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: scipio_usmc on April 16, 2016, 04:49:58 PM
-
There is objective evidence that establishes how the murders were carried out.
Such objective factors include:
A) The location of bodies
B) The locations of bullets that exited/grazed victims.
C) The location of spent casings
D) Trajectory of wounds
E) nature of wounds
F) blood evidence
G) other considerations relevant to the weapon including reloading issues
H) other considerations relevant to how people would act
The totality of the evidence establishes the shooting commenced in the master bedroom. At minimum a full magazine (10 rounds) was discharged in the opening attack. A total of 11 rounds were fired into the parents in the bedroom. It is possible to load 11 rounds into the weapon so theoretically possible for all 11 to have been fired in the same sitting though it is highly unlikely.
June was shot at least 6 times in the opening attack. June was shot with 3 different arcs of fire. She was lying down in the bed at the time the attack commenced. This is the first arc of fire, the killer was at the foot of the bed and angled towards her side of the bed thus angled towards her right. The trajectory of the bullets as well as the location of the casings and blood confirms this. 4 shots were fired into her as she way lying on the bed. 1 round hit her head above her ear leaving blood on her pillow which reveals her head was in contact with the pillow and bleeding on it. Her right knee and right forearm were also hit as she was lying down in bed. Both bullets exited her and ended up in the bed. The final round of arc 1 hit the right side of her neck as she was sitting up. We know she was sitting up because the bullet went down and exited her back ending up in the bed. If she were still lying down the bullet would have traveled upwards like the other 3 instead of down.
The second arc of fire was to the right side of her chest. She was hit in the chest as she was getting out of bed or just as she got out of bed before she had a chance to fully turn and face the killer. The 3rd arc is a single shot and it was the one between her eyes.
This diagram shows the 3 arcs. The red lines shows the trajectory of the shots while the yellow shows where the casings went. The casings roughly eject between 2 O'clock and 2:30. I didn't show one for the shot between the eyes. The casing on the transition strip is associated with this shot it bounced off the open door landing there.
(http://s9.postimg.org/660buoyfj/junecasings.jpg)
The shot between June's eyes was delivered quite a bit later than the first 6 shots. We know this because blood evidence indicates she walked all the way around the bed to Nevill's side and then back towards the door before the final shot between her eyes was delivered.
It is possible that the killer fired the first 6 shots in a row. It is equally possible that after the first 4 shots the killer targeted Nevill and then after June got up turned again to fire arc 2 (the shots to her chest). There is simply no way to tell for sure. Logic suggests that the killer would not want to allow Nevill to come attack the killer so would want to turn and target Nevill after firing the first 4 shots.
Nevill was shot 4 times total in the bedroom. At least 3 shots were fired while he was sitting up in bed or in the process of getting out of bed. He was targeted from the left side. His lip, jaw and shoulder were all hit while he was sitting or in the process of trying to stand and not fully upright. We know he was not fully upright because the trajectory of the wounds were downward and it he were standing upright then the rifle would have to be pointed up to achieve such entrance wounds. Casings would land either on June's side of the bed or the floor near her bed in a similar area to where the casings from the shots to June in the bed were. One such casing was on the bed. It is possible there were more but June knocked them off onto the floor when she got up.
The last wound to Nevill was a graze wound. It's impossible to know whether he was fully upright or not at the time. It was in a location where it could have been achieved while he was fully upright.
After the gun was empty the killer retreated to go reload the weapon and Nevill followed to try to stop the killer or there was a small physical altercation, during it Nevill got by the killer and decided to go to the kitchen to try to arm himself.
The killer was firing at the foot of the bed so unless the shooter retreated to reload Nevill would have to fight his way through the killer to run to the kitchen. Similarly, June would have to fight through the killer to walk to the other side of the bedroom.
It is possible that after the gun was empty both parents ran to the killer and there was a brief scuffle and this is why June walked to the other side of the room. The killer may have punched June there were injuries that could have resulted from such. This ganging up could be why the killer retreated to reload. It is also possible though that Nevill got around the killer and ran to the kitchen himself with the killer following. We have no way to know for sure whether the killer left the room before June walked to the other side and back or whether she tried to fight the attacker with Nevill.
Nevill left blood on the wall so either he was pushed against the wall by the killer or fell himself as he was trying to get to the kitchen. It seems probable that if the killer had been chasing Nevill that the killer would have caught up with him before he got in the kitchen and they would have struggled in the hall or on the stairs. It seems to me more likely that Nevill was chasing the killer and caught up with the killer in the kitchen as the killer was trying to reload. Regardless of who was chasing whom, in the kitchen is where they struggled.
As they struggled the light lampshade was broken, the mantle was damaged, furniture was crashed into and crockery knocked to the floor. Nevill was beaten with the butt of the rifle until he was unconscious. He tried blocking blows with his arm resulting in numerous abrasions, but eventually the killer bashed his head in rendering him unconscious. In the process his watch was torn from his wrist and part of the butt sheared off. The shearing and other cracks as well as the injuries were indicative of the back of butt being bashed against Nevill. There was also back spatter on the butt of the rifle.
After Nevill was unconscious the killer was able to put the gun down and to safely reload the magazine. The killer then shot Nevill 4 times in the head killing him. The shots were fired in 2 pairs. Either pair would have killed him. One pair was to the top of his head the other pair the right side of his head. Only 3 casings were found in the kitchen. The last casing was found on the landing. It stuck either to the killer's shoe or a raid team member's shoe and was transported to the landing where it was kicked into the corner where the carpet met the wall.
Some try to suggest that Nevill was shot in the head while running down the stairs. This is not true because he would not have made it to the kitchen if he had been shot in the head prior. Moreover, the shots to his head were in tightly grouped pairs. Also any casings would have been on the ground level near the stairway or on the first few steps. After all that happened the killer was not happy with the lethality of the weapon so that is why 4 shots were fired into Nevill's head instead of just one.
After Nevill was killed in the kitchen then the killer ejected the magazine and fully reloaded it. Most likely this resulted in 11 rounds in the weapon because 1 was most likely in the chamber already.
Some suggest the boys were killed first because they were in their beds asleep but this makes no sense. The greatest threat was the parents so they would be killed first. Moreover, if the boys were shot first that would have left fewer than 10 rounds in the weapon and 10 rounds would not have been fired in the master bedroom. The suggestion that it is worse to risk the boys waking up from shooting the parents than to risk the parents waking up from shooting the boys is absurd.
The killer returned upstairs and fired 3 rounds in rapid succession into one boy and 5 rounds in rapid succession into the other. The killer was still smarting from the prior inability to easily kill Nevill so this time fired multiple head shots just like had been done to Nevill in the kitchen. The 9th round was fired between June's eyes to make sure she was dead because again concerns about the lethality.
The gun had 2 rounds remaining and these were used to shoot Sheila hence the gun is empty. She was shot while seated propped against something. The shots were angled right to left. The killer was holding the weapon to the right of her. The first shot was almost level and at near contact range.
After the first shot she put her arm to her neck trying to plug he wound. Blood leaked onto her outer palm and down her wrist towards her elbow. The killer then jammed it under her chin and fired again.
Her blood initially leaked down her neck onto her shoulder and down her arm and the side of her breast. Her body was dragged flat and then the direction of blood changed to going down the side of her arm and side of her neck. 2 small trails that ran down the side of her arm leaked onto the Bible. The Bible was then picked up for some reason. A pool of blood formed from the blood that ran down the side of her neck. The Bible was placed in such pool of blood. When placed there the 2 lines that ran down her arm no longer lined up with the lines on the Bible. Why it was moved is unknown. Maybe while staging the gun on her or further staging her body it closed so had to be reopened. That actually would make the most sense and make the killer least stupid.
Scenario:
Killer moves Sheila flat in order to plant the rifle on her. Killer opens Bible getting some blood on it from his gloves and places it against her. Blood running down her arm gets onto the Bible. While trying to stage the rifle the Bible closes. Killer reopens it to same page. The mirror image was created by it closing and being reopened. While killer is looking for the same page to reopen it to the pool of blood forms from her neck. The killer puts it back not too far from where it had been but not exactly the same spot so the lines from her arm and the Bible don't line up exactly. Moreover, by this point in time the pool of blood has formed and thus the Bible is placed in it.
This scenario makes far more sense than the killer repeatedly opening and closing the Bible and repeatedly moving it. This is not too different from a suggestion Holly made a couple of days ago.
5
-
Thank you for this detailed account. It is good that guilters such as me, you, CAL and the police make the effort to do this.
If Bamber could load the rifle with 11 bullets, then that is what he would have done. It is surprising that he did not unload all bullets in one go.
