloppy record keeping by the police and muddied further by Bamber changing his story to fit with the ludicrously misrepresented call log "evidence" that Nevill called police himself at 3.26.
In his first WS, he claimed that after trying to return NBs 3.10am call and getting the engaged tone, he "immediately" called the police and then called JM at 3.25 for some "reassurance" ( but not mentioning anything about Sheila or a gun )
After his arrest, he admits that he had to look up the number in the phone book and this took 10 minutes. He says that he called Julie before he called the police but only for a minute or two "because he had to call the police" - again there is no mention of any guns in this conversation in which he is seeking advice/reassurance from JM. Nor is there any mention of his attempt to phone Witham but getting no answer.
When he is challenged about the changed order of his calls, he claims he is muddled up and that his original WS was correct despite his apparent certainty in both of his accounts.
8((()*/
-
According to JM's first wit stat she was half asleep and not fully aware of what JB said.
What’s this got to do with ‘the phone call’ ?
-
I remember the 80's very well. If the phone was left off the hook after a call it would make a noise to alert you; a continuous loud tone.
But wasn't that if the handset hadn't been replaced properly?
If A called B and they ended the call by returning handsets to cradle but if either didn't return properly the loud continuous noise would start up?
-
I remember the 80's very well. If the phone was left off the hook after a call it would make a noise to alert you; a continuous loud tone.
But wasn't that if the handset hadn't been replaced properly?
If A called B and they ended the call by returning handsets to cradle but if either didn't return properly the loud continuous noise would start up?
*%87
-
It was the GPO operator who heard Crispy having opened up the line to listen in.
But the point is, I think, the 'force-release' mechanism was on a loop of up to 2 mins but the eng was unable to quote a minimum so JB could have replaced the handset, picked it up immediately and dialled out.
If JB received such a tel call do we know for sure he called back straight away and didn't do some other thing eg go to the loo?
This is why imo a reconstruction is so important. If it places NB on the landing stairs with the perp firing out from the bedroom it lends support to JB's claim of a tel call ie NB possibly coming up the main staircase from the kitchen having made the tel call to NB with SC already in the bedroom shooting June until she turns her attention to NB on the landing.
Nope, the line could only be immediately disconnected at the callers end - JB would have had to replace the receiver for at least a minute as per the expert evidence.
I think your famous reconstructions would be interesting but would likely be inconclusive and throw up more than one scenario. It's not impossible that NB was shot in his left side as he bolted out of bed and made for the kitchen with the killer following him for instance. It was only a short distance to the door and the landing so there is no certainty any of his blood should have been found in the bedroom and even less certainty that the useless police would have found it. In the split seconds it would have taken him to bolt to the door, perhaps only tiny amounts would have been left and tiny amounts could not be tested in those days.
-
Nope, the line could only be immediately disconnected at the callers end - JB would have had to replace the receiver for at least a minute as per the expert evidence.
I think your famous reconstructions would be interesting but would likely be inconclusive and throw up more than one scenario. It's not impossible that NB was shot in his left side as he bolted out of bed and made for the kitchen with the killer following him for instance. It was only a short distance to the door and the landing so there is no certainty any of his blood should have been found in the bedroom and even less certainty that the useless police would have found it. In the split seconds it would have taken him to bolt to the door, perhaps only tiny amounts would have been left and tiny amounts could not be tested in those days.
The chartered engineer concluded his statement as follows:
The force-release period is up to 2 minutes although I cannot state what the minimum period is.
If it had to be left in place for 1 minute or some other time period he would say as much but he can't meaning JB could have called back straight away.
The reconstruction needs to be placed on the totality of the physical evidence at soc as per the following to establish perp/victim location:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction
-
The chartered engineer concluded his statement as follows:
The force-release period is up to 2 minutes although I cannot state what the minimum period is.
If it had to be left in place for 1 minute or some other time period he would say as much but he can't meaning JB could have called back straight away.
The reconstruction needs to be placed on the totality of the physical evidence at soc as per the following to establish perp/victim location:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction
I have asked you some questions on the reconstruction thread.
-
But wasn't that if the handset hadn't been replaced properly?
If A called B and they ended the call by returning handsets to cradle but if either didn't return properly the loud continuous noise would start up?
Yes, it was designed to warn you that you were still connected (and, I suppose, being charged). I have to admit the phone confuses me. If anyone can enlighten me I would be grateful.
Why did the police ask the operator to try to connect?
Was it possible to connect if the phone had been hung up?
-
But wasn't that if the handset hadn't been replaced properly?
If A called B and they ended the call by returning handsets to cradle but if either didn't return properly the loud continuous noise would start up?
No, there was no 'howler' it had to be initiated by an engineer and the Maldon exchange wasn't manned at night.
-
Yes, it was designed to warn you that you were still connected (and, I suppose, being charged). I have to admit the phone confuses me. If anyone can enlighten me I would be grateful.
Why did the police ask the operator to try to connect?
Was it possible to connect if the phone had been hung up?
Hopefully the GPO Operator's wit stat will answer your questions:
-
The chartered engineer concluded his statement as follows:
The force-release period is up to 2 minutes although I cannot state what the minimum period is.
If it had to be left in place for 1 minute or some other time period he would say as much but he can't meaning JB could have called back straight away.
The reconstruction needs to be placed on the totality of the physical evidence at soc as per the following to establish perp/victim location:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction
It's useless information because there is no way of knowing if NB terminated the call before he dropped the handset. All we know is that the phone was found off the hook and that JB made no mention of having to clear the line from his end. There is nothing probative here.
I think you could conjure up at least a couple of scenarios to explain the physical evidence leaving us no further forward. If the physical evidence could have pointed to anything other than speculation either the defence or prosecution would have made use of it.
-
It's useless information because there is no way of knowing if NB terminated the call before he dropped the handset. All we know is that the phone was found off the hook and that JB made no mention of having to clear the line from his end. There is nothing probative here.
I think you could conjure up at least a couple of scenarios to explain the physical evidence leaving us no further forward. If the physical evidence could have pointed to anything other than speculation either the defence or prosecution would have made use of it.
I like you, we have the same thinking! 8((()*/
-
It's useless information because there is no way of knowing if NB terminated the call before he dropped the handset. All we know is that the phone was found off the hook and that JB made no mention of having to clear the line from his end. There is nothing probative here.
I think you could conjure up at least a couple of scenarios to explain the physical evidence leaving us no further forward. If the physical evidence could have pointed to anything other than speculation either the defence or prosecution would have made use of it.
