How the murders were carried out

[puglove]

Blimey. That's the nearest thing I've ever seen to the marks/lesions on Ralph's neck.

Well done, you.

Ah, now that's made me think of the bloody Oscar Pistorius thing again. Did he really think that anyone would fall for his crap? The horrible, spoilt, angry, self-indulgent, self-obsessed, gun-happy woman h a t e r. Why would Reeva lock herself in the toilet, with her phone? On Valentine's day?

I hope he gets life.

[puglove]

Ah, now that's made me think of the bloody Oscar Pistorius thing again. Did he really think that anyone would fall for his crap? The horrible, spoilt, angry, self-indulgent, self-obsessed, gun-happy woman h a t e r. Why would Reeva lock herself in the toilet, with her phone? On Valentine's day?

I hope he gets life.

I hope that Oscar gets dipped in Tabasco, then bummed by the devil for all eternity.

[david1819]

There is no need for there to be cast off. The butt was thrust into Nevill and then the killer retracted it back or moved back.  You and others who say the weapon was swung like a bat or axe are making up nonsense and clearly never handled a weapon.   The way in which a butt of a weapon is used as a weapon is like so:


The butt of the rifle had backspatter on it. Trying to deny this is a waste of time, the blood was documented, it was described as splashes which is what backspatter is and it was assessed such blood got there from hitting someone who was bleeding with the butt. 

The manner in which the butt broke also proves this is how it was wielded.  When the side of the stock is smashed into something this is how it breaks



There were horizontal cracks not vertical and the piece that actually broke off sheered off horizontally. That is from the butt being compressed front to back which is what happens when you force the butt into someone or something. You also get horizonal cracks from dropping it on the buttplate but that would damage the rear of the butt as opposed to the front. It takes pressure on both ends to damage the front. Thrusting hard while hitting something would put pressure on both ends thus compressing it.   

No blood spatter on the Aga √
No blunt force trauma marks to Neviles head, Just the gunshot wounds √
No debris from the alleged scratch marks on the carpet below √
https://youtu.be/-EDp_tqUysI?t=10m17s




The manner in which the rifle stock has broken is consistent with it not being assembled properly.
After repeated use and the stock is not fastened properly the recoil will eventually cause the stock to split.
If used as a weapon the culprit would have their fist around the wrist of the stock (part that came off)
 

[scipio_usmc]

There were what appeared to be two burn marks on Reeva Steenkamp's back. The prosecution argued that they were made by a hot bullet which missed, but bounced off the tiled wall behind her while she was facing the toilet door. Pistorius' defence said they were bruises caused when she fell onto a wooden magazine rack. There was no consensus. But a recent investigation by two amateur sleuths proposed that they were bruises caused by being hit with the cricket bat before she was shot... if they are the actual marks I was thinking about and saw this photo of (below) when the trial was under way last year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551257/Oscar-Pistorius-attacked-Reeva-Steenkamp-cricket-bat-shooting-dead-forensic-experts-claim.html

The possibility of Nevill's burns coming from the bullet that grazed him is yet another reason why we will never know if it was done on purpose for staging or simply incidental.  There is a possibility that after grazing him the bullet hit his back and fell from his shirt after he was walking trying to get it out. It is just one of a multitude of possibilities.

If the medical examiner could not tell whether the marks on Reeva were burns or just abrasions that's not very reassuring. They should be able to tell the difference between skin burned and damaged by a beating. It certainly makes one wonder if Nevill's marks were not burns at all.  It just highlights how they will remain a mystery. 

[scipio_usmc]

No blood spatter on the Aga √
No blunt force trauma marks to Neviles head, Just the gunshot wounds √
No debris from the alleged scratch marks on the carpet below √
https://youtu.be/-EDp_tqUysI?t=10m17s

 1) The photos are not close enough to be able to capture spatter and there is no need for back spatter to have hit anything apart from the killer anyway.  It definitely was on the weapon and thus was definitely on the killer.