People say none of Neville's blood was found on the bedroom floor. That is because he did not remain in the bedroom long enough for any blood to drip down. If the bullet casings are in the main bedroom, then that is proof he was shot there.
June being shot with her head on the pillow shows she was asleep. It was a surprise Neville chose to phone Bamber, rather than wake June. Sheila was a slight woman with 'limited' gun experience holding a weak rifle. Not Arnie.
-
Thank you for this detailed account. It is good that guilters such as me, you, CAL and the police make the effort to do this.
If Bamber could load the rifle with 11 bullets, then that is what he would have done. It is surprising that he did not unload all bullets in one go.
People say none of Neville's blood was found on the bedroom floor. That is because he did not remain in the bedroom long enough for any blood to drip down. If the bullet casings are in the main bedroom, then that is proof he was shot there.
June being shot with her head on the pillow shows she was asleep. It was a surprise Neville chose to phone Bamber, rather than wake June. Sheila was a slight woman with 'limited' gun experience holding a weak rifle. Not Arnie.
Scipio's detailed account missed out the burns NB sustained to his back/neck.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7616.msg358660.html#msg358660
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7616.msg358661.html#msg358661
&%+((£
-
Scipio's detailed account missed out the burns NB sustained to his back/neck.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7616.msg358660.html#msg358660
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7616.msg358661.html#msg358661
&%+((£
The burns are immaterial to the issue of how the murders were carried out and almost certainly were inflicted after Nevill was dead or at the very least unconscious. Theoretically they could have been caused by a hot poker, a cattle prod, a taser or numerous other things and wild speculation doesn't help. I discussed what evidence proves happened as opposed to wild speculation. We could speculate he was testing whether Nevill was actually dead, trying to create the false impression Nevill was being tortured or forced to do something (such as forced to make the call to Jeremy) or just having fun making Nevill suffer because he hated Nevill but such would just be speculation that has no ability to be proven. Jeremy said he was scared to go over because he was scared a trap was being created and that Nevill was forced to call to trick him there. If the burns were meant to get police to suspect such on their own it would be more evidence of staging by the killer. But we can't know whether that was the intention of the burns or something else unless Jeremy decides to come clean. I have every confidence he will never talk and that the burns will remain a mystery forever.
-
There is no way Neville would have let Sheila burn his back while he was still alive. Or Bamber for that matter.
So it was done by Bamber to check for signs of life after the kitchen fight. Neville was in the perfect position for Bamber to pull up Neville's top and burn him.
Who knows, some of the downstairs shots may have been fired after Neville reacted to being burnt.
-
The opening post is highly informative and goes into great detail as to how the forensic data gleamed by investigators made it possible to piece together the most likely events which occurred in the farmhouse on the morning of the murders. For any new readers this is not about guesswork or speculation, rather, it is about hard facts and most importantly, evidence.
I think it is really worth pointing out that there is an enormous amount of forensic evidence in this case which points to Jeremy Bamber being involved in the murders and not Sheila Caffell. Nobody has been able to challenge this evidence despite the thirty plus years which have elapsed. The question of a third party participation is one which has never been resolved but nevertheless and regardless, Jeremy Bamber was involved in the murders whether it be as the instigator or the perpetrator.
-
There is no way Neville would have let Sheila burn his back while he was still alive. Or Bamber for that matter.
So it was done by Bamber to check for signs of life after the kitchen fight. Neville was in the perfect position for Bamber to pull up Neville's top and burn him.
Who knows, some of the downstairs shots may have been fired after Neville reacted to being burnt.
But why single NB out to check for life? It doesn't make any sense to me why NB would be singled out by either JB or SC:
Reasons JB Would Want To Ensure NB Was Dead
Unable to act as a witness
Fast forward his inheritance with JB the sole beneficiary
Reasons SC Would Want To Ensure NB Was Dead
Going to 'heaven'
Getting rid of 'evil'
Ritual burning
I can't see that any of the five reasons above wouldn't apply to the other victims so why single out NB? I think it's far more likely Myster's theory re a hot brass casing was the culprit.
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-139205.html
"Before we deployed, I had two of my soldiers get pretty severe burns during a convoy live fire exercise from brass going between their collar and neck. Nasty blistery burns. Brass is hot.
Mark"
"You can not work your bolt gun as fast as a semi-auto; the heat from the brass has been mostly absorbed into the chamber. Thinner brass (as in .22 rimfire) gets very hot and is ejected while it is still very hot. I was shooting a .22 pistol (many years ago) at an indoor range, an ejected empty bounced off the sidewall and went down the open neck of my shirt, it was stuck under my shirt in the same spot for several seconds and gave me a good burn :cuss: that took months to fade. If a piece of brass just bounces off you it doesn’t have enough time to transfer any heat to you.
Regards,
Jeff"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGBsKGXB2Ew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8WUOdcWwcU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ1Vz-ii9n8
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=321576
-
Neville was by far the strongest inside WHF. And put up a 'tremendous' fight for life after getting four shots. So a good idea to make sure there are no signs of life.
Besides which, Neville was next to the aga.
-
But why single NB out to check for life? It doesn't make any sense to me why NB would be singled out by either JB or SC:
Reasons JB Would Want To Ensure NB Was Dead
Unable to act as a witness
Fast forward his inheritance with JB the sole beneficiary
Reasons SC Would Want To Ensure NB Was Dead
Going to 'heaven'
Getting rid of 'evil'
Ritual burning
I can't see that any of the five reasons above wouldn't apply to the other victims so why single out NB? I think it's far more likely Myster's theory re a hot brass casing was the culprit.
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-139205.html
"Before we deployed, I had two of my soldiers get pretty severe burns during a convoy live fire exercise from brass going between their collar and neck. Nasty blistery burns. Brass is hot.
Mark"
"You can not work your bolt gun as fast as a semi-auto; the heat from the brass has been mostly absorbed into the chamber. Thinner brass (as in .22 rimfire) gets very hot and is ejected while it is still very hot. I was shooting a .22 pistol (many years ago) at an indoor range, an ejected empty bounced off the sidewall and went down the open neck of my shirt, it was stuck under my shirt in the same spot for several seconds and gave me a good burn :cuss: that took months to fade. If a piece of brass just bounces off you it doesn’t have enough time to transfer any heat to you.
Regards,
Jeff"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGBsKGXB2Ew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8WUOdcWwcU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ1Vz-ii9n8
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=321576
Myster when I asked you where you got the idea from you said RS sustained a similar burn in the OP case but I've been unable to find anything?
-
Neville was by far the strongest inside WHF. And put up a 'tremendous' fight for life after getting four shots. So a good idea to make sure there are no signs of life.
Besides which, Neville was next to the aga.
I've never believed in the "violent struggle". If the perp was concerned NB continued to pose a threat in terms of fighting back surely it was obvious he was dead or nearly dead and no longer posed a threat in this regard.
-
Myster when I asked you where you got the idea from you said RS sustained a similar burn in the OP case but I've been unable to find anything?
There were what appeared to be two burn marks on Reeva Steenkamp's back. The prosecution argued that they were made by a hot bullet which missed, but bounced off the tiled wall behind her while she was facing the toilet door. Pistorius' defence said they were bruises caused when she fell onto a wooden magazine rack. There was no consensus. But a recent investigation by two amateur sleuths proposed that they were bruises caused by being hit with the cricket bat before she was shot... if they are the actual marks I was thinking about and saw this photo of (below) when the trial was under way last year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551257/Oscar-Pistorius-attacked-Reeva-Steenkamp-cricket-bat-shooting-dead-forensic-experts-claim.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551257/Oscar-Pistorius-attacked-Reeva-Steenkamp-cricket-bat-shooting-dead-forensic-experts-claim.html)
-
I've never believed in the "violent struggle". If the perp was concerned NB continued to pose a threat in terms of fighting back surely it was obvious he was dead or nearly dead and no longer posed a threat in this regard.
You refuse to believe it because it severely harms your claims of Jeremy being innocent.
The evidence proves beyond question that Nevill was beaten as he tried to fight off the killer. This proves the gun was not loaded because the killer would simply have shot him instead of beaten him. The only reason to beat him is because he was a threat if he had passed out he would not have needed to be beaten. He was beaten unconscious because only with Nevill unconscious could the killer safely reload the weapon.
There is no question Nevill blocked more than a dozen blows with his arm and was bashed int he face and then was bashed several times in the skull so hard that his skull was cracked and he was rendered unconscious. There is no question that in the process: the lampshade was broken, crockery broken, the mantle was damaged, the butt of the weapon broke and the weapon and killer were splashed with Nevill's blood.
