Author Topic: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis  (Read 479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21691
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2020, 03:59:PM »
Adam have you ever tried lifting a person who's incapacitated ?

That would be easy.  The difficult thing is not leaving behind any trace of what he's done in the second bedroom.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2020, 04:12:PM »
Always thought it was doubtful Sheila would have woken. The upstairs shots into the other 4 were in other rooms while they slept and with a silencer attached. Sheila would have been in a deep sleep herself and the COA says under sedation. There is a slim chance the downstairs kitchen fight woke her.
 
Bamber could have shot Sheila while she slept. Any blood from her neck from one shot would be a trickle and not fall onto the bed sheets before Bamber picked her up. Besides which, as you said he could change sheets.

Bamber could easily pick up an incapacitated Sheila and spend a few seconds carrying her a few feet.

Bamber could also pick up a Sheila under sedation and in a deep sleep. Then spend a few seconds carrying her a few feet. She would put up no resistance.

If we're saying he's guilty, then we have to explain how she has got to the master bedroom and found a dying June without getting any blood or dirt on her hands and feet.  One explanation is, as you say, Sheila never woke, but remember that the pharmacological/psychiatric evidence for this is ropey, and we also have to take into account what the pathologist says about the way Sheila was shot.  This is why I'm quite keen on my theory that Jeremy shot Sheila first before the others and he did this in the second bedroom, perhaps as she sat up in bed.

On the other hand, I'm sceptical about the idea that Jeremy planned all this out.  I think Jeremy in a psychotic rage is more likely, giving life to a kernel of ideas that have been floating around in his head for a while.  The rage is perhaps catalysed by a genuine phone call from Nevill that evening in which Nevill berates Jeremy, which in turn plants the seed in Jeremy's head for faking a call to establish an alibi.

This would help explain why Jeremy injured Nevill in the way that he does.  I think there may also be some sadistic element to the killing of June.

Sheila is a problem in all this because if you have her alert and you can't explain what she is doing while Nevill and Jeremy are downstairs, then there is reasonable doubt.

I think the police and the DPP realised this themselves and that's why in the Ainsley report to the DPP, it sets out a theory that Jeremy shot Sheila once in the master bedroom before tackling Nevill downstairs.  I think probably most people on this forum would discount that and I would too, simply because Jeremy would not risk allowing Nevill a head start downstairs.

I go back to my belief that Jeremy's actions were unplanned.  Probably what really happened is that Jeremy  formed a vague idea in his head of leaving a rifle on or by Sheila's body, maybe influenced by something he had seen in a film or on TV.  He doesn't think through how he will control Sheila simply because he over-estimated the lethality of the rifle and also under-estimates the noise disturbance of the rifle within the farmhouse, having never practised with it indoors - another reason why I think the silencer wasn't used.

As a result, mayhem ensues and Jeremy is fortunate in that Sheila 'froze' or is disoriented out of tiredness.  We have Jeremy downstairs, and having subdued and incapacitated Nevill, he realises he needs to go back upstairs quickly.  There he finds Sheila, who is stood in the master bedroom looking at June and not sure what is going on, and he manages to kill her in the right way, but blunders and shoots her twice.  The irony of it is that if Sheila had got June's blood on her, and even gone into the twins bedroom, Jeremy might have got away with it.  The possibility, mooted by Lookout on the other thread, that June may have been shot on the main stairs, adds an additional layer of complication but may explain why Sheila didn't get June's blood on her and had clean hands and feet.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 04:25:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8584
Re: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2020, 04:37:PM »
I think the police and the DPP realised this themselves and that's why in the Ainsley report to the DPP, it sets out a theory that Jeremy shot Sheila once in the master bedroom before tackling Nevill downstairs.  I think probably most people on this forum would discount that and I would too, simply because Jeremy would not risk allowing Nevill a head start downstairs.

Where did you get this from?

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21691
Re: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2020, 04:58:PM »
If we're saying he's guilty, then we have to explain how she has got to the master bedroom and found a dying June without getting any blood or dirt on her hands and feet.  One explanation is, as you say, Sheila never woke, but remember that the pharmacological/psychiatric evidence for this is ropey, and we also have to take into account what the pathologist says about the way Sheila was shot.  This is why I'm quite keen on my theory that Jeremy shot Sheila first before the others and he did this in the second bedroom, perhaps as she sat up in bed.

