Is there any evidence which implicates Sheila?

[Caroline]

Dennis Wager

Errrrm - you should hear my dog bark when strangers pass. That's simply what most dogs do and the key word there is 'impression'.

[mrswah]

Are you saying you would euthanase a member of the family’s dog within 24 hours of their death to avoid any inconvenience for yourself?

I think all Holly was saying is that she wouldn't want a dog of her own!

[G-Unit]

From my own experience... but never again.

It's not easy deciding when to call a halt, is it? I had to do it a couple of years ago and I still feel like a murderer.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

There's no evidence the injuries any of the victims sustained produced blood that would deposit on the perp. 

Gunshot wounds can produce high impact back spatter but its dependant on many factors and the small amount of blood that was on the rifle did not resemble high impact back spatter which produces a mist like spray.

71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none.

And yet a flake of blood measuring a 1/4 of an inch supposedly found inside the silencer had to withstand hot gases from firearm discharge and the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber but was able to turn up a full set of blood group results 

The reason there was no evidence that the blood of the victims weren’t found on the perp, Jeremy Bamber, is that he wore his wetsuit which he then showered off.

Don’t tell me that he wouldn’t have been sprayed by Nevill’s blood when he beat him to a pulp in the kitchen! That defies science.

The reason there wasn’t much blood on the rifle was that Jeremy used the silencer, and being closer it would have been more splattered with blood. The reason for the SMEARING of blood on the rifle was that Jeremy lost a glove in his struggle with Nevill — he told Julie that as it worried him — so he was forced to wipe his bloodstained prints off the barrel, and in doing so wiped most of everyone’s blood off too. That’s why when forensics tested it, there wasn’t any typical spray type back spatter — he’d wiped it off.

Forensics were able to establish that the blood they did find on the rifle was consistent with someone having been beaten with it, and we all know for fact Nevill was. Due to it having been contaminated when Jeremy had to wipe the barrel, they were unable to establish whose blood it was except that it was human blood. It doesn’t take Agatha Christie to work out that the blood had to be Nevill’s!

You KEEP saying a flake of blood was “supposedly” found in the silencer, but forensics did indeed find it, photographed it, analysed it, there’s hundreds of documents on the flake of blood — that had 17 markers of Sheila’s and was her rare blood group — yet you keep saying this flake of blood that was SUPPOSEDLY found...why do you do that?

And the reason that flake of blood measuring a quarter of an inch gave good results was that it was a good size; it had not been contaminated by Jeremy trying to wipe it off, and blood grouping is capable when deep inside a silencer, regardless of the  colossal speed in which it splashed back through that silencer until it landed deep down inside out of sight.

Scientists are incredibly intelligent and for you to try and doubt their vast expertise by implying they’re stupid, like the perp, JB is, really makes you look silly.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think all Holly was saying is that she wouldn't want a dog of her own!

In answer to a question I didn’t ask.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Are you saying you would euthanase a member of the family’s dog within 24 hours of their death to avoid any inconvenience for yourself?

It was nothing to him he has already slaughtered the rest of the family, why not the dog?

It could have gone to a good home- shame on that vet for killing a perfectly healthy dog.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I thought everyone knew that the disarray in the kitchen indicated that a violent struggle had occurred in that place.

Nevill was shot four times in the upstairs bedroom but was able to make it as far as the kitchen, perhaps to get his own firearm to combat his assailant who he didn't have to recognise was his son.

I think though that the beating he received there was personal and vindictive because he was at risk of upsetting Jeremy's applecart by being able to get as far as the kitchen ... he was intended to die in bed.

Therefore I fail to see why you would suppose that posting ...
"Evidence that a sustained cowardly, hate filled attack was carried out on a dying or dead man already suffering excruciatingly from horrific gun shot wounds is well documented."  ... takes away from the violence of any one sided struggle in the kitchen because it was obviously hideous in its violence.

The outcome of any struggle was decided when the only shooter, Bamber pumped four dumdums into his father in the bedroom - caught him with another as he made his way downstairs - eventually finishing off the job in the kitchen.

I reckon Jeremy Bamber must rank near the top of the tree amongst murderers for evil cowardice ... whatever awareness his victims had of their final moments must have been unimaginable in its horror.

That post wraps it up perfectly, Briatta.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I don't know why anyone would want to refer to info from a third party when we have access to the pathologist's report who at the time was employed by the Home Office.  Information is bound to get lost in translation.  For example where's the evidence NB sustained a broken nose?

If information is bound to get lost in translation, Holly, how do you propose to carry out a reconstruction 35 years after the event?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

If by disarray in the kitchen you mean a few pieces of broken crockery, spilled sugar, broken lampshade and overturned chairs how does this support a violent struggle as opposed to NB stumbling into them either as a result of the injuries he sustained upstairs and/or attempting to flee from the perp?

There's no evidence NB sustained his upstairs gsw's in the bedroom.

Don’t insult people’s intelligence by playing down what WAS a violent struggle between that evil psychopath, Jeremy Bamber and Nevill!

EVERYONE knows it was hideously violent!

Chairs, stalls all upturned; the heavy wooden table pushed across the room; the large heavy glass ceiling lampshade smashed to smithereens all over the kitchen floor — and Sheila couldn’t have reached that even with a rifle & silencer attached — the sugar from the smashed bowl was splattered everywhere ; the scratches underneath the mantel proved they were caused by the silencer of the rifle whilst the struggle was going on...and there’s photographic evidence too.

The police SAID Nevill had put up a fierce struggle, and the pathologist had said Nevill had taken a severe beating.

The bullet casings were found upstairs where Nevill first shot in the mouth, jaw and upper arm...

And you’re trying to make it look like Nevill had a “small stumble”!

You do yourself no favours whatsoever.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

According to one witness the disarray in the kitchen was partly due to the entrance of the armed police who broke into the house. [w/s DI Cook 1991]

Are you sure the bullets were dum dums?

The police broke into the back door of the scullery.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

 

It's a question I raised above.

How would any of us know if small stains on SC's nightdress and person originated from other victims?

Forensic EXPERTS microscopically studied every single centimetre of Sheila’s nightdress, and there was NO blood or human tissue from any other person on it, except Sheila’s own where Jeremy shot her.

Don’t try and start a fresh false rumour, Holly...I can foresee what you’re up to.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

NB's nose, along with the rest of his anatomy, was subjected to a thorough post-mortem so of course the pathologist was able to conclude whether or not his nose was broken.

If SC's nightdress and person contained small blood stains what tests existed in 1985/6 to enable forensic scientists and others to determine the origins of such stains?

But there wasn’t any, Holly, and that’s why there was no blood to test, even to state “unknown group”

It didn’t exist.

Why don’t you stop trying to plant seeds that don’t exist?

Are you THAT desperate ?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

The police and pathologist believed, at first anyway, that Sheila committed the murders and then took her own life.

In fact, this was the "official " conclusion for around a month. The police were so confident in their belief, that they allowed evidence to be burned and the funerals to take place.

So, why did they believe it was Sheila?  I cannot believe it was just because Taff Jones, a highly thought of DCI, was lazy, and more interested in his next game of golf, as has been suggested. He would not have become a DCI at  a relatively young age had he been lazy. This was a particularly horrific and unusual crime , and I would have expected the behaviour of the police to be anything but lazy!

So, my question is, what evidence did the police have that it was Sheila who carried out the killings?

But most of the police DIDN’T believe Jeremy from day one.

They all thought he was highly suspicious, but Taff Jones, who was known to be an aggressive bully, threatened ANYONE with the sack if they disagreed with him. He even dismissed Detective Sergeant Stan Jones. If Taff hadn’t got slung off we’d possibly have that vile mass murderer, Jeremy Bamber walking amongst us. And he may have murdered more people in the future too...he’s proved how capable he is.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I can't believe that a group of experienced police officers would  come to any conclusion based solely on the testimony of one 24 year old man.

What do you think he got rid of, that would have pointed a finger at him? The police did ask his permission to get rid of carpets, mattresses, etc.

I don't believe, for one moment, that June wanted the twins to go into care, and even if she had, Colin would never have gone along with it.  She might well have wanted Sheila and the boys to go and live at WHF, or she might have suggested some kind of foster/day care. I don't know what happened, as I wasn't there, but it doesn't seem inconceivable that the family might have had an argument over the care of the twins. We cannot assume that, just because Jeremy said it happened, that it didn't happen------IMO.

Jeremy asked the police to burn them

He said he couldn’t go inside while there were bloodstained carpets/mattresses there

The police were INEPT

[Holly Goodhead]

Forensic EXPERTS microscopically studies every single centimetre of Sheila’s nightdress, and there was NO blood or human tissue from any other person on it, except Sheila’s own where Jeremy shot her.

The FSS did not have the means to test small blood stains in 1985/6.  The type of tests used then based on blood serology were restricted to confirming the substance was blood, human in origin and then identifying non statistically individuallising enzymes and proteins.  The latter required good quality samples of a certain quantity to produce results.  None of the blood stained exhibits were able to generate the sort of results the flake of blood in the silencer did which begs the question how and why?!

Had SC's nightdress not been destroyed against all protocols it would have been possible to subject it to DNA testing:

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about