Nevill was first shot as he exited his bedroom.

[Holly Goodhead]

Which is quite close to what I wrote.  Anything else to add?

I've told you how I think the killings were committed. 

A shooting reconstruction should have taken place at the time so there's no expert evidence but I told you on another thread how I believe they were committed.  I'll look up my old threads.

In a nutshell:

- NB makes the call to JB
- Whilst NB on call to JB, SC opens fire on June who was in bed with her head on the pillow.  June sustains 6 gsw's
- NB hearing shots ring out, drops the phone and runs upstairs where he sustains 2 gsw's to his face on the landing.
- NB turns to retreat downstairs and when he's standing on the main staircase he sustains the 2 gsw's to his rear: shoulder and elbow/chest.
- NB makes it to the kitchen where he sustains the beating
- SC reloads and inflicts the 4 gsw's to the head

I arrived at the above based on the following:

- Layout of WHF
- Pathological evidence particularly wound tracks and trajectories.
- Casings
- Blood stains to carpets, kitchen floor and wallpaper in hall.  Also lack of any trace of NB's blood in bedroom.
- Distance of shots

If you and/or others disagree perhaps you could give explain how you think SC or JB committed the killings.

[Nicholas]

That doesn’t make sense though, does it?

Firstly, Nevill was ex-RAF and would have been trained in the correct terminology. In the RAF use of correct terms is very important — especially when talking on the radio. I know he was a pilot, but I suspect he was trained in firearms too. So it would have been ingrained in him to be precise. Remember, a gun is artillery, cannons etc.  Something you CARRY is a rifle, a pistol or a weapon.

Then he spent around 30 years on the farm, shooting prey and going to shoots. He also had a collection of firearms throughout the years.

In shooting circles a Gun is what they call the person who’s holding the firearm; so whereas we, who don’t shoot, refer to firearms as guns, that isn’t actually correct. Nevill was educated, experienced in shooting, and mixed in the same circles.

So I doubt he ever referred to any of his firearms as a gun.

He’d have said something like: “Im going shooting with the Anschutz” or “I’m taking the semi-automatic”

Had Sheila been going berserk with that rifle, Nevill wouldn’t have said to Jeremy: “Sheila’s gone berserk — she’s got a gun”

It’s difficult to imagine what he’d have said, as it’s too ridiculous to even perceive he’d phone anyone at all leaving Sheila “going crazy with a gun”, but let’s suppose he would have phoned Jeremy instead of 999 or one of his neighbours, or farm workers two minutes away, he’d have most likely said: “Jeremy, get over here NOW! Sheila’s got hold of the Anschutz and is going hysterical”

He would not have said “Sheila has a gun” or “Sheila has the gun”

He just wouldn’t have.

But even trying to imagine what he’d have said is difficult, because it wouldn’t have crossed his mind to phone Jeremy — what could Jeremy have done that Nevill couldn’t? Nevill would have, and easily could have disarmed Sheila as soon as he saw her holding a rifle and going “crazy”. And he’d hardly leave her upstairs in that state, with a loaded weapon.

Jeremy claimed Nevill said Sheila was going crazy: he never said Nevill told him Sheila had shot anyone, so why wasn’t Nevill overpowering her upstairs before she started shooting? Why waste precious minutes phoning Jeremy of all people, leaving his wife, grandchildren and Sheila herself in grave danger, when he could have easily thrown himself sideways against the barrel and Sheila, and simply disarmed her in one swift manoeuvre?

Whichever way you try to fit the pieces together, they just don’t add up. None of it fits.

Some ‘human beings’ can’t and won’t admit to being wrong, so they’ll go round and round trying to make it fit, no matter how many times you tell them.

“But what about when a person does push back against the facts, when they simply cannot admit they were wrong in any circumstance? What in their psychological makeup makes it impossible for them to admit they were wrong, even when it is obvious they were? And why does this happen so repetitively — why do they never admit they were wrong?

The answer is related to their ego, their very sense-of-self. Some people have such a fragile ego, such brittle self-esteem, such a weak "psychological constitution," that admitting they made a mistake or that they were wrong is fundamentally too threatening for their egos to tolerate. Accepting they were wrong, absorbing that reality, would be so psychologically shattering, their defense mechanisms do something remarkable to avoid doing so — they literally distort their perception of reality to make it (reality) less threatening. Their defense mechanisms protect their fragile ego by changing the very facts in their mind, so they are no longer wrong or culpable.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201811/why-certain-people-will-never-admit-they-were-wrong

[G-Unit]

Some ‘human beings’ can’t and won’t admit to being wrong, so they’ll go round and round trying to make it fit, no matter how many times you tell them.

“But what about when a person does push back against the facts, when they simply cannot admit they were wrong in any circumstance? What in their psychological makeup makes it impossible for them to admit they were wrong, even when it is obvious they were? And why does this happen so repetitively — why do they never admit they were wrong?

The answer is related to their ego, their very sense-of-self. Some people have such a fragile ego, such brittle self-esteem, such a weak "psychological constitution," that admitting they made a mistake or that they were wrong is fundamentally too threatening for their egos to tolerate. Accepting they were wrong, absorbing that reality, would be so psychologically shattering, their defense mechanisms do something remarkable to avoid doing so — they literally distort their perception of reality to make it (reality) less threatening. Their defense mechanisms protect their fragile ego by changing the very facts in their mind, so they are no longer wrong or culpable.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201811/why-certain-people-will-never-admit-they-were-wrong

I find that description fits some of those who are utterly convinced that Jeremy Bamber is guilty.

