Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty

[scipio_usmc]

But you are?

Someone who just explained what a Cadaveric Spasm ACTUALLY IS. Every medical article on this subject states what I said. It is not a contracting of the muscles after death.  Some other terms for a cadaveric spasm are death grip and instant rigor- the muscles freeze in the position they are in upon death. By definition since the muscles freeze in the position they are in the hand is not going to release the trigger and fire again on its own.  Normally the muscles return to their natural state and then rigor sets it while the muscles are in such state. However, when there is a cadaveric spasm the muscle freezes int he state it was in at death and doesn't return to its natural state.  WHile rigor comes and goes a spasm doesn't the rigidity remains even after rigor is gone.   

Also someone who explained the gun was not an automatic but rather a semi-auto so the hand freezing with the trigger down is not going to result in more bullets being fired.

Also someone who pointed out that Sheila's medical examiner found no evidence of cadaveric spasm. You are not looking at the facts and evidence of the case. You are trolling the internet for any eexcuse you can theoretically come up with to support your claim that Jeremy is innocent. You did not arrive at that conclusion by following the facts. You arrived at that conclusion simply because you want to argue he is innocent (for some unknown reason) and you are fishing for anything you can that oculd possibly support your claim he is innocent.  Anytime someone like me comes up with evidence though you can't refute it and instead hide your head in the sand.

I presented a thorough explanation of why you were wrong.  You failed to rebut any of my points because you can't.

All you have to do is research the topic of cadaveric spasm to see I am correct. You have no interest in doing so because the truth completely demolishes the fairytales you are telling.

Why is another term death grip?  Because on the rare occasions it occurs the victim is found gripping an object that they had in their possession at the time of death such as a car accident victim gripping a steering wheel, murder victim gripping whatever they had in their hand when murdered or a suicide victim gripping a gun.

Normally a gun will fall from a suicide victim's hand. But on rare occasion a spasm will be suffered and the gun will remain.  A murderer can't simply place a gun in the hand though and fool investigators into thinking a spasm  occurred.  A medical examiner will touch the hands and fingers and see they move and are not frozen so will know a cadaveric spasm did not occur.

This case is even worse because firing a trigger backwards with a thumb is not easy. The recoil from the weapon would thrust the gun up not down.  this further hurts the claim you are making.  The fatal shot was higher than the nonfatal shot. The recoil of the gun would have thrust the gun UP and thus if she did manage to fire a second shot it would have been higher than the first shot not lower.

But you want to ignore the laws of physics, ignore the actual examination of the body which found no evidence of a vadaveric spasm, even the photos show her hands are not frozen in a position to have fired a weapon in the manner she allegedly did. Nor are they frozen in a position to have been holding the weapon.

Your cliams hold no water at all and constitute simply desperation on your part.

 

[scipio_usmc]

No idea!  I am not a expert in such matters but I know a man who THINKS he is    From my limited knowledge on cadaveric spasm it would seem possible but then I would say that wouldn't I.

The important thing for me is that the pathologist maintained at CoA 2002 that he was unable to confirm murder or suicide.  Surely he would say if he thought one scenario was more likely over the other stating his reasons and perhaps some statistical probability?

The whole case needs reviewing using up-to-date modern technology and knowledge across a range of specialisms: ballistics, pathology, psychology etc. I think we forget that the trial was nearly 3 decades ago and the whole world has changed.  I have only been paying partial attention to the trial of Oscar Pistorius but when I have there appears to be some parallels with JB's case and the expert evidence appears to have moved on.

The job of the pathologist is to use MEDICAL knowledge and examination of the body to make a determination of the manner of death if possible.  The important thing is that he coudd not say that it was suicide, that is what enables the prosecution for murder. Trying to pretend that his conclusions support suicide are blatantly false.  his conclusions require looking at all the evidence that was looked at and relied upon to convict Jeremy. 

[scipio_usmc]

Wasn't the rifle a semi-automatic meaning each shot required the trigger to be pulled or in this case pushed again.  I think you could be stretching the bounds of possibilities a bit too far to expect a second shot to be on target because of cadaveric spasms.

