What Happened In The Kitchen?

[Steve_uk]

All that is subjective and can be picked apart. Did Mr Horsnell give evidence or at least provide a statement to the police?  I can't recall seeing it.

The problem with you (and to be fair to you it's some other posters here as well) is that you lack a general overview of any given situation, but pinpoint details for which often you do have a case but which by themselves are insufficient to convince a sceptical audience and do not tally with the information available in the round. Part of the reason I read the books associated with the case (is egap1's thread Murder/Suicide at White House Farm possibly the best on the Forum?) is that some of them give footnotes to the sources, as well as giving an insight into the minds of the major characters in the drama, which is lacking in the dry-as -dust documents you and others often peruse.

To answer your question directly: Michael Horsnell gave a witness statement on 23rd September 1985.

[Steve_uk]

I notice you are studiously avoiding the problem of a lack of a blood trail from the main landing to the kitchen.  That's rather a serious hole in the prosecution case.  It could be resolved by saying that Sheila was the killer, but you would prefer not to do that.

The reason I think Nevill didn't dial 999 is because there is no blood on the kitchen phone.  The issue isn't really whether he dialled 999 but whether he made it to the phone.  It seems to me it would be instinctive for him to do this under attack from Jeremy, regardless of injuries; either that, or flee the house.  But he would be fleeing the house bare-foot in his pyjamas. 

It's a bold statement to say that the gun fire would have been impossible to hear.  I'm not so sure, even if a silencer was a fitted, because it all depends on acoustics. A moderated rifle can still have a noticeable report, even with subsonic bullets.  I also don't accept she was sedated and I don't accept that it has been proved the silencer was even used.  It's not even certain that Haloperidol would help her sleep.  One possible side-effect of it is insomnia.  We know she had cannabis in her system and I wonder what contraindications this produced.  I also wonder about the effect of reducing her Haloperidol dosage by half. 

I note your scenario depends on Jeremy running out of bullets.  Otherwise, you can't explain why Jeremy would need to struggle with Nevill.

In my view, what's needed is:

Expert pharmacological evidence.

An incident reconstruction looking at sequencing/time-and-motion and the noise impact of the same make and model of silencer (ideally the very same silencer) using the same make and model of gun (ideally the very same gun) and the same bullets.

Expert blood evidence, to explain the almost total lack of a discernible blood trail between the main landing and the kitchen.  Maybe the blood soaked into his clothes and didn't drip?

1. Why would there necessarily be a blood trail if Nevill is shot with a rifle used to kill vermin? Why would Nevill be fleeing from Sheila anyway if he could see who the perpetrator was, unlike Jeremy, who would probably be wearing a mask?

2. You're getting there. Slowly.

3. Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson gave a statement (which is in the archives here) in which he refuted the idea of interaction between cannabis and Haloperidol.

4. Of course Jeremy runs out of bullets at some stage and has to reload. Don't fall for the staged bullets by the kitchen telephone either: there are too many there for Sheila to have tipped them out and used 25 on the night.

[Steve_uk]

Adam why do you always quote something as a fact when you clearly don’t know when most other posters quote scenarios

It’s bloody annoying, can you stop please it’s making you look ridiculous

This post is a hoot. I suppose we have to be grateful that:

i) Jackie has not cut and pasted anything here (at least not yet).

ii) Jackie hasn't quoted or mentioned Mark Williams-Thomas at all here.

iii) She hasn't claimed in this thread that Warwick Hislop's testimony has finally solved the case.

[guest29835]

The problem with you (and to be fair to you it's some other posters here as well) is that you lack a general overview of any given situation, but pinpoint details for which often you do have a case but which by themselves are insufficient to convince a sceptical audience and do not tally with the information available in the round. Part of the reason I read the books associated with the case (is egap1's thread Murder/Suicide at White House Farm possibly the best on the Forum?) is that some of them give footnotes to the sources, as well as giving an insight into the minds of the major characters in the drama, which is lacking in the dry-as -dust documents you and others often peruse.

To answer your question directly: Michael Horsnell gave a witness statement on 23rd September 1985.

How do you know what I know and don't know?  I've read up on this case for years.

[guest29835]

1. Why would there necessarily be a blood trail if Nevill is shot with a rifle used to kill vermin? Why would Nevill be fleeing from Sheila anyway if he could see who the perpetrator was, unlike Jeremy, who would probably be wearing a mask?

Was Nevill bleeding or not?  I assume Adam's away as he hasn't answered me yet.  Maybe you could?  When you reply, bear in mind that Nevill is wearing pyjamas, which are loose fitting, he's been shot four times - including twice in the face - and the blood has to go somewhere.  He's also touching his own wounds and therefore getting blood on his hands and fingers.  I suppose you could just deny he was bleeding. 

