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: scipio_usmc on January 23, 2016, 02:12:35 AM
Title: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 23, 2016, 02:12:35 AM
In the past someone asserted that the butt of the rifle could not have landed on Sheila's legs if she had fired the fatal shot without the moderator attached. I ignored it at the time it was made but that person was correct. I don't remember who made the assertion it may have been John but may very well have been someone else.
Both shots to Sheila were fired not at the center of her neck and chin but rather the right side of her neck and chin. The bullets did not go straight in rather the bullets went from right to left indicating the rifle was angled and being held to the right side facing towards the left. Sheila's killer clearly was standing to the right of her.
In order for Sheila to have fired the fatal shot the butt of the rifle could not be above her legs but rather was angled to the right of her close to the ground and would have fallen on the ground not on her leg. There is no conceivable way it could fall on her leg and yet be fired at the angle it was.
So if she had shot herself while lying down or even while seated and then fell back either the rifle would have been off her body entirely (because as you fall you actually pull away from the weapon) or at the most the very tip of the barrel would have been across her shoulder with the bulk of it on the floor like so:
(http://s11.postimg.org/cxykeggir/sheilatraj.jpg)
Moreover, had she fired the gun then her right arm also would have been out to her right side not across her body. It's impossible to achieve the right to left bullet trajectory with the gun directly in front of her body the butt had to be to the right of her legs and therefore her right arm had to be to the right of her leg to be able to activate the trigger. While watching the video of the demonstration of Howard using her toes to try to fire it occurred to me that the trajectory would be all wrong and then reminded me of what someone else had opined in the past.
There are 2 different angles in term of the trajectory. The angle up and down which is what I always have considered. But there is also the angle side to side. I never gave adequate consideration to the side to side angle before. I have to give props to whoever it was who identified this issue previously.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Myster on January 23, 2016, 07:44:42 AM
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Myster on January 23, 2016, 07:45:34 AM
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Myster on January 23, 2016, 07:46:35 AM
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: John on January 23, 2016, 12:06:52 PM
With the best will in the world, the only people who will know the answer to this will be the armed response team who first entered the master bedroom and in particular the officer who lifted the rifle and made it safe. I have no doubt his first thoughts were, was the woman faking it and could shoot at them and not what exact position the rifle was in. Remember too that it was moved a second or even a third time so that inspections and photos could be taken. I fear the photos which are in the public domain showing the rifle laid out longitudinally along Sheila's body should be taken with a large pinch oif salt.
ps like your Benny Hill avatar Myster.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Myster on January 23, 2016, 12:41:36 PM
What do you mean Benny Hill!!? That's a photo of me... before I was demoted. LOL!
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Myster on January 23, 2016, 12:58:24 PM
I don't know who the tester was, but in this excerpt he states this was the first shot that tallies with the pathology report, which is wrong because the first one was fired with the rifle almost perpendicular to Sheila's neck (ten to twenty degrees). The bullet would have gone nowhere near the fourth neck vertebra had it been fired as in the video...
With the best will in the world, the only people who will know the answer to this will be the armed response team who first entered the master bedroom and in particular the officer who lifted the rifle and made it safe. I have no doubt his first thoughts were, was the woman faking it and could shoot at them and not what exact position the rifle was in. Remember too that it was moved a second or even a third time so that inspections and photos could be taken. I fear the photos which are in the public domain showing the rifle laid out longitudinally along Sheila's body should be taken with a large pinch oif salt.
ps like your Benny Hill avatar Myster.
Jeremy supporters say it was moved multiple times police though say they didn't physically touch it until after the initial photos were taken. Woodcock said that after the initial photos were taken he physically moved it. No police other than him claim to have physically touched it prior to him doing so. There is no need to physically touch it to make sure it is safe. It is very easy to tell whether it is safe or not by looking through the vents. You can see the top of the magazine to see whether it is empty and also can see whether the bolt is open. When a semi-auto pistol is empty the slide will lock back so the barrel will be sticking out. You see that on TV very often.
