Social Media Commentary Re JB And His Case

[Holly Goodhead]

I know it's splitting hairs but I would use the term stagger not walk to describe any movement from June.
It seems reasonable to assume that a mortally wounded person shot several times in the face and limbs would have been preoccupied with their pain/wounds at that stage, not the bible.

And then she conveniently dropped this bible exactly beside where Sheila was later found laying after she had taken her shower to wash the blood, residue and sugar off her in order to frame Jeremy? Good grief!

No, It was arrogant stupidity from Jeremy to plant the bible. Things went broadly according to his plan that night but he must have turned white when he realised a second shot was needed to finish Sheila. The bible was a convenient prop to shore up the deranged nature of her crime.

June did not sustain any gunshot wounds to her face.

What evidence exists that SC had a shower?  Why would she have sugar on her feet and/or blood other than from her own self-inflicted gunshot wounds?  SC and/or her nightdress were not tested for gunshot residue.

[Caroline]

June did not sustain any gunshot wounds to her face.

What evidence exists that SC had a shower?  Why would she have sugar on her feet and/or blood other than from her own self-inflicted gunshot wounds?  SC and/or her nightdress were not tested for gunshot residue.

Yes she did, she was shot between the eyes.

[steve_trousers]

June did not sustain any gunshot wounds to her face.

What evidence exists that SC had a shower?  Why would she have sugar on her feet and/or blood other than from her own self-inflicted gunshot wounds?  SC and/or her nightdress were not tested for gunshot residue.

Then the 'facts' section on here is wrong, as well as other sources.

The kitchen floor was carnage, covered in sugar and all manner of debris after the struggle in the kitchen where she battered Nevill to death with the butt of the gun. Yet her feet were clean as if she had just gotten out of bed. When challenged, Bambers campaign explain this away by her having a quick shower before her suicide.

[Holly Goodhead]

Yes she did, she was shot between the eyes.

Steve was referring to the first gunshot wounds June sustained prior to walking around the bed.

[Holly Goodhead]

Then the 'facts' section on here is wrong, as well as other sources.

I would refer to the pathological evidence here for reliable info on victims' gunshot wounds.

The kitchen floor was carnage, covered in sugar and all manner of debris after the struggle in the kitchen where she battered Nevill to death with the butt of the gun. Yet her feet were clean as if she had just gotten out of bed. When challenged, Bambers campaign explain this away by her having a quick shower before her suicide.

Soc officers do not describe the kitchen floor as you have nor do soc images depict such.

SC's found position is entirely consistent with her as perp.  No shower required.

On the one hand you think June incapable of carrying her bible having sustained gunshot wounds and yet you can see NB entering into a violent struggle with his assailant having sustained gunshot wounds that would have killed him had others not supervened?

There was no violent struggle in the kitchen as NB was too badly injured from the gunshot wounds he sustained upstairs.

I can't account for the views of Bamber's campaign team.  They talk a lot of rubbish imo.

[steve_trousers]

There was indeed a violent struggle in the kitchen, as shown at the trial. Dr Vanezis agreed with this. A bowl of raw sugar had been spilled, in addition to the floor being littered with broken crockery. And then there is the blood.

Yet the soles of her feet were clean, Not a scene entirely consistent with her being the perpetrator.

[steve_trousers]

My source - Her majesty versus Bamber

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[Holly Goodhead]

There was indeed a violent struggle in the kitchen, as shown at the trial. Dr Vanezis agreed with this. A bowl of raw sugar had been spilled, in addition to the floor being littered with broken crockery. And then there is the blood.

Yet the soles of her feet were clean, Not a scene entirely consistent with her being the perpetrator.

The only person qualified to say whether or not a violent struggle took place was the pathologist who uses no such term.  He states NB sustained blows from a blunt instrument and that the force was difficult to gauge.  I'm not doubting SC inflicted blows on a very badly injured NB with the rifle but that isn't the same as a violent struggle.

What would you expect to find on her feet and why?

[Holly Goodhead]

My source - Her majesty versus Bamber

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

That's a lengthy doc with over 500 points and covers many aspects of the case.  What specifically are you referring to?

[steve_trousers]

The only person qualified to say whether or not a violent struggle took place was the pathologist who uses no such term.  He states NB sustained blows from a blunt instrument and that the force was difficult to gauge.  I'm not doubting SC inflicted blows on a very badly injured NB with the rifle but that isn't the same as a violent struggle.

What would you expect to find on her feet and why?

And what did Mr Vanezis testify in court, when it mattered ?