I assume Nevill flees Sheila because she's firing at him with a gun, but the point is that he still tries to wrestle the gun off her, whereas with Jeremy he wouldn't necessarily do so. 

And wouldn't he be able to tell it is Jeremy, even with a mask?  Wouldn't he just guess?  There's Barbara's sexed-up dossier, remember?  Wouldn't he recognise breathing noises, gait, build, etc.?  Do you really think Jeremy could effectively disguise himself?

I don't doubt Jeremy would have used a mask, but the utility of it wasn't as a disguise, rather it was for facial protection.

2. You're getting there. Slowly.

Don't patronise me or I'll start patronising you, and I'm much better at it.

3. Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson gave a statement (which is in the archives here) in which he refuted the idea of interaction between cannabis and Haloperidol.

You're referring to page 3 of Dr. Ferguson's statement of 18th. September 1985.

I am not a psychiatrist or a pharmacologist, but I do NOT accept Dr. Ferguson's opinion on the point.  I think he is likely to be wrong when he says that recreational drugs can have no impact on the effect of anti-psychotics.

It is important to recognise that a psychiatrist is not an expert on psycho-pharmacology and does not necessarily have anything more than a working knowledge of how drugs work.  I think Dr. Ferguson's view in that paragraph is obviously flawed and wrong and I think it would be easy to show this.

Indeed, I see that in sheet 4 of his own statement of 8th. August 1985, Dr. Ferguson clearly states that the use of illicit drugs would exacerbate Sheila's psychosis, which is inconsistent with his later claim.

I find that quite suspicious, actually.  The first claim seems right.  The second claim, made after Jeremy became a suspect, seems wrong but convenient for the police.

4. Of course Jeremy runs out of bullets at some stage and has to reload. Don't fall for the staged bullets by the kitchen telephone either: there are too many there for Sheila to have tipped them out and used 25 on the night.

I don't think anybody is doubting that he runs out of bullets.  That's obvious.

[Steve_uk]

How do you know what I know and don't know?  I've read up on this case for years.

But you were ignorant of the fact that Michael Horsnell had made a witness statement to Police.

[Steve_uk]

Was Nevill bleeding or not?  I assume Adam's away as he hasn't answered me yet.  Maybe you could?  When you reply, bear in mind that Nevill is wearing pyjamas, which are loose fitting, he's been shot four times - including twice in the face - and the blood has to go somewhere.  He's also touching his own wounds and therefore getting blood on his hands and fingers.  I suppose you could just deny he was bleeding. 

I assume Nevill flees Sheila because she's firing at him with a gun, but the point is that he still tries to wrestle the gun off her, whereas with Jeremy he wouldn't necessarily do so. 

And wouldn't he be able to tell it is Jeremy, even with a mask?  Wouldn't he just guess?  There's Barbara's sexed-up dossier, remember?  Wouldn't he recognise breathing noises, gait, build, etc.?  Do you really think Jeremy could effectively disguise himself?

I don't doubt Jeremy would have used a mask, but the utility of it wasn't as a disguise, rather it was for facial protection.

Don't patronise me or I'll start patronising you, and I'm much better at it.

You're referring to page 3 of Dr. Ferguson's statement of 18th. September 1985.

I am not a psychiatrist or a pharmacologist, but I do NOT accept Dr. Ferguson's opinion on the point.  I think he is likely to be wrong when he says that recreational drugs can have no impact on the effect of anti-psychotics.

It is important to recognise that a psychiatrist is not an expert on psycho-pharmacology and does not necessarily have anything more than a working knowledge of how drugs work.  I think Dr. Ferguson's view in that paragraph is obviously flawed and wrong and I think it would be easy to show this.

Indeed, I see that in sheet 4 of his own statement of 8th. August 1985, Dr. Ferguson clearly states that the use of illicit drugs would exacerbate Sheila's psychosis, which is inconsistent with his later claim.

I find that quite suspicious, actually.  The first claim seems right.  The second claim, made after Jeremy became a suspect, seems wrong but convenient for the police.

I don't think anybody is doubting that he runs out of bullets.  That's obvious.

I thought you had said in an earlier post that Nevill was less likely to tackle Sheila because of her alleged frailty than Jeremy. You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

I don't know about the blood trail because there aren't any photographs of the staircase carpet. Maybe Nevill didn't touch his wounds until he reached the blue and white chequered worktop, or he wiped his hand on the pyjama jacket and the bleeding didn't protrude onto the carpet.