On a rifle such as the Anschutz when a casing is ejected and no round is left to be fed into the chamber the bolt locks open. When locked open like so you know for sure it is empty and can't be fired:
This is how police made sure it was safe they didn't touch it. Jeremy supporters make up that it was moved multiple times to try to pretend that the scene was disturbed by police. You will find though that Montgomery never claimed to have touched it physically as Jeremy supporters claim.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 23, 2016, 05:13:00 PM
I don't know who the tester was, but in this excerpt he states this was the first shot that tallies with the pathology report, which is wrong because the first one was fired with the rifle almost perpendicular to Sheila's neck (ten to twenty degrees). The bullet would have gone nowhere near the fourth neck vertebra had it been fired as in the video...
The testing was not in the least bit accurate because indeed the first shot was only a little short of a 90 degree angle but also because the gun was not directly in front of Sheila. Both shots were to her right side not the center of her neck and the rifle was angled so that the shots went right to left which means the gun was angled towards her right not in between her legs.
I did some experiments holding a rifle to the side like that seated then falling back. The rifle ended up between my armpit and next to my shoulder but never on me. If it did stay on me the best it would do is have the very tip on my shoulder with the rest well to the right of me.
We already know that after Sheila died Jeremy dragged her flat. The reason he did so was to place the gun across her body figuring that would help make it look like she killed herself. In the process he revealed her body was moved and he also staged it wrong.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 23, 2016, 06:30:42 PM
The testing was not in the least bit accurate because indeed the first shot was only a little short of a 90 degree angle but also because the gun was not directly in front of Sheila. Both shots were to her right side not the center of her neck and the rifle was angled so that the shots went right to left which means the gun was angled towards her right not in between her legs.
I did some experiments holding a rifle to the side like that seated then falling back. The rifle ended up between my armpit and next to my shoulder but never on me. If it did stay on me the best it would do is have the very tip on my shoulder with the rest well to the right of me.
We already know that after Sheila died Jeremy dragged her flat. The reason he did so was to place the gun across her body figuring that would help make it look like she killed herself. In the process he revealed her body was moved and he also staged it wrong.
This didn't form part of the prosecutions case at trial or appeal hearings.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: david1819 on January 23, 2016, 06:43:08 PM
On a rifle such as the Anschutz when a casing is ejected and no round is left to be fed into the chamber the bolt locks open. When locked open like so you know for sure it is empty and can't be fired:
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 23, 2016, 06:56:53 PM
This is quite a horrible thought but is it possible Crispy could have interfered with the victims and/or SoC eg bible, rifle, casings? I have no experience of dogs so I have no idea what the poor little thing would do. Would it (was Crispy a he or she?) be aware the victims were deceased, think they were sleeping or be oblivious?
AE said Crispy jumped on her lap at JB's cottage so I'm wondering if it might have clambered on top of the rifle/SC?
Also while I'm on the subject of Crispy it appears he/she moved about ie from kitchen (tel op heard?) to bedroom but no evidence of paw prints in blood?
And, this is a really horrible thought, but I believe June's legs had smears of blood on is it possible Crispy might have licked them?
DI Cook (think it was him) said he put Crispy in the wardrobe as he didn't want him/her interfering with SoC but by this time potentially he/she had been roaming around unfettered for some 4 hours.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 23, 2016, 07:06:05 PM
In the past someone asserted that the butt of the rifle could not have landed on Sheila's legs if she had fired the fatal shot without the moderator attached. I ignored it at the time it was made but that person was correct. I don't remember who made the assertion it may have been John but may very well have been someone else.
Both shots to Sheila were fired not at the center of her neck and chin but rather the right side of her neck and chin. The bullets did not go straight in rather the bullets went from right to left indicating the rifle was angled and being held to the right side facing towards the left. Sheila's killer clearly was standing to the right of her.