Assuming just for a moment that Sheila did shoot herself in the neck with the rifle, the weapon barrel would drop immediately and if a second shot did occur then it could not have hit her in the neck.  Keeping the trigger depressed does not fire a second round when using a semi automatic rifle.  The operator has to release the trigger before pulling it again.

Yes it is a semi-auto.  A fully automatic weapon you pull the trigger and it will continue to fire for as long as the trigger is held down or until it runs out of ammo.  Thus if a victim firing a fully automatic weapon suddenly died and suffered from "death grip" (it is called death grip when the hands are affected and victim is holding an object at the time the spasm occurs) the victim could freeze holding the trigger down and thus it could continue to fire until it runs out of ammo.  However, the recoil from the weapon could cause the weapon to leave the victim's hands anyway despite the death grip and it certianly will not be aimed but rather wildly jumping from the recoil. Something can still jar objects from the hands of someone with death grip.  Their hand will still be frozen in position but the object can wiggle free. It depends on what the object is and how tight the grasp is.  For instance death grip holding a small coin. In that instance the hand is all the way around the object so there is no way for it to fall out. Similarly when holding the hair ripped out of a killer's head it can be grasped totally.  In contrast a wide heavy object can be able to break free. For instance there are cases where a victim fell and a gun or other object fell out of their hand even though it was frozen in the clenched position. The object would still be close to the hand though on the floor in such cases.   

The recoil is important. Recoil will push the gun up not down. So after the fatal shot the gun would have raised higher not gone down so a second shot even if possible would have been higher not lower. The rifle would not have been likely to simply fall across her chest the way it was either.  That is why many conspiracy theoriest claim the rifle was placed there by police. They suggest it was by her side and police put it on top of her.

The only conceivable way for the gun to be resting neatly across her chest is it Sheila ACTUALLY had suffered from a cadaveric spasm, then in that case she could have gripped the gun tightly enough for it to be on her chest but she would still be grasping it if that were the case. No acoc..ts have her grasping it and no photos show her grasping it.  Worse yet for Holly, the examiner found no signs of cadaveric spasm. Holly would like to pretend it goes away, it doesn't.  Death grip is instant rigor and unlike rigor it never releases.  Some sort of mental trauma causes death grip we still don't know why it occurs for sure. All we know it is that it is instant freezing of muscles upon death and permanant. It tells us the exact position the frozen muscles were in at the time of death.

If Sheila's hands had suffered from a cadaveric spasm then it would be a sure sign she didn't kill herself. Look at the photos of her hands. Are they in a position to grasp a rifle?  But her hands had no sign of death grip (Holly keeps ignoring this point which is significant because it means all of Holly's supposition is baseless) so in theory she could have held a gun fired it then her hands released it. But again in that case the rifle should have been at her side not nice and neat across her body.

Someone put that rifle beatly across Sheila's chest after death. The authorities insist it was Jeremy.  Given the totality of the circumstances it probably was.  Various Jeremy defenders say the police placed it on her chest.  They rely primarily on the fact the gun was moved around by the investigators.  Investigators say it was on her chest when they arrived, they removed it from her chest and later placed it back on her chest. 

I have no reason to disbelieve the police that it was on her chest when they found her. The initial responders were not detectives and erroneously thought that it being on her chest proved she used it. Why would they intentionally take it from her side and put it on her chest and assert it was a suicide?  It is not as if they put it on her chest to suggest it had been planted there by a murderer. They took it as a sign she committed suicide.  Lay people including Jeremy think that is where a rifle would be.  Only people who are very skilled in weapon use know otherwise.  At ant rate the exact position of the rifle when found can be ignored when making the case against Jeremy, it is not necceary to use that against him to prove he did it because there is so much other evidence.

The bottom line is this:

1) a cadaveric spasm is instant, permanant rigor of a muscle- Holly's claim that it is involuntary muscle movement is totally wrong. It doesn't cause a gun to fire again except perhaps a gun that is full auto.

2) Sheila's pathologist found no evidence of cadaveric spasm in her hands or anywhere else so Holly is simply making up that Sheila suffered from death grip.