On the other hand, I'm sceptical about the idea that Jeremy planned all this out.  I think Jeremy in a psychotic rage is more likely, giving life to a kernel of ideas that have been floating around in his head for a while.  The rage is perhaps catalysed by a genuine phone call from Nevill that evening in which Nevill berates Jeremy, which in turn plants the seed in Jeremy's head for faking a call to establish an alibi.

This would help explain why Jeremy injured Nevill in the way that he does.  I think there may also be some sadistic element to the killing of June.

Sheila is a problem in all this because if you have her alert and you can't explain what she is doing while Nevill and Jeremy are downstairs, then there is reasonable doubt.

I think the police and the DPP realised this themselves and that's why in the Ainsley report to the DPP, it sets out a theory that Jeremy shot Sheila once in the master bedroom before tackling Nevill downstairs.  I think probably most people on this forum would discount that and I would too, simply because Jeremy would not risk allowing Nevill a head start downstairs.

I go back to my belief that Jeremy's actions were unplanned.  Probably what really happened is that Jeremy  formed a vague idea in his head of leaving a rifle on or by Sheila's body, maybe influenced by something he had seen in a film or on TV.  He doesn't think through how he will control Sheila simply because he over-estimated the lethality of the rifle and also under-estimates the noise disturbance of the rifle within the farmhouse, having never practised with it indoors - another reason why I think the silencer wasn't used.

As a result, mayhem ensues and Jeremy is fortunate in that Sheila 'froze' or is disoriented out of tiredness.  We have Jeremy downstairs, and having subdued and incapacitated Nevill, he realises he needs to go back upstairs quickly.  There he finds Sheila, who is stood in the master bedroom looking at June and not sure what is going on, and he manages to kill her in the right way, but blunders and shoots her twice.  The irony of it is that if Sheila had got June's blood on her, and even gone into the twins bedroom, Jeremy might have got away with it.  The possibility, mooted by Lookout on the other thread, that June may have been shot on the main stairs, adds an additional layer of complication but may explain why Sheila didn't get June's blood on her and had clean hands and feet.

That has been explained. By both of us.

Bamber either carried an asleep and under sedation Sheila a few feet. Then shot her. Or he shot her once in her bed and carried her.

This would have been after everyone else had been negated. Bamber had to take his time with Sheila so did not want any distractions.

He would have fired the extra bullets into the twins & June after his first shot into Sheila. His first task was to get to a situation where no one could fight back. Then create the 'gone crazy' effect.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 05:10:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2020, 06:22:PM »

This would have been after everyone else had been negated. Bamber had to take his time with Sheila so did not want any distractions.



You say that because you assume that she would have been sedated, but even then, you contradict yourself because you posit that Sheila would have been a distraction.  I thought she was sedated?  I think recent posts to this Forum demonstrate that the sedation theory cannot be accepted as fact, it is merely a debatable assumption.

To recap, I fall into the 'reasonable doubt' camp.  That does not mean I think Jeremy is innocent or there has been a miscarriage of justice on anything other than strict evidentiary grounds.  It's not up to me anyway, it is just my opinion that the convictions are unsafe.

I think that the evidence for Sheila being sedated is indifferent, at best.  When you put this together with Sheila's clean hands and feet, this means we have reasonable doubt because we have to explain what Sheila was doing upstairs while Jeremy was struggling with his father, and there is no explanation that doesn't involve Jeremy in great difficulty.  The police have clearly grasped the same point and put forward to the DPP that Sheila was shot once in the master bedroom before Jeremy followed Nevill downstairs.  I reject this for reasons already explained.  I also gather that Dr. Vanezis posited that blood on the carpet of the master bedroom would have dried quickly.  I respect Dr. Vanezis but don't find that particular view convincing enough because we still need to explain what Sheila was doing and why it is that, according to the police, she was so clean.  It's still possible for Jeremy to do it, but rather difficult.

Ironically, in different circumstances, the Crown might well have been hung by their own petard with the 'Sheila was too clean' argument.  What was Sheila doing?  Reading a women's magazine?  Getting June's blood on her?  Running to the twins?  Doing her nails?  Reading a book while waiting her turn?  Would a gun have been enough to make her comply with Jeremy in such circumstances?  Maybe, but can we be sure?