In order for Sheila to have fired the fatal shot the butt of the rifle could not be above her legs but rather was angled to the right of her close to the ground and would have fallen on the ground not on her leg. There is no conceivable way it could fall on her leg and yet be fired at the angle it was.
So if she had shot herself while lying down or even while seated and then fell back either the rifle would have been off her body entirely (because as you fall you actually pull away from the weapon) or at the most the very tip of the barrel would have been across her shoulder with the bulk of it on the floor like so:
(http://s11.postimg.org/cxykeggir/sheilatraj.jpg)
Moreover, had she fired the gun then her right arm also would have been out to her right side not across her body. It's impossible to achieve the right to left bullet trajectory with the gun directly in front of her body the butt had to be to the right of her legs and therefore her right arm had to be to the right of her leg to be able to activate the trigger. While watching the video of the demonstration of Howard using her toes to try to fire it occurred to me that the trajectory would be all wrong and then reminded me of what someone else had opined in the past.
There are 2 different angles in term of the trajectory. The angle up and down which is what I always have considered. But there is also the angle side to side. I never gave adequate consideration to the side to side angle before. I have to give props to whoever it was who identified this issue previously.
I've always felt SC's location was odd but thinking about it now I wonder if Crispy was under the bed (this is where I believe he/she was found) that's what caused SC to be there. It is said SC was an animal lover. Crispy may have hidden under the bed as a result of all the noise outside and he/she wanted to be close to June.
I don't think an animal psychologist has ever given an opinion?
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 23, 2016, 07:14:52 PM
This didn't form part of the prosecutions case at trial or appeal hearings.
That doesn't man we should ignore it where we are searching for the truth.
It was not part of the trial because the experts missed it. It was part of the appeal hearing but the COA refused to consider it because they determined even though it is credible it was not new in the sense that it could not have been recognized at the time of the trial had they used due diligence. It wasn't based on new science. There are 2 ways to view this
1) Jeremy already lost so it would add nothing to the equation to consider such evidence so they decided to make themselves look good by saying it didn't qualify as new but if the defense put on a stronger showing they actually would have considered it.
2) They genuinely decided to follow the law and not permit new evidence that the prosecution could have used had they used due diligence.
The legal significance is as follows:
If they had allowed it then:
The defense would need to refute the new evidence in addition to the evidence presented at trial in order to get the verdict overturned.
By refusing it:
The defense only needs to overcome the evidence presented at trial in order to get the verdict overturned and if overturned then the prosecution could use the new evidence at a new trial but would not be able to use to prevent the conviction from being overturned.
Also, even though they said they officially would not consider it that is still something that could be in the back of their minds and still find its way into their thinking regardless of what they claim.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 23, 2016, 07:21:28 PM
Once again you demonstrate how poor your reading comprehension skills are. I didn't claim they looked in the ejection port I stated that looking through the vents you can see that there is no bullet in the magazine and that the bolt is open. I said that because the vents are what was facing up. I showed what it looks like with the bolt open and you can see the vents are on the opposite side.
While from a distance you can't see through the vents, looking up close at the vents you can easily look through them and see whether the bolt is closed or open and whether there is a bullet or not in the magazine. Looking through the vents and seeing Sheila's gown would make it quite clear the bolt was open.
When I use the words vents I meant vents. When I use the word ejection port I mean ejection port. The words I choose actually are meant to accurately describe what I am referring to. I deliberately choose my words.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 23, 2016, 07:31:18 PM
This is quite a horrible thought but is it possible Crispy could have interfered with the victims and/or SoC eg bible, rifle, casings? I have no experience of dogs so I have no idea what the poor little thing would do. Would it (was Crispy a he or she?) be aware the victims were deceased, think they were sleeping or be oblivious?
AE said Crispy jumped on her lap at JB's cottage so I'm wondering if it might have clambered on top of the rifle/SC?
