Sheila was the killer...

[mike tesko]

At the end of each phase, the shooter would be required to reload the weapon, with additional bullets, and so on, and so forth...

There was an opportunity for a struggle to take place, in the region where the loose bullets were tipped out on to the kitchen worktop, close to the phone, on each of the two occasions when the shooter needed to reload the gun with additional ammunition...

These are the facts, which the police and the DPP relied upon to prosecute Jeremy...

[mike tesko]

Next question. Even if four double-marked bullets were found at the scene, how do you know that they were the first to be loaded?

I'm quite interested in this news that the gun could hold 11 bullets. That could explain why there were 11 shots in the bedroom at June and Neville. That 11th bullet bothers me.

---------------------------------------

It should, and there is good reason for it...

*Five double marked bullets, not four double marked bullets...

[Kaldin]

Next question. Even if four double-marked bullets were found at the scene, how do you know that they were the first to be loaded?

I'm quite interested in this news that the gun could hold 11 bullets. That could explain why there were 11 shots in the bedroom at June and Neville. That 11th bullet bothers me.

---------------------------------------

It should, and there is good reason for it...

*Five double marked bullets, not four double marked bullets...

You're not answering my questions. How do you know that the five double-marked bullets were loaded first?

[tom]

Some great debate going on about different things that no one can be  100 per cent sure about , but EP photos showing blood on the floor that had dripped from her wounds is a fact that no one can argue about and we all know people who have been dead 7 hours dont bleed !   

You are missing the point the blood on the carpet around SC is different in both photos , zoom in on the blood , two different photos two lots of different blood drops.

I'd like to know more about that. I've seen a statement which says that blood was "leaking" from her mouth, but it's not clear to me if that means the blood was actually moving or if the person who made the statement just meant that it had leaked.

http://www.jeremybamber.com/jeremybamber7.htm

I've seen a picture of Sheila where the blood does look very red and new, but obviously I can't tell if that blood is moving or not.

Go to the post ' secrets EP didnt want you to see ', next to SC body there is different blood stains on the carpet , these are some of the photos Peter Sutherst the photo expert as examined . Once there is blood in two different places around the body the case against JB collapses !

They could be splatter from when the bullets went into her neck though. My point is that I'm not sure if the blood was moving from the wounds, which would indicate that she was killed later than they thought at first.

Are they sure that is Sheila's blood? Could it not be June's or Neville's?

[Kaldin]

You are missing the point the blood on the carpet around SC is different in both photos , zoom in on the blood , two different photos two lots of different blood drops.

I don't see that. The first photo is too dark for me to see much anyway, but the little bit I can see looks pretty much the same as the second photo.

[mike tesko]

Essex police carried out an investigation to find out why there appeared to be five (5) additional bullets which had been fired during the incident, since there were only 20 missing from the new box of ammunition which had been opened up by Jeremy on the previous evening (6th August 1985) in the kitchen. EP got a report from the ballistic expert, who confirmed that 20 of the crime scene bullet cases, only had one set of magazine markings upon them, and that the other five, all had double magazine markings upon them - which was consistent with these five (5) bullets having been loaded into the gun at some stage, being removed, and replaced again, before being fired...

EP satisfied themselves, that the five (5) bