Is there any evidence which implicates Sheila?

[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?

He didn’t fool the Home Secretary

It was due to the disgraceful ineptitude of Essex Police that Douglas Hurd tightened the law on police investigations.

The team led by the bully, Taff Jones weren’t allowed to squeak, such was his domineering, threatening behaviour

Thank God they slung him out.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[Holly Goodhead]

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

He didn't ask the police to burn them at all.

Nothing of forensic value was lost in 85/86.

The police destroyed all trial exhibits against protocols.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I would have expected the police to be cleverer than to take Jeremy's words  at face value, and even if they did so initially, to do so for weeks afterwards???

But then, it's possible I have been over influenced by  Inspector Frost and his "policeman's nose".

What did Jeremy tell the police, apart from that he had a sister who was a "nutter"?  When asked whether or not he thought Sheila would harm her family, he actually said that he didn't know. He didn't say he thought she would.

He would say that, wouldn’t he?🙄

He couldn’t make Sheila look “all bad”...

He had to say “I don’t think she would”, otherwise that would open a new can of worms...

[ISpyWithMyEye]

"Depressive psychopath" which is worse and enough to give any cop the shakes...

The irony!

Here’s psychopath Jeremy Bamber saying Sheila was a psychopath when she wasn’t at all...

He did change it later — when he HAD to

He’s s..m

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Oh sorry, I was going by the ITV drama. I know it isn't accurate. They are all outside waiting and JB says he thinks he saw someone  moving about in the house- another officer asked did anyone else see anything and one officer said yes, it was then discredited as a trick of the light?   and when they got to the house it was locked from the inside anyway and the occupants were all dead apparently.

 apologies if this is wrong I am not claiming this as being true just what I thought I watched.

Something else I saw mention- JB was going to burn the house down- I doubt he would have done that as there was more money to be had selling stuff of and the building in tact for selling.

Jeremy planted the seed and made them all jumpy

I’m sure I read that Jeremy Bamber claimed to have seen a shadow moving, and that made the police jumpy, then one officer said he THOUGHT he’d seen a movement but after both officers stared at the window they realised it was simply a trick of the light.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

According to Julie, Jeremy did first think of burning the house down, and then changed his mind, as the valuables inside would have been lost. But then, that is just what Julie said--------.

That’s correct.

Jeremy told Julie he’d thought if burning the house down, but after snooping at the insurance policy he realised Nevill had undervalued the contents. So that’s why he scrubbed THAT idea.

So tell me, how could Julie have known Nevill Bamber was under-covered on his insurance policy? Are you suggesting SHE snooped and looked?🙄

[Holly Goodhead]

Jeremy planted them seed and made them all jumpy

I’m sure I read that Jeremy Bamber claimed to have seen a shadow moving, and that made the police jumpy, then one officer said he THOUGHT he’d seen a movement but after both officers staring at the window they realised it was simply a trick of the light.

It was the police who claim to have observed something at the window not JB.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

For those who think JB was responsible why didn't he simply shoot Crispy?

He lived alone in a cottage.  If he wanted a dog he would have had one of his own.

To my mind its interesting to note that June's side of the family were keen to have her jewellery but not so keen to take her little dog Crispy.

The lab, Jasper, who lived outside, was rehomed on another farm.

As Jeremy said “If only dogs could talk”....

He had no need to shoot Crispy, he wasn’t named in the will.

Besides, Crispy would have been cowering under the bed.

Jeremy’s excuse to the police as to why he couldn’t have a dog was that he had “VERY expensive furniture “. His grandiosity and boasting even spilled out on the day he murdered them all. He probably didn’t own it, either...probably got it on tick.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I think it's fair to point out that for many years April and Caroline were "supporters" arguing against all the arguments they now advocate.

That puts their arguments in a far superior position.

If they once supported him, believing him to be innocent or giving him the benefit of doubt and went in with an open mind, then after years of listening to him, reading all his letters etc...they’re now convinced that he WAS in fact guilty, that puts their opinions at a far superior standing, especially as they’ve probably been privy to information most of us haven’t.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

He didn't like the dog who I understand was somewhat temperamental. 

I would not entertain an animal in the home for hygiene reasons.

But you’re not fussy supporting a man who was promiscuous and entered prison with weeping sores on his penis.

[APRIL]

But you’re not fussy supporting a man who was promiscuous and entered prison with weeping sores on his penis.

WHOOOAAA!!! Where the HELL did that come from!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Perhaps not an easy dog, and only behaved well for June ??

I’ve had dogs (and cats) most of my life, and dogs especially have an extremely strong sixth sense.

They can detect if a total stranger is evil; as my dog proved when I came close to being raped by a stranger on the Common, and who was later caught and charged with raping several women by knifepoint.

My dog’s hunches immediately went up as he spotted the man in the distance just stood still staring our way, and began growling and barking like fury. She was a Labrador, who was so friendly affectionate, caring and tender — but she knew that man was evil purely by her sixth sense.

I guarantee Crispy knew Jeremy was evil, and that’s why he ALWAYS snapped at him. I bet Jeremy realised the dog kne whe was evil too, and that’s why he had him put down.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I’ve had dogs (and cats) most of my life, and dogs especially have an extremely strong sixth sense.

They can detect if a total stranger is evil; as my dog proved when I came close to being raped by a stranger on the Common, and who was later caught and charged with raping several women by knifepoint.

My dog’s hunches immediately went up as he spotted the man in the distance just stood still staring our way, and began growling and barking like fury. She was a Labrador, who was so friendly affectionate, caring and tender — but she knew that man was evil purely by her sixth sense.

I guarantee Crispy knew Jeremy was evil, and that’s why he ALWAYS snapped at him. I bet Jeremy realised the dog kne whe was evil too, and that’s why he had him put down.

The dog was the only living witness to his crimes and it’s little wonder the dog didn’t much like Jeremy having witnessed his violence first hand. 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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

There was NO other person’s blood on Sheila’s nightdress

You’re lying, Holly. Either that, or you’re confused.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

He didn't ask the police to burn them at all.

Nothing of forensic value was lost in 85/86.

The police destroyed all trial exhibits against protocols.

Yes he did.