3) If Sheila did in fact suffer from cadaveric spasm in her hands but the pathologist missed it that would be extremely damning to Jeremy because Sheila's hands at death are not in a position to hold and fire the murder weapon and would mean someone else had to have shot her so Holly is definitly not helping her cause out with her claims.

[lane99]

...Had there been photos of the underneath of the mantle taken on the day in question then those photos would be relevant and useful at demonstrating the marks were made subsequently.

There were no such photos taken though simply photos of the room as a whole... 


So my response is that there are no photos (or other evidence) that establish the marks were not there at the time of the murders.

Thank you for informing me there were no close-up photos of the underside of the mantlepiece taken on the day of the murders.  I was unsure if there had been.

I recall reading somewhere the photo expert had inferred through some indirect reasonings that the scratches were not there on the day of the murders.  For instance, he said there is no sign of chipped paint on the floor/carpet below the mantlepiece.  I don't believe that is a strong argument, though.

I don't know what other reasonings he used, but I do believe were there some.  And I would be interested to hear about them.

[scipio_usmc]

Attempting suicide with a rifle must be quite a rare occurrence as it is usually a hand gun or pistol which is used.  To then attempt to do so by shooting oneself in the neck must be almost unknown outside of this case.  The other glaringly obvious issue is the question of the targeting of the shot not only once but twice and managing to get the two shots within inches of each other.

Using a long gun to commit suicide is a hassle, a handgun is much easier. I say long gun because there actually are people who have used a shot gun not simply rifles.  Roughly 9 percent of such murders are shots to the neck so it is rare. The number of cases to examine is quite small considering this.  Of such cases I can't find a single one where e a failed shot to the throat was followind up by another shot to the throat. Failed throat shots are usually followed by head shots. When a victim realizes the throat failed they adjust by a head shot to ensure death. In general anytime a shot fails the killer would adjust the location for one more likely to work that is just the nature of it.

There is a first time for everything though so this can't be used as a sure sign it was staged it is just part of the overall mix.   

The more damning thing is that the pathologist said the fatal shot occurred first. That is why Holly is desperately grasping at straws.

It is perplexing why after the fatal shot Jeremy would shoot Sheila again. Maybe he erroneously thought she was still alive.  Maybe he took the suppressor off and decided to put her hand on the trigger and he pushed her hand firing it hoping that it would get gun shot residue on her hands. Unless he decides to talk we have no way to know why he would do such. He could have a reason that makes sense to a layman with limited understanding of murder evidence but doesn't to someone with much more knowledge.

 

     

[scipio_usmc]

Thank you for informing me there were no close-up photos of the underside of the mantlepiece taken on the day of the murders.  I was unsure if there had been.

I recall reading somewhere the photo expert had inferred through some indirect reasonings that the scratches were not there on the day of the murders.  For instance, he said there is no sign of chipped paint on the floor/carpet below the mantlepiece.  I don't believe that is a strong argument, though.

I don't know what other reasonings he used, but I do believe were there some.  And I would be interested to hear about them.

I'm a lawyer. You can pay an expert to say anything they want, just shop around to find one willing to say what you want.  Depending on the nature of the trial and stage of the trial it is up to judges or a jury to determine if the expert has a valid basis for his assertions.

Police didn't look underneath tables, the mantle etc to try to document every scratch in the kitchen. They did a crappy job but you can't fault them for not searching for/taking photos of every scratch imaginable. I doubt I would bother to look under the mantle shelf either, let alone to take a photo of the underneath.

It seems far fetched that little paint scrapings and paint chips that didn't stay attached to the suppressor and presumably fell on the floor would be visible in photos of a room. It owuld be hard enough to notice them in person.  Trying to guess what a tiny dot is and to say whether it is a tiny paint chip or not is simply not credible and not scientifically valid. Yet what he did was say that because he didn't see any such dots it means the scratches can't have been there.

This is exactly why an expert doesn't just get to render an opinion in court but must explain how he arrived at his opinion.  That way the trier or fact or trier of law as the case may be can determine if the opinion is worth anything.