Also while I'm on the subject of Crispy it appears he/she moved about ie from kitchen (tel op heard?) to bedroom but no evidence of paw prints in blood?
And, this is a really horrible thought, but I believe June's legs had smears of blood on is it possible Crispy might have licked them?
DI Cook (think it was him) said he put Crispy in the wardrobe as he didn't want him/her interfering with SoC but by this time potentially he/she had been roaming around unfettered for some 4 hours.
There wasn't any suggestions that Crispy had some great love for Sheila that he would want to go to her. Dogs usually stay away from dead things. while a dog could potentially knock a rifle off a body if sitting on the person they would not transfer a gun to a body.
If Jeremy but the Bible on Sheila then maybe the dog could knock it off. But it would be unlikely to stay to the same exact page, in fact it would be likely to close. The chance of it staying open to the same page and landing in the pool of blood seems pretty far fetched. Moreover placing it directly on her body would be stupid how would it get there after she shot herself? Even Jeremy should have realized that she would not lay down. Have the Bible on her body then shoot herself while it was on her body. That seems ludicrous.
How he screwed up was placing it in her pool of blood by her face instead of placing it by her waist. He seemed to associate head- reading not fulling considering that when you put it down you do so by your waist not your head. That's another argument the prosecution missed making.
Police saw something was wrong with where it was located. Maybe they never told the prosecutor and the prosecutor never realized it himself or maybe the prosecutor didn't want to complicate the case and felt the moderator evidence was enough. Sometimes when you make too many arguments you confuse a jury.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 23, 2016, 07:37:42 PM
I've always felt SC's location was odd but thinking about it now I wonder if Crispy was under the bed (this is where I believe he/she was found) that's what caused SC to be there. It is said SC was an animal lover. Crispy may have hidden under the bed as a result of all the noise outside and he/she wanted to be close to June.
I don't think an animal psychologist has ever given an opinion?
Wasn't June his "mommy"? She was on the other side of the bed. Some dogs hide under beds, some under desks and some in other places. Maybe he ran to hide from police under the bed. Maybe he was there a long time we have no idea. Some dogs and cats hide from strangers others confront them, it depends on the animal.
I doubt Crispy could be heard from the kitchen phone if barking under the bed I suspect Crispy went there later when the raid team broke in. He was alone and then heard the door get broken in an a lot of strangers so was probably very scared.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 23, 2016, 08:05:04 PM
Wasn't June his "mommy"? She was on the other side of the bed. Some dogs hide under beds, some under desks and some in other places. Maybe he ran to hide from police under the bed. Maybe he was there a long time we have no idea. Some dogs and cats hide from strangers others confront them, it depends on the animal.
I doubt Crispy could be heard from the kitchen phone if barking under the bed I suspect Crispy went there later when the raid team broke in. He was alone and then heard the door get broken in an a lot of strangers so was probably very scared.
Yes June was Crispy's "mommy" but I'm not sure which side or end of the bed he/she was found just under the bed.
Yes I doubt the tel op would hear Crispy barking upstairs but he/she may have been in the kitchen at some point. His/her basket was in the kitchen. If in the kitchen there's no evidence of glass/blood on paws or transferred elsewhere.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: david1819 on January 23, 2016, 08:17:17 PM
Once again you demonstrate how poor your reading comprehension skills are. I didn't claim they looked in the ejection port I stated that looking through the vents you can see that there is no bullet in the magazine and that the bolt is open. I said that because the vents are what was facing up. I showed what it looks like with the bolt open and you can see the vents are on the opposite side.
While from a distance you can't see through the vents, looking up close at the vents you can easily look through them and see whether the bolt is closed or open and whether there is a bullet or not in the magazine. Looking through the vents and seeing Sheila's gown would make it quite clear the bolt was open.
When I use the words vents I meant vents. When I use the word ejection port I mean ejection port. The words I choose actually are meant to accurately describe what I am referring to. I deliberately choose my words.
