Sheila’s Foot — Proof She Was Dragged At The Point of Death?

[Common sense]

Well, the CT would omit that part, wouldn’t they? Cherry pickers....

I don’t know why they do because anyone can find it on Google — they just make themselves look deceptive


So what actually are the technicalities he’s complaining about? 

He's still looking for a technicality. Have you heard the one about his whole trial and incarceration being illegal because the indictment was signed a day late? - It's on his website. Desperate stuff and legally wrong but if they deleted every bit of rubbish off the site it would just be a blank page.

[Common sense]

I know it’s not a laughing matter in any shape or form, but for Holly to believe a reconstruction could take place 

So how does she propose to have Nevill making the call?

Flicking through a telephone directory humming to himself (when no directory was in the kitchen, nor reading glasses) pouring a G&T while waiting for Chelmsford Police to reply....

Or standing with blood all over his face, gurgling as he couldn’t breathe properly?

Helena Bonham Carter is going to play Sheila's part, the tricky bit is nailing the scene where NB convinces her to stop going crazy for a minute while he gets Jeremy on the phone so he can come to the rescue, but then, while his back is turned... the eastenders drum roll kicks in, followed by the Benny Hill theme and a speeded up SC runs up and down the stairs shooting, loading cartridges and having a shower and doing her nails.

You're right. We shouldn't laugh.

 

[Caroline]

Those aren't technicalities Ispy, those are mad conspiracy fantasies conjured from a bit of sloppy paperwork!

Unfortunately, I don't think he will let himself be forgotten and as one of the most infamous cold blooded crimes of the last century, there will always be interest in the case and a few gullible types he can exploit.

*The "in conversation" conspiracy comes from an ambiguous single line written by a radio operator on the communications log. They were either in conversation with JB inside the farm (possibly "barn" but misheard) at 5.25 or it was an attempt to speak to anyone inside via the loudhailer. The next line in the log at 5.29 reads "Challenge to persons inside the house met with no response" - but the CT never mention the 5.29 entry!

The 'in conversation' is in two parts "Firearms team are in conversation with A PERSON from inside the FARM. Challenge to PERSONS inside the HOUSE". Raid team members talk about being in conversation with Jeremy prior to challenging and entering the house so the first part is referring to him, the second part relates to using the loud hailers to try and rouse someone inside the house but these challengers were met with 'no response'. There is nothing more to this nd once you realise the points are separate, it's laughable to see it as Bamber and the CT promote it.

[Myster]

I think that ship sailed in 1985 and was sunk in 2002.

As for reconstructions, I don't think there is an actor capable of making NBs supposed call to JB remotely believable, unless maybe Laurence Olivier is resurrected and I suspect he would turn the part down after reading the script.

As the Sale sign in the Camping shop window said - "Now is the Winter of our Discount Tents".  None better than dear old camp Larry...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxnXgYPnKg

[Nicholas]

On top of that, all his contradictory letters he’s written over the last 35 years ties him up in knots.

 

[Nicholas]

I'm sure Bamber's lawyers would try to argue an abuse of process due to dead witnesses but like you say, there would remain more than enough evidence to convict him again and he himself has contributed to that. They could produce his own website and copious letters as evidence against him.

 

[APRIL]

He's still looking for a technicality. Have you heard the one about his whole trial and incarceration being illegal because the indictment was signed a day late? - It's on his website. Desperate stuff and legally wrong but if they deleted every bit of rubbish off the site it would just be a blank page.

Pathetic

[ISpyWithMyEye]

He's still looking for a technicality. Have you heard the one about his whole trial and incarceration being illegal because the indictment was signed a day late? - It's on his website. Desperate stuff and legally wrong but if they deleted every bit of rubbish off the site it would just be a blank page.

It sounds like they’re trying to copy the lawyer known as Mr Loophole who got David Beckham off a speeding fine...

There’s a momentous difference between arguing over a driving offence and murdering five people — but they’re too deluded to see that

Whatever silly flaw they stumble upon won’t make a jot of difference to the terms of his conviction: he’s been sentenced to life in prison until he dies, and nothing will ever alter that. Could you imagine the public outcry if they allowed that mass murderer to walk free because one indictment was signed a day late?> 🤣

[Holly Goodhead]

I think that ship sailed in 1985 and was sunk in 2002.

As for reconstructions, I don't think there is an actor capable of making NBs supposed call to JB remotely believable, unless maybe Laurence Olivier is resurrected and I suspect he would turn the part down after reading the script.

Shooting reconstructions are based on the physical evidence at soc only.  No actors required.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Shooting reconstructions are based on the physical evidence at soc only.  No actors required.

Explain how they are carried out then, if no human beings are involved in reconstructing events? 

[Common sense]

Shooting reconstructions are based on the physical evidence at soc only.  No actors required.

My tongue was firmly in my cheek. The supposed phone call from NB is always going to sink JB. It was a stupid lie.

Say you reconstruct the evidence and it shows that Sheila or Jeremy could have been behind the trigger - you are only put right back to the position at the start of the trial and we all know how that went.

[Holly Goodhead]

Explain how they are carried out then, if no human beings are involved in reconstructing events?

I uploaded two examples: The shooting of Fred Barras at Bleak Farm and the JFK shooting.  I also attached a link to a shooting incident reconstruction book:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction

In one of Dr V's reports he tells us that the trajectories of the wound tracks NB sustained to his face were 10 - 20 degrees below the horizontal and the barrel within inches of his skin. What do you think this might mean?  Do you think he would include a lot of unneccessary waffle to pad out his reports in an attempt to make them look more impressive or do you think this info might be relevant and relate to soc?

At trial he told the court the gsw NB sustained to his shoulder was fired from above.  The rifle sans silencer was 48" long and NB 6' 4". The track of the wound was down through the top of the shoulder when the barrel was some 2 feet away.  How do you think that came about?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Shooting reconstructions are based on the physical evidence at soc only.  No actors required.

So what’s the point of having a reconstruction in WHF when no-one knows exactly where Jeremy Bamber was standing when he fired the gun, and casings can ricochet thereby giving no clue as to where they were actually fired from?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I uploaded two examples: The shooting of Fred Barras at Bleak Farm and the JFK shooting.  I also attached a link to a shooting incident reconstruction book:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction

In one of Dr V's reports he tells us that the trajectories of the wound tracks NB sustained to his face were 10 - 20 degrees below the horizontal and the barrel within inches of his skin. What do you think this might mean?  Do you think he would include a lot of unneccessary waffle to pad out his reports in an attempt to make them look more impressive or do you think this info might be relevant and relate to soc?

At trial he told the court the gsw NB sustained to his shoulder was fired from above.  The rifle sans silencer was 48" long and NB 6' 4". The track of the wound was down through the top of the shoulder when the barrel was some 2 feet away.  How do you think that came about?

All that proves is that Nevill shot from a certain angle and no-one knows where he was standing

Nor does it prove who shot the rifle

[Common sense]

All that proves is that Nevill shot from a certain angle and no-one knows where he was standing

Nor does it prove who shot the rifle

Or kneeling, crawling, ducking etc...