In this instance the appeal court did not consider this argument to have any merit for rather obvious reasons.



 

[scipio_usmc]

I have no experience/knowledge of police interviews conducted 'under caution' to know what is permissible and what isn't.  It strikes me as somewhat unfair if the interviewee is expected to tell the whole truth and nothing especially when his/her evidence (contents of interview) can be used in court against him/her if it is permissible for the interviewer (police) to knowingly mislead?

In the US lying to a suspect is not a problem at all. If the suspect is telling the truth and has nothing to hide then a lie will not hurt him/her.

For instance, if police lie saying that a friend blamed the suspect a completely innocent suspect would say the friend is lying and he has no idea why he friend is doing it. The lie causes no harm if someone is truly innocent.

An accomplice though might respond by saying the friend is the one who had the gun and that he just drove the getaway car. It tricks him into admitting his role in addition to giving up his friend. 

Why is it unfair to trick someone who is actually guilty?    American courts have no problem with investigators tricking suspects in this regard.

In Britain it depends on the judge.  There is no hard and fast rule of whether this is permissible it depends on the facts of the case.  Judges will sometimes excluse confessions obtained as a result of lies.

In the Bamber case the police did not manage trick Bamber into confessing so there was no confession for him to make a motion to suppress. The police lies just help illustrate how he kept trying to make up new things and excuses which certainly doesn't make him look good but he didn't confess so there was nothing to suppress. 

There are 3 different bases that judges use to exclude confessions:

1) obtained through oppression
2) the confession was unreliable
3) obtained unfairly

A confession obtained through trickery doesn't meet the definition of oppression but some judges will ignore such and use this ground anyway to exclude a confession

Normally a confession obtained through trickery is in fact reliable.  Instances where it is not reliable are cases where a lie is related to a plea deal. In some such cases guilty parties will confess to avoid taking a chance at more jailtime if wrongly convicted. A lie like the one I gave an example of will not be unreliable in the objective sense. A judge might decide to pretend it is unreliable though and use this as a basis to suppress.

The most common prong to use to suppress a confession is the basis it was unfairly obtained.  This again is a very fact specific inquiry. There is no hard and fast rule that a tricked confession is unfair. It is subjective and hinges much on the philosophy of the judge handing the matter.

The US is much better because judges don't have discretion to suppress confessions just because they don't like that a defendant was tricked.  In turn suspects know police can lie and thus anything they say is at their own risk so they should think carefully and try to be honest if they are going to say anything at all.  Normally we advise clients to not say a word though. We want to be present during any questioning of clients and want to tell them what question to answer or not and usually in advance will ask them what they would say to questions so we know what questions to let them answer. We are not supposed to help them make up things to say though we just try to figure out what they would say and try to help them say it in the least damaging way.  Ethically we can't knowingly help them to lie, not that some lawyers don't violate such ethical canons surely some do.

The bottom line is that in the UK you don't know how far cops can get away with lying to those they question. It ultimately depends on whether the suspect confesses, if the suspect decides to go to trial maintaining his innocence anyway and if a judge can be conviced the confession should be tossed.   

[goatboy]

Excellent points as usual Scipio. The icing on the cake for me is that the 2nd fatal shot just happened to be the last bullet in the magazine. What would be the odds of that for a suicide?

[Myster]

Thank you for informing me there were no close-up photos of the underside of the mantlepiece taken on the day of the murders.  I was unsure if there had been.

I recall reading somewhere the photo expert had inferred through some indirect reasonings that the scratches were not there on the day of the murders.  For instance, he said there is no sign of chipped paint on the floor/carpet below the mantlepiece.  I don't believe that is a strong argument, though.

I don't know what other reasonings he used, but I do believe were there some.  And I would be interested to hear about them.

There was some confusion as to when the photo was taken, although a paint scraping of the underside of the shelf (near to the scratches) was sampled by Ron Cook on the Wednesday following the murders, after D.Sgt. Stan Jones realised that the red paint on the moderator end was similar to that of the AGA surround. This was a pre-arranged visit with permission from Jeremy Bamber although he didn't attend, and it was left to Ann Eaton who had the key to let them in. The photo might have been taken at the same time or later, as a yellow label covering the sample region is visible in it.