There is much, now being claimed to have significance, which was available for further scrutiny, at the time. I think we may be absolutely certain that, if either side had seen anything they could have used to their advantage, they would have. Having read the book written by a prosecuting barrister, from the time he was in training, it appears their prime interest is in having a story a jury will buy. I've often speculated that Jeremy's defence didn't believe they had?
-
It's useless information because there is no way of knowing if NB terminated the call before he dropped the handset. All we know is that the phone was found off the hook and that JB made no mention of having to clear the line from his end. There is nothing probative here.
I think you could conjure up at least a couple of scenarios to explain the physical evidence leaving us no further forward. If the physical evidence could have pointed to anything other than speculation either the defence or prosecution would have made use of it.
I don't know what state the line had to be in to enable the GPO operator to listen in. If NB made a call to JB albeit JB made other calls his end did this still leave the line open NB's end? Or is it the case that by simply removing the handset from the cradle enabled the GPO operator to listen in? I agree there doesn't seem to be anything probative for either side.
I disagree on the reconstruction as I think it is capable of determining NB's precise location when he sustained the upstairs gsw's. It wasn't something explored at trial at all. I will upload Malcom Fletcher's trial testimony (ballistics) shortly.
Gun crime is low in UK especially some 35 years ago so theres no reason to believe the QC's would have experience of shooting reconstructions.
-
I don't know what state the line had to be in to enable the GPO operator to listen in. If NB made a call to JB albeit JB made other calls his end did this still leave the line open NB's end? Or is it the case that by simply removing the handset from the cradle enabled the GPO operator to listen in? I agree there doesn't seem to be anything probative for either side.
I disagree on the reconstruction as I think it is capable of determining NB's precise location when he sustained the upstairs gsw's. It wasn't something explored at trial at all. I will upload Malcom Fletcher's trial testimony (ballistics) shortly.
Gun crime is low in UK especially some 35 years ago so theres no reason to believe the QC's would have experience of shooting reconstructions.
An operator could listen in on any line, the handset doesn't need to be off the cradle for this to happen. Jeremy Bamber claimed that his father phoned him at his cottage and that the line went dead while he was speaking to him. Does anyone really believe for a minute that Sheila could have done this?
I don't believe a reliable reconstruction of the shooting in the bedroom could be accomplished since all we know is where Nevill was when he was shot and approximately where his killer was standing.
-
An operator could listen in on any line, the handset doesn't need to be off the cradle for this to happen. Jeremy Bamber claimed that his father phoned him at his cottage and that the line went dead while he was speaking to him. Does anyone really believe for a minute that Sheila could have done this?
I don't believe a reliable reconstruction of the shooting in the bedroom could be accomplished since all we know is where Nevill was when he was shot and approximately where his killer was standing.
Not for a moment no. The idea that Sheila got close enough to depress the doodah giving an uninjured NB a chance to disarm her when they then both got back upstairs where the shooting starts is as unlikely as NB choosing to call his idiot son in the first place to my mind. How was he supposed to help? He couldn't even get in unless NB expected him to do his well practised window trick.
I agree, there seems too many variables. No one knows if the cartridge on the stairs was carried there on a foot or was ejected there for instance, although I will admit to not really looking into trajectories and floor plans because I am no expert and being a guilter, I don't have to prove anything.
-
Not for a moment no. The idea that Sheila got close enough to depress the doodah giving an uninjured NB a chance to disarm her when they then both got back upstairs where the shooting starts is as unlikely as NB choosing to call his idiot son in the first place to my mind. How was he supposed to help? He couldn't even get in unless NB expected him to do his well practised window trick.
8((()*/
-
Not for a moment no. The idea that Sheila got close enough to depress the doodah giving an uninjured NB a chance to disarm her when they then both got back upstairs where the shooting starts is as unlikely as NB choosing to call his idiot son in the first place to my mind. How was he supposed to help? He couldn't even get in unless NB expected him to do his well practised window trick.
I agree, there seems too many variables. No one knows if the cartridge on the stairs was carried there on a foot or was ejected there for instance, although I will admit to not really looking into trajectories and floor plans because I am no expert and being a guilter, I don't have to prove anything.
Apart from all else, in an emergency, WHY would he risk making a call which maybe neither heard, nor answered?
-
An operator could listen in on any line, the handset doesn't need to be off the cradle for this to happen. Jeremy Bamber claimed that his father phoned him at his cottage and that the line went dead while he was speaking to him. Does anyone really believe for a minute that Sheila could have done this?
I don't believe a reliable reconstruction of the shooting in the bedroom could be accomplished since all we know is where Nevill was when he was shot and approximately where his killer was standing.
I have already said this about twenty times it just falls on deaf ears.
-
I like you, we have the same thinking! 8((()*/
Thank you. I have long admired you from afar. 8**8:/:
-
Thank you. I have long admired you from afar. 8**8:/:
Aww thanks 8((()*/
-
Aww thanks 8((()*/
8(8-)) 8)><(
-
An operator could listen in on any line, the handset doesn't need to be off the cradle for this to happen. Jeremy Bamber claimed that his father phoned him at his cottage and that the line went dead while he was speaking to him. Does anyone really believe for a minute that Sheila could have done this?
I don't believe a reliable reconstruction of the shooting in the bedroom could be accomplished since all we know is where Nevill was when he was shot and approximately where his killer was standing.
I should add to this the difference between listening in on an open line as against a closed line. If the telephone cradle was down because the handset was resting on it then the microphone on the handset would be disconnected. In that situation no sound could have been heard coming from the kitchen. If the cradle was raised as was the case at White House Farm then the microphone in the handset would be live, in this case the operator would hear sounds coming from the kitchen.
As an aside, I find the proposition somewhat preposterous that Sheila could have in any way challenged her father that morning and got the better of him. IMO, Nevill would have shut her down instantly if she was perceived as a potential threat to them all.
Clearly whoever murdered them all had to have strength and a physical presence capable of carrying out everything we now know happened.
-
8(8-)) 8)><(
There, there
-
8(8-)) 8)><(
8(>((
-
But wasn't that if the handset hadn't been replaced properly?
If A called B and they ended the call by returning handsets to cradle but if either didn't return properly the loud continuous noise would start up?
Bamber got the ‘engaged tone’ Holly
You can listen to him here https://soundcloud.com/phil-garlic/unknown-album saying just that
-
I don't know what state the line had to be in to enable the GPO operator to listen in. If NB made a call to JB albeit JB made other calls his end did this still leave the line open NB's end? Or is it the case that by simply removing the handset from the cradle enabled the GPO operator to listen in? I agree there doesn't seem to be anything probative for either side.