You are correct in theory but that is not how the rifle was actually safety checked. It was checked as it was being removed from the body
(http://s24.postimg.org/amlh5gksl/cooktrial.jpg)
(http://s2.postimg.org/q5365kv6x/rifletrial2.jpg)
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 23, 2016, 08:35:02 PM
You are correct in theory but that is not how the rifle was actually safety checked. It was checked as it was being removed from the body
(http://s24.postimg.org/amlh5gksl/cooktrial.jpg)
(http://s2.postimg.org/q5365kv6x/rifletrial2.jpg)
Both references are referring to when Woodcock removed it after the initial photos were taken.
He said that before handing it over to the crime scene officers he looked inside the chamber to be sure it was clear. He said that he didn't physically touch it until after the photos were taken.
No other police claim to have touched it physically prior to this or to have seen anyone physically touch it prior to this.
Prior to this they supposedly just visually looked at it to make sure it was safe.
Montgomery is the other officer who supposedly said it was safe but in no statement does he claim to have touched it physically or does anyone else claim to have seen him touch it physically.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: John on January 24, 2016, 02:06:36 AM
For some reason the statement by PC Collins is not available so the possibility that he checked/moved the rifle cannot be dismissed.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 24, 2016, 05:16:30 AM
For some reason the statement by PC Collins is not available so the possibility that he checked/moved the rifle cannot be dismissed.
There relevant portions of Collins statements:
(http://s11.postimg.org/npkljxdgz/collins.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/4883iziqp/collins2.jpg)
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Myster on January 28, 2016, 08:54:26 PM
A demonstration of how to shoot yourself with in the foot.
I reckon if Sheila had used her big toe to push the trigger, she would have fallen back, knocked herself unconscious on the bedside cabinet, and been found with her toe still locked in the trigger guard. They should have loaded a live bullet to see how capable the demonstrator was in recovering her composure to fire a fatal second shot!
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 28, 2016, 09:04:49 PM
A demonstration of how to shoot yourself with in the foot.
I reckon if Sheila had used her big toe to push the trigger, she would have fallen back, knocked herself unconscious on the bedside cabinet, and been found with her toe still locked in the trigger guard. They should have loaded a live bullet to see how capable the demonstrator was in recovering her composure to fire a fatal second shot!
The bullets would not have been fired at the right angles anyway in those shots. The gun needed to be to her right side so the bullets could travel left to right in addition to trying to work out the right angle at which the gun was upwards.
Since she could not remove the moderator when dead that exercise was pointless anyway. The fact she could not shoot herself with her hands is all that the prosecution needed to establish to provide a motive for Jeremy to remove the moderator and put it away.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 28, 2016, 11:41:07 PM
A demonstration of how to shoot yourself with in the foot.
I reckon if Sheila had used her big toe to push the trigger, she would have fallen back, knocked herself unconscious on the bedside cabinet, and been found with her toe still locked in the trigger guard. They should have loaded a live bullet to see how capable the demonstrator was in recovering her composure to fire a fatal second shot!
Who initiated this? This just shows how incompetent this country is in assessing death by firearms.
In order to establish what was or wasn't possible would surely require SC's precise measurements eg arm length/span, length of finger etc. In any event as Scipio said it's all a nonsense as SC could not have shot herself once then replaced the silencer in the gun cupboard and then shot herself fatally in the bedroom. I guess they were just trying to show that it wasn't necessary for JB to remove the silencer, as claimed by the prosecution, as SC could reach the trigger with it on.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 29, 2016, 02:58:28 PM
Who initiated this? This just shows how incompetent this country is in assessing death by firearms.
In order to establish what was or wasn't possible would surely require SC's precise measurements eg arm length/span, length of finger etc. In any event as Scipio said it's all a nonsense as SC could not have shot herself once then replaced the silencer in the gun cupboard and then shot herself fatally in the bedroom. I guess they were just trying to show that it wasn't necessary for JB to remove the silencer, as claimed by the prosecution, as SC could reach the trigger with it on.
