Could Sheila Caffell have defeated Nevill Bamber?

[Holly Goodhead]

I might have known “incompetence” would put the kybosh on that particular piece of the puzzle, no doubt the same excuse for the lack of any grease or residue on her nightclothes and complete absence of prints on gun and ammunition too.  There’s always an answer isn’t there?

PS why wer the appeal summary conclusions allowed to state that there were no residues on her hands and clothes?

If you've already made up your mind and/or the best you can do is make facetious comments why should I bother?

The case involves a mass shooting unwitnessed by independent others as such its unique in British criminal history and not straightforward.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If you've already made up your mind and/or the best you can do is make facetious comments why should I bother?

The case involves a mass shooting unwitnessed by independent others as such its unique in British criminal history and not straightforward.

Why should you bother indeed.  The evidence against Bamber is irrefutable and thus understandably you cannot be bothered to try.  Fair enough.

[adam]

Surely, if he really had committed the crime in his wetsuit, he would have taken it home and washed it, or disposed of it somewhere, rather than leaving it at WHF.

Believe he may have had a wet suit on underneath ordinary clothes. It would be good body protection.

There would be no incriminating evidence on the wet suit. Espescially after a shower. Wet suits probably cost a bit, so he would not want to dump it. He left the damp wet suit ar WHF, knowing he would have access to WHF soon to collect it.

His other clothes from the night were disposed of.

[mrswah]

Believe he may have had a wet suit on underneath ordinary clothes. It would be good body protection.

There would be no incriminating evidence on the wet suit. Espescially after a shower. Wet suits probably cost a bit, so he would not want to dump it. He left the damp wet suit ar WHF, knowing he would have access to WHF soon to collect it.

His other clothes from the night were disposed of.

,

Did the police find his damp wetsuit at WHF?  Surely, if they had, they would have thought it suspicious and not been so quick to blame Sheila?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Well, there should be concrete evidence if a jury is going to convict somebody of murder.  And, that concrete evidence is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt.

You have already been warned about making personal remarks about other posters, BTW.

Whatever are you talking about?

There’s thousands of cases held each year in which there’s no concrete evidence: in fact, if there is indeed concret evidence the defendant usually pleads guilty as they know they’re snookered


Most defended trials are when much of the evidence is circumstantial, hence a jury!

[adam]

,

Did the police find his damp wetsuit at WHF?  Surely, if they had, they would have thought it suspicious and not been so quick to blame Sheila?

Don't know if it was damp when the police found it. Says earlier in the thread it was found at WHF.

Maybe the CT can explain what it was doing at WHF.

[Caroline]

,

Did the police find his damp wetsuit at WHF?  Surely, if they had, they would have thought it suspicious and not been so quick to blame Sheila?

They weren't looking for one.

[APRIL]

,

Did the police find his damp wetsuit at WHF?  Surely, if they had, they would have thought it suspicious and not been so quick to blame Sheila?

The police find, what to all intents and purposes, appears to be murder/suicide committed by a young woman who has the weapon conveniently draped across her. Please explain why it is you think they'd be looking for anything, let alone a wetsuit?!!!!!

[Holly Goodhead]

The police find, what to all intents and purposes, appears to be murder/suicide committed by a young woman who has the weapon conveniently draped across her. Please explain why it is you think they'd be looking for anything, let alone a wetsuit?!!!!!

Because they are police officers and trained to understand all is not always as it seems!

In this case about a month on it was subject to an internal review.  The review concluded murder/suicide which the relatives and DS Jones were not prepared to accept.  Shortly after this the case turned on the silencer and JM.

[Caroline]

Because they are police officers and trained to understand all is not always as it seems!

In this case about a month on it was subject to an internal review.  The review concluded murder/suicide which the relatives and DS Jones were not prepared to accept.  Shortly after this the case turned on the silencer and JM.

They also listen to witness's of which Bamber was one. The fact that they made mistakes is well documented.

[APRIL]

Because they are police officers and trained to understand all is not always as it seems!

In this case about a month on it was subject to an internal review.  The review concluded murder/suicide which the relatives and DS Jones were not prepared to accept.  Shortly after this the case turned on the silencer and JM.

The difference between what appears to be murder/suicide and searching for an item as irrelevant as a wet suit is off the scale. They'd have needed to totally ransack the entire house to find it, and WHY would there have been any connection between it and murder/suicide when the 'perpetrator' was laying in front of therm, complete with murder weapon?

 Those at the scene, convinced of Jeremy's sincerity, must have been enormously grateful to him for providing them with such invaluable information. It would only have been when they eventually took a step back, and, yes, listen to what others had to say, that they started to see a possible alternative to the way things appeared to be.

[mrswah]

The police find, what to all intents and purposes, appears to be murder/suicide committed by a young woman who has the weapon conveniently draped across her. Please explain why it is you think they'd be looking for anything, let alone a wetsuit?!!!!!

I would have expected the police to do a thorough search, even if they did think they knew the answer.

[mrswah]

The difference between what appears to be murder/suicide and searching for an item as irrelevant as a wet suit is off the scale. They'd have needed to totally ransack the entire house to find it, and WHY would there have been any connection between it and murder/suicide when the 'perpetrator' was laying in front of therm, complete with murder weapon?

 Those at the scene, convinced of Jeremy's sincerity, must have been enormously grateful to him for providing them with such invaluable information. It would only have been when they eventually took a step back, and, yes, listen to what others had to say, that they started to see a possible alternative to the way things appeared to be.

Had they come across a wetsuit that was damp, I think that would have looked suspicious. They wouldn't have been ransacking the house for it either---if Jeremy had showered in it or washed it, it would have been hanging up drying somewhere conspicuous. Nobody puts damp clothing at the back of a wardrobe!

[Myster]

I would have expected the police to do a thorough search, even if they did think they knew the answer.

They did look into his bedroom, but as has been said, the use of a wetsuit was far from their minds at that stage. It was only when Robert Boutflour started to throw out some ideas of how the crime was committed that questions were asked.

[APRIL]

Had they come across a wetsuit that was damp, I think that would have looked suspicious. They wouldn't have been ransacking the house for it either---if Jeremy had showered in it or washed it, it would have been hanging up drying somewhere conspicuous. Nobody puts damp clothing at the back of a wardrobe!

So there's this large farmhouse. 5/6 bedrooms. 5 Bodies. Why, when it's perfectly clear, that it was a case of murder/suicide, with the perpetrator laying dead in front of them, would they go to the bother of searching every wardrobe in the house, and why wardrobes, anyway? Why not chests of draws, or ottomans and cupboards? The list goes on. Again, what would be the point when quite clearly, it was murder/suicide?