2) Likewise the photos are woefully insufficient at detailing any tiny scrapings from the mantle though some material of some kind was visible on the floor in the photos which the prosecution said was paint chips while the defense tried to claim was dried toenail varnish that scraped off Sheila's toenail.   

3) The autopsy noted his skull was bashed in ,this doesn't fit with your claim he only had gunshot wounds. He was bashed in the face, the head and his arms. The autopsy referenced these wounds and said it showed he put up a spirited defense.  Vanezis later suggested his skull was bashed in by the butt of the rifle. This was from another report where he went into more detail about the injuries that you say didn't exist so I don't see how you can advance there was no struggle in the kitchen note how it says the fractures of the skull that you appear to not want to take into account were caused by being struck not being shot:

The manner in which the rifle stock has broken is consistent with it not being assembled properly.
After repeated use and the stock is not fastened properly the recoil will eventually cause the stock to split.
If used as a weapon the culprit would have their fist around the wrist of the stock (part that came off)
 

The damage is not consistent with the butt being improperly assembled and in fact it is impossible to not properly assemble it.  The receiver has a metal knob sticking out.  The stock has a hole in the front and the hole slides over this knob.  There is no way to improperly fit it together it will only slid eon one way. The trigger guard is attached on the bottom by a single screw. That's the extent of it.

Note how the metal receiver is longer on top than bottom. When bashing the weapon it causes the metal at the top to hit the top front of the stock. That is what sheered the top off. It did indeed break where the killer's hand was and that is why the glove was torn off. But for the gloves the killer's hand would have been damaged. Sheila had no gloves to wear, if Sheila had been the killer her hand would have had some sort of damage as would her nails. Striking with a weapon causes blistering when you don't wear gloves. When the stock broke it would have at the very least scratch the hand if not cut it. Her long nails would have been chipped when bashing with the rifle as well.  There is a lot of vibration and friction when you bash a rifle into something.

[Holly Goodhead]

You refuse to believe it because it severely harms your claims of Jeremy being innocent.

The evidence proves beyond question that Nevill was beaten as he tried to fight off the killer.  This proves the gun was not loaded because the killer would simply have shot him instead of beaten him.  The only reason to beat him is because he was a threat if he had passed out he would not have needed to be beaten.  He was beaten unconscious because only with Nevill unconscious could the killer safely reload the weapon.

There is no question Nevill blocked more than a dozen blows with his arm and was bashed int he face and then was bashed several times in the skull so hard that his skull was cracked and he was rendered unconscious.   There is no question that in the process: the lampshade was broken, crockery broken, the mantle was damaged, the butt of the weapon broke and the weapon and killer were splashed with Nevill's blood.

You ignore the irrefutable evidence this happened because it reveals Sheila was not the killer.  If Sheila had been the killer then her hands, nails and feet would have had some sort of damage and she would have had Nevill's backspatter on her.

I refuse to believe there was any "violent struggle" in the kitchen based on the pathological evidence.  Dr Vanezis uses the words "spirited defence".  This is not the same as a "violent struggle".  NB was too badly injured from the shots he sustained upstairs to enter into a "violent struggle" with anyone regardless of gender and size. 

The "violent struggle" seems to stem from the raid team based on knocked over stools, chairs, crockery and a broken lampshade.  You said in a previous post a while back NB was probably bouncing off the walls due to the gunshot wounds he sustained.  Therefore it follows he most likely stumbled into the furniture since he had to pass it from the hall to where he was found in the kitchen.  Regardless the kitchen furniture looks flimsy and cheap and would easily be moved.   Anyone swinging a rifle around is likely to catch items in its radial.

If you want to rule out SC based on her hands, nails and feet then what about the other victims that walked about in blood, sugar and broken glass/crockery?  Why didn't Dr Craig, a police surgeon with 30 years experience at the time of WHF case, observe and note this?  Also Chief Sup George Harris who observed all victims in situ with Dr Craig?

The pathologist, Dr Vanezis, did not observe the victims in situ but was experienced and trained to observe and note such.  Four police officers that attend soc and observed victims in situ attended PM to assist Dr Vanezis.  He was also aided by soc photos.