I disagree on the reconstruction as I think it is capable of determining NB's precise location when he sustained the upstairs gsw's. It wasn't something explored at trial at all. I will upload Malcom Fletcher's trial testimony (ballistics) shortly.
Gun crime is low in UK especially some 35 years ago so theres no reason to believe the QC's would have experience of shooting reconstructions.
In the 1980s the GPO were the only suppliers of telephone lines.
If a caller inadvertently left the receiver off the hook, the GPO would blast a horn type sound to alert the household that the phone had been been left off the hook. It happened to me once or twice.
The GPO could listen in if it was off the hook (as they did at WHF), and they were also able to interrupt a telephone call in an emergency, say, if someone had been trying to get through to an engaged tone and it was extremely urgent they spoke to them. In the event, it’s been proven that the phone was off the hook — so there’s nothing to really discuss about that...
All that aside, Jeremy Bamber himself told the police that Nevill rang him and then the phone cut off “as though someone had pressed the buttons down on the cradle”. He tried to infer it wasn’t Nevill who ended the call, but someone sneaking up behind him and gently terminating the call. And we all know Sheila couldn’t have done that. To even discuss the possibility is ludicrous, but let’s suppose she had, that would mean she’d not been frenzied like JB claimed, but carefully and quietly crept up and cut the call off while she held the rifle in one hand.
Are you suggesting Sheila did that, and Nevill didn’t turn round and disarm her while she placed her hand in front of him?
As for a reconstruction being able to prove exactly where Nevill was standing when he was shot eight times in total, it wouldn’t prove who actually shot him. A reconstruction wouldn’t even prove exactly where Nevill was shot as the shell casings could have ricocheted or fallen depending on various things — and it still wouldn’t prove anything. But it’s irrelevant, because it’s already been proven WHERE Nevill was shot; how/why he died; and how he was viciously beaten to a pulp in the kitchen. Ballistics, forensics and the pathologist proved that.
The ONLY reconstruction that would prove anything is to have one of Sheila supposedly shooting herself. Luckily for Jeremy Bamber, the prosecution didn’t even need to prove the obvious, as logic proves she couldn’t have. But as you’re so hellbent in trying to make out Jeremy is innocent, I think you’d be wise to prove by reconstruction that Sheila was able to shoot herself, then go downstairs and put the silencer away walking upside down so blood didn’t pour down her face, body and nightdress, then shoot herself again in that unusual spot in the master bedroom.
-
In the 1980s the GPO were the only suppliers of telephone lines.
If a caller inadvertently left the receiver off the hook, the GPO would blast a horn type sound to alert the household that the phone had been been left off the hook. It happened to me once or twice.
The GPO could listen in if it was off the hook (as they did at WHF), and they were also able to interrupt a telephone call in an emergency, say, if someone had been trying to get through to an engaged tone and it was extremely urgent they spoke to them. In the event, it’s been proven that the phone was off the hook — so there’s nothing to really discuss about that...
All that aside, Jeremy Bamber himself told the police that Nevill rang him and then the phone cut off “as though someone had pressed the buttons down on the cradle”. He tried to infer it wasn’t Nevill who ended the call, but someone sneaking up behind him and gently terminating the call. And we all know Sheila couldn’t have done that. To even discuss the possibility is ludicrous, but let’s suppose she had, that would mean she’d not been frenzied like JB claimed, but carefully and quietly crept up and cut the call off while she held the rifle in one hand.
Are you suggesting Sheila did that, and Nevill didn’t turn round and disarm her while she placed her hand in front of him?
As for a reconstruction being able to prove exactly where Nevill was standing when he was shot eight times in total, it wouldn’t prove who actually shot him. A reconstruction wouldn’t even prove exactly where Nevill was shot as the shell casings could have ricocheted or fallen depending on various things — and it still wouldn’t prove anything. But it’s irrelevant, because it’s already been proven WHERE Nevill was shot; how/why he died; and how he was viciously beaten to a pulp in the kitchen. Ballistics, forensics and the pathologist proved that.
The ONLY reconstruction that would prove anything is to have one of Sheila supposedly shooting herself. Luckily for Jeremy Bamber, the prosecution didn’t even need to prove the obvious, as logic proves she couldn’t have. But as you’re so hellbent in trying to make out Jeremy is innocent, I think you’d be wise to prove by reconstruction that Sheila was able to shoot herself, then go downstairs and put the silencer away walking upside down so blood didn’t pour down her face, body and nightdress, then shoot herself again in that unusual spot in the master bedroom.
Her hand resting on her body shpws she was staged. try it, when you relax, your hand falls to the side.
-
Her hand resting on her body shpws she was staged. try it, when you relax, your hand falls to the side.
True, Caroline
It falls to the side
What’s more, you need two arms to hold a rifle, and as her left arm was up above her head I’d like Holly to do a reconstruction for everyone.
For Jem!
After all, by proving that Sheila COULD have indeed carried all that out, that will help JB immensely!! &^^&*
-
Her hand resting on her body shpws she was staged. try it, when you relax, your hand falls to the side.
No one doubts the soc was interfered with. A/PS Woodcock's wit stat, DC Bird's soc images and Martyn Ismail's testimony are evidence of this. But it wasn't JB as he was outside with EP.
When you've completed transcribing Dr V's testimony you will see he has SC sitting partially upright when she sustained the 2 gsw's with the second fatal gsw causing her head to fall back. Prof Knight was of the same opinion.
-
No one doubts the soc was interfered with. A/PS Woodcock's wit stat, DC Bird's soc images and Martyn Ismail's testimony are evidence of this. But it wasn't JB as he was outside with EP.
When you've completed transcribing Dr V's testimony you will see he has SC sitting partially upright when she sustained the 2 gsw's with the second fatal gsw causing her head to fall back. Prof Knight was of the same opinion.
I have finished transcribing Dr V's notes - years ago. Why can't you distinguish WHEN SHE SUSTAINED THE SHOT from still being sat upright when discovered. Have a look at the link below - it tells you all about the law of gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
-
No one doubts the soc was interfered with. A/PS Woodcock's wit stat, DC Bird's soc images and Martyn Ismail's testimony are evidence of this. But it wasn't JB as he was outside with EP.
When you've completed transcribing Dr V's testimony you will see he has SC sitting partially upright when she sustained the 2 gsw's with the second fatal gsw causing her head to fall back. Prof Knight was of the same opinion.
Holly,
Why do you doubt scientific facts?
And why doubt Caroline? In my view, Caroline is the most knowledgeable of all as she was once a supporter (for purely innocent/concerned reasons) so not only does she have evidence from JM himself, she’s read just about everything there is to read on the case.