You ignore the irrefutable evidence this happened because it reveals Sheila was not the killer. If Sheila had been the killer then her hands, nails and feet would have had some sort of damage and she would have had Nevill's backspatter on her.
-
You refuse to believe it because it severely harms your claims of Jeremy being innocent.
The evidence proves beyond question that Nevill was beaten as he tried to fight off the killer. This proves the gun was not loaded because the killer would simply have shot him instead of beaten him. The only reason to beat him is because he was a threat if he had passed out he would not have needed to be beaten. He was beaten unconscious because only with Nevill unconscious could the killer safely reload the weapon.
There is no question Nevill blocked more than a dozen blows with his arm and was bashed int he face and then was bashed several times in the skull so hard that his skull was cracked and he was rendered unconscious. There is no question that in the process: the lampshade was broken, crockery broken, the mantle was damaged, the butt of the weapon broke and the weapon and killer were splashed with Nevill's blood.
You ignore the irrefutable evidence this happened because it reveals Sheila was not the killer. If Sheila had been the killer then her hands, nails and feet would have had some sort of damage and she would have had Nevill's backspatter on her.
There is no blood spatter around the area of were nevilles body lay, The aga is spotless. There would be blunt force and cast off blood spatter if such a thing happened, but there is not.
-
There is no blood spatter around the area of were nevilles body lay, The aga is spotless. There would be blunt force and cast off blood spatter if such a thing happened, but there is not.
(http://media.tumblr.com/d5f443da51ffcf0eda0be9948bacd403/tumblr_inline_mk4z18rhoM1qz4rgp.jpg)
There is no need for there to be cast off. The butt was thrust into Nevill and then the killer retracted it back or moved back. You and others who say the weapon was swung like a bat or axe are making up nonsense and clearly never handled a weapon. The way in which a butt of a weapon is used as a weapon is like so:
(http://www.northstaterifles.com/Buttstroke.jpg)
(http://www.thortrains.com/getright/usbayonet8bsmash.jpg)
The butt of the rifle had backspatter on it. Trying to deny this is a waste of time, the blood was documented, it was described as splashes which is what backspatter is and it was assessed such blood got there from hitting someone who was bleeding with the butt.
The manner in which the butt broke also proves this is how it was wielded. When the side of the stock is smashed into something this is how it breaks
(http://www.impactguns.com/Data/Default/Images/uploads/century/mauser-yugo-broken-2.jpg)
There were horizontal cracks not vertical and the piece that actually broke off sheered off horizontally. That is from the butt being compressed front to back which is what happens when you force the butt into someone or something. You also get horizonal cracks from dropping it on the buttplate but that would damage the rear of the butt as opposed to the front. It takes pressure on both ends to damage the front. Thrusting hard while hitting something would put pressure on both ends thus compressing it.
-
There were what appeared to be two burn marks on Reeva Steenkamp's back. The prosecution argued that they were made by a hot bullet which missed, but bounced off the tiled wall behind her while she was facing the toilet door. Pistorius' defence said they were bruises caused when she fell onto a wooden magazine rack. There was no consensus. But a recent investigation by two amateur sleuths proposed that they were bruises caused by being hit with the cricket bat before she was shot... if they are the actual marks I was thinking about and saw this photo of (below) when the trial was under way last year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551257/Oscar-Pistorius-attacked-Reeva-Steenkamp-cricket-bat-shooting-dead-forensic-experts-claim.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551257/Oscar-Pistorius-attacked-Reeva-Steenkamp-cricket-bat-shooting-dead-forensic-experts-claim.html)
Blimey. That's the nearest thing I've ever seen to the marks/lesions on Ralph's neck.
Well done, you.
-
Blimey. That's the nearest thing I've ever seen to the marks/lesions on Ralph's neck.
Well done, you.
Ah, now that's made me think of the bloody Oscar Pistorius thing again. Did he really think that anyone would fall for his crap? The horrible, spoilt, angry, self-indulgent, self-obsessed, gun-happy woman h a t e r. Why would Reeva lock herself in the toilet, with her phone? On Valentine's day?
I hope he gets life.
-
Ah, now that's made me think of the bloody Oscar Pistorius thing again. Did he really think that anyone would fall for his crap? The horrible, spoilt, angry, self-indulgent, self-obsessed, gun-happy woman h a t e r. Why would Reeva lock herself in the toilet, with her phone? On Valentine's day?
I hope he gets life.
I hope that Oscar gets dipped in Tabasco, then bummed by the devil for all eternity.
-
There is no need for there to be cast off. The butt was thrust into Nevill and then the killer retracted it back or moved back. You and others who say the weapon was swung like a bat or axe are making up nonsense and clearly never handled a weapon. The way in which a butt of a weapon is used as a weapon is like so:
The butt of the rifle had backspatter on it. Trying to deny this is a waste of time, the blood was documented, it was described as splashes which is what backspatter is and it was assessed such blood got there from hitting someone who was bleeding with the butt.
The manner in which the butt broke also proves this is how it was wielded. When the side of the stock is smashed into something this is how it breaks
There were horizontal cracks not vertical and the piece that actually broke off sheered off horizontally. That is from the butt being compressed front to back which is what happens when you force the butt into someone or something. You also get horizonal cracks from dropping it on the buttplate but that would damage the rear of the butt as opposed to the front. It takes pressure on both ends to damage the front. Thrusting hard while hitting something would put pressure on both ends thus compressing it.
No blood spatter on the Aga √
No blunt force trauma marks to Neviles head, Just the gunshot wounds √
No debris from the alleged scratch marks on the carpet below √
https://youtu.be/-EDp_tqUysI?t=10m17s (https://youtu.be/-EDp_tqUysI?t=10m17s)
(http://s31.postimg.org/icu0ziftn/kitchen2.png)
(http://s31.postimg.org/jh5plx8rd/kitchenpics.png)
The manner in which the rifle stock has broken is consistent with it not being assembled properly.
After repeated use and the stock is not fastened properly the recoil will eventually cause the stock to split.
If used as a weapon the culprit would have their fist around the wrist of the stock (part that came off)
(http://s31.postimg.org/rdzu50fx7/525_rifle.png)
-
There were what appeared to be two burn marks on Reeva Steenkamp's back. The prosecution argued that they were made by a hot bullet which missed, but bounced off the tiled wall behind her while she was facing the toilet door. Pistorius' defence said they were bruises caused when she fell onto a wooden magazine rack. There was no consensus. But a recent investigation by two amateur sleuths proposed that they were bruises caused by being hit with the cricket bat before she was shot... if they are the actual marks I was thinking about and saw this photo of (below) when the trial was under way last year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551257/Oscar-Pistorius-attacked-Reeva-Steenkamp-cricket-bat-shooting-dead-forensic-experts-claim.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551257/Oscar-Pistorius-attacked-Reeva-Steenkamp-cricket-bat-shooting-dead-forensic-experts-claim.html)
The possibility of Nevill's burns coming from the bullet that grazed him is yet another reason why we will never know if it was done on purpose for staging or simply incidental. There is a possibility that after grazing him the bullet hit his back and fell from his shirt after he was walking trying to get it out. It is just one of a multitude of possibilities.
If the medical examiner could not tell whether the marks on Reeva were burns or just abrasions that's not very reassuring. They should be able to tell the difference between skin burned and damaged by a beating. It certainly makes one wonder if Nevill's marks were not burns at all. It just highlights how they will remain a mystery.
-
No blood spatter on the Aga √
No blunt force trauma marks to Neviles head, Just the gunshot wounds √
No debris from the alleged scratch marks on the carpet below √
https://youtu.be/-EDp_tqUysI?t=10m17s (https://youtu.be/-EDp_tqUysI?t=10m17s)
(http://s31.postimg.org/icu0ziftn/kitchen2.png)
(http://s31.postimg.org/jh5plx8rd/kitchenpics.png)
1) The photos are not close enough to be able to capture spatter and there is no need for back spatter to have hit anything apart from the killer anyway. It definitely was on the weapon and thus was definitely on the killer.
2) Likewise the photos are woefully insufficient at detailing any tiny scrapings from the mantle though some material of some kind was visible on the floor in the photos which the prosecution said was paint chips while the defense tried to claim was dried toenail varnish that scraped off Sheila's toenail.
