The brutal beating of Nevill in the kitchen.

[Holly Goodhead]

I read the following for the first time yesterday as I was looking for something else.  It's a WS from DI Cook which seems to support my view that there was no "struggle" as such in the kitchen between NB and SC or JB as NB was too badly injured from the injuries he received upstairs to put up any sort of resistance.  He also suggests much of the kitchen soc was caused by the raid team:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=168.0;attach=291


"I have been asked what I made of what appeared to have been a violent struggle in the kitchen between Mr Bamber and his assailant.  I am aware that by looking at the photographs they might suggest such a struggle but at the time it did not appear that way to me.  I could only see two things broken, one was a lampshade and the other a plate or bowl.  There was also brown sugar on the floor but it was confined to one small area.  I later learnt that the chairs and brown sugar had been so knocked over by the firearms unit when they rushed about the house looking for Sheila.  Yes Mr Bamber must have put up some resistance but must have been limited because of the bullet wounds to his neck and one, I think to his left arm, which caused the bone to be smashed.  So at that time it did appear feasible that Sheila could have killed her father".
 

[John]

Clearly they wrestled over the rifle evidenced by the scratch marks under the mantle, the smashed lampshade, the piece of wood broken off the stock and the smashed crockery and overturned table and chairs.  Not really something a petite young woman could have got away with and not ended up with blood on her or bruise marks.

[Holly Goodhead]

Clearly they wrestled over the rifle evidenced by the scratch marks under the mantle, the smashed lampshade, the piece of wood broken off the stock and the smashed crockery and overturned table and chairs.  Not really something a petite young woman could have got away with and not ended up with blood on her or bruise marks.

It is not clear to me that any wrestling took place due the injuries sustained in the bedroom specifically his "totally impaired" left arm.  I believe the scratch marks were fabricated as per Peter Sutherst's (difficult name to pronounce if you have the misfortune of being short tonged) findings.

[Myster]

It is not clear to me that any wrestling took place due the injuries sustained in the bedroom specifically his "totally impaired" left arm.  I believe the scratch marks were fabricated as per Peter Sutherst's (difficult name to pronounce if you have the misfortune of being short tonged) findings.

If as you believe there was no fight/struggle in the kitchen, and Sheila just watched as her dad staggered around before coming to rest straddled on a chair back, can you tell me how you think a piece got broken off the rifle butt?

[adam]

From the 2002 appeal:

41. Nevill Bamber, who was wearing his pyjamas had been shot eight times. There were two wounds to the right side and two to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these four injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation. There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and the larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist's opinion, that Nevill Bamber would not have been able to engage in purposeful talk. There were also gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and a grazing wound above the left elbow.

42. The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.

[Holly Goodhead]

From the 2002 appeal:

41. Nevill Bamber, who was wearing his pyjamas had been shot eight times. There were two wounds to the right side and two to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these four injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation. There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and the larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist's opinion, that Nevill Bamber would not have been able to engage in purposeful talk. There were also gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and a grazing wound above the left elbow.

42. The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.

Morning Adam

The above points from the CoA doc have been extracted from the pathologist's report.  The problem I have with this case in general is the appalling communication.  Eg lay people incorrectly interpreting documents written by professionals, in your post above the pathologist. When I say lay people I don't just mean the likes of us but anyone not trained in pathology eg jury, judge, prosecution and defense counsel etc.  Sorry I'm rambling but as an example when I read point 42 above initially  I thought either JB or SC must have given NB a black eye by a punch to the face but I think you will find that some of the injuries are in effect secondary from gunshot.  By this I mean a bullet can ricochet around internally.  This is particularly common with shots to the skull and the type of weapon and ammo used at WHF.  You Can Google to check it out: gunshot wound internal ricochet.  I think June also had a black eye Adam? 

The burns marks to NB's back I don't believe are anything to do with WHF.  I'm out and about at the mo but will post a link to my previous posts on this.  I will be interested in your take.

[Holly Goodhead]

If as you believe there was no fight/struggle in the kitchen, and Sheila just watched as her dad staggered around before coming to rest straddled on a chair back, can you tell me how you think a piece got broken off the rifle butt?

