Is there any evidence which implicates Sheila?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I'm afraid the courts like all organisations get stuff wrong!

Caroline identified what she refers to as a "schoolboy error" over the blood staining in the bible.

No they don’t.

They HAVE to be precise and exact — stop clutching at straws.

Nevill’s nose was broken — Dr Vanezis saw it! Are you calling him a liar?

[G-Unit]

No they don’t.

They HAVE to be precise and exact — stop clutching at straws.

Nevill’s nose was broken — Dr Vanezis saw it! Are you calling him a liar?

Why can no-one find any evidence that Vanezis reported Nevill's nose was broken? Could it be that he never said it?

[G-Unit]

I have noticed another anomaly.

Relevant events before 7 August 1985 21. Anthony Pargeter, Nevill Bamber's nephew and a competition standard shot, stayed at White House Farm between 26-28 July 1985. He saw the .22 rifle in the gun cupboard in the ground floor office. The telescopic sights and sound moderator were attached and the gun appeared in a "new" condition. There were no scratches or marks upon it. Later the appellant, himself a good shot, took the rifle out for some target practice.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Anthony Pargeter didn't say he shot with the Bamber's rifle that weekend, he shot his own rifle as he tested his new sights. [w/s 12/12/85]

Whoever prepared the summaries for the court made mistakes.

[Myster]

I have noticed another anomaly.

Relevant events before 7 August 1985 21. Anthony Pargeter, Nevill Bamber's nephew and a competition standard shot, stayed at White House Farm between 26-28 July 1985. He saw the .22 rifle in the gun cupboard in the ground floor office. The telescopic sights and sound moderator were attached and the gun appeared in a "new" condition. There were no scratches or marks upon it. Later the appellant, himself a good shot, took the rifle out for some target practice.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Anthony Pargeter didn't say he shot with the Bamber's rifle that weekend, he shot his own rifle as he tested his new sights. [w/s 12/12/85]

Whoever prepared the summaries for the court made mistakes.

The appellant, i.e. Jeremy Bamber (together with his father) took their own Anschutz out whilst A.Pargeter fixed some new telescopic sights to his own rifle before going behind the barns himself to zero it in. Bamber came round to the barn later and was asked to try it out by Pargeter.  Where is the anomaly?

[G-Unit]

The appellant, i.e. Jeremy Bamber (together with his father) took their own Anschutz out whilst A.Pargeter fixed some new telescopic sights to his own rifle before going behind the barns himself to zero it in. Bamber came round to the barn later and was asked to try it out by Pargeter.  Where is the anomaly?

The subject of the text is the Anschutz rifle. When it says he took 'the rifle' out for target practice it's saying he took the Anschutz. He didn't.

[Common sense]

I have noticed another anomaly.

Relevant events before 7 August 1985 21. Anthony Pargeter, Nevill Bamber's nephew and a competition standard shot, stayed at White House Farm between 26-28 July 1985. He saw the .22 rifle in the gun cupboard in the ground floor office. The telescopic sights and sound moderator were attached and the gun appeared in a "new" condition. There were no scratches or marks upon it. Later the appellant, himself a good shot, took the rifle out for some target practice.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Anthony Pargeter didn't say he shot with the Bamber's rifle that weekend, he shot his own rifle as he tested his new sights. [w/s 12/12/85]

Whoever prepared the summaries for the court made mistakes.

Hardly significant mistakes are they?

Whether NBs nose was broken or not, he had been savagely beaten. It makes not a bit of difference to anything.

Likewise, the important part of AP's W/S was that he had recently seen the Anschutz with the sights and moderator attached - how it was normally kept. What reason would they have been taken off? You don't have to be a farmer to know it's pointless to try and shoot rabbits without them but they would be a pain if you were planning to shoot people at close range!

[Myster]

The subject of the text is the Anschutz rifle. When it says he took 'the rifle' out for target practice it's saying he took the Anschutz. He didn't.

You're reading it wrongly. Bamber DID take his Anschutz out before Pargeter took his own out to zero it in!  Read the appropriate text in CAL.

[G-Unit]

Hardly significant mistakes are they?

Whether NBs nose was broken or not, he had been savagely beaten. It makes not a bit of difference to anything.

Likewise, the important part of AP's W/S was that he had recently seen the Anschutz with the sights and moderator attached - how it was normally kept. What reason would they have been taken off? You don't have to be a farmer to know it's pointless to try and shoot rabbits without them but they would be a pain if you were planning to shoot people at close range!

They aren't significant at all, and whether Nevill's nose was broken or not is immaterial. What does matter in my opinion is that people here know and debate facts.

It's perfectly possible, by the way, to shoot rabbits without attaching sights and a moderator to a .22 rifle.

[G-Unit]

You're reading it wrongly. Bamber DID take his Anschutz out before Pargeter took his own out to zero it in!  Read the appropriate text in CAL.

I know what really happened and the text is wrong. It doesn't mention Jeremy Bamber. It mentions the Anschutz and Paregeter and that Pargeter took 'the rifle' (Anschutz) out.

[Myster]

I know what really happened and the text is wrong. It doesn't mention Jeremy Bamber. It mentions the Anschutz and Paregeter and that Pargeter took 'the rifle' (Anschutz) out.

The APPELLANT is Jeremy Bamber and he took it out!  How many more times must this go on?

[Holly Goodhead]

They aren't significant at all, and whether Nevill's nose was broken or not is immaterial. What does matter in my opinion is that people here know and debate facts.

It's perfectly possible, by the way, to shoot rabbits without attaching sights and a moderator to a .22 rifle.

The rifle had a built-in iron sight.

[G-Unit]

The APPELLANT is Jeremy Bamber and he took it out!  How many more times must this go on?

Relevant events before 7 August 1985 21. Anthony Pargeter, Nevill Bamber's nephew and a competition standard shot, stayed at White House Farm between 26-28 July 1985. He saw the .22 rifle in the gun cupboard in the ground floor office. The telescopic sights and sound moderator were attached and the gun appeared in a "new" condition. There were no scratches or marks upon it. Later the appellant, himself a good shot, took the rifle out for some target practice.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

The appellant did take the rifle out, but did he fire it? He used Pargeter's rifle for target practice, not the Anschutz.

[Common sense]

They aren't significant at all, and whether Nevill's nose was broken or not is immaterial. What does matter in my opinion is that people here know and debate facts.

It's perfectly possible, by the way, to shoot rabbits without attaching sights and a moderator to a .22 rifle.

Not many before they run away!

This is also a straw man argument, the mystery is why the sights and moderator that were always left on and took time to set up were taken off a gun bought specifically to shoot vermin.

If Bamber had said he went to get the gun and asked his father who had taken the sights off and why, I might find him more believable.

[Myster]

The rifle had a built-in iron sight.

Which is absolutely useless for killing rabbits with accurate headshots from a distance.  The only reason that the telescopic sights were removed was to ensure the rifle was more easily manipulated within the confines of the bedrooms of WHF.

[mrswah]

Not many before they run away!

This is also a straw man argument, the mystery is why the sights and moderator that were always left on and took time to set up were taken off a gun bought specifically to shoot vermin.

If Bamber had said he went to get the gun and asked his father who had taken the sights off and why, I might find him more believable.

So, who did take the sights off?

Were the sights already off when JB went out to shoot rabbits earlier in the evening?

If so, I wonder why Nevill didn't comment on this.