3) The autopsy noted his skull was bashed in ,this doesn't fit with your claim he only had gunshot wounds. He was bashed in the face, the head and his arms. The autopsy referenced these wounds and said it showed he put up a spirited defense. Vanezis later suggested his skull was bashed in by the butt of the rifle. This was from another report where he went into more detail about the injuries that you say didn't exist so I don't see how you can advance there was no struggle in the kitchen note how it says the fractures of the skull that you appear to not want to take into account were caused by being struck not being shot:
(http://s31.postimg.org/43xj3xyxn/image.jpg)
(http://s31.postimg.org/6h2593q57/image.jpg)
(http://s31.postimg.org/4spo8lp23/image.jpg)
The manner in which the rifle stock has broken is consistent with it not being assembled properly.
After repeated use and the stock is not fastened properly the recoil will eventually cause the stock to split.
If used as a weapon the culprit would have their fist around the wrist of the stock (part that came off)
(http://s31.postimg.org/rdzu50fx7/525_rifle.png)
The damage is not consistent with the butt being improperly assembled and in fact it is impossible to not properly assemble it. The receiver has a metal knob sticking out. The stock has a hole in the front and the hole slides over this knob. There is no way to improperly fit it together it will only slid eon one way. The trigger guard is attached on the bottom by a single screw. That's the extent of it.
Note how the metal receiver is longer on top than bottom. When bashing the weapon it causes the metal at the top to hit the top front of the stock. That is what sheered the top off. It did indeed break where the killer's hand was and that is why the glove was torn off. But for the gloves the killer's hand would have been damaged. Sheila had no gloves to wear, if Sheila had been the killer her hand would have had some sort of damage as would her nails. Striking with a weapon causes blistering when you don't wear gloves. When the stock broke it would have at the very least scratch the hand if not cut it. Her long nails would have been chipped when bashing with the rifle as well. There is a lot of vibration and friction when you bash a rifle into something.
-
You refuse to believe it because it severely harms your claims of Jeremy being innocent.
The evidence proves beyond question that Nevill was beaten as he tried to fight off the killer. This proves the gun was not loaded because the killer would simply have shot him instead of beaten him. The only reason to beat him is because he was a threat if he had passed out he would not have needed to be beaten. He was beaten unconscious because only with Nevill unconscious could the killer safely reload the weapon.
There is no question Nevill blocked more than a dozen blows with his arm and was bashed int he face and then was bashed several times in the skull so hard that his skull was cracked and he was rendered unconscious. There is no question that in the process: the lampshade was broken, crockery broken, the mantle was damaged, the butt of the weapon broke and the weapon and killer were splashed with Nevill's blood.
You ignore the irrefutable evidence this happened because it reveals Sheila was not the killer. If Sheila had been the killer then her hands, nails and feet would have had some sort of damage and she would have had Nevill's backspatter on her.
I refuse to believe there was any "violent struggle" in the kitchen based on the pathological evidence. Dr Vanezis uses the words "spirited defence". This is not the same as a "violent struggle". NB was too badly injured from the shots he sustained upstairs to enter into a "violent struggle" with anyone regardless of gender and size.
The "violent struggle" seems to stem from the raid team based on knocked over stools, chairs, crockery and a broken lampshade. You said in a previous post a while back NB was probably bouncing off the walls due to the gunshot wounds he sustained. Therefore it follows he most likely stumbled into the furniture since he had to pass it from the hall to where he was found in the kitchen. Regardless the kitchen furniture looks flimsy and cheap and would easily be moved. Anyone swinging a rifle around is likely to catch items in its radial.
If you want to rule out SC based on her hands, nails and feet then what about the other victims that walked about in blood, sugar and broken glass/crockery? Why didn't Dr Craig, a police surgeon with 30 years experience at the time of WHF case, observe and note this? Also Chief Sup George Harris who observed all victims in situ with Dr Craig?
The pathologist, Dr Vanezis, did not observe the victims in situ but was experienced and trained to observe and note such. Four police officers that attend soc and observed victims in situ attended PM to assist Dr Vanezis. He was also aided by soc photos.
-
A reminder to all posters. We do not tolerate aggressively themed posts and/or the use of inflammatory language. A number of posts have been edited this morning and the posters concerned have been advised of such by pm with copies sent to Admin.
Please check your posts before posting and find the right balance between asserting your views without becoming overly aggressive.
Thank you for your cooperation.
-
I'd love to know what John censored from Pugsy's posts in the early hours. &%+((£ @)(++(*
-
I'd love to know what John censored from Pugsy's posts in the early hours. &%+((£ @)(++(*
Pugsy's pithies being persistently picquaint %£&)**#
-
I refuse to believe there was any "violent struggle" in the kitchen based on the pathological evidence. Dr Vanezis uses the words "spirited defence". This is not the same as a "violent struggle". NB was too badly injured from the shots he sustained upstairs to enter into a "violent struggle" with anyone regardless of gender and size.
The "violent struggle" seems to stem from the raid team based on knocked over stools, chairs, crockery and a broken lampshade. You said in a previous post a while back NB was probably bouncing off the walls due to the gunshot wounds he sustained. Therefore it follows he most likely stumbled into the furniture since he had to pass it from the hall to where he was found in the kitchen. Regardless the kitchen furniture looks flimsy and cheap and would easily be moved. Anyone swinging a rifle around is likely to catch items in its radial.
If you want to rule out SC based on her hands, nails and feet then what about the other victims that walked about in blood, sugar and broken glass/crockery? Why didn't Dr Craig, a police surgeon with 30 years experience at the time of WHF case, observe and note this? Also Chief Sup George Harris who observed all victims in situ with Dr Craig?
The pathologist, Dr Vanezis, did not observe the victims in situ but was experienced and trained to observe and note such. Four police officers that attend soc and observed victims in situ attended PM to assist Dr Vanezis. He was also aided by soc photos.
You are ignoring the pathology evidence not following it as you claim.
Above I posted a report talking about injuries that were caused by Nevill being beaten- the fractures to his skull, injuries t his face and defensive wounds to his arms. You deny many of these injuries existed and the injuries that you admit exist you claim were delivered while he was unconscious which makes not a lick of sense and has no support whatsoever. You ignore the experts and simply invent your own version. You take issue with me saying you invented it but that is a fact you have no expert opinion assessing Nevill was beaten while he was unconscious. here is no reason to beat him while he was unconscious he was beaten so he would be unconscious and thus unable to prevent the killer from reloading.
You also are ignoring physical evidence. Blood was found on the stock. You denied such but I posted evidence proving it as you requested. That evidence included assessments that blood splashed onto the weapon when the butt was striking someone who was bleeding. That is the definition of back spatter. Because he described the process instead of calling it backspatter you try to deny it was back sapper and fail to account for how it got there. You were unaware this blood was there and after you were made aware of it you still chose to ignore it.
You also ignoring things like when walking up the stairs Nevill's right side would be facing the bedroom and thus he can't have been shot from there since his injuries were from the left side and the bullets traveled left to right . Instead of adjusting your claims to take into account issues you failed to consider when you first came up with your position you basically ignore such new considerations.
This is not making a personal attack it is making a valid substantive criticism. A worthless personal attack is calling someone stupid, retarded or the like. Pointing out bias, hypocrisy, conflicting claims, double standards and ignoring considerations is fair game in a real debate.
-
Neville's horrific injuries detailed in the 2002 COA report. The upturned kitchen. The broken rifle butt. The aga paint on the silencer. Neville being strong enough to get downstairs. All this suggests a big kitchen fight.
Once Neville was not fighting back. Bamber would return upstairs. There were still three or even four alive people.
The only thing Bamber did to Neville later, was burn his back.
-
You are ignoring the pathology evidence not following it as you claim.
Above I posted a report talking about injuries that were caused by Nevill being beaten- the fractures to his skull, injuries t his face and defensive wounds to his arms. You deny many of these injuries existed and the injuries that you admit exist you claim were delivered while he was unconscious which makes not a lick of sense and has no support whatsoever. You ignore the experts and simply invent your own version. You take issue with me saying you invented it but that is a fact you have no expert opinion assessing Nevill was beaten while he was unconscious. here is no reason to beat him while he was unconscious he was beaten so he would be unconscious and thus unable to prevent the killer from reloading.
You also are ignoring physical evidence. Blood was found on the stock. You denied such but I posted evidence proving it as you requested. That evidence included assessments that blood splashed onto the weapon when the butt was striking someone who was bleeding. That is the definition of back spatter. Because he described the process instead of calling it backspatter you try to deny it was back sapper and fail to account for how it got there. You were unaware this blood was there and after you were made aware of it you still chose to ignore it.
You also ignoring things like when walking up the stairs Nevill's right side would be facing the bedroom and thus he can't have been shot from there since his injuries were from the left side and the bullets traveled left to right . Instead of adjusting your claims to take into account issues you failed to consider when you first came up with your position you basically ignore such new considerations.
