Is there any evidence which implicates Sheila?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't think Jeremy's decision to have the dog put down is particularly relevant as an indicator to his callous nature, there's plenty of other examples of that, such as exterminating his entire family.
Jeremy had quite a lively social life to maintain directly after the massacre, so looking after the dog was not on his radar. I think it's that simple.

I think it’s relevant in as much as it demonstrates the ease with which he was able to dispose of something that stood in the way of his lifestyle by killing it, with absolutely no apparent regret about it at all. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

What was the excuse for the relatives?

Did they know that Jeremy was going to have the dog put down if they didn’t take it?

[Caroline]

I don't think Jeremy's decision to have the dog put down is particularly relevant as an indicator to his callous nature, there's plenty of other examples of that, such as exterminating his entire family.
Jeremy had quite a lively social life to maintain directly after the massacre, so looking after the dog was not on his radar. I think it's that simple.

Of course but we're debating his guilt/innocence and that's where this example becomes relevant. The kind of person who would take his mothers much loved pet, who had witnessed such horror and was clearly traumatised (evidenced by it's changed in temperament) and have it killed without even giving the chance of a rehome - is quite the kind of pewrson who would be callous enough to kill his entire family. There is no excuse for what he did - if wouldn't have affected him had the dog found a new loving home but he was so callous enough to even deny the poor dog that much. In essence - he's a complete and utter T%$T.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Getting back to all the evidence that points to Sheila’s guilt, how do Bamber’s supporters dismiss this?

“When Bamber asked me to consult Prof Leon MacDonnel in New York, then the world’s leading authority on blood evidence, the photographs of Sheila’s body convinced MacDonnel that, like the others, she had been murdered. Sheila was shot not once, but twice under the chin” - Roger Wilkes



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/meetings-jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-murderer/

I suppose the world’s leading authority on blood evidence doesn’t know what he’s talking about right?

[Caroline]

Getting back to all the evidence that points to Sheila’s guilt, how do Bamber’s supporters dismiss this?

“When Bamber asked me to consult Prof Leon MacDonnel in New York, then the world’s leading authority on blood evidence, the photographs of Sheila’s body convinced MacDonnel that, like the others, she had been murdered. Sheila was shot not once, but twice under the chin” - Roger Wilkes



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/meetings-jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-murderer/

I suppose the world’s leading authority on blood evidence doesn’t know what he’s talking about right?

Not really a good idea to make that decision based on a photograph ....... I'd have thought.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Not really a good idea to make that decision based on a photograph ....... I'd have thought.

Presumably it wasn’t one photograph and presumably he would have had experience of viewing many other photographs of blood evidence for comparison.  Why did Bamber ask the author to seek hom out in the first place anyway?

[Caroline]

Presumably it wasn’t one photograph and presumably he would have had experience of viewing many other photographs of blood evidence for comparison.  Why did Bamber ask the author to seek hom out in the first place anyway?

No, he looked at a series. The most important thing he said (for me), is the following - which is what I have been trying to get Holly to realise.

[Holly Goodhead]

Of course but we're debating his guilt/innocence and that's where this example becomes relevant. The kind of person who would take his mothers much loved pet, who had witnessed such horror and was clearly traumatised (evidenced by it's changed in temperament) and have it killed without even giving the chance of a rehome - is quite the kind of pewrson who would be callous enough to kill his entire family. There is no excuse for what he did - if wouldn't have affected him had the dog found a new loving home but he was so callous enough to even deny the poor dog that much. In essence - he's a complete and utter T%$T.

You said he made no attempt to rehome Crispy but according to JM he asked the relatives including PB and they didn't want him.

[Caroline]

You said he made no attempt to rehome Crispy but according to JM he asked the relatives including PB and they didn't want him.

Oh so you believe Julie now? OK! Had he made such an attempt, why did he tell the vet NOT to rehome? And if he did ask the relatives, did he tell them that he would have the dog put down f he didn't find it a home?

[G-Unit]

Oh so you believe Julie now? OK! Had he made such an attempt, why did he tell the vet NOT to rehome? And if he did ask the relatives, did he tell them that he would have the dog put down f he didn't find it a home?

I don't know who said he told the vet not to rehome (?) but if he did it might be because the dog bit him. Dogs which bite shouldn't be rehomed.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't know who said he told the vet not to rehome (?) but if he did it might be because the dog bit him. Dogs which bite shouldn't be rehomed.

Who said the dog bit him?

[Caroline]

I don't know who said he told the vet not to rehome (?) but if he did it might be because the dog bit him. Dogs which bite shouldn't be rehomed.

The vet said he was asked not to rehome and there is no evidence the dog bit him - thought you didn't speculate?

[Caroline]

Who said the dog bit him?

No one.

[G-Unit]

The vet said he was asked not to rehome and there is no evidence the dog bit him - thought you didn't speculate?

Did the vet give evidence? Ann Eaton said the dog bit him.

[Caroline]

Did the vet give evidence? Ann Eaton said the dog bit him.

You are hell bent on making an excuse for him aren't you?