Peter Sutherst's findings were questioned as inconclusive by Andy Laws, another Imagery Analyst of LGC Forensics, and the CCRC didn't take it any further presumably because it was one expert's view against another, so the issue was never resolved and subsequently dropped from any further CCRC application.

Peter Sutherst claimed that no traces of paint could be seen in photos of the carpet/floor below the scratch marks, so he must have been assuming the flecks would have dropped down directly, whereas it was also possible that any paint remained attached to the moderator end until the rifle was pulled away forcefully from the shelf and then flicked off to some other part of the room, where no floor photographs were taken.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2010/feb/21/jeremy-bamber-new-photographic-evidence

[scipio_usmc]

Excellent points as usual Scipio. The icing on the cake for me is that the 2nd fatal shot just happened to be the last bullet in the magazine. What would be the odds of that for a suicide?

The most important things for me are Jeremy's actions and the various phone calls in relation to the general course of events.

The physicial evidence related to the suppressor and Sheila's body simply corroborate what the other evidence already tells us.

1) Claiming that Nevill called him was a big problem since Nevill's injuries rendered him unable to speak and he obviously could not have even dialed the phone since it had no blood on it.  Just as bad, what he claims Nevill told him makes no sense.  Nevill and June had been shot before he could have reached the phone. We don't know whether Sheila and or the kids also had been shot prior to Nevill reaching the kitchen but at minimum June was shot and disabled thus never made it out of the bedroom while he was shot at least 4 times before he made it to the kitchen. If Nevill did manage to call someone and could actually speak he woudl not say Sheila has a gun and he is scared she is going to use it. He would say Sheila shot he and his wife and they need medical attention.  He would not call Jeremy and ask him to come over to disarm her before she could shoot anyone.  At minimum he would ask Jeremy to call an ambulance because they were shot and then ask Jeremy to come help save them by disarming her.   Furthermore the phone was never hung up therefore Jeremy would have heard the scuffle that was taking place if he actually had been called as claimed. He would not have heard the phone fall and then nothing.

2) If he had received the call claimed what should he have done?  Do the 3 minute drive to investigate would be the most natural reaction.  Either inspect from outside or actually go inside and after establishing what was going on call police at that point if necessary. If I lived far away I might call police instead to check on my parents but not if I were only 3 minutes away.  Even if one decided to be extra careful and call police after doing so you would go over and investigate.  You would not ask police to pick you up to bring you there or wait outside for police to pass by and then make the trek.  But even worse he didn't call police right away or go investigate right away instead he waited an undetermined amount of time and called Julie.

3) The fact he called Julie at all is suspicious.  Why would someone in his position wake her and her roomates just to tell her Nevill called but you didn't go over so you were unsure if anything was actually wrong or not?  It makes no sense at all. 2 of her roomates asserted the call came at 3 including the one who answered the phone.  Another thought it was 3:12 but wasn't positive. The call to police was not until 3:26 though. So he called her before police and waited quite a while after she hung up to call police.  The wait is only explainable by the fact he was the killer.

4) Why didn't he at least wait outside for police to arrive he could have done so safely. He instead made sure he arrived after police so that police would not accuse him of staging the scene or being there prior.  He wanted them to find everything so they could not say he did anything to the scene.  Why would he be so intent on arriving after them if he had done nothing wrong and had no idea what happened?

5) When he finally did go to the scene he reiterated what Nevill supposedly told him. He told police that his sister was a nut and claimed his father said she got a hold of a gun and was running around with it and was scared she would use it. Jeremy specifically said he was not sure if she had shot anyone or not after Nevill dropped the phone. Jeremy then detailed all the various guns in the house and lied telling police that Sheila had fired all of them and was proficient with them all. Later he was tape recorded admitting that he had never seen her touch any of the guns. Why did he lie to police?  The only motive for such would be to convince police she was capable of the murders.  Murders he supposedly didn't know occurred when he told this lie.