I don't think it matters whether Jeremy is wearing a mask or not as far as Nevill is concerned. But he would recognize his own daughter in a nightie and be far more likely to attempt to disarm her given the physical contrast in both individuals.

As far as Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson's witness statement is concerned, I'd far rather take a doctor's advice on this matter, thank you.

[guest29835]

But you were ignorant of the fact that Michael Horsnell had made a witness statement to Police.

Who says I'm ignorant of it?  I've read all kinds of contradictory guff about Sheila from shopkeepers and random Joe Blows who swear they saw her the day before.  Am I supposed to be a walking encyclopaedia of all the statements given in this case?  There must have been hundreds.

[guest29835]

I thought you had said in an earlier post that Nevill was less likely to tackle Sheila because of her alleged frailty than Jeremy. You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

No, I did not say this.  You are misrepresenting me - intentionally, out of mischief, like you did before when you tried to suggest I was insulting Lookout when I wasn't, something I have not forgotten. 

I think Nevill was more likely to struggle with Sheila than with Jeremy, but he would also be hesitant with her.  There's no contradiction in what I say, it's just that you're glossing over the nuances in what I say because it suits your shallow-minded approach to the case.

I don't know about the blood trail because there aren't any photographs of the staircase carpet. Maybe Nevill didn't touch his wounds until he reached the blue and white chequered worktop, or he wiped his hand on the pyjama jacket and the bleeding didn't protrude onto the carpet.

Nevill would, very probably, touch his wounds immediately.  That's what gunshot victims do.  It's the natural thing to do and it's done automatically without thought.  That discounts completely your explanation.

Nevill was shot in the face - twice.  How could his bleeding not protrude on to the carpets?

I'm sure there will be an explanation.  I'm still waiting for it.

I don't think it matters whether Jeremy is wearing a mask or not as far as Nevill is concerned. But he would recognize his own daughter in a nightie and be far more likely to attempt to disarm her given the physical contrast in both individuals.

I agree, but what if they were stood some distance apart and Sheila had a loaded rifle which she was threatening to fire?  Perhaps they ended up at stand-off in the kitchen.  In those circumstances, especially if it was the culmination of a long argument, he might ring his son rather than involve the authorities.  At this point, he might assume she was inept with the gun and would never actually fire it or use it other than as a bludgeon. 

As far as Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson's witness statement is concerned, I'd far rather take a doctor's advice on this matter, thank you.

Intellectual fallacy: Argument from authority.  Having a title does not in and of itself mean you are correct.

However, an argument from authority is not always fallacious.  It would not be a fallacy to rely on Dr. Ferguson if it could be shown that Dr. Ferguson had relevant expertise, and that has not been shown.  Psychiatry is a very learned profession, but it only implies a working knowledge of the impact of anti-psychotics.  Psychiatrists are not pharmacologists.  Moreover, the view of a clinical psychiatrist might be clouded by loyalty to a patient - even though they are professionals, psychiatrists are still human like the rest of us.

Thus, in that statement of his, Dr. Ferguson advances a view outside his strict expertise.  You're simply relying on his title and you're ignoring the inconsistency in his evidence.

It's also noted that Dr. Ferguson only makes a general comment on the effect of cannabis on Haloperidol, he fails to mention its effect on Sheila's use of Haloperidol, which is not really the same question.

[Steve_uk]

Who says I'm ignorant of it?  I've read all kinds of contradictory guff about Sheila from shopkeepers and random Joe Blows who swear they saw her the day before.  Am I supposed to be a walking encyclopaedia of all the statements given in this case?  There must have been hundreds.

It's not random guff from shopkeepers-it's an eyewitness account from Barry Parker. I doubt it would be random guff from shopkeepers if it suited your argument, which at times is inconsistent.

If you wish to belabour the point about Michael Horsnell I refer you to your post #38 this morning.

[guest29835]

It's not random guff from shopkeepers-it's an eyewitness account from Barry Parker. I doubt it would be random guff from shopkeepers if it suited your argument, which at times is inconsistent.

I'm very sorry, but this has got to stop.  I don't have an 'argument'.  I don't have any loyalty to Jeremy Bamber or the authorities.  I am neutral.  If I find a point that goes against Jeremy Bamber, I will highlight it. 

The difficulty here is yours in that your approach to the case is fundamentally emotional rather than intellectual. 

You just can't accept any rigorous testing of the case, and when somebody does try, then you jump in and accuse them of bad faith.

It's got to stop. You need to grow up, Steve.  If you can't, then I'm just going to stop commenting here and I'll just stick to reading the threads and archive.

And if you have a copy of the statement of Michael Horsnell, post it up, or tell us your source. 