What she says is true: Sheila’s head was slightly raised when she was shot the first time, and after being shot her body collapsed as it would do. When JB shot her the second time, some time after too, she was laying in that position she was found in. The rigor mortis and mirrored skin on her left arm proved that.
JB had indeed pulled her by the legs further down the carpet, but not by much — as her nightdress proves.
I suspect you’re focussing too much on what the police hastily jotted down in their little notebooks. Don’t forget, they’re humans too, and the horrific scene affected them badly. It stands to reason that they’d have hastily written words such as “woman, aged late 20s, head against cabinet in an upwards position”. The last thing a PC in panic when scribbling notes with his heart racing whilst looking at a young woman shot dead is his grammar...
But she wasn’t sitting UP. she was laying with her head raised up showing her neck, against the cabinet, with dried blood trails flowing upwards on her face. Had she been sitting up, the blood trails would have trailed downwards towards her chin and neck.
The courts and jury understood that...it’s easy to understand, and I’m surprised you don’t.
-
Holly,
Why do you doubt scientific facts?
And why doubt Caroline? In my view, Caroline is the most knowledgeable of all as she was once a supporter (for purely innocent/concerned reasons) so not only does she have evidence from JM himself, she’s read just about everything there is to read on the case.
What she says is true: Sheila’s head was slightly raised when she was shot the first time, and after being shot her body collapsed as it would do. When JB shot her the second time, some time after too, she was laying in that position she was found in. The rigor mortis and mirrored skin on her left arm proved that.
JB had indeed pulled her by the legs further down the carpet, but not by much — as her nightdress proves.
I suspect you’re focussing too much on what the police hastily jotted down in their little notebooks. Don’t forget, they’re humans too, and the horrific scene affected them badly. It stands to reason that they’d have hastily written words such as “woman, aged late 20s, head against cabinet in an upwards position”. The last thing a PC in panic when scribbling notes with his heart racing whilst looking at a young woman shot dead is his grammar...
But she wasn’t sitting UP. she was laying with her head raised up showing her neck, against the cabinet, with dried blood trails flowing upwards on her face. Had she been sitting up, the blood trails would have trailed downwards towards her chin and neck.
The courts and jury understood that...it’s easy to understand, and I’m surprised you don’t.
I don't doubt the scientific facts at all. This is the reason I buy into testimony from prosecution expert Martyn Ismail that when SC sustained the second gsw her head fell back against the bedside cabinet. This aligns with testimony from first respondent A/PS Woodcock who made a statement in Sep to this effect. Both contradict soc images which rules out JB moving SC.
Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight observed trails of blood from SC's gsw's and mouth running in opposite directions ie blood from gsw's running vertically from her neck and horizontally from her mouth. (Although Dr V does describe the direction of the blood running from the mouth as vertical?).
-
I don't doubt the scientific facts at all. This is the reason I buy into testimony from prosecution expert Martyn Ismail that when SC sustained the second gsw her head fell back against the bedside cabinet. This aligns with testimony from first respondent A/PS Woodcock who made a statement in Sep to this effect. Both contradict soc images which rules JB moving SC.
Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight observed trails of blood from SC's gsw's and mouth running in opposite directions ie blood from gsw's running vertically from her neck and horizontally from her mouth. (Although Dr V does describe the direction of the blood running from the mouth as vertical?).
You pick and choose Holly! As I have already told you Woodcock confirms the blood pattern on SC's face which goes against gravity - she could have been sat up for long after being shot. Please provide the evidence from Vaneziz, Knight and Ismail that state SC's head would have been upright after being shot. I don't know what you have posted above but we have CS photographs and we can SEE that the blood is running from the sides of her mouth and has even run UP towards her left eye. You can't argue against gravity but you keep trying!
-
Holly,
Why do you doubt scientific facts?
And why doubt Caroline? In my view, Caroline is the most knowledgeable of all as she was once a supporter (for purely innocent/concerned reasons) so not only does she have evidence from JM himself, she’s read just about everything there is to read on the case.
What she says is true: Sheila’s head was slightly raised when she was shot the first time, and after being shot her body collapsed as it would do. When JB shot her the second time, some time after too, she was laying in that position she was found in. The rigor mortis and mirrored skin on her left arm proved that.
JB had indeed pulled her by the legs further down the carpet, but not by much — as her nightdress proves.
I suspect you’re focussing too much on what the police hastily jotted down in their little notebooks. Don’t forget, they’re humans too, and the horrific scene affected them badly. It stands to reason that they’d have hastily written words such as “woman, aged late 20s, head against cabinet in an upwards position”. The last thing a PC in panic when scribbling notes with his heart racing whilst looking at a young woman shot dead is his grammar...
But she wasn’t sitting UP. she was laying with her head raised up showing her neck, against the cabinet, with dried blood trails flowing upwards on her face. Had she been sitting up, the blood trails would have trailed downwards towards her chin and neck.
The courts and jury understood that...it’s easy to understand, and I’m surprised you don’t.
Dr Vanezis gave evidence that the nature of the blood stains to the nightdress suggested that Sheila Caffell was sitting up when she received both injuries. After the second injury she would have immediately fallen back. There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle.
-
Dr Vanezis gave evidence that the nature of the blood stains to the nightdress suggested that Sheila Caffell was sitting up when she received both injuries. After the second injury she would have immediately fallen back. There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle.
And that is the issue which Holly fails to accept. You also don't have to be an expert to understand that her hand could not have remained on the rifle in the position she was found. As soon as her body relaxed, it would have fallen to her side. It's an easy experiment to try for yourself.
-
And that is the issue which Holly fails to accept. You also don't have to be an expert to understand that her hand could not have remained on the rifle in the position she was found. As soon as her body relaxed, it would have fallen to her side. It's an easy experiment to try for yourself.
SC was moved post first respondents arriving and pre soc images taken so there's no reliable photographic evidence of SC's found position.
-
SC was moved post first respondents arriving and pre soc images taken so there's no reliable photographic evidence of SC's found position.
She wasn't - the blood trail prove it unless you think she defied gravity! There is photographic evidence to prove the way her blood flowed from fer mouth and nose.
-
Photographic proof that SC's head could not have been raised after being shot. Of particular note, is the blood that has trailed upwards to her eye from her moth and nose. This COULD NOT have occurred if her head was partially upright and the blood from the side of her mouth would have ran down her chin. You can't argue with gravity!
Must add - I hate posting these photographs but some people may not have seen it and without it there is no reference to disprove what Holly is claiming. The picture speaks volumes and allows Sheila to have her say!