[Holly Goodhead]

A reminder to all posters.  We do not tolerate aggressively themed posts and/or the use of inflammatory language. A number of posts have been edited this morning and the posters concerned have been advised of such by pm with copies sent to Admin.

Please check your posts before posting and find the right balance between asserting your views without becoming overly aggressive.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Myster]

I'd love to know what John censored from Pugsy's posts in the early hours.  &%+((£

[APRIL]

I'd love to know what John censored from Pugsy's posts in the early hours.  &%+((£

Pugsy's pithies being persistently picquaint %£&)**#

[scipio_usmc]

I refuse to believe there was any "violent struggle" in the kitchen based on the pathological evidence.  Dr Vanezis uses the words "spirited defence".  This is not the same as a "violent struggle".  NB was too badly injured from the shots he sustained upstairs to enter into a "violent struggle" with anyone regardless of gender and size. 

The "violent struggle" seems to stem from the raid team based on knocked over stools, chairs, crockery and a broken lampshade.  You said in a previous post a while back NB was probably bouncing off the walls due to the gunshot wounds he sustained.  Therefore it follows he most likely stumbled into the furniture since he had to pass it from the hall to where he was found in the kitchen.  Regardless the kitchen furniture looks flimsy and cheap and would easily be moved.   Anyone swinging a rifle around is likely to catch items in its radial.

If you want to rule out SC based on her hands, nails and feet then what about the other victims that walked about in blood, sugar and broken glass/crockery?  Why didn't Dr Craig, a police surgeon with 30 years experience at the time of WHF case, observe and note this?  Also Chief Sup George Harris who observed all victims in situ with Dr Craig?

The pathologist, Dr Vanezis, did not observe the victims in situ but was experienced and trained to observe and note such.  Four police officers that attend soc and observed victims in situ attended PM to assist Dr Vanezis.  He was also aided by soc photos.

You are ignoring the pathology evidence not following it as you claim.

Above I posted a report talking about injuries that were caused by Nevill being beaten- the fractures to his skull, injuries t his face and defensive wounds to his arms. You deny many of these injuries existed and the injuries that you admit exist you claim were delivered while he was unconscious which makes not a lick of sense and has no support whatsoever.  You ignore the experts and simply invent your own version. You take issue with me saying you invented it but that is a fact you have no expert opinion assessing Nevill was beaten while he was unconscious. here is no reason to beat him while he was unconscious he was beaten so he would be unconscious and thus unable to prevent the killer from reloading.   

You also are ignoring physical evidence. Blood was found on the stock. You denied such but I posted evidence proving it as you requested.  That evidence included assessments that blood splashed onto the weapon when the butt was striking someone who was bleeding.  That is the definition of back spatter.  Because he described the process instead of calling it backspatter you try to deny it was back sapper and fail to account for how it got there. You were unaware this blood was there and after you were made aware of it you still chose to ignore it.

You also ignoring things like when walking up the stairs Nevill's right side would be facing the bedroom and thus he can't have been shot from there since his injuries were from the left side and the bullets traveled left to right .  Instead of adjusting your claims to take into account issues you failed to consider when you first came up with your position you basically ignore such new considerations.

This is not making a personal attack it is making a valid substantive criticism. A worthless personal attack is calling someone stupid, retarded or the like. Pointing out bias, hypocrisy, conflicting claims, double standards and ignoring considerations is fair game in a real debate.

[adam]

Neville's horrific injuries detailed in the 2002 COA report.  The upturned kitchen. The broken rifle butt. The aga paint on the silencer. Neville being strong enough to get downstairs. All this suggests a big kitchen fight.

Once Neville was not fighting back. Bamber would return upstairs. There were still three or even four alive people.

The only thing Bamber did to Neville later, was burn his back.

[APRIL]

You are ignoring the pathology evidence not following it as you claim.