This is not making a personal attack it is making a valid substantive criticism. A worthless personal attack is calling someone stupid, retarded or the like. Pointing out bias, hypocrisy, conflicting claims, double standards and ignoring considerations is fair game in a real debate.
Yeah, I get that the beating was about CAUSING unconsciousness. However, it seems to me that there was a lot of passion/pent up feeling behind that beating, giving me cause to wonder if it stopped when unconsciousness was reached OR if he went on bashing to release his feelings. I don't believe that much of it was done to time scale or order.
-
Yeah, I get that the beating was about CAUSING unconsciousness. However, it seems to me that there was a lot of passion/pent up feeling behind that beating, giving me cause to wonder if it stopped when unconsciousness was reached OR if he went on bashing to release his feelings. I don't believe that much of it was done to time scale or order.
Nevill was angry at getting shot, angry that June was shot and if that is not enough was fighting for his life. The killer had an empty gun and needed to kill Nevill or would totally screwed thus needed Nevill unconscious in order reload and had to keep control of the weapon. You have plenty of emotion just from that.
Sheila would not have wanted to beat Nevill out of severe anger with him, it would have been out of necessity. Even though Jeremy had horrible feelings towards Nevill I still doubt that he would have beat him if the circumstances didn't make it necessary. If Nevill died from his wounds right away then that would have been the extent of his injuries. Similarly if June's black eye was from the murder then she was hit because she was trying to fight with the attacker after she was shot.
-
Nevill was angry at getting shot, angry that June was shot and if that is not enough was fighting for his life. The killer had an empty gun and needed to kill Nevill or would totally screwed thus needed Nevill unconscious in order reload and had to keep control of the weapon. You have plenty of emotion just from that.
Sheila would not have wanted to beat Nevill out of severe anger with him, it would have been out of necessity. Even though Jeremy had horrible feelings towards Nevill I still doubt that he would have beat him if the circumstances didn't make it necessary. If Nevill died from his wounds right away then that would have been the extent of his injuries. Similarly if June's black eye was from the murder then she was hit because she was trying to fight with the attacker after she was shot.
Hm. I wasn't actually putting Sheila at the scene. You paint Jeremy as being super-cool under the most extenuating circumstances, doing just enough but no more. However, I do find myself wondering if, having found it necessary to beat Nevill unconscious, emotion got the better of him and he carried on with the beating after Nevill was dead. There can be no guarantees that Nevill took his last breath as the last blow was delivered.
-
Hm. I wasn't actually putting Sheila at the scene. You paint Jeremy as being super-cool under the most extenuating circumstances, doing just enough but no more. However, I do find myself wondering if, having found it necessary to beat Nevill unconscious, emotion got the better of him and he carried on with the beating after Nevill was dead. There can be no guarantees that Nevill took his last breath as the last blow was delivered.
I view the beating as desperate necessity. That's not really cool, it is panic. Adrenaline was pumping for sure.
-
*** *** ******** the pathology evidence not following it as you claim.
Above I posted a report talking about injuries that were caused by Nevill being beaten- the fractures to his skull, injuries t his face and defensive wounds to his arms. *** **** many of these injuries existed and the injuries that you admit exist you claim were delivered while he was unconscious which makes not a lick of sense and has no support whatsoever. *** ****** the experts and simply invent your own version. You take issue with me saying you invented it but that is a fact you have no expert opinion assessing Nevill was beaten while he was unconscious. here is no reason to beat him while he was unconscious he was beaten so he would be unconscious and thus unable to prevent the killer from reloading.
*** *** ******** physical evidence. Blood was found on the stock. *** ****** such but I posted evidence proving it as you requested. That evidence included assessments that blood splashed onto the weapon when the butt was striking someone who was bleeding. That is the definition of back spatter. Because he described the process instead of calling it backspatter *** *** ** **** it was back sapper and fail to account for how it got there. You were unaware this blood was there and after you were made aware of it *** ***** ***** ** ****** **.
*** *** **** ******* things like when walking up the stairs Nevill's right side would be facing the bedroom and thus he can't have been shot from there since his injuries were from the left side and the bullets traveled left to right . Instead of adjusting your claims to take into account issues you failed to consider when you first came up with your position *** ********* ****** such new considerations.
This is not making a personal attack it is making a valid substantive criticism. A worthless personal attack is calling someone stupid, retarded or the like. Pointing out bias, hypocrisy, conflicting claims, double standards and ignoring considerations is fair game in a real debate.
It's not acceptable to tell a poster six times in a post they are ignoring evidence and on another three occasions they are denying evidence. As far as I am concerned I am not ignoring and/or denying evidence. I an fully familiar with the pathology report which details NB's injuries sustained in the kitchen. I simply interpret the evidence differently and apply different weights to different aspects of the case compared with yourself. Your post has been edited accordingly as many will consider it to be overly aggressive, inflammatory, goading and intolerant of the views of others. You should not presume that when posters don't share your views they are ignoring or denying the evidence which you happen to place a lot of weight on.
Jurors had the advantage over us of hearing all the trial evidence. Two disagreed with the verdict delivered by the majority. Did the prosecutor and/or trial judge ball the two jurors out for returning a different verdict? Were they told they were ignoring and denying evidence? No. The system respects, that for whatever reason, the two jurors were unable to deliver a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on their interpretation of the evidence. You are a lawyer and should not need me to tell you about courtroom etiquette. We expect the same high standards on the forum with regard to our members.
I haven't denied NB sustained a beating in the kitchen. But as far as I'm concerned this doesn't advance anything in terms of JB v SC. I apply a lot of weight to the GSW's NB sustained upstairs:
- 2 facial shots fired at close proximity causing extreme pain and blood loss
- total incapacitation of left arm
I don't believe NB was in any fit state to defend himself against the perp regardless of gender and stature. NB was a farmer not some fictional hero eg Superman or James Bond. NB was as vulnerable to gunshot wounds as you or me.
I'm also mindful of how potent hollow point ammo is. Yes the cartridges used at WHF were low velocity but the design of the hollow point cartridge is particularly hazardous for those who sustain gunshot injuries. The following YouTube vid describes the hollow point bullet as follows:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DaXcXVvRuJ8
- It creates serious internal damage
- Expands on impact to almost 3 times its size
- "The expanding effect means that the bullet dumps its energy inside the body damaging more tissue than a normal round nose bullet"
- "Its designed to damage more tissue by opening up somewhat to a flower so it has a larger wound channel.
- "A large wound has a greater chance of hitting an organ, cutting nerves or severing an artery and so stopping the target".
With regard to blood on the stock I relied upon information from the CoA doc which makes no mention of this. When you provided documentary evidence providing additional info I was/am happy to accept this but it doesn't change my views. Bottom line is the rifle contained insufficient blood for grouping whereas the blood flake in the silencer measuring 1/4 of an inch was able to!?
Compare the SoC where NB was found with the SOC where Reeva Steenkamp was shot (hit with a cricket bat?):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551257/Oscar-Pistorius-attacked-Reeva-Steenkamp-cricket-bat-shooting-dead-forensic-experts-claim.html
You claimed the bags SC's hands were placed in at SoC were forensically analysed. When I provided DC Hammersley's trial testimony confirming this was not the case you refused to accept it.
Please stick to debating the facts of the case as you see them and do not concern yourself with other posters. Please note how Myster and myself, who don't share the same case related views, are able to debate the case without any aggression, inflammatory language, goading etc. In future please refrain from any personal comments of any description eg You are .... or You ...
A little over two years ago this is what you posted about me on the Amytville forum:
"The main Jeremy supporter on the red board is Holly (who exchanges letters with Bamber) but she doesn't post much in detail anymore because I pretty much smashed her claims to pieces. So things will probably get dull there too now. If the blue board would approve my membership then some real sparks would fly but I don't see that happening."
http://www.amityvillefaq.com/truthboard/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1771&start=3087
-
Jurors had the advantage over us of hearing all the trial evidence. Two disagreed with the verdict delivered by the majority. Did the prosecutor and/or trial judge ball the two jurors out for returning a different verdict? Were they told they were ignoring and denying evidence? No. The system respects, that for whatever reason, the two jurors were unable to deliver a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on their interpretation of the evidence. You are a lawyer and should not need me to tell you about courtroom etiquette. We expect the same high standards on the forum with regard to our members.
We don't know what the two jurors were thinking except that they felt the case wasn't proven according to the Judges direction. You can't assume they thought Bamber innocent just because they weren't convinced he was guilty.