The defense would say well she could have used her toes so Jeremy had no need to remove the moderator after.
The prosecution will say either Jeremy didn't think of that or wondered if the evidence could prove she wasn't in such a position when she was shot so it was better to pretend she shot herself by hand. He did afterall shoot her by standing to her side not directly in front of her.
The thing is the prosecution just needed to give a plausible motive for Jeremy to remove the moderator not to prove beyond a reasonable doubt why he did so. So saying well he could have pretended she stepped on it doesn't do much to rebut the argument from the prosecution. The defense's main task was to establish it wasn't used but had nothing good to use in such regard. Their own experts were of no use especially Lincoln.
They lucked out that the prosecution was stupid and missed the rifle would not have landed on her body nice and neat. That's often times the kind of this a smart lawyer will ask his experts and then they say oh well now that you ask... They often don't broach things on their own. Vanezis clearly notes the bullets traveling right to left though so the prosecution should have gotten a clue. Granted I ignored the issue too for a long time but I am not trying a case I am just reading about it for sport. I also think it was experts hired by others not the prosecution that first pointed out Sheila was moved flat and then prosecution experts were obtained to assess such.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 30, 2016, 02:52:01 PM
It's interesting how PC Collins notes injuries to her neck and chin but only one casing?
The other one was under her body or at least on the other side of her and thus hidden by her body. It depends on which statement you read. Obviously if entirely under her body it would mean she was moved and placed upon it. It's unclear that is the case though since some say it was simply on the other side of her body and it appears there are photos that show both. While these photos have not been released to the public they are referenced at various times. Thus I don' use the statement that says it was under her as proof her body was placed upon it because under her could simply be a poor choice of words and not mean her body directly on top of it but merely very close to her side.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 30, 2016, 03:46:28 PM
The other one was under her body or at least on the other side of her and thus hidden by her body. It depends on which statement you read. Obviously if entirely under her body it would mean she was moved and placed upon it. It's unclear that is the case though since some say it was simply on the other side of her body and it appears there are photos that show both. While these photos have not been released to the public they are referenced at various times. Thus I don' use the statement that says it was under her as proof her body was placed upon it because under her could simply be a poor choice of words and not mean her body directly on top of it but merely very close to her side.
How do we know SC wasn't blocking entry to the box room and someone didn't move her body to gain access? The casing might then have been situated under the door, or the other side of the partially opened door, when observed by PC Collins? Even if she wasn't moved opening the door may have partially concealed the casing from inside the main bedroom, moved SC's arm, the rifle and bible? Two SoC photos exist one showing the door closed the other about half open?
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 30, 2016, 04:07:55 PM
How do we know SC wasn't blocking entry to the box room and someone didn't move her body to gain access? The casing might then have been situated under the door, or the other side of the partially opened door, when observed by PC Collins? Even if she wasn't moved opening the door may have partially concealed the casing from inside the main bedroom, moved SC's arm, the rifle and bible? Two SoC photos exist one showing the door closed the other about half open?
The casing to her left is the one we can't see and that the initial police didn't see for the most part. It is the one that 1 statement says was under her body while the rest say to the left. That has nothing to do with the door it's in between her body and the bed. I think that since her body blocked the view and thus concealed it that is why the one said it was under her body I suspect.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Myster on January 30, 2016, 04:16:50 PM
Photographer Bird most likely shut the door to get in a better position to photograph the full length body from the head end.
The second casing was found as in this drawing, probably hidden by Sheila's raised left arm (or body) hence unnoticed at first... simples.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 30, 2016, 04:24:21 PM
I was looking to see if JB's layout of WHF for the police showed access to the box room via the twins room and it does. Meaning there was no reason in theory for the police to move SC to gain access as they could achieve this via the twins room unless for operational reasons they believed it was best to gain access via the main bedroom?