It should have been analysed by FSS but I don't believe it was?  I wonder if it still exists?  I think it probably broke as it came into contact with NB's bones.  I guess it could be any hard object eg table but no record of any damage.   

The only damage I've read about to WHF property is the aga surround by way of scratch marks, broken lampshade and the obvious blood staining.  I'm wondering if any damage was caused by bullets ricocheting either before or after entry but not noted?  If so could it be that the butt broke as it hit furniture: table, chairs, stools but not noted.  I don't believe the relatives noted any property damage other than that above.

[Holly Goodhead]

Morning Adam

The above points from the CoA doc have been extracted from the pathologist's report.  The problem I have with this case in general is the appalling communication.  Eg lay people incorrectly interpreting documents written by professionals, in your post above the pathologist. When I say lay people I don't just mean the likes of us but anyone not trained in pathology eg jury, judge, prosecution and defense counsel etc.  Sorry I'm rambling but as an example when I read point 42 above initially  I thought either JB or SC must have given NB a black eye by a punch to the face but I think you will find that some of the injuries are in effect secondary from gunshot.  By this I mean a bullet can ricochet around internally.  This is particularly common with shots to the skull and the type of weapon and ammo used at WHF.  You Can Google to check it out: gunshot wound internal ricochet.  I think June also had a black eye Adam? 

The burns marks to NB's back I don't believe are anything to do with WHF.  I'm out and about at the mo but will post a link to my previous posts on this.  I will be interested in your take.

Adam, here's the link to the burn marks:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=292.msg134570#msg134570

[adam]

I created a thread on the expensive Arizona tests on the Blue forum.

Not sure of the point. If it showed it was burn marks from the rifle without the silencer (which it didn't), it just means the silencer was taken off beforehand.

[Holly Goodhead]

I created a thread on the expensive Arizona tests on the Blue forum.

Not sure of the point. If it showed it was burn marks from the rifle without the silencer (which it didn't), it just means the silencer was taken off beforehand.

That is one interpretation.

As far as I am concerned it goes back to my post above about appalling communication in that someone has marked on the pathology report "Gun forced into back" and this has taken on a life of its own:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=680

The pathologist does not make any ref to the burn marks occurring during the tragedy: 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=292.msg134570#msg134570

[scipio_usmc]

It is not clear to me that any wrestling took place due the injuries sustained in the bedroom specifically his "totally impaired" left arm.  I believe the scratch marks were fabricated as per Peter Sutherst's (difficult name to pronounce if you have the misfortune of being short tonged) findings.

That is because you are too biased to face the issue rationally.

You took a post where cook admits a struggle took place and says he didn't realize it initially and suggest this proves there was no struggle though it doesn't prove such at all. Cook didn't know anything about the injuries Nevill suffered that proved there was a struggle nor was aware of the extent of damage to the room.

He was even under the erroneous belief the raid team knocked over the sugar though that was not the case.

There is no doubt at all Nevill was severely beaten, the gun butt was broken by hitting him with it and that this occurred because the gun was empty and the killer needed Neivll unconscious to be able to reload the weapon.

Saying you refuse to face the evidenc ejust makes you living in irrational denial nothing more.

[John]

Of course there was a scuffle in the kitchen.  Nevill Bamber was beaten to a pulp by a rifle wielding maniac.  Question is, did he know who his assailant was?

[Holly Goodhead]

Of course there was a scuffle in the kitchen.  Nevill Bamber was beaten to a pulp by a rifle wielding maniac.  Question is, did he know who his assailant was?

I think NB's limitations were as per the autopsy report a "spirited defence".  This imo does not mean a "violent struggle" or "scuffle".  Imo this meant NB raising his only operable arm (right) to shield himself from blows raining down from the rifle.

Sadly I think we can safely assume that NB was aware of the identity of his assailant since all concerned agreed there were only two possibilities:  JB or SC. 

[Holly Goodhead]

That is because you are too biased to face the issue rationally.

