Author Topic: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent  (Read 6285 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ilovebooze

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 407
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #915 on: November 08, 2019, 09:04:PM »
Steve it's simple common sense logic. I've never disputed the police weren't looking for that silencer. But it should have been discovered. It was in a cupboard mate, not concealed by any stretch of the imagination
I will just go ahead and say it. It is very suspicious that silencer wasn't found by the police

Offline Reader

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2361
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #916 on: November 09, 2019, 02:32:AM »
The police took photographs of the victims, but some were held back until years later. Two of the photographs show Sheila's right arm in different positions. Hence Sheila's arm was moved by someone other than Jeremy. How? Her body should have been in rigor mortis.

We know that Sheila was shot twice. Yet the police still assumed suicide. Such a suicide isn't impossible, but it suggests that suicide shouldn't be taken for granted. Perhaps there were special circumstances, such as the second shot having been accidentally caused by the police. A non-fatal first shot (a possibility admitted at trial) could explain why rigor mortis had not occurred.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7416
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #917 on: November 09, 2019, 03:20:AM »
The police took photographs of the victims, but some were held back until years later. Two of the photographs show Sheila's right arm in different positions. Hence Sheila's arm was moved by someone other than Jeremy. How? Her body should have been in rigor mortis.

We know that Sheila was shot twice. Yet the police still assumed suicide. Such a suicide isn't impossible, but it suggests that suicide shouldn't be taken for granted. Perhaps there were special circumstances, such as the second shot having been accidentally caused by the police. A non-fatal first shot (a possibility admitted at trial) could explain why rigor mortis had not occurred.

It was never claimed to be a non fatal shot. Just that it was not instantly fatal.

IMO you would not live longer than 20 seconds after that.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5669
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #918 on: November 09, 2019, 07:55:AM »
The silencer business makes no sense to me. Let's say that Jeremy shot Sheila with the silencer attached, and then he tried to put the gun in her hands to suggest she killed herself. That's when he realised that she couldn't have reached the trigger with the silencer attached.

What was he to do? He could take the silencer off and put it on the floor. That's what Sheila would have done. Oh, but then he thinks Sheila's blood might be on it or in it, so he can't do that. He comes up with a bright idea - he can put it back in the cupboard as if it had never been used. Suddenly, the idea that there might be blood on it doesn't matter. A day or two later he lets the relatives have a key to the house where he knows there's a silencer in a cupboard with Sheila's blood on it or in it.

Does that make sense?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2019, 07:56:AM by Kaldin »

Offline ilovebooze

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 407
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #919 on: November 09, 2019, 07:57:AM »
Something I find very interesting is how Jeremy Bambers initial story of his sister committing the massacre was not blown apart from the get go. When it was it was subsequently discovered that his sister had been shot twice. Even if she did shoot herself twice ( and it's been proven it is possible) why was that element of doubt not there from the get go

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5669
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #920 on: November 09, 2019, 08:10:AM »
Something I find very interesting is how Jeremy Bambers initial story of his sister committing the massacre was not blown apart from the get go. When it was it was subsequently discovered that his sister had been shot twice. Even if she did shoot herself twice ( and it's been proven it is possible) why was that element of doubt not there from the get go

Yes, I agree. I think it depends on when it was discovered she had been shot twice. If it was immediately obvious when they found the body, that would surely raise a lot of doubt. If it was only discovered at the post mortem, and the examiner said that the shot was not immediately fatal, that would not necessarily raise questions.

Offline ilovebooze

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 407
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #921 on: November 09, 2019, 08:20:AM »
The silencer business makes no sense to me. Let's say that Jeremy shot Sheila with the silencer attached, and then he tried to put the gun in her hands to suggest she killed herself. That's when he realised that she couldn't have reached the trigger with the silencer attached.

What was he to do? He could take the silencer off and put it on the floor. That's what Sheila would have done. Oh, but then he thinks Sheila's blood might be on it or in it, so he can't do that. He comes up with a bright idea - he can put it back in the cupboard as if it had never been used. Suddenly, the idea that there might be blood on it doesn't matter. A day or two later he lets the relatives have a key to the house where he knows there's a silencer in a cupboard with Sheila's blood on it or in it.

Does that make sense?
I think that if Jeremy Bamber had used the gun with the silencer he would have made sure it had disappeared and had never been found again. Not just popped it back into a cupboard.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2019, 08:21:AM by ilovebooze »

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5669
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #922 on: November 09, 2019, 08:24:AM »
I think that if Jeremy Bamber had used the gun with the silencer he would have made sure it had disappeared and had never been found again. Not just popped it back into a cupboard.