Crucially, there is no forensic evidence for the alternative course of action: i.e. my own theory that Jeremy may have shot her in the second bedroom while she was propped-up in bed or sitting-up or doing something similar.  This is important because Jeremy does have a case to answer and we need to eliminate all theorised avenues.  I actually don't favour my own theory, partly due to the lack of forensic support.  We also have the problem that the MacDonell Report, Ismail's evidence at the 2002 appeal, and Dr. Vanezis' pathological report all conflict with, even contradict, this scenario, though in fairness this may be because the scenario has never been proposed.  I also think Jeremy was as psychotic as Sheila and he didn't plan it out. 

But let's say my theory is right and it all began in the second bedroom.  If Jeremy had done it this way, he would have had to kill her first before everybody else, then after killing the other four, he would have had to go back and change the bed clothes, which we can assume would have aspirated blood on them because the first shot didn't kill her.  Then, he had to carry her to the master bedroom, which in itself is easy work, but he had to do so without leaving any forensic trace of this in the second bedroom or on the landing, or indeed in the master bedroom itself.  Remember he also had to do all this while not leaving any traces of himself in the second bedroom.  He also had to remember to leave the light on in the second bedroom.  Did the Raid Group officers find the second bedroom with the light still on or not?

Again, like the scenario of Sheila running to the master bedroom or the twins, it's not impossible.  It could have happened this way, but it would have involved Jeremy in tremendous difficulty, to the extent that I find there is reasonable doubt.  Otherwise, potentially we have Jeremy going round the house with a pair of tweezers and a mop and bucket, and then in the dark he has to take care not to leave any trace of his entry and exit, or (if you believe that he used the silencer) his entry and exit to the gun cupboard and its immediate environs.

Now compare and contrast this with the defence theory that Sheila did it and washed herself before committing suicide with the same rifle.  Again, like with the Crown case theory, there are issues, but it's not impossible. The so-called 'ritualistic cleaning' theory is easy to ridicule, but it comports with the forensic evidence.  It's all quite plausible. 

Verdict: Not Guilty, due to Reasonable Doubt.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 06:39:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2020, 06:38:PM »
Where did you get this from?

2020 edition of the Lee book, Appendix I, pp. 410-416. 

Ainsley's report to the DPP was dated November 1985 and was submitted in support of a request to indict Bamber for the five murders.

Mike may have the report somewhere among his papers.  Lee only extracts a small section from it, unfortunately.

Lee resolves the puzzle of Sheila's movements thus [p.415]:

"While father and son were fighting in the kitchen, June had managed to force herself up from the bed.  The commotion had also woken Sheila, who crossed the landing to her parents' bedroom, drowsy and confused.  At the sight of her mother bleeding profusely as she steadied herself on the edge of the bed, Sheila rushed to the other side of the room, where the door to the box room was the quickest route to the twins.  June staggered round the bed after her, but before she could reach Sheila, Jeremy returned with the gun.

"Sheila froze.  June started towards hers on, who fired three more shots into her neck, head, and finally between the eyes.  June hit her shoulder against the door as she slumped to the floor.

"Jeremy then forced Sheila down beside the bed and shot her once in the throat.
"

Then, after killing the twins, she has him noticing that Sheila is still alive and so he re-loads a single cartridge in the kitchen and goes back and kills her.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 06:40:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21691
Re: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2020, 06:42:PM »
You say that because you assume that she would have been sedated, but even then, you contradict yourself because you posit that Sheila would have been a distraction.  I thought she was sedated?  I think recent posts to this Forum demonstrate that the sedation theory cannot be accepted as fact, it is merely a debatable assumption.

To recap, I fall into the 'reasonable doubt' camp.  That does not mean I think Jeremy is innocent or there has been a miscarriage of justice on anything other than strict evidentiary grounds.  It's not up to me anyway, it is just my opinion that the convictions are unsafe.

I think that the evidence for Sheila being sedated is indifferent, at best.  When you put this together with Sheila's clean hands and feet, this means we have reasonable doubt because we have to explain what Sheila was doing upstairs while Jeremy was struggling with his father, and there is no explanation that doesn't involve Jeremy in great difficulty.  The police have clearly grasped the same point and put forward to the DPP that Sheila was shot once in the master bedroom before Jeremy followed Nevill downstairs.  I reject this for reasons already explained.  I also gather that Dr. Vanezis posited that blood on the carpet of the master bedroom would have dried quickly.  I respect Dr. Vanezis but don't find that particular view convincing enough because we still need to explain what Sheila was doing and why it is that, according to the police, she was so clean.  It's still possible for Jeremy to do it, but rather difficult.