You took a post where cook admits a struggle took place and says he didn't realize it initially and suggest this proves there was no struggle though it doesn't prove such at all. Cook didn't know anything about the injuries Nevill suffered that proved there was a struggle nor was aware of the extent of damage to the room.

He was even under the erroneous belief the raid team knocked over the sugar though that was not the case.

There is no doubt at all Nevill was severely beaten, the gun butt was broken by hitting him with it and that this occurred because the gun was empty and the killer needed Neivll unconscious to be able to reload the weapon.

Saying you refuse to face the evidenc ejust makes you living in irrational denial nothing more.

What possible reason(s) do I have for being bias towards a convicted mass murderer (including 2 small sleeping children)?  I have looked at all the info in the public domain and my interpretation is that JB's conviction is unsafe and I believe he is the victim of a MoJ. 

On the other hand it could be argued that all the lay prosecution witnesses had something to gain by seeing JB sent down and were therefore bias even if they were not consciously aware of this:

Relatives - retain the Speakman dynasty in the bloodline.  Why did they not donate the estate of June and NB to a charity or set up some sort of endowment for the benefit of the local community?  Assets that were difficult to break-up eg shares in OCP the relatives could have retained majority shareholdings/control and appointed a trustee to hold the assets and pay dividends to.  Had the tragedy at WHF not have occurred the normal course of events would not have seen the relatives benefiting financially.  I am not saying the relatives thought JB innocent and stitched him up to retain an in tact Speakman dynasty as I do think they genuinely believe him to be guilty but nonetheless it has a certain whiff about it.

JM - No criminal record for her part in OCP, cheque book fraud, selling illegal recreational drugs.  And possibly charges dropped that EP might have threatened her with eg accomplice to murder, perverting the course of justice if she refused to 'cooperate'.  25k NoW deal.  Retains her dignity in terms of 'well yes he dumped me but look what an evil monster he was'.  Again had JB not been sent down she would not have benefitted from the NoW deal.  So why not donate the money to a charity.

Both above could have legitimately claimed any out of pocket expenses (if they incurred any) as a result of the tragedy eg I believe JM had to have time off work but I'm not sure if it was paid or unpaid.

Doris Foakes - Was reliant upon (as were her family) the Speakman dynasty for work and housing.

Mary Mugford - As would be expected supported her daughter.

James Richard - Was a friend of JM's and is likely to be supportive of that friend.

I don't think the last three really said anything incriminating. They were pretty much one off sentences that were obviously taken out of context.  EG Doris Foakes "I'm not going to share my money with my sister".  I find it very unlikely that JB would walk up to DF and blurt out "I'm not going to share my money with my sister".  It really makes little sense but attempts to provide a reason for JB murdering SC eg 'I'm not going to share my parents' estate with my sister'.  I think I recall reading something in RB's WS where he suggests that JB should share his dividend from OCP with SC.  If this is the case then I can understand JB's sentiments as SC made no contribution towards the running of OCP.

I didn't take a post about DI Cook as you claim above.  It is information contained in his signed WS.  He was present at the scene some 2 hours after the raid team broke-in.  When he evaluated the scene in theory nothing should have been tampered with and the raid team should have made clear what if anything they moved.  He also attended the PM and was briefed by Dr V on the full extent of NB's injuries.  On the back of this information he states:

- It  didn't appear to him there was a struggle
- Only 2 things broken: plate or bowl and lampshade
- He was advised that the raid team knocked over the chairs and sugar bowl
- That NB was only able to put up limited resistance because of the bullet wounds to his neck and arm
- Appeared feasible to him that SC could have killed her father

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=168.0;attach=291

I am not saying NB was not severely beaten and the rifle butt didn't break but this doesn't prove anything.  SC could have continued beating NB when he was dead or nearly dead.  SC or JB did not need to beat NB to reload the rifle as the poor man was almost dead by the time he reached the kitchen; the pathology report tells us this. 

No doubt Tracie Andrews didn't need to stab her boyfriend some 30 or 40 times?  It's what people do when they get in a rage.

http://murderpedia.org/female.A/a/andrews-tracie.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_(emotion)