-
We don't know what the two jurors were thinking except that they felt the case wasn't proven according to the Judges direction. You can't assume they thought Bamber innocent just because they weren't convinced he was guilty.
I agree. The point I was attemting to make, albeit perhaps not very well, is that jurors hear the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions and are not balled (bawled) out for doing so.
-
How about the much lauded Scottish system where you can be put away for years on the sayso of 8 jurors even though 7 others disagree.
What a f...g farce!
-
It's not acceptable to tell a poster six times in a post they are ignoring evidence and on another three occasions they are denying evidence. As far as I am concerned I am not ignoring and/or denying evidence. I an fully familiar with the pathology report which details NB's injuries sustained in the kitchen. I simply interpret the evidence differently and apply different weights to different aspects of the case compared with yourself.
My points are accurate Holly.
Your interpretations are driven by bias nothing more. and they are totally invalid. It is fair game to point out when bias is driving someone's arguments and it is also legitimate to point out when assertions are wrong and totally lacking in logic and factual support.
Part of the way in which appeal courts review findings is they examine whether a rational, objective trier of fact could make such findings based on the evidence presented.
When this standard is applied to your claims there are many problems. You take such as a personal attack but it is not a personal attack it is a matter of fact and it is legitimate to point out.
You said you don't care what evidence and arguments are brought to bear you will never ever believe there was a struggle in the kitchen. Right there you are admitting you don't care about the evidence even as you pretend to give lip service to it. You made up your mind at the outset that Jeremy is innocent. You dismiss or ignore all evidence to the contrary so that you can say he is innocent. You view every aspect of this case based on what best supports your agenda of saying he is innocent.
You take issue with my using the words dismiss and ignore such as saying you ignore the opinions of the experts but that is exactly what you are doing. The experts said that Nevill's wounds suffered in the bedroom were not serious enough to inhibit him from trying to defend himself and trying to disarm the killer and that his injuries combined with the scene demonstrates he put up a spirited defense. The fact his left arm was damaged reduced how effective he could be against the killer it didn't prevent him from trying to put up a defense and from struggling with the killer.
You have repeatedly asserted that in your view Nevill was so weakened from the 4 shots delivered upstairs that that he simply collapsed upon reaching the kitchen and was beaten while he was already incapacitated. you have no support for this position you made it up yourself. You take issues with me pointing out you made it up as opposed to a medical expert doing so. It is fair to point out that you came up with this on your own.
Here is what you just wrote as to your reasoning for him being unable to try to defend himself:
"[A]- 2 facial shots fired at close proximity causing extreme pain and blood loss
- [B.] total incapacitation of left arm
[C] I don't believe NB was in any fit state to defend himself against the perp regardless of gender and stature. NB was a farmer not some fictional hero eg Superman or James Bond. NB was as vulnerable to gunshot wounds as you or me.
[D] I'm also mindful of how potent hollow point ammo is. Yes the cartridges used at WHF were low velocity but the design of the hollow point cartridge is particularly hazardous for those who sustain gunshot injuries. The following YouTube vid describes the hollow point bullet as follows:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DaXcXVvRuJ8
- It creates serious internal damage
- Expands on impact to almost 3 times its size
- "The expanding effect means that the bullet dumps its energy inside the body damaging more tissue than a normal round nose bullet"
- "Its designed to damage more tissue by opening up somewhat to a flower so it has a larger wound channel.
- "A large wound has a greater chance of hitting an organ, cutting nerves or severing an artery and so stopping the target".
Let's carefully analyze what you just wrote.
A) You said that the pain and blood loss from the 2 face wounds would prevent Nevill from being able to try to defend himself. In the past you said he collapsed as soon as he entered the kitchen because these injuries were so severe. What is your basis for these assertions? You made the up yourself no medical expert assessed such. The medical experts assessed that if these wounds were left untreated for a long period of time he could bleed to death from them. They made no assessment that the blood loss would result in rapid incapacitation in fact they found the opposite. They found these wounds would not have resulted in incapactiation and thus he would have had the time to struggle with the killer in the kitchen. So making such a conclusion is not supported by credible evidence and not something a rational trier of fact could find based on the expert evidence presented.
B) You argue that because he could not use his left arm he could not even attempt to struggle with the killer. He had another arm and legs and indeed could have used such parts to try to fight with the killer. The fact his left arm was injured reduces the effectiveness of his fighting ability it doesn't leave him unable to do anything. You made up that he would be unable to try to fight back no medical expert asserted such and from a logical standpoint there is no question someone with a damaged arm can still attempt to fight back. You made the conclusion that he could not even try to find back you are not advancing an argument from an expert. Why is is unfair to point out that you made this up and are not advancing a position of an expert but rather are saying things contrary to what the experts said was possible?
C) You make up the strawman that Nevill would have to be a Superman in order to try to defend himself which again is something you made up not something from the experts. The experts say the wounds were not severe enough to prevent him from struggling with the killer
D) You make up that because hollow points were used this means the injuries would be so great that he would not be in a position to defend himself. No expert opined this you made up this all on your own. It is a totally invalid argument. You look to the actual injuries to see what damage was caused and whether incapacitation occurred. The fact that hollowpoints damage a larger area than a round nose bullet means nothing. A hollowpoint bullet that hits a lip is going to cause far less extensive damage than a round nose bullet through the heart, an eye, the skull or some other vital area. Location of the shot is what is key. It is true that in general a hollowpoint bullet to an area wound cause a larger wound and thus more damage than would a round nose bullet to such area but that doesn't mean the difference will mean squat. He is a scenario where it would make a difference:
Shot to test dummy with round nose bullet results in the bullet passing by a vital blood vessel and just missing it.
Shot to test dummy in same exact spot with hollow point results in a vital blood vessel being hit because the bullet expanded and thus the wound tract was slightly larger than it was with the round nose bullet and the difference was enough to hit the blood vessel. This has no bearing at all on the issue being debated. It makes no difference whether Nevill's wounds wound have been a little less severe had hollowpoints not been used. The only issue is whether the wounds he did suffer were able to incapacitate him and this whole line of argument you engage in is an invalid red herring.
The medical experts assessed the injuries and said they were not serious enough to prevent him from struggling with his killer and assess the evidence establishes he did struggle with his killer.
You do not provide anything to refute that evidence. You have no medical data that proves he would have been rapidly unconscious from the jaw shot nor any assessments from medical people who assess such and refute the medical reasoning of the trial experts. Rather you simply refuse to accept their assessments and make up your own and you make up your own simply because you choose to argue there was no struggle because that is what is needed for you to believe Jeremy is innocent.
With regard to blood on the stock I relied upon information from the CoA doc which makes no mention of this. When you provided documentary evidence providing additional info I was/am happy to accept this but it doesn't change my views. Bottom line is the rifle contained insufficient blood for grouping whereas the blood flake in the silencer measuring 1/4 of an inch was able to!?
That they failed to group it is immaterial. The pertinent issue is that they found blood on the stock and they determined this blood was back spatter that got there from someone who was being beaten being struck with the rifle. It makes no difference whose backspatter it was the killer not just the weapon would be hit with it. But only one person had injuries from the rifle butt, Nevill. So it had to be his blood. You never reassess your positions after they are proven false or evidence you were unaware of challenges them. You made up your positions at the outset of hearing about the case and will not change your views no matter what evidence is brought to bear. You simply dismiss or ignore any evidence that stands in the way of your beliefs.
Compare the SoC where NB was found with the SOC where Reeva Steenkamp was shot (hit with a cricket bat?):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551257/Oscar-Pistorius-attacked-Reeva-Steenkamp-cricket-bat-shooting-dead-forensic-experts-claim.html
You claimed the bags SC's hands were placed in at SoC were forensically analysed. When I provided DC Hammersley's trial testimony confirming this was not the case you refused to accept it.
Please stick to debating the facts of the case as you see them and do not concern yourself with other posters. Please note how Myster and myself, who don't share the same case related views, are able to debate the case without any aggression, inflammatory language, goading etc. In future please refrain from any personal comments of any description eg You are .... or You ...
A little over two years ago this is what you posted about me on the Amytville forum:
"The main Jeremy supporter on the red board is Holly (who exchanges letters with Bamber) but she doesn't post much in detail anymore because I pretty much smashed her claims to pieces. So things will probably get dull there too now. If the blue board would approve my membership then some real sparks would fly but I don't see that happening."
http://www.amityvillefaq.com/truthboard/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1771&start=3087
I do stick to the facts you hide from many of them (those that dispute the narrative you like to present) Hammersley didn't do the testing of the swabs and bags the lab did. His claims are not of any consequence it is hearsay. Your claim that all the GSR wiped off her hands onto the bags in the meantime is ridiculous you want o pretend her hands were moving all over transferring GSR. some of the facts I mentioned were that they failed to test the hair sample. The strongest legal argument the defense could make was that the hair sample was the best sample because GSR stays in the hair far longer than on skin. his is what the defense should have petitioned to be tested in hopes of finding something. I present all the sides of an issue I am not an advocate for one side or the other. That is one reason I like debating outside of work. In work I am forced to be an advocate while outside of work I can just objectively look at things.