Ironically, in different circumstances, the Crown might well have been hung by their own petard with the 'Sheila was too clean' argument.  What was Sheila doing?  Reading a women's magazine?  Getting June's blood on her?  Running to the twins?  Doing her nails?  Reading a book while waiting her turn?  Would a gun have been enough to make her comply with Jeremy in such circumstances?  Maybe, but can we be sure?

Crucially, there is no forensic evidence for the alternative course of action: i.e. my own theory that Jeremy may have shot her in the second bedroom while she was propped-up in bed or sitting-up or doing something similar.  This is important because Jeremy does have a case to answer and we need to eliminate all theorised avenues.  I actually don't favour my own theory, partly due to the lack of forensic support.  We also have the problem that the MacDonell Report, Ismail's evidence at the 2002 appeal, and Dr. Vanezis' pathological report all conflict with, even contradict, this scenario, though in fairness this may be because the scenario has never been proposed.  I also think Jeremy was as psychotic as Sheila and he didn't plan it out. 

But let's say my theory is right and it all began in the second bedroom.  If Jeremy had done it this way, he would have had to kill her first before everybody else, then after killing the other four, he would have had to go back and change the bed clothes, which we can assume would have aspirated blood on them because the first shot didn't kill her.  Then, he had to carry her to the master bedroom, which in itself is easy work, but he had to do so without leaving any forensic trace of this in the second bedroom or on the landing, or indeed in the master bedroom itself.  Remember he also had to do all this while not leaving any traces of himself in the second bedroom.  He also had to remember to leave the light on in the second bedroom.  Did the Raid Group officers find the second bedroom with the light still on or not?

Again, like the scenario of Sheila running to the master bedroom or the twins, it's not impossible.  It could have happened this way, but it would have involved Jeremy in tremendous difficulty, to the extent that I find there is reasonable doubt.  Otherwise, potentially we have Jeremy going round the house with a pair of tweezers and a mop and bucket and some Shake 'N' Vac and doing a Mister Muscle act, and then in the dark he has to take care not to leave any trace of his entry and exit, or (if you believe that he used the silencer) his entry and exit to the gun cupboard and its immediate environs.

Now compare and contrast this with the defence theory that Sheila did it and washed herself before committing suicide with the same rifle.  Again, like with the Crown case theory, there are issues, but it's not impossible. The so-called 'ritualistic cleaning' theory is easy to ridicule, but it comports with the forensic evidence.  It's all quite plausible. 

Verdict: Not Guilty, due to Reasonable Doubt.

'You say that because you assume that she would have been sedated, but even then, you contradict yourself because you posit that Sheila would have been a distraction'.

---------

Bamber would negate the other 4 people before turning his attention to Sheila. He would not want any distractions from the other four. He needed to move her and be accurrate with his first shot into her. 

Can you give a Sheila scenario. It needs to match the same crime scene evidence I used when giving my Bamber scenario yesterday. Obviously you need to include 1/2 phone calls and why Nevill did nothing while fully fit.

The only problem you seem to have with Bamber doing it, is Sheila could have woke, got up and walked in Junes blood.
 
« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 06:44:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21691
Re: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis
« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2020, 06:53:PM »
CAL's scenario is possible.

Sheila woke and went straight to the twins room. Seeing they were injured she went to get her parents through the box room.

Bamber had returned upstairs and is now in the main bedroom. Firing more bullets into June. Seeing Sheila was now up, he didn't hesitate in taking her to ground and firing a shot into her.

This explains why none of June's blood was on Sheila's feet.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 06:56:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8584
Re: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis
« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2020, 07:24:PM »
2020 edition of the Lee book, Appendix I, pp. 410-416. 

Ainsley's report to the DPP was dated November 1985 and was submitted in support of a request to indict Bamber for the five murders.

Mike may have the report somewhere among his papers.  Lee only extracts a small section from it, unfortunately.