-
Photographic proof that SC's head could not have been raised after being shot. Of particular note, is the blood that has trailed upwards to her eye from her moth and nose. This COULD NOT have occurred if her head was partially upright and the blood from the side of her mouth would have ran down her chin. You can't argue with gravity!
Must add - I hate posting these photographs but some people may not have seen it and without it there is no reference to disprove what Holly is claiming. The picture speaks volumes and allows Sheila to have her say!
It doesn't! Both pathologists have SC sitting partially upright. First respondent A/PS Woodcock found SC's head slightly raised against the bedside cabinet. SC was interfered with after first respondents entered evidenced by soc images showing her head flat to the floor. Forensic scientist Martyn Ismail gave evidence that following the second gsw SC's head would have fallen back against the bedside cabinet and he went to say she was pulled by her feet and her head fell flat to the floor. It was the movement of her head that caused dislodged blood pooled in the back of her throat to trail from the sides of her mouth. Gsw's cause bleeding internally and externally.
-
It doesn't! Both pathologists have SC sitting partially upright. First respondent A/PS Woodcock found SC's head slightly raised against the bedside cabinet. SC was interfered with after first respondents entered evidenced by soc images showing her head flat to the floor. Forensic scientist Martyn Ismail gave evidence that following the second gsw SC's head would have fallen back against the bedside cabinet and he went to say she was pulled by her feet and her head fell flat to the floor. It was the movement of her head that caused dislodged blood pooled in the back of her throat to trail from the sides of her mouth. Gsw's cause bleeding internally and externally.
We have been through this before, Woodcock also described how blood was leaking out of both sides of her moon her face so this was clearly the blood was dried around her mouth so this could NOT have occurred later. Dr Craig described seeing 'a quantity of dried blood which had come from her mouth when he pronounced death. I agree with Ismail - that her feet were pulled, they were pulled by Bamber!
-
It doesn't! Both pathologists have SC sitting partially upright. First respondent A/PS Woodcock found SC's head slightly raised against the bedside cabinet. SC was interfered with after first respondents entered evidenced by soc images showing her head flat to the floor. Forensic scientist Martyn Ismail gave evidence that following the second gsw SC's head would have fallen back against the bedside cabinet and he went to say she was pulled by her feet and her head fell flat to the floor. It was the movement of her head that caused dislodged blood pooled in the back of her throat to trail from the sides of her mouth. Gsw's cause bleeding internally and externally.
I don't think you can put too much store in the single line of a single witness statement of Woodcock corroborating anything Holly.
After all, the surgeon and 5 other officers failed to note the two gunshot wounds properly in theirs.
One officer wrote that Sheila was "on the left hand side of the bed" and a whole scenario was constructed by the Bamberloons where she was actually on the bed. Mike T has even seen the photo but JB got cross with him because it was the only copy and it got lost when he mailed it to the prison ( probably confiscated by MI5 )
The most likely person to have moved her body is Bamber - There is a reason Ismail was called by the prosecution.
-
I don't think you can put too much store in the single line of a single witness statement of Woodcock corroborating anything Holly.
After all, the surgeon and 5 other officers failed to note the two gunshot wounds properly in theirs.
One officer wrote that Sheila was "on the left hand side of the bed" and a whole scenario was constructed by the Bamberloons where she was actually on the bed. Mike T has even seen the photo but JB got cross with him because it was the only copy and it got lost when he mailed it to the prison ( probably confiscated by MI5 )
The most likely person to have moved her body is Bamber - There is a reason Ismail was called by the prosecution.
I thought it was Ann Eaton who started the rumour that Sheila was found on the bed. She claimed that DC Clark told her that Sheila and June were found on the bed with the rifle between them and the bible on Sheila's chest. [w/s 14/05/91 page 9]
-
I thought it was Ann Eaton who started the rumour that Sheila was found on the bed. She claimed that DC Clark told her that Sheila and June were found on the bed with the rifle between them and the bible on Sheila's chest. [w/s 14/05/91 page 9]
If someone is only repeating what they've been told by another, how can it be claimed that it's they, as opposed to the original story teller, who started the rumour?
-
I thought it was Ann Eaton who started the rumour that Sheila was found on the bed. She claimed that DC Clark told her that Sheila and June were found on the bed with the rifle between them and the bible on Sheila's chest. [w/s 14/05/91 page 9]
I think there were a lot of chinese whispers at the time. In fact the case is still riddled with them.
Officers outside listening to the radios of the raid team initially believed there were two bodies in the kitchen... a conspiracy theory that never dies.
-
I think there were a lot of chinese whispers at the time. In fact the case is still riddled with them.
Officers outside listening to the radios of the raid team initially believed there were two bodies in the kitchen... a conspiracy theory that never dies.
Sounds like a mistake, rather than a conspiracy theory.
Who thought there were two bodies? I understand that someone thought, at first, that Nevill was a female, but where did the two bodies thing come from?
-
Sounds like a mistake, rather than a conspiracy theory.
Who thought there were two bodies? I understand that someone thought, at first, that Nevill was a female, but where did the two bodies thing come from?
Mistake it may be but Bamber and the CT have and continue to milk it as proof that Sheila was still alive.
-
Sounds like a mistake, rather than a conspiracy theory.
Who thought there were two bodies? I understand that someone thought, at first, that Nevill was a female, but where did the two bodies thing come from?
A misunderstanding, Mrswah, which some supporters have used and played to the hilt. I don't think there's any more mileage in it, but who knows?
-
We have been through this before, Woodcock also described how blood was leaking out of both sides of her moon her face so this was clearly the blood was dried around her mouth so this could NOT have occurred later. Dr Craig described seeing 'a quantity of dried blood which had come from her mouth when he pronounced death. I agree with Ismail - that her feet were pulled, they were pulled by Bamber!
I thought you didn't place any weight on what Dr Craig said since he only observed 1 gsw?
Why would A/PS Woodcock say SC's head was raised against the bedside cabinet if it wasn't? He was the lead officer in the firearms team where observational skills are number 1.
SC sustained 2 gsw's and the pathologists were unable to say with any certainty the time gap between the two. We have no idea of SC's precise position for the two shots and what happened in between.
-
I thought you didn't place any weight on what Dr Craig said since he only observed 1 gsw?
Why would A/PS Woodcock say SC's head was raised against the bedside cabinet if it wasn't? He was the lead officer in the firearms team where observational skills are number 1.
SC sustained 2 gsw's and the pathologists were unable to say with any certainty the time gap between the two. We have no idea of SC's precise position for the two shots and what happened in between.
Where did I say that? If I did, I certainly would be daft enough to ignore what he said about the blood on SC's face given that there is a photograph showing that he was correct!
Woodcock clearly made a mistake - he must have because the blood proves it.