6) Instead of being panicked and pressing police to go inside and try to save his family or to tell police that he was going in if they were not, he patiently waited with them for nearly 4 hours.  Some of that time was spent talking shop about cars and guy stuff. At 6AM though he slipped away to a phone and called Julie again.  He told her not to go to work and that he would have someone pick her up and bring her to him. He knew the family was dead so he wanted her with him.  The police had not yet gone in so how did he know the family was dead unless he killed them? 

So for me Jeremy pretty much established his guilt just with all this BS.  All of his actions demonstrate he knew they were dead and was not called by Nevill as claimed. The only way he could know anything was if he killed them.

Julie's testimony corroborates his guilt and provides us with the motive.  The forensic evidence corroborates it as well that Sheila was simply a victim.  She lacked any evidence of handling a weapon or of engaging in a brutal physical struggle with Nevill because she hadn't done either. 

[scipio_usmc]

There was some confusion as to when the photo was taken, although a paint scraping of the underside of the shelf (near to the scratches) was sampled by Ron Cook on the Wednesday following the murders, after D.Sgt. Stan Jones realised that the red paint on the moderator end was similar to that of the AGA surround. This was a pre-arranged visit with permission from Jeremy Bamber although he didn't attend, and it was left to Ann Eaton who had the key to let them in. The photo might have been taken at the same time or later, as a yellow label covering the sample region is visible in it.

Peter Sutherst's findings were questioned as inconclusive by Andy Laws, another Imagery Analyst of LGC Forensics, and the CCRC didn't take it any further presumably because it was one expert's view against another, so the issue was never resolved and subsequently dropped from any further CCRC application.

Peter Sutherst claimed that no traces of paint could be seen in photos of the carpet/floor below the scratch marks, so he must have been assuming the flecks would have dropped down directly, whereas it was also possible that any paint remained attached to the moderator end until the rifle was pulled away forcefully from the shelf and then flicked off to some other part of the room, where no floor photographs were taken.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2010/feb/21/jeremy-bamber-new-photographic-evidence

Sutherst esentially made the following arguments:

He inspected photos taken on the day of the murders and

1) could not find any evidence of the scratches in the photos

2) could not find any evidence of paint chips on the floor under the scratches

The findings were challenged by arguing the photos are too distant to be able to pick up small details like scratches and paint scraps (an expert for the government said small details like this would not be captured in the non-closeups) and do not even show the underneath of the mantle even from a distance. Furthermore the closeups that do exist of the floor only showed limited areas of the floor and the tiny paint peelings could have landed anywhere they would not necessarily just fall on the floor straight down and even if they might have done so could have been transferred during the investigation.

For the courts this was a simple issue to dismiss because of the circumstances.

   

[Holly Goodhead]

Excellent points as usual Scipio. The icing on the cake for me is that the 2nd fatal shot just happened to be the last bullet in the magazine. What would be the odds of that for a suicide?

Many 'odds' appear to exist in this case:

- adoptive mother mentally ill requiring in-patient psychiatric care
- adopted daughter mentally ill requring in patient psychiatric care
- adopted son serving a life prison sentence for murdering the above along with three other family members

_________________

The then girlfriend of the above convicted mass murderer experiencing the following:

- physical violence at the hands of her step-father
- brutal anonymous rape while holidaying in France
- boyfriend discussed his proposals of murdering his entire immediate family and carried through

_________________

Back spatter/blow back supposedly occurred with silencer attached to gun used to carry out the above murders and yet:

- small calibre weapon -   usually occurs with large calibre weapon
- no accompanying biological material eg tissue - usually present
- no blood/biological matter from only victim to receive a definite contact shot (Nicholas)to the head (most likely anatomical position for back spatter to occur) why SC and not Nicholas

_________________________

Then we have all the strange anomalies with written reports by the police:

- two bodies in the kitchen: one male, one female
- two phone logs reporting two separate phone calls from two different individuals reporting an incident at WHF

You really couldnt make it up....or could you  >@@(*&)
   

[goatboy]

Many 'odds' appear to exist in this case:

- adoptive mother mentally ill requiring in-patient psychiatric care
- adopted daughter mentally ill requring in patient psychiatric care
- adopted son serving a life prison sentence for murdering the above along with three other family members

_________________

The then girlfriend of the above convicted mass murderer experiencing the following:

- physical violence at the hands of her step-father
- brutal anonymous rape while holidaying in France
- boyfriend discussed his proposals of murdering his entire immediate family and carried through

_________________

Back spatter/blow back supposedly occurred with silencer attached to gun used to carry out the above murders and yet:

- small calibre weapon -   usually occurs with large calibre weapon
- no accompanying biological material eg tissue - usually present
- no blood/biological matter from only victim to receive a definite contact shot (Nicholas)to the head (most likely anatomical position for back spatter to occur) why SC and not Nicholas

_________________________

Then we have all the strange anomalies with written reports by the police:

- two bodies in the kitchen: one male, one female
- two phone logs reporting two separate phone calls from two different individuals reporting an incident at WHF

You really couldnt make it up....or could you  >@@(*&)
 

Haven't the phone logs and other police reports been referred to the CCRC already? Who said that the report was taken by an officer remotely in real time with no opportunity to correct the report as time was going on, hence the discrepancies.

The call logs do appear odd but, note that in the original call the receiver is Officer badge number 1990. In the second log Officer badge number 1990 is the sender. Rather clumsily he is paraphrasing what has been said to him in Jeremy's original call. Again, CCRC knew about this but confirmed the second call log allegedly from Nevill is merely the officer who took Jeremy's call passing on the message to another station. No big conspiracy, just something put in a confusing way.

The fact that Sheila had mental illness and her adopted brother turned out to be a psychopathic killer? No, not a coincidence at all. I feel the way they were both brought up definitely damaged them both and I think June could well have been responsible for this (not meaning to I hasten to add). Genetics simply don't come into play because none of them were related to each other by blood.

In Colin Caffel's book it's painfully clear that despite the tragedy he could not even begin to mourn June's death (unlike he did with Sheila, the twins and even Nevill whom Colin got on with very well apparently). It's been said that Sheila was very fond of Nevill but had a more distant relationship with June, it's also been alleged that Jeremy in particular could be mean to June too. Indicative that neither of the children had any great love for June.

[scipio_usmc]

Many 'odds' appear to exist in this case:

Back spatter/blow back supposedly occurred with silencer attached to gun used to carry out the above murders and yet:

- small calibre weapon -   usually occurs with large calibre weapon
- no accompanying biological material eg tissue - usually present
- no blood/biological matter from only victim to receive a definite contact shot (Nicholas)to the head (most likely anatomical position for back spatter to occur) why SC and not Nicholas

Too bad you had to keep distorting to come up with oddities that actually matter

I have already corrected you multiple times with respect to back spatter but you keep intentionally presenting the bogus claims anyway.

Here is one such post directed to you which you did not respond to because you can't without admitting you are wrong:

"First of all you are distorting. The only shot determined to definitely be a direct contact shot was the fatal shot to Sheila. There were 4 other shots determined that it was possible they were contact shots. The second shot to Sheila was one of these shots.  Another was one of the shots to Nevill.  A third was the shot between June's eyes.  Testimony was that there was a slight chance this was contact shot but most likely it wasn't. The assessment was that 1 of the wounds to Nicholas was close range and it is POSSIBLE that it might even have been a contact wound.  The assessment was not that it definitely was a contact wound. The pathologist reported that the only definite contact wound was Sheila's fatal shot. 

Second, small caliber bullets are unlikely to cause back spatter when fired into the head.  It depends on where in the head but the further from the face the less likely it is possible.  Because the skull is so hard and there is such little skin covering the head back spatter is only likely to result from large caliber weapons.  This is why assassins love 22 caliber pistols.  A few shots to the head and the bullets bounce around in there causing damage, it is hard for a doctor to remove the bullets and in the meantime it leaves little physical evidence on the killer.     