Lee resolves the puzzle of Sheila's movements thus [p.415]:

"While father and son were fighting in the kitchen, June had managed to force herself up from the bed.  The commotion had also woken Sheila, who crossed the landing to her parents' bedroom, drowsy and confused.  At the sight of her mother bleeding profusely as she steadied herself on the edge of the bed, Sheila rushed to the other side of the room, where the door to the box room was the quickest route to the twins.  June staggered round the bed after her, but before she could reach Sheila, Jeremy returned with the gun.

"Sheila froze.  June started towards hers on, who fired three more shots into her neck, head, and finally between the eyes.  June hit her shoulder against the door as she slumped to the floor.

"Jeremy then forced Sheila down beside the bed and shot her once in the throat.
"

Then, after killing the twins, she has him noticing that Sheila is still alive and so he re-loads a single cartridge in the kitchen and goes back and kills her.

That has nothing to do with Ainsley's report to the DPP.  The Appendix I: A reconstruction of events in CALs book is fictional.


Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis
« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2020, 07:28:PM »
'You say that because you assume that she would have been sedated, but even then, you contradict yourself because you posit that Sheila would have been a distraction'.

---------

Bamber would negate the other 4 people before turning his attention to Sheila. He would not want any distractions from the other four. He needed to move her and be accurrate with his first shot into her. 

Can you give a Sheila scenario. It needs to match the same crime scene evidence I used when giving my Bamber scenario yesterday. Obviously you need to include 1/2 phone calls and why Nevill did nothing while fully fit.

The only problem you seem to have with Bamber doing it, is Sheila could have woke, got up and walked in Junes blood.

I'm 96% that Jeremy did it, but the criminal standard requires 99%.  On a good day, I'm at 98%, on a bad day, I'm 96%.  In other words, what I'm saying is that there is that small but important amount of doubt that means the whole thing doesn't quite hang together and make the mark. 

There are just too many bits of doubt, not just the Sheila problem but other things.  The fact that the sedation theory can be so easily and effortlessly discredited is rather worrying.

I don't need to offer a Sheila scenario and the defence don't have to.  It's enough to demonstrate that the Jeremy scenario is unsafe or unsatisfactory, or both.  That's all the law requires.

Any Sheila scenario is also of limited usefulness because there will always be holes, unexplained oddities and inconsistencies in everything.

What I will do is offer some thoughts on what the issues are in constructing a Sheila scenario, with some of the scenario mixed in.  It will match the evidence as I understand it.  You are no more an authority on the crime scene than anybody else here.

(i). First, I don't believe the silencer was used.  (You should not take that to mean I am making any accusations against the relatives.  The silencer may have been introduced into evidence innocently).

(ii). I'm not going to go into what catalysed Sheila's actions or what - if any - motives she may have had.  That can only be pure speculation.

(iii). If Sheila did this, we have to tackle the problem of how she uses the gun, even whether she used more than one gun, which I believe is quite possible.  She would need to have a knowledge and skills base with guns, though it wouldn't need to be great because the Anschutz is easy to use and handle, as is the air rifle, which I consider to be the other ballistic candidate.  Maybe Jeremy is still culpable in that he may have encouraged her in the belief she would fly off the handle, maybe not - again, that's speculation.

(iv). She would need to notice that Jeremy has left the gun out.  Maybe she doesn't see it, because it's out of sight, but she would need to intuit that he has left it in a certain place.  Maybe she notices another gun as well.  She also has to note where the ammunition is.

(v).  There would need to be a row/argument among the adults in the house, then they all retire.  Nevill did have harsh words with Barbara Wilson at some point on the phone and it does seem that June put on a front with Pamela Boutflour in their phone call.

(vi). Sheila is not sedated, I'm happy with that assumption.  As the summer evening drags on into night, maybe she can't sleep and sits up in bed or sits on the bed.  Maybe she is having awake dreams and delusions and starts walking around the house. One question I would have for Jeremy, if I could speak to him, would be whether he knew if Sheila wandered round the house aimlessly.

(vii). We can surmise from the pathological report that at maybe 3 a.m., she goes to the kitchen for something to eat.

(viii). We then need to have them in an argument, because Nevill has to make the call to Jeremy.  That may mean that one or both parents have heard her wandering around, and concerned maybe Nevil goes downstairs.  Maybe there is then a heated argument resumed and Sheila suddenly remembers the gun and maybe with the initial intention of threatening Nevill with it, she starts waving it around. 