Well we do have the fact that there is no blood trail down the front of her nightdress so she is unlikely to have gone anywhere - although I'm not sure why you have made this comment in the context of the debate?
-
A misunderstanding, Mrswah, which some supporters have used and played to the hilt. I don't think there's any more mileage in it, but who knows?
The CT seem to think there is.. they were tweeting about it just the other day.
It was all part of their #SheilaAlive campaign - the weirdos even had badges made.
My favourite one is curtains being "drawn" meaning the opposite of being "closed" @)(++(*
https://twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/1003221886355099648
-
The CT seem to think there is.. they were tweeting about it just the other day.
It was all part of their #SheilaAlive campaign - the weirdos even had badges made.
My favourite one is curtains being "drawn" meaning the opposite of being "closed"
https://twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/1003221886355099648
They appear to be twisting words as opposed to tweeting them.
-
They appear to be twisting words as opposed to tweeting them.
Squawking more like @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
It doesn't! Both pathologists have SC sitting partially upright. First respondent A/PS Woodcock found SC's head slightly raised against the bedside cabinet. SC was interfered with after first respondents entered evidenced by soc images showing her head flat to the floor. Forensic scientist Martyn Ismail gave evidence that following the second gsw SC's head would have fallen back against the bedside cabinet and he went to say she was pulled by her feet and her head fell flat to the floor. It was the movement of her head that caused dislodged blood pooled in the back of her throat to trail from the sides of her mouth. Gsw's cause bleeding internally and externally.
Are you of the opinion that no blood would have escaped her mouth directly after she shot herself? If so why would that be?
-
Are you of the opinion that no blood would have escaped her mouth directly after she shot herself? If so why would that be?
The blood was definitely there when Woodcock found her, because he mentioned it.
-
The blood was definitely there when Woodcock found her, because he mentioned it.
He was the first to see her? Then if Holly is correct he must have watched it ooze out of her mouth but failed to mention this detail. Why would that have been?
-
He was the first to see her? Then if Holly is correct he must have watched it ooze out of her mouth but failed to mention this detail. Why would that have been?
Because it was there before he arrived 8((()*/
-
There are many positions that need accounting for and the soc image only depicts one of them:
1. SC's position upon the first bullet hitting
2. SC's positions between the first non-fatal bullet hitting and all those positions, however subtle, before the moment the second bullet hit
3. SC's position at the moment the second bullet hit
4. SC's positions, however subtle, following the second fatal bullet hitting and her final resting position
5. SC's position when first observed by first respondents which should correspond with 4 above
6. SC's position when photographed
- Both pathologists have SC sitting partially upright for both gsw's
- Both pathologists were unable to give a precise time interval between the two shots. It ranged from a few seconds to a few minutes
- Both pathologists ruled out SC standing up at any stage based on the blood staining
- Prof Knight said blood vessels contract for a few seconds until blood starts to exit. I will find his testimony for his exact words.
The time line is as follows:
Approx 7.30 pm - First respondents found SC
Approx 8.30 pm - Dr Craig certified death
Approx 10.30 pm - Images taken by DC Bird
Inconsistencies
- From Dr Craig:
There was a quantity of dried blood which had come apparently from her mouth and there was what appeared to be an entry wound in her throat.
- From A/PS Woodcock (First respondent/member of firearms team)
I was aware that Sheila BAMBER was lying flat on her back with her head slightly raised as it was against a bedside locker. She had what appeared to be two bullet holes under her chin and blood leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks.
- Unlike Dr Craig, who quickly moved through the farmhouse certifying deaths before leaving, A/PS Woodcock was in the farmhouse for several hours from making the farmhouse safe to showing senior officers around and removing the rifle from SC's body to make it safe.
- A note exists from other officers which I'll try to locate confirming their initial recollections of SC's position does not correspond with soc images.
- The image that Caroline has posted above does not include all the blood staining to SC's person and nightdress. It is obvious that SC's head was at some stage in her neck so to speak evidenced by a void pattern on the top right hand corner of her nightdress where blood has trailed from her wounds but bypassed some of the fabric. Its also clear blood pooled around her armpit and has at some stage leaked onto the carpet but the stain to the carpet doesn't correspond to the soc image.
- Caroline identified that the large blood stain on the carpet and the large blood stain on the open page of the bible do not correspond.
- The blood stains trailing over SC'arm do not correspond with the blood stains trailing on the note sticking out of the bible.
-
I don't doubt the scientific facts at all. This is the reason I buy into testimony from prosecution expert Martyn Ismail that when SC sustained the second gsw her head fell back against the bedside cabinet. This aligns with testimony from first respondent A/PS Woodcock who made a statement in Sep to this effect. Both contradict soc images which rules out JB moving SC.
Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight observed trails of blood from SC's gsw's and mouth running in opposite directions ie blood from gsw's running vertically from her neck and horizontally from her mouth. (Although Dr V does describe the direction of the blood running from the mouth as vertical?).
But when Sheila was found her head was on the floor by the bedside cabinet.
No-one (except JB) saw whether Sheila’s head banged against the cabinet — everyone else is just speculating
And surely there’d have been some kind of gsr or blood spatter on the cabinet had her head banged back against it? Did they find any of her hairs on the cabinet? Any imprint?
Sheila didn’t have any bumps to the back of her head which suggested she’d banged it...
Whatever, Jeremy definitely dragged her body down the carpet as her nightdress was bunched up at the back
-
It doesn't! Both pathologists have SC sitting partially upright. First respondent A/PS Woodcock found SC's head slightly raised against the bedside cabinet. SC was interfered with after first respondents entered evidenced by soc images showing her head flat to the floor. Forensic scientist Martyn Ismail gave evidence that following the second gsw SC's head would have fallen back against the bedside cabinet and he went to say she was pulled by her feet and her head fell flat to the floor. It was the movement of her head that caused dislodged blood pooled in the back of her throat to trail from the sides of her mouth. Gsw's cause bleeding internally and externally.
That’s not true at all.
When the first police officer went into the master bedroom he radioed over and said:
“One female. Early Sixties. Deceased”
He then walked over to where Sheila was and said:
“One female. Late 20s. Deceased”
All the family were dead, and had been for several hours, hence why Sheila’s left arm is mottled and blue and she was entering rigor mortis. In fact, by 3:30pm when Dr Vanezis examined her he noted she had “Extreme rigor mortis”
The police would NOT have even touched Sheila, let alone pull her body around. She was clearly dead!
Making claims that they did move her around, negates all your arguments because you’re showing that you make assumptions which are nonsense.