[Steve_uk]

No, I did not say this.  You are misrepresenting me - intentionally, out of mischief, like you did before when you tried to suggest I was insulting Lookout when I wasn't, something I have not forgotten. 

I think Nevill was more likely to struggle with Sheila than with Jeremy, but he would also be hesitant with her.  There's no contradiction in what I say, it's just that you're glossing over the nuances in what I say because it suits your shallow-minded approach to the case.

Nevill would, very probably, touch his wounds immediately.  That's what gunshot victims do.  It's the natural thing to do and it's done automatically without thought.  That discounts completely your explanation.

Nevill was shot in the face - twice.  How could his bleeding not protrude on to the carpets?

I'm sure there will be an explanation.  I'm still waiting for it.

I agree, but what if they were stood some distance apart and Sheila had a loaded rifle which she was threatening to fire?  Perhaps they ended up at stand-off in the kitchen.  In those circumstances, especially if it was the culmination of a long argument, he might ring his son rather than involve the authorities.  At this point, he might assume she was inept with the gun and would never actually fire it or use it other than as a bludgeon. 

Intellectual fallacy: Argument from authority.  Having a title does not in and of itself mean you are correct.

However, an argument from authority is not always fallacious.  It would not be a fallacy to rely on Dr. Ferguson if it could be shown that Dr. Ferguson had relevant expertise, and that has not been shown.  Psychiatry is a very learned profession, but it only implies a working knowledge of the impact of anti-psychotics.  Psychiatrists are not pharmacologists.  Moreover, the view of a clinical psychiatrist might be clouded by loyalty to a patient - even though they are professionals, psychiatrists are still human like the rest of us.

Thus, in that statement of his, Dr. Ferguson advances a view outside his strict expertise.  You're simply relying on his title and you're ignoring the inconsistency in his evidence.

It's also noted that Dr. Ferguson only makes a general comment on the effect of cannabis on Haloperidol, he fails to mention its effect on Sheila's use of Haloperidol, which is not really the same question.

You're in complete denial. You did insult Lookout, stating quite blatantly that she was playing games, when she's just as knowledgeable about the case or even more so than yourself.

I just can't work out your stance on Nevill tacking Sheila or Jeremy. It's you who wants it both ways.

I have no idea why there was no blood trail from the bedroom to the kitchen as I have said twice before now, but this does not automatically indicate that Nevill was not located in the bedroom when the shooting started, nor does it suggest that the culprit firing that morning was more likely to be Sheila than Jeremy.

[David1819]

I'm very sorry, but this has got to stop.  I don't have an 'argument'.  I don't have any loyalty to Jeremy Bamber or the authorities.  I am neutral.  If I find a point that goes against Jeremy Bamber, I will highlight it. 

The difficulty here is yours in that your approach to the case is fundamentally emotional rather than intellectual. 

You just can't accept any rigorous testing of the case, and when somebody does try, then you jump in and accuse them of bad faith.

It's got to stop. You need to grow up, Steve.  If you can't, then I'm just going to stop commenting here and I'll just stick to reading the threads and archive.

And if you have a copy of the statement of Michael Horsnell, post it up, or tell us your source.

If you go to your account settings. You can add Steve_uk to your ignore list.

[guest29835]

You're in complete denial. You did insult Lookout, stating quite blatantly that she was playing games, when she's just as knowledgeable about the case or even more so than yourself.

I did not. 

I just can't work out your stance on Nevill tacking Sheila or Jeremy. It's you who wants it both ways.

I elucidated it multiple times, and I have explained it to you above in clear and concise terms.

If you still can't work it out, the reason is known only to you and is your problem, not mine. 

If you have difficulty following complex arguments, then that, again, is your problem, not mine.

I have no idea why there was no blood trail from the bedroom to the kitchen as I have said twice before now, but this does not automatically indicate that Nevill was not located in the bedroom when the shooting started, nor does it suggest that the culprit firing that morning was more likely to be Sheila than Jeremy.

That being the case, please kindly refrain from commenting on things you have no idea about.

You are cluttering up threads and causing problems here with your poisonous and toxic personalisation of everything and your tendency towards stoking conflict.

[Adam]

I've seen that before.  It tells us nothing, unfortunately, because it's outside.  The acoustics within a building are entirely different.  I know this for a fact.

Incidentally, this seems to be another of the flaws of the 1986 trial.  They demonstrated the rifle on an outdoor range, they did not reconstruct the incident using an interior range with similar acoustic properties, nor did they have the jury visit the farmhouse and look around - which I find shocking.

It shows that Sheila would not hear the upstairs shots in other rooms. Even if awake. I could barely hear it with the sound up. The acoustics would not change that.