Testimony was that it was virtually certain there would be back spatter from her fatal wound and thus blood would get into the rifle or moderator if it had been fired with the moderator attached.  Testimony was that there was only a very slight possibility of it not happening."

You intentionally keep distorting the back spatter issue to suit your agenda.  You are not relying on science but rather intentionally distorting it. There is nothing unusual at all with a lack of tissue from a neck wound either. The nature of the back spatter depends on the location where the wound is received.  You ignore that time and again because the neck wound wound have almost certianly resulted in back spatter and this is something that harms your agenda. While you are at it you also keep distorting the analysis of which wounds were most likely contact wounds.

 

Then we have all the strange anomalies with written reports by the police:

- two bodies in the kitchen: one male, one female
- two phone logs reporting two separate phone calls from two different individuals reporting an incident at WHF

You really couldnt make it up....or could you  >@@(*&)
 

The anomolies are easy to explain and have been explained.  It is actually common for errors to be transcribed down the line by people not on the scene intiially.

A cop peeking through the kitchen window though Nevill was a lady he could not see Nevill close up and he was bent over so he could not see Nevill's face at all.  Upon entering they discovered and reported he was male.  Someone at police HQ who received both accounts assumed there were 2 bodies and wrote such. The reports by those who were on the scene and actually saw the bodies never asserted there were 2 bodies in the kitchen.

There were not 2 reports of phone calls from different people. The 2 reports were by different cops.  Both reports referred to Jeremy's phone call.  No way can either be construed as coming directly from Nevill both state Jeremy was passing a message supposedly relayed by his father. One cop passed the message to another cop that is why two different cops had reports on it. There is nothing odd in that at all the only anomoly is that one got the time wrong and marked 2:36 instead of 2:26.  Typos happen all the time that is not unusual or very odd.

[scipio_usmc]

Haven't the phone logs and other police reports been referred to the CCRC already? Who said that the report was taken by an officer remotely in real time with no opportunity to correct the report as time was going on, hence the discrepancies.

The call logs do appear odd but, note that in the original call the receiver is Officer badge number 1990. In the second log Officer badge number 1990 is the sender. Rather clumsily he is paraphrasing what has been said to him in Jeremy's original call. Again, CCRC knew about this but confirmed the second call log allegedly from Nevill is merely the officer who took Jeremy's call passing on the message to another station. No big conspiracy, just something put in a confusing way.

It is not confusing. Jeremy Bamber supporters intentionally misrepresented this issue from start to finish.

You have to take something into consideration.  At the time of trial things are fresh and thus games by the defense go no where because they are easy to disprove.

On appeal, especially appeals many years later, you have people who try to twist anything they can and because of the time that passed they think they might be able to get away with it.

It is readily apparent that the second log (the one shown at trial) is saying the caller was badge 1990 PC West.  It is not confusing and there is no valid way to claim it states the caller was Nevill.  West testified about the call he received and how he then contacted Chelsford HQ to dispatch a patrol car. The prosecution then presented this report as evidence of what West transmitted.

Dishonest people latched onto the quotes in the report and said this is proof that Chelsford HQ received a call from Nevill even though it the report has a section that records the caller and noted it was PC West.  These same dishonest people suggest that PC West was added as the caller later to conceal that Nevill had called police. 

What would be needed to establish such is to get the person who wrote the report (Malcolm Bonnett) to say he received the call from Nevill and that someone edited his report.  Of course the conspiracy theorists did not obtain such because Bonnett maintains the only call he received regarding this issue was from PC West.

That brings me to another important issue. Truials are made up of testimony. Documents are only used to a limited extent at trials. Documents must be authenticated they are not simply accepted in isolation.

So at trial people who actually wrote reports including pathology reports are providing far more detail than their reports indicate and make assessments on broader information than they had available at the time they wrote reports.   

You almost never see Jeremy supports mentioning trial testimony because the trial testimony absolutely kills any of the BS they want to argue.  The games being played with this report and other reports can't be played if you look at the testimony which leaves no doubt as to who called Bonnett.

Similarly when you hear the pathologist and forensic testimony it leaves no room for many of the games being played trying to pretend that Sheila could have committed suicide.