Let's discuss some of the facts you keep hiding from to try to keep the pretense you are posting alive:
Fact: The bullet that grazed Nevill and the spent casing associated with this shot were found in the master bedroom.
Fact: The wound left a channel that ran left to right across Nevill's arm right above his elbow and then the bullet grazed Nevill's left side. This could only be accomplished with the killer standing to the left of Nevill somewhere in between the 8:45 and 9:45 positions.
You ignore these facts and you assert inspite of them that Nevill was shot while he was walking down the stairs with the killer in the 9 O'clock position. What else can one call it but ignoring the facts?
It is fair to point out that if he was grazed by a bullet while walking down the stairs that the bullet would be found on the stairs or even on the ground level. It is fair to point out that the graze happened int he room where the bullet was found. Even though this has been pointed out to you countless times you refuse to even address it let alone consider it. How else can this be characterized other than you ignoring this fact?
It is fair to point out that it is absolutely impossible to achieve the trajectory of the shot while someone was walking down the stairs because the killer was to the left of Nevill not directly behind him. You just ignore such ad say you believe he was shot from behind. Your believe is not supported by anything and is contrary to the evidence. It is fair to point this pout.
Fact: Nevill all wounds to Nevill deliver upstairs were from the left side. All 3 entrance wounds were on the left side and the trajectories of the bullets after entering such wounds were left to right.
Fact: When walking up the stairs Nevill's right side was facing the bedroom and thus it is impossible for someone to shoot him in the left side as he was coming up the stairs.
Nevill being shot in the bedroom with June is very damning to Jeremy's claim that he received a distress call. To try to pretend the distress call happened you and other supporters say Sheila shot June in the bedroom and then Nevill heard and came running up the stairs and was shot. This was not a theory that was arrived at by following the evidence where it leads but rather was invented in order to correspond with Jeremy's claims.
After coming up with such theory you have tried to find evidence you can point to in support of it. Sheila shooting June and only June then going to her room makes no sense so you don't allege such even though that is the only thing you could argue in order for her to shoot Nevill as he comes up the stairs. You ignored that the left side could only be targeted from Sheila's door. you ignore that and just pretend that he could have been shot from the master bedroom. If a jury found that it is the sort of thing that could be challenged because no rational trier of fact could find such in light of the evidence. By pointing this out I am sticking to the facts.
My criticisms or your methodology and positions are fully valid and are not personal attacks. Saying you have poor grammar or are a dummy would be launching personal attacks. I criticize your approach to this case and stances taken in this case, that is fair game. When people approach a case with an agenda it is fair to point that out.
Let's be honest here of what is going on at the end of the day. I made points that you don't want to believe but have been accepted by the courts as true and that you have no way to refute. You respond by saying you don't care you are going to believe what you want to believe and you don't like anyone pointing out that in order to believe such you have to resort to ignoring evidence that proves you wrong. You want to pretend your views are valid interpretations of the evidence.
There are some unknowns in this case where there are multiple interpretations possible but the key issues we keep debating are not among them. When, where, how and why the wounds to Nevill's back were caused is unknown. There are numerous different speculations as to such. In contrast there is evidence proving the initial attack was on Nevill and June in the master bedroom. There is no question the 4 casings associated with these shots were in the bedroom as well as the bullet that grazed Nevill. There is no question that Nevill was not fully upright when shot in the shoulder and arm. The trajectory of the casings and location of the casings corresponds to where they would be expected with him shot while sitting in the bed. This is why the prosecution presented this scenario and why the defense failed to challenge it. Your desire to challenge this is not because the evidence fails to support this scenario. You choose to challenge it because you advocate on behalf of Jeremy and it is unfavorable to him. Even when you fail to find sufficient evidence to challenge some facts you don't care and refuse to accept them anyway. You don't want to face any criticism for so doing that is the bottom line. But it is fair to criticize such.
-
How about the much lauded Scottish system where you can be put away for years on the sayso of 8 jurors even though 7 others disagree.
What a f...g farce!
That makes the appeal process far more significant.
-
That makes the appeal process far more significant.
It certainly does.
-
My points are accurate Holly.
Your interpretations are driven by bias nothing more. and they are totally invalid. It is fair game to point out when bias is driving someone's arguments and it is also legitimate to point out when assertions are wrong and totally lacking in logic and factual support.
Part of the way in which appeal courts review findings is they examine whether a rational, objective trier of fact could make such findings based on the evidence presented.
When this standard is applied to your claims there are many problems. You take such as a personal attack but it is not a personal attack it is a matter of fact and it is legitimate to point out.
You said you don't care what evidence and arguments are brought to bear you will never ever believe there was a struggle in the kitchen. Right there you are admitting you don't care about the evidence even as you pretend to give lip service to it. You made up your mind at the outset that Jeremy is innocent. You dismiss or ignore all evidence to the contrary so that you can say he is innocent. You view every aspect of this case based on what best supports your agenda of saying he is innocent.
You take issue with my using the words dismiss and ignore such as saying you ignore the opinions of the experts but that is exactly what you are doing. The experts said that Nevill's wounds suffered in the bedroom were not serious enough to inhibit him from trying to defend himself and trying to disarm the killer and that his injuries combined with the scene demonstrates he put up a spirited defense. The fact his left arm was damaged reduced how effective he could be against the killer it didn't prevent him from trying to put up a defense and from struggling with the killer.
You have repeatedly asserted that in your view Nevill was so weakened from the 4 shots delivered upstairs that that he simply collapsed upon reaching the kitchen and was beaten while he was already incapacitated. you have no support for this position you made it up yourself. You take issues with me pointing out you made it up as opposed to a medical expert doing so. It is fair to point out that you came up with this on your own.
Here is what you just wrote as to your reasoning for him being unable to try to defend himself:
"[A]- 2 facial shots fired at close proximity causing extreme pain and blood loss
- [B.] total incapacitation of left arm
[C] I don't believe NB was in any fit state to defend himself against the perp regardless of gender and stature. NB was a farmer not some fictional hero eg Superman or James Bond. NB was as vulnerable to gunshot wounds as you or me.
[D] I'm also mindful of how potent hollow point ammo is. Yes the cartridges used at WHF were low velocity but the design of the hollow point cartridge is particularly hazardous for those who sustain gunshot injuries. The following YouTube vid describes the hollow point bullet as follows:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DaXcXVvRuJ8
- It creates serious internal damage
- Expands on impact to almost 3 times its size
- "The expanding effect means that the bullet dumps its energy inside the body damaging more tissue than a normal round nose bullet"
- "Its designed to damage more tissue by opening up somewhat to a flower so it has a larger wound channel.
- "A large wound has a greater chance of hitting an organ, cutting nerves or severing an artery and so stopping the target".
Let's carefully analyze what you just wrote.
A) You said that the pain and blood loss from the 2 face wounds would prevent Nevill from being able to try to defend himself. In the past you said he collapsed as soon as he entered the kitchen because these injuries were so severe. What is your basis for these assertions? You made the up yourself no medical expert assessed such. The medical experts assessed that if these wounds were left untreated for a long period of time he could bleed to death from them. They made no assessment that the blood loss would result in rapid incapacitation in fact they found the opposite. They found these wounds would not have resulted in incapactiation and thus he would have had the time to struggle with the killer in the kitchen. So making such a conclusion is not supported by credible evidence and not something a rational trier of fact could find based on the expert evidence presented.
B) You argue that because he could not use his left arm he could not even attempt to struggle with the killer. He had another arm and legs and indeed could have used such parts to try to fight with the killer. The fact his left arm was injured reduces the effectiveness of his fighting ability it doesn't leave him unable to do anything.You made up that he would be unable to try to fight back no medical expert asserted such and from a logical standpoint there is no question someone with a damaged arm can still attempt to fight back. You made the conclusion that he could not even try to find back you are not advancing an argument from an expert. Why is is unfair to point out that you made this up and are not advancing a position of an expert but rather are saying things contrary to what the experts said was possible?