This might be something or nothing but as a result of looking at JB's diagram I noticed he referred to Sheila by the surname of Bamber and the twins by the surname Caffell. PC West said JB was unable to recall SC's surname and gave the surname of Bamber?
Did JB mean he was unable to recall whether SC was formally Bamber or Caffell due to her her divorce? Did JB forget the surname Caffell which he remembered when outside WHF? Did PC West forget to ask or got muddled and wrote down Bamber? He claims JB was unable to recall SC's marital name. I've always thought PC West is the weak link in the telephone communication chain. Is it relevant anyway?
I was looking to see if JB's layout of WHF for the police showed access to the box room via the twins room and it does. Meaning there was no reason in theory for the police to move SC to gain access as they could achieve this via the twins room unless for operational reasons they believed it was best to gain access via the main bedroom?
This might be something or nothing but as a result of looking at JB's diagram I noticed he referred to Sheila by the surname of Bamber and the twins by the surname Caffell. PC West said JB was unable to recall SC's surname and gave the surname of Bamber?
Did JB mean he was unable to recall whether SC was formally Bamber or Caffell due to her her divorce? Did JB forget the surname Caffell which he remembered when outside WHF? Did PC West forget to ask or got muddled and wrote down Bamber? He claims JB was unable to recall SC's marital name. I've always thought PC West is the weak link in the telephone communication chain. Is it relevant anyway?
Actually re-reading PC West's WS I see he doesn't say JB was unable to recall SC's surname but "initmated" he could not recall her married name. &%+((£
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Myster on January 30, 2016, 04:38:22 PM
So impersonal, that phony phone call... his father supposedly said - "Your sister's gone crazy...". Wouldn't he have given her proper name - "Sheila's gone crazy..."?
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: scipio_usmc on January 30, 2016, 05:06:59 PM
Actually re-reading PC West's WS I see he doesn't say JB was unable to recall SC's surname but "initmated" he could not recall her married name. &%+((£
If he had much interaction with her or Collin he would know instantly. I know my step nephews last name.At first glance it makes it look like he was not very close to her or his nephews and Collin. In any event maybe he was doing it on purpose to try to make it sound like he was so upset that he could not think. He was definitely acting at various times while talking to police but he was an inconsistent actor. He did not stay in character.
Obviously he knew her married name by the time he wrote the drawing because he listed the twins by their last name. So either he really could not remember it when he spoke to West or he was acting.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 30, 2016, 05:18:35 PM
So impersonal, that phony phone call... his father supposedly said - "Your sister's gone crazy...". Wouldn't he have given her proper name - "Sheila's gone crazy..."?
I guess it depends how NB referred to SC when speaking with JB. JB has referred to "sisters room" on layout of WHF.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 31, 2016, 03:31:00 PM
So impersonal, that phony phone call... his father supposedly said - "Your sister's gone crazy...". Wouldn't he have given her proper name - "Sheila's gone crazy..."?
JB claimed "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun".
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: Myster on January 31, 2016, 05:20:33 PM
No he dident didn't... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151)
Phew... naerly had a gungun moment!
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: John on February 01, 2016, 02:40:21 PM
No he dident didn't... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151)
Phew... naerly had a gungun moment!
But that was some 2 decades after the event! His initial WS states "Sheila's gone crazy she's got the gun":
I'll go with the 2002 CoA document. The author(s) must have got "Your sister has gone crazy..." from somewhere. Maybe it's in another one of JB's unavailable statements.
Title: Re: Someone else who noted...was correct
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 01, 2016, 04:52:35 PM
I'll go with the 2002 CoA document. The author(s) must have got "Your sister has gone crazy..." from somewhere. Maybe it's in another one of JB's unavailable statements.
The COA got it from West. West recorded on his log that Jeremy told him Nevill stated please come over your sister has gone crazy and has the gun.