(ix). There is then a stand-off in the kitchen.  Nevill is her father and also a magistrate.  He doesn't want official attention in this situation, as it would almost-certainly mean that Sheila is sectioned.  Therefore, he calls Jeremy.  Not necessarily because he thinks Jeremy will be useful in this situation, but because Jeremy is the first person that springs to mind and he's close family, which helps confidentiality, and he's near.  At this point, Nevil probably assumes nothing will happen, he just needs to take the gun off Sheila, put her to bed and contact a psychiatrist in the morning on the family's terms.  Forgive me, I don't quite recall off-hand the exact time the trial officially decided the claimed call would have been placed.  Let's just say 3.26 .a.m., but I may alter that.

(x). Jeremy takes a while to answer because he is asleep after a long day at the farm.  By the time he does, the stand-off is broken and Sheila is haring off upstairs.  Nevill must go after her, so terminates the call or leaves the phone off the hook (again, I'd have to recap the mechanics of how that call ended).

(xi). Sheila fires at Nevill on the main stairway and then follows him back down the stairs.  Nevill just wants to seize the gun off his daughter, which explains his injuries, but it's his daughter, so he also doesn't want to injure her.

(xii). Sheila is the one with the gun, and that gives her the crucial edge, as does Nevill's innate fatherliness, decency and chivalry.  She fires a few more times.  Nevill is now incapacitated and seriously injured, but not dead.

(xiii). Sheila then returns upstairs, fires at June, then returns downstairs to re-load, which takes her a long time, during which June moves around the master bedroom badly injured.  In the second fusillade, she fires again at Nevill, leaving him for dead, then fires at June again.  She then re-loads some more and goes back and kills the twins. I will assume for now that she does all this with the same gun.

(xiv). She washes herself and cleans up, and makes herself look presentable.

(xv). Then she re-loads again with just a single cartridge, overlooking another bullet in the breech or magazine.  She shoots herself twice, perhaps the second shot is due to a gun malfunction or her own reflex on the trigger.  It's a semi-automatic.

(xvi). I think Nevill was still alive for some time, which explains the large pool of blood on the kitchen floor.  I think he was in and out of consciousness, staggered to his feet, and fell back in the chair and eventually died.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 07:37:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis
« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2020, 07:29:PM »
That has nothing to do with Ainsley's report to the DPP.  The Appendix I: A reconstruction of events in CALs book is fictional.

No, you've misunderstood.  I did explain.

The Appendix includes an extract from Ainsley's report, and then Lee goes on to provide her own version of events.

Whether Lee's version of events is fictional or not, I cannot say. I suppose it's no more or less fictional than anybody else's.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis
« Reply #27 on: July 05, 2020, 07:31:PM »
CAL's scenario is possible.

Sheila woke and went straight to the twins room. Seeing they were injured she went to get her parents through the box room.

Bamber had returned upstairs and is now in the main bedroom. Firing more bullets into June. Seeing Sheila was now up, he didn't hesitate in taking her to ground and firing a shot into her.

This explains why none of June's blood was on Sheila's feet.

Lee isn't saying that Sheila made it to the twins' room.  She 'froze' in the master bedroom, so never saw the twins.

Lee's scenario doesn't really account for why Sheila ended up so 'clean'.  In my view, nothing can, unless you accept that Jeremy incapacitated Sheila in the second bedroom and carried her to the master bedroom.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21691
Re: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis
« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2020, 07:45:PM »
Lee isn't saying that Sheila made it to the twins' room.  She 'froze' in the master bedroom, so never saw the twins.

Lee's scenario doesn't really account for why Sheila ended up so 'clean'.  In my view, nothing can, unless you accept that Jeremy incapacitated Sheila in the second bedroom and carried her to the master bedroom.

'Ended up so clean'.

--------

The only thing you are suggesting she could have had, is blood on her feet. If she had stepped into June's blood on the carpet. There are many scenarios why she didn't. Besides which the CT say there was blood on Sheila's feet.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 07:46:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8584
Re: Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis
« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2020, 07:53:PM »
No, you've misunderstood.  I did explain.

The Appendix includes an extract from Ainsley's report, and then Lee goes on to provide her own version of events.

Whether Lee's version of events is fictional or not, I cannot say. I suppose it's no more or less fictional than anybody else's.

CALs book may have a facade of respectability to the general public and uninformed. But to anyone who has studied the evidence in this case closely, its apparent and the book contains many distortions and the author was prejudicial.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10153.0.html