[mrswah]

I find that description fits some of those who are utterly convinced that Jeremy Bamber is guilty.

IMO, it fits some people from both camps!

[Nicholas]

I find that description fits some of those who are utterly convinced that Jeremy Bamber is guilty.

IMO, it fits some people from both camps!

And the ‘fence sitters’ ?

[mrswah]

And the ‘fence sitters’ ?

On a different forum, I found myself "shouted at" by both sides, for different reasons.

So, theoretically, a fence sitter like me could "shout at" both sides for different reasons, and be thoroughly pig headed.

No reason for me to do that, though.

[barrier]

I've told you how I think the killings were committed. 

A shooting reconstruction should have taken place at the time so there's no expert evidence but I told you on another thread how I believe they were committed.  I'll look up my old threads.

In a nutshell:

- NB makes the call to JB
- Whilst NB on call to JB, SC opens fire on June who was in bed with her head on the pillow.  June sustains 6 gsw's
- NB hearing shots ring out, drops the phone and runs upstairs where he sustains 2 gsw's to his face on the landing.
- NB turns to retreat downstairs and when he's standing on the main staircase he sustains the 2 gsw's to his rear: shoulder and elbow/chest.
- NB makes it to the kitchen where he sustains the beating
- SC reloads and inflicts the 4 gsw's to the head

I arrived at the above based on the following:

- Layout of WHF
- Pathological evidence particularly wound tracks and trajectories.
- Casings
- Blood stains to carpets, kitchen floor and wallpaper in hall.  Also lack of any trace of NB's blood in bedroom.
- Distance of shots

If you and/or others disagree perhaps you could give explain how you think SC or JB committed the killings.

Don't gloss over the twins killing's,you think Sheila did it,when and how would she have done this.

[APRIL]

I've told you how I think the killings were committed. 

A shooting reconstruction should have taken place at the time so there's no expert evidence but I told you on another thread how I believe they were committed.  I'll look up my old threads.

In a nutshell:

- NB makes the call to JB
- Whilst NB on call to JB, SC opens fire on June who was in bed with her head on the pillow.  June sustains 6 gsw's
- NB hearing shots ring out, drops the phone and runs upstairs where he sustains 2 gsw's to his face on the landing.
- NB turns to retreat downstairs and when he's standing on the main staircase he sustains the 2 gsw's to his rear: shoulder and elbow/chest.
- NB makes it to the kitchen where he sustains the beating
- SC reloads and inflicts the 4 gsw's to the head

I arrived at the above based on the following:

- Layout of WHF
- Pathological evidence particularly wound tracks and trajectories.
- Casings
- Blood stains to carpets, kitchen floor and wallpaper in hall.  Also lack of any trace of NB's blood in bedroom.
- Distance of shots

If you and/or others disagree perhaps you could give explain how you think SC or JB committed the killings.

I would have thought that disarming Sheila first would have been more appropriate than allowing her, in her 'mad' state, to wander the house with a loaded firearm, whilst he took time out to make a call he couldn't even guarantee would be answered.

[mrswah]

I would have thought that disarming Sheila first would have been more appropriate than allowing her, in her 'mad' state, to wander the house with a loaded firearm, whilst he took time out to make a call he couldn't even guarantee would be answered.

I wonder how difficult it actually is to disarm someone who is carrying a loaded firearm. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do it.

[APRIL]

I wonder how difficult it actually is to disarm someone who is carrying a loaded firearm. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do it.

And I've never tried, nor had to. Nevill, if he'd surprised her by approaching from behind and was close enough to touch her it would have meant that the length of the barrel prohibited her from shooting either of them. He might have been able to wrestle her to the floor

[Myster]

I wonder how difficult it actually is to disarm someone who is carrying a loaded firearm. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do it.

I doubt that you're a strong male 6'4" farmer used to hard physical work who's adored and looked up to by your daughter.

[Holly Goodhead]

Don't gloss over the twins killing's,you think Sheila did it,when and how would she have done this.

I'm not glossing over anything but the physical evidence doesn't reveal at what stage June sustained the two immediately fatal shots and the twins sustained their gsw's.

[Holly Goodhead]

I would have thought that disarming Sheila first would have been more appropriate than allowing her, in her 'mad' state, to wander the house with a loaded firearm, whilst he took time out to make a call he couldn't even guarantee would be answered.

The physical evidence suggests otherwise.

[APRIL]

The physical evidence suggests otherwise.

I don't know to which "physical evidence" you're referring. There must have been a window during which he, uninjured, could see for himself that Sheila was "going mad" -I doubt it JUST happened, nor that it happened simultaneously with the lifting of the gun, he may even have had the chance of removing the gun when he saw what was transpiring?- and could have intervened.

[Caroline]

On a different forum, I found myself "shouted at" by both sides, for different reasons.

So, theoretically, a fence sitter like me could "shout at" both sides for different reasons, and be thoroughly pig headed.

No reason for me to do that, though.

I do believe you are a genuine fence sitter Mrswah - some claim to be who are NOT!