C) You make up the strawman that Nevill would have to be a Superman in order to try to defend himself which again is something you made up not something from the experts. The experts say the wounds were not severe enough to prevent him from struggling with the killer
D) You make up that because hollow points were used this means the injuries would be so great that he would not be in a position to defend himself. No expert opined this you made up this all on your own. It is a totally invalid argument. You look to the actual injuries to see what damage was caused and whether incapacitation occurred. The fact that hollowpoints damage a larger area than a round nose bullet means nothing. A hollowpoint bullet that hits a lip is going to cause far less extensive damage than a round nose bullet through the heart, an eye, the skull or some other vital area. Location of the shot is what is key. It is true that in general a hollowpoint bullet to an area wound cause a larger wound and thus more damage than would a round nose bullet to such area but that doesn't mean the difference will mean squat. He is a scenario where it would make a difference:
Shot to test dummy with round nose bullet results in the bullet passing by a vital blood vessel and just missing it.
Shot to test dummy in same exact spot with hollow point results in a vital blood vessel being hit because the bullet expanded and thus the wound tract was slightly larger than it was with the round nose bullet and the difference was enough to hit the blood vessel. This has no bearing at all on the issue being debated. It makes no difference whether Nevill's wounds wound have been a little less severe had hollowpoints not been used. The only issue is whether the wounds he did suffer were able to incapacitate him and this whole line of argument you engage in is an invalid red herring.
The medical experts assessed the injuries and said they were not serious enough to prevent him from struggling with his killer and assess the evidence establishes he did struggle with his killer.
You do not provide anything to refute that evidence. You have no medical data that proves he would have been rapidly unconscious from the jaw shot nor any assessments from medical people who assess such and refute the medical reasoning of the trial experts. Rather you simply refuse to accept their assessmentsand make up your own and you make up your own simply because you choose to argue there was no struggle because that is what is needed for you to believe Jeremy is innocent.
That they failed to group it is immaterial. The pertinent issue is that they found blood on the stock and they determined this blood was back spatter that got there from someone who was being beaten being struck with the rifle. It makes no difference whose backspatter it was the killer not just the weapon would be hit with it. But only one person had injuries from the rifle butt, Nevill. So it had to be his blood. You never reassess your positions after they are proven false or evidence you were unaware of challenges them. You made up your positions at the outset of hearing about the case and will not change your views no matter what evidence is brought to bear. You simply dismiss or ignore any evidence that stands in the way of your beliefs.
I do stick to the facts you hide from many of them (those that dispute the narrative you like to present) Hammersley didn't do the testing of the swabs and bags the lab did. His claims are not of any consequence it is hearsay.Your claim that all the GSR wiped off her hands onto the bags in the meantime is ridiculous you want o pretend her hands were moving all over transferring GSR. some of the facts I mentioned were that they failed to test the hair sample. The strongest legal argument the defense could make was that the hair sample was the best sample because GSR stays in the hair far longer than on skin. his is what the defense should have petitioned to be tested in hopes of finding something. I present all the sides of an issue I am not an advocate for one side or the other. That is one reason I like debating outside of work. In work I am forced to be an advocate while outside of work I can just objectively look at things.
Let's discuss some of the facts you keep hiding from to try to keep the pretense you are posting alive:
Fact: The bullet that grazed Nevill and the spent casing associated with this shot were found in the master bedroom.
Fact: The wound left a channel that ran left to right across Nevill's arm right above his elbow and then the bullet grazed Nevill's left side. This could only be accomplished with the killer standing to the left of Nevill somewhere in between the 8:45 and 9:45 positions.
You ignore these facts and you assert inspite of them that Nevill was shot while he was walking down the stairs with the killer in the 9 O'clock position. What else can one call it but ignoring the facts?
It is fair to point out that if he was grazed by a bullet while walking down the stairs that the bullet would be found on the stairs or even on the ground level. It is fair to point out that the graze happened int he room where the bullet was found. Even though this has been pointed out to you countless times you refuse to even address it let alone consider it. How else can this be characterized other than you ignoring this fact?
It is fair to point out that it is absolutely impossible to achieve the trajectory of the shot while someone was walking down the stairs because the killer was to the left of Nevill not directly behind him. You just ignore such ad say you believe he was shot from behind. Your believe is not supported by anything and is contrary to the evidence. It is fair to point this pout.
Fact: Nevill all wounds to Nevill deliver upstairs were from the left side. All 3 entrance wounds were on the left side and the trajectories of the bullets after entering such wounds were left to right.
Fact: When walking up the stairs Nevill's right side was facing the bedroom and thus it is impossible for someone to shoot him in the left side as he was coming up the stairs.
Nevill being shot in the bedroom with June is very damning to Jeremy's claim that he received a distress call. To try to pretend the distress call happened you and other supporters say Sheila shot June in the bedroom and then Nevill heard and came running up the stairs and was shot. This was not a theory that was arrived at by following the evidence where it leads but rather was invented in order to correspond with Jeremy's claimms.
After coming up with such theory you have tried to find evidence you can point to in support of it. Sheila shooting June and only June then going to her room makes no sense so you don't allege such even though that is the only thing you could argue in order for her to shoot Nevill as he comes up the stairs. You ignored that the left side could only be targeted from Sheila's door. you ignore that and just pretend that he could have been shot from the master bedroom. If a jury found that it is the sort of thing that could be challenged because no rational trier of fact could find such in light of the evidence. By pointing this out I am sticking to the facts.
My criticisms or your methodology and positions are fully valid and are not personal attacks. Saying you have poor grammar or are a dummy would be launching personal attacks. I criticize your approach to this case and stances taken in this case, that is fair game. When people approach a case with an agenda it is fair to point that out.
Let's be honest here of what is going on at the end of the day. I made points that you don't want to believe but have been accepted by the courts as true and that you have no way to refute. You respond by saying you don't care you are going to believe what you want to believe and you don't like anyone pointing out that in order to believe such you have to resort to ignoring evidence that proves you wrong. You want to pretend your views are valid interpretations of the evidence.
There are some unknowns in this case where there are multiple interpretations possible but the key issues we keep debating are not among them. When, where, how and why the wounds to Nevill's back were caused is unknown. There are numerous different speculations as to such. In contrast there is evidence proving the initial attack was on Nevill and June in the master bedroom. There is no question the 4 casings associated with these shots were in the bedroom as well as the bullet that grazed Nevill. There is no question that Nevill was not fully upright when shot in the shoulder and arm. The trajectory of the casings and location of the casings corresponds to where they would be expected with him shot while sitting in the bed. This is why the prosecution presented this scenario and why the defense failed to challenge it. Your desire to challenge this is not because the evidence fails to support this scenario. You choose to challenge it because you advocate on behalf of Jeremy and it is unfavorable to him. Even when you fail to find sufficient evidence to challenge some facts you don't care and refuse to accept them anyway. You don't want to face any criticism for so doing that is the bottom line. But it is fair to criticize such.
Scipio I'm only just getting round to reading some back posts. Any new case related points in the above I will respond to later, time permitting. But on the moderating front, when you repeatedly tell fellow members they are not following the evidence; are making things up; they are bias; their interpretations are invalid etc it will be considered by many as goading and has the potential to escalate into conflict. Also it doesn't add to the debate.
I am asking you for the last time to refrain from any personal comments such as those I have highlighted in red above. We have many tools at our disposal for managing the forum in a fair and consistent manner for the benefit of everyone. If you persist with the personal comments I will discuss with Admin copying your posts to a file before removing them entirely and returning them to you for editing.
Admin, John and moderators determine where to set the bar in terms of what is deemed "personal attacks" not members. If you would like to provide feedback about any aspect of the forum then by all means forward a pm.
When responding to a post simply state you disagree and put forward your reasons.
I debate the facts of the case as I perceive and interpret them nothing more and nothing less. Of course this does not mean I am correct. You are fully entitled to do the same. What you are not entitled to do is to tell members they are making things up; they are bias; not following the evidence etc.
A criminal conviction is based on a number of processes and a system. Processes and systems are on occasions flawed and can result in incorrect conclusions as we evidenced yesterday with the Hillsborough inquest and as we evidenced in 2008 with the global financial system. Processes and systems are not based on for example the laws of physics. If I sat in a tree and hurled 100 apples to the ground we know for sure, subject to nothing impeding the flight of the apples, they will fall to the ground. If anyone said well a 1/3 will bounce up before hitting the ground, a 1/3 will hover for a few seconds before falling to the ground and a 1/3 will fall to the ground that is nonsense. We know it is nonsense based on the laws of physics. Unfortunately we cannot be that certain with anything that is based on processes and systems designed by humans.
Thank you for your cooperation.