So do I! Some might say he wasn't thinking straight at that point, or that he assumed nobody would find the silencer, and both those are possible, but I would have thought it was fundamental that the silencer disappeared along with the evidence.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5669
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #923 on: November 09, 2019, 08:28:AM »
The other possibility is that Jeremy decided to use the silencer so that others weren't alerted to the gunshots, and that he always planned to remove it from the gun at the end. He have might have decided to do that because he thought that Sheila wouldn't have bothered to go and find the silencer before going on her supposed rampage.

In that case, it might not have occurred to him that there might be blood on or in the silencer, but is that  likely?

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 28183
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #924 on: November 09, 2019, 08:47:AM »
So do I! Some might say he wasn't thinking straight at that point, or that he assumed nobody would find the silencer, and both those are possible, but I would have thought it was fundamental that the silencer disappeared along with the evidence.

Such has long been the contention of many here. I can only think that, until that point, things had gone swimmingly. Okay, there'd been a bit of a hiccough in the kitchen, but they were all dead.  The next kill was the REALLY important one. The whole validity of the whole scenario rested on getting it right. It mattered where the bullet went. Then he blows it!!!! It COULD all have been for nothing. I'd say, certainly, at that moment, he wasn't thinking straight.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5669
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #925 on: November 09, 2019, 08:53:AM »
Such has long been the contention of many here. I can only think that, until that point, things had gone swimmingly. Okay, there'd been a bit of a hiccough in the kitchen, but they were all dead.  The next kill was the REALLY important one. The whole validity of the whole scenario rested on getting it right. It mattered where the bullet went. Then he blows it!!!! It COULD all have been for nothing. I'd say, certainly, at that moment, he wasn't thinking straight.

That's another thing. How on earth do you plan for someone to lie down or sit down so you can shoot them in exactly the right place to make it look like suicide? I mean, it would take a great deal of effort to get the right angle - and all the time he's relying on Sheila lying still or sitting still.

Offline ilovebooze

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 407
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #926 on: November 09, 2019, 09:08:AM »
That's another thing. How on earth do you plan for someone to lie down or sit down so you can shoot them in exactly the right place to make it look like suicide? I mean, it would take a great deal of effort to get the right angle - and all the time he's relying on Sheila lying still or sitting still.
Jeremy Bamber is not a stupid individual. If he had used that gun with a silencer. That silencer would have not even come into contention. Because he would have disposed of it. I find it very difficult at the same time to believe the police couldn't visualize from the outset of seeing shelia that she had been shot twice and not immediately become suspicious of Bamber. Thirdly, as you rightly point out how did Jeremy Bamber manage to position Shelia caffell to undertake the two shot scenario. Even if she had been incapacitated by one shot. She would have been fighting like a wildcat. Jeremy Bamber had no marks on him. It beggars belief

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 28183
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #927 on: November 09, 2019, 09:13:AM »
That's another thing. How on earth do you plan for someone to lie down or sit down so you can shoot them in exactly the right place to make it look like suicide? I mean, it would take a great deal of effort to get the right angle - and all the time he's relying on Sheila lying still or sitting still.


Which is my own reason for why the first shot was off target. My guess is, that because this kill was SO important, he was more concerned, than with the others, about getting it right. He could have positioned her/got her to position herself, perhaps taking too long? and at the last moment, she moved. It would only have taken a very slight movement for the angle to be wrong.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5669
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #928 on: November 09, 2019, 09:13:AM »
Jeremy Bamber is not a stupid individual. If he had used that gun with a silencer. That silencer would have not even come into contention. Because he would have disposed of it. I find it very difficult at the same time to believe the police couldn't visualize from the outset of seeing shelia that she had been shot twice and not immediately become suspicious of Bamber. Thirdly, as you rightly point out how did Jeremy Bamber manage to position Shelia caffell to undertake the two shot scenario. Even if she had been incapacitated by one shot. She would have been fighting like a wildcat. Jeremy Bamber had no marks on him. It beggars belief

It's very clear to me that Sheila did not move much after that first shot, and then she was indeed shot where she was found. She might have tried to sit up a little, but that's all. That means that Jeremy would have had to make her sit down or lie down in her parents' bedroom in that particular place, whilst all the time trying to position the gun, and she just let him!

I just don't see how he could plan that. To my mind, the best plan would have been to shoot her in bed when she was unaware of what was happening, and then try to arrange the body so it looked like she lay down on her bed and shot herself.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5669
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #929 on: November 09, 2019, 09:14:AM »

Which is my own reason for why the first shot was off target. My guess is, that because this kill was SO important, he was more concerned, than with the others, about getting it right. He could have positioned her/got her to position herself, perhaps taking too long? and at the last moment, she moved. It would only have taken a very slight movement for the angle to be wrong.

But why would she just let him position her? Even if she did, he couldn't possibly have known that she would just let him do what he wanted when he planned it all.

If it had been a handgun I could have understood it, but it wasn't.