Above I posted a report talking about injuries that were caused by Nevill being beaten- the fractures to his skull, injuries t his face and defensive wounds to his arms. You deny many of these injuries existed and the injuries that you admit exist you claim were delivered while he was unconscious which makes not a lick of sense and has no support whatsoever.  You ignore the experts and simply invent your own version. You take issue with me saying you invented it but that is a fact you have no expert opinion assessing Nevill was beaten while he was unconscious. here is no reason to beat him while he was unconscious he was beaten so he would be unconscious and thus unable to prevent the killer from reloading.   

You also are ignoring physical evidence. Blood was found on the stock. You denied such but I posted evidence proving it as you requested.  That evidence included assessments that blood splashed onto the weapon when the butt was striking someone who was bleeding.  That is the definition of back spatter.  Because he described the process instead of calling it backspatter you try to deny it was back sapper and fail to account for how it got there. You were unaware this blood was there and after you were made aware of it you still chose to ignore it.

You also ignoring things like when walking up the stairs Nevill's right side would be facing the bedroom and thus he can't have been shot from there since his injuries were from the left side and the bullets traveled left to right .  Instead of adjusting your claims to take into account issues you failed to consider when you first came up with your position you basically ignore such new considerations.

This is not making a personal attack it is making a valid substantive criticism. A worthless personal attack is calling someone stupid, retarded or the like. Pointing out bias, hypocrisy, conflicting claims, double standards and ignoring considerations is fair game in a real debate.

Yeah, I get that the beating was about CAUSING unconsciousness. However, it seems to me that there was a lot of passion/pent up feeling behind that beating, giving me cause to wonder if it stopped when unconsciousness was reached OR if he went on bashing to release his feelings. I don't believe that much of it was done to time scale or order.

[scipio_usmc]

Yeah, I get that the beating was about CAUSING unconsciousness. However, it seems to me that there was a lot of passion/pent up feeling behind that beating, giving me cause to wonder if it stopped when unconsciousness was reached OR if he went on bashing to release his feelings. I don't believe that much of it was done to time scale or order.

Nevill was angry at getting shot, angry that June was shot and if that is not enough was fighting for his life.  The killer had an empty gun and needed to kill Nevill or would totally screwed thus needed Nevill unconscious in order reload and had to keep control of the weapon.  You have plenty of emotion just from that.

Sheila would not have wanted to beat Nevill out of severe anger with him, it would have been out of necessity. Even though Jeremy had horrible feelings towards Nevill I still doubt that he would have beat him if the circumstances didn't make it necessary. If Nevill died from his wounds right away then that would have been the extent of his injuries.  Similarly if June's black eye was from the murder then she was hit because she was trying to fight with the attacker after she was shot.

[APRIL]

Nevill was angry at getting shot, angry that June was shot and if that is not enough was fighting for his life.  The killer had an empty gun and needed to kill Nevill or would totally screwed thus needed Nevill unconscious in order reload and had to keep control of the weapon.  You have plenty of emotion just from that.

Sheila would not have wanted to beat Nevill out of severe anger with him, it would have been out of necessity. Even though Jeremy had horrible feelings towards Nevill I still doubt that he would have beat him if the circumstances didn't make it necessary. If Nevill died from his wounds right away then that would have been the extent of his injuries.  Similarly if June's black eye was from the murder then she was hit because she was trying to fight with the attacker after she was shot.

Hm. I wasn't actually putting Sheila at the scene. You paint Jeremy as being super-cool under the most extenuating circumstances, doing just enough but no more. However, I do find myself wondering if, having found it necessary to beat Nevill unconscious, emotion got the better of him and he carried on with the beating after Nevill was dead. There can be no guarantees that Nevill took his last breath as the last blow was delivered.

[scipio_usmc]

Hm. I wasn't actually putting Sheila at the scene. You paint Jeremy as being super-cool under the most extenuating circumstances, doing just enough but no more. However, I do find myself wondering if, having found it necessary to beat Nevill unconscious, emotion got the better of him and he carried on with the beating after Nevill was dead. There can be no guarantees that Nevill took his last breath as the last blow was delivered.

I view the beating as desperate necessity. That's not really cool, it is panic. Adrenaline was pumping for sure.