Points 33, 47 & 49 for a start

[Nicholas]

AuntAgatha states here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10181.msg477730.html#msg477730

“As I say, I’m no psychiatrist but I’ve been next to him when appeals have been prepared for, and lost.  When he’s been betrayed and when incorrectly portrayed.  Beside him when he’s had some money and watched him as he’s lost it.  Witnessed his behaviour as he struggles to have more information revealed and when he has seen it, I’ve seen him trying to come to terms with it all.

Our information was limited at the time, our resources were nil as was our support. We both knew we were not being told the truth, how what little information we did have did not quite fit the jigsaw puzzle we saw before us.  Thankfully, through jeremys focused perseverance alone, he has amassed a small army of supporters who along with Mike have diligently examined all the new info and have had the ability to question the old.

Sadly, I don’t believe Jeremy will ever be freed....but miracles can happen and his supporters must continue with their research and people should be supporting them when pressing the authorities for answers to so many unanswered questions.   There is very little translucency in this case.


Who’s she suggesting ‘betrayed’ him?

What does she mean about him being ‘incorrectly portrayed”?

What money is she referring to, the compensation for his alleged neck injury? And where is she suggesting it’s been ‘lost’?

Not being ‘told the truth’ by who?

What ‘jigsaw puzzle’ is she referring to?

Is she suggesting in the early days it was just her and Bamber? What about his previous girlfriends, where were they?

Was AuntAgatha alone responsible for starting the public campaigning?

[Holly Goodhead]

And what did Mr Vanezis testify in court, when it mattered ?

Points 33, 47 & 49 for a start

Not a word from Dr Vanezis at points 33, 47 and 49.  These are the views of police officers after much leaning on!

[Nicholas]

Aunt Agatha over on blue re https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NZILACHl544&feature=youtu.be

“When this first came out, I can catagorically state, without any hesitation, that when the police first entered the house, entered the kitchen, the police officer reported ‘one dead male, one dead female’.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10181.msg477493.html#msg477493

“For over twenty five years both Jeremy and I have stated that that was what was stated in the very beginning.  He has never changed his view on this.
Michael Winner made this film based on documented evidence....and it originally stated ‘one dead male, one dead female!’
Someone has made a decision to omit that from the film and therefore change the events of that day.

 

AuntAgatha
“I don’t think that’ll ever apply with regards  to Jeremy's case.   

At the back of my mind, looking into the family history and their connections, I’ve always felt that some people believe Jeremy knows something that must never be put into the public domain, therefore, giving him a whole life tariff and putting one of his previous solicitors at the CCRC Ensures Jeremy remains where he is, as does the information.
However saying that, I honestly believe Jeremy is not aware of anything that he knows of, that would make others fear his release.

I know it sounds strange and weird.....but it’s always been at the back of mind and remains there to this day.

What is it that Jeremy could expose that would justify such a sentence and would have others lie to secure his imprisonment?

Crazy, I know!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10188.msg477744.html#msg477744

[steve_trousers]

Not a word from Dr Vanezis at points 33, 47 and 49.  These are the views of police officers after much leaning on!

I didn't mean Vanezis commented on those 3 points.

So we go back to the conspiracy theories again, when something cannot be explained away. It appears the only way to free Bamber is to suggest incompetence, lies and corruption every step of the way. Yesterday it was suggested central government were in on the conspiracy by infiltrating the campaign team.

[Holly Goodhead]

AuntAgatha states here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10181.msg477730.html#msg477730

“As I say, I’m no psychiatrist but I’ve been next to him when appeals have been prepared for, and lost.  When he’s been betrayed and when incorrectly portrayed.  Beside him when he’s had some money and watched him as he’s lost it.  Witnessed his behaviour as he struggles to have more information revealed and when he has seen it, I’ve seen him trying to come to terms with it all.

Our information was limited at the time, our resources were nil as was our support. We both knew we were not being told the truth, how what little information we did have did not quite fit the jigsaw puzzle we saw before us.  Thankfully, through jeremys focused perseverance alone, he has amassed a small army of supporters who along with Mike have diligently examined all the new info and have had the ability to question the old.

Sadly, I don’t believe Jeremy will ever be freed....but miracles can happen and his supporters must continue with their research and people should be supporting them when pressing the authorities for answers to so many unanswered questions.   There is very little translucency in this case.


Who’s she suggesting ‘betrayed’ him?

What does she mean about him being ‘incorrectly portrayed”?

What money is she referring to, the compensation for his alleged neck injury? And where is she suggesting it’s been ‘lost’?

Not being ‘told the truth’ by who?

What ‘jigsaw puzzle’ is she referring to?

Is she suggesting in the early days it was just her and Bamber? What about his previous girlfriends, where were they?

Was AuntAgatha alone responsible for starting the public campaigning?

I've no idea.  Aunt Agatha has an account here, and Afaik has always been welcomed, so may wish to join in our discussions.