The only time the police touched Sheila’s body was when they moved the rifle off her lap so the photographer could take pictures of the bloodstain beneath her hand. They then placed the rifle back and tried to position her hand in the original position.
The only reason her arm was on her lap when found was that Jeremy staged it: had she really shot herself her whole body would have jerked and gone into spasm, the rifle would have fallen by her side, and her arm would have flopped out on the ground.
-
I suppose it's possible the vertical flows could have been made by her head being moved and the blood pool being disturbed later but that contradicts what Woodcock states about the blood trails from both sides of her mouth does it not?
It seems to me that Woodcock's statement is inconsistent with itself.
The defence introducing evidence of her body being moved post mortem would be suicidal as it's obvious who was much more likely to have moved her than the police, probably because the rifle didn't sit right.
FWIW: I am of the opinion that the second shot was fired while she was lying toward her right side and the cabinet forced her head into that awkward position as she rolled flat. This means there is no way the gun would have ended up lying on her body.
I don't suppose there is a full copy of Mr Ismail's report anywhere?
-
I suppose it's possible the vertical flows could have been made by her head being moved and the blood pool being disturbed later but that contradicts what Woodcock states about the blood trails from both sides of her mouth does it not?
It seems to me that Woodcock's statement is inconsistent with itself.
The defence introducing evidence of her body being moved post mortem would be suicidal as it's obvious who was much more likely to have moved her than the police, probably because the rifle didn't sit right.
FWIW: I am of the opinion that the second shot was fired while she was lying toward her right side and the cabinet forced her head into that awkward position as she rolled flat. This means there is no way the gun would have ended up lying on her body.
I don't suppose there is a full copy of Mr Ismail's report anywhere?
The fact that Woodcock saw the blood trails is proof thatch was moved prior to the raid team entering.
Ismail made no comment about Sheila being moved after discovery - I don't know why Holly keeps using him as support for her argument.
-
PS Adams handwritten notes for the COLP investigation:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
PS Adams handwritten notes for the COLP investigation:
Yes, but he is saying something far different from Woodcock - he's saying that her head was 'too close' the cabinet not raised against it.
-
Yes, but he is saying something far different from Woodcock - he's saying that her head was 'too close' the cabinet not raised against it.
He is also saying something about the angle of her head not right.
-
He is also saying something about the angle of her head not right.
Top of his list is 'too close to the bedside cabinet' - it simply means that. because. of the delay in producing the statements, recollection was more difficult. Looking at the CS photographs gives the impression of different angles. It's something that has been debated by members on the blue forum.
-
We all remember things differently, our minds are not video recorders that we can rewind. Police hate having multiple witnesses to a crime because they can all say different and contradictory things and there is no reason to think multiple police officers are exempt from this.
The fact is, the evidence for police moving SC is weak to non existent while the evidence she was moved before the raid team entered is very much stronger as the 3 appeal court judges noted.
Another string to the prosecution's considerable bow.
-
And from Prof MacDonell
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
And from Prof MacDonell
Prof MacDonell is a US based blood stain analyst.
Interestingly his report contradicts with the two pathologists in that in his opinion the blood staining rules out SC standing or sitting when shot!
If nothing else it shows like most aspects of the case it's a mess and requires reviewing by experts taking a multi-discipline approach. Pathologists are not biologists/blood stain analysts and biologists/bsa's are not pathologists. It requires both working together.
-
I was going to send the following image by pm to interested parties but unfortunately the system isn't up to this.
-
Trial testimony from Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight re SC sitting in an upwards position which contradicts with Prof MacDonell'testimony *%87
-
But when Sheila was found her head was on the floor by the bedside cabinet.
No-one (except JB) saw whether Sheila’s head banged against the cabinet — everyone else is just speculating
And surely there’d have been some kind of gsr or blood spatter on the cabinet had her head banged back against it? Did they find any of her hairs on the cabinet? Any imprint?
Sheila didn’t have any bumps to the back of her head which suggested she’d banged it...
Whatever, Jeremy definitely dragged her body down the carpet as her nightdress was bunched up at the back
No. All that can be said for sure is that SC's head was flat to the floor when she was photographed at circa 10.30 am. This was some 3 hours after firearms team entered and numerous others were milling around.
-
We all remember things differently, our minds are not video recorders that we can rewind. Police hate having multiple witnesses to a crime because they can all say different and contradictory things and there is no reason to think multiple police officers are exempt from this.
The fact is, the evidence for police moving SC is weak to non existent while the evidence she was moved before the raid team entered is very much stronger as the 3 appeal court judges noted.
Another string to the prosecution's considerable bow.
I agree we do all remember things differently.
Mid 80's blood stain analysis was in its infancy.
A blood stain analyst and pathologist would now be able to work out what happened.
-
Martyn Ismail's testimony:
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
-
Neither defence or prosecution at trial attempted to advance theories that SC was moved at soc prior to soc images taken either by JB or those present at soc.
Soc officers admitted to lifting SC's arm only to take images underneath her wrist.
-
Neither defence or prosecution at trial attempted to advance theories that SC was moved at soc prior to soc images taken either by JB or those present at soc.
Soc officers admitted to lifting SC's arm only to take images underneath her wrist.
Might a SOC officer reorganised the night dress to preserve her dignity?
-
Prof MacDonell is a US based blood stain analyst.
Interestingly his report contradicts with the two pathologists in that in his opinion the blood staining rules out SC standing or sitting when shot!
If nothing else it shows like most aspects of the case it's a mess and requires reviewing by experts taking a multi-discipline approach. Pathologists are not biologists/blood stain analysts and biologists/bsa's are not pathologists. It requires both working together.
And produce yet another opinion?
-
Might a SOC officer reorganised the night dress to preserve her dignity?
Yes possibly. Apparently she wasn't wearing underwear. But this doesn't account for all the other discrepancies.
-
And produce yet another opinion?
No because bsa has moved on leap and bounds since an expert last gave opinion.
-
Yes possibly. Apparently she wasn't wearing underwear. But this doesn't account for all the other discrepancies.
No, but if this SOC officer did that, but then didn't report it, then it explains that entire phenomenon quite readily - in fact probably most plausibly.
-
And produce yet another opinion?
That’s how it works
-
No because bsa has moved on leap and bounds since an expert last gave opinion.
So has innocence fraud
Have a listen,
“John Collins joins Roberta to talk about how why forensic science is being denigrated and challenged by the Innocence movement.
https://podbay.fm/podcast/1446785430/e/1573848019
-
Mistake it may be but Bamber and the CT have and continue to milk it as proof that Sheila was still alive.
Mark Newby appears to have brought into it
-
There are many positions that need accounting for and the soc image only depicts one of them:
1. SC's position upon the first bullet hitting -
2. SC's positions between the first non-fatal bullet hitting and all those positions, however subtle, before the moment the second bullet hit
3. SC's position at the moment the second bullet hit
4. SC's positions, however subtle, following the second fatal bullet hitting and her final resting position
5. SC's position when first observed by first respondents which should correspond with 4 above - We know this by his description and her head could not have been raised.
6. SC's position when photographed
- Both pathologists have SC sitting partially upright for both gsw's Yes at the time of shooting - not after!
- Both pathologists were unable to give a precise time interval between the two shots. It ranged from a few seconds to a few minutes. Unless they were there, it would be pretty impossible to know that.
- Both pathologists ruled out SC standing up at any stage based on the blood staining
- Prof Knight said blood vessels contract for a few seconds until blood starts to exit. I will find his testimony for his exact words. And?
The time line is as follows:
Approx 7.30 pm - First respondents found SC
Approx 8.30 pm - Dr Craig certified death
Approx 10.30 pm - Images taken by DC Bird
Inconsistencies
- From Dr Craig:
There was a quantity of dried blood which had come apparently from her mouth and there was what appeared to be an entry wound in her throat. I have already posted this
- From A/PS Woodcock (First respondent/member of firearms team)
I was aware that Sheila BAMBER was lying flat on her back with her head slightly raised as it was against a bedside locker. She had what appeared to be two bullet holes under her chin and blood leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks. Exactly, which wouldn't happen if her head were raised and how could he see the bullet holes? Her head being raised would force her chin forward obscuring one or both wounds.
- Unlike Dr Craig, who quickly moved through the farmhouse certifying deaths before leaving, A/PS Woodcock was in the farmhouse for several hours from making the farmhouse safe to showing senior officers around and removing the rifle from SC's body to make it safe. And?
- A note exists from other officers which I'll try to locate confirming their initial recollections of SC's position does not correspond with soc images. Because they were looking at images NOT the CS and there is distortion due to the different angles of the camera.
- The image that Caroline has posted above does not include all the blood staining to SC's person and nightdress. It is obvious that SC's head was at some stage in her neck so to speak evidenced by a void pattern on the top right hand corner of her nightdress where blood has trailed from her wounds but bypassed some of the fabric. Its also clear blood pooled around her armpit and has at some stage leaked onto the carpet but the stain to the carpet doesn't correspond to the soc image. Because Sheila was moved but prior to the raid team entering! Who does that leave?
- Caroline identified that the large blood stain on the carpet and the large blood stain on the open page of the bible do not correspond. They don't because the stain is on the wrong page to have originated from the carpet. The large stain most likely came from the back of her nightdress - see image below - it follows a similar pattern - you can see where is could have transferred from the collar etc., which is evidence she was moved but there was no reason for the police to do so and actually, every reason why they wouldn't.
- The blood stains trailing over SC'arm do not correspond with the blood stains trailing on the note sticking out of the bible - I don't think the spot of blood on the note has anything to do with the trail on SC's arm but the bible is on top of her are so was obviously placed their after death.
-
No. All that can be said for sure is that SC's head was flat to the floor when she was photographed at circa 10.30 am. This was some 3 hours after firearms team entered and numerous others were milling around.
And also from the blood which was described by Woodcock as emanating from the corners of her mouth.
-
I agree we do all remember things differently.
Mid 80's blood stain analysis was in its infancy.
A blood stain analyst and pathologist would now be able to work out what happened.
They aren't magicians Holly - they would simply provide yet another opinion.
-
No. All that can be said for sure is that SC's head was flat to the floor when she was photographed at circa 10.30 am. This was some 3 hours after firearms team entered and numerous others were milling around.
So you’re implying Sheila was in a different position and spot when the police raided?
You’re calling them liars — Because they police officers who found Sheila described her as being in that same exact position as she was photographed later.
The police had no NEED or desire to move her. Why would they? For what reason?
IF they’d have moved Sheila (despite not being allowed to even TOUCH her at that time) and her head was raised up against the cupboard as you’re desperately trying to convince people, the huge swell of blood in her throat would have poured out her mouth as they moved her head and would have gushed DOWN all over her chest area and carpet: that blood would have been fluid and fresh too, so what happened to all that escaped blood? There’s no photographs of it and I’m sure the police dint throw Sheila’s nightdress into the washing machine for a “quick wash”!
-
He is also saying something about the angle of her head not right.
That’s because Sheila’s head WAS at an angle; it was raised up; and she had a huge hematoma on the right side of her neck which caused a massive swelling and strange shape. THAT’S what the PO was referring to, it’s obvious
-
Prof MacDonell is a US based blood stain analyst.
Interestingly his report contradicts with the two pathologists in that in his opinion the blood staining rules out SC standing or sitting when shot!
If nothing else it shows like most aspects of the case it's a mess and requires reviewing by experts taking a multi-discipline approach. Pathologists are not biologists/blood stain analysts and biologists/bsa's are not pathologists. It requires both working together.
Which they did, Holly
-
If Sheila's legs were pulled (by Bamber), it would ruche the back of her nightdress - the pattern from the bloodstain on the carpet matches the pattern on the back of her nightdress?
-
I agree we do all remember things differently.
Mid 80's blood stain analysis was in its infancy.
A blood stain analyst and pathologist would now be able to work out what happened.
You’re wayyyyy out, Holly.
Blood analysis was most certainly NOT in its infancy in the 1980s, Holly!
Landsteiner actually received the 1930 Nobel Prize in Physiology of Medicine for his discovery of blood types which brought a new brilliant tool to forensic science.
In 1930!
It was then, in 1930, for the first time that forensic scientists could definitely compare blood EVIDENCE found at crime scenes and match them to the blood of a suspect.
-
You’re wayyyyy out, Holly.
Blood analysis was most certainly NOT in its infancy in the 1980s, Holly!
Landsteiner actually received the 1930 Nobel Prize in Physiology of Medicine for his discovery of blood types which brought a new brilliant tool to forensic science.
In 1930!
It was then, in 1930, for the first time that forensic scientists could definitely compare blood EVIDENCE found at crime scenes and match them to the blood of a suspect.
https://prezi.com/p/qorkcutrc4u9/0103-the-history-of-forensic-science-blood-splatter-analysis/
-
https://prezi.com/p/qorkcutrc4u9/0103-the-history-of-forensic-science-blood-splatter-analysis/
Thank you for that, Caroline
Holly, would you like to comment on that? You said blood analysis was in its infancy when the WHF murders took place in 1985...
Here’s evidence that you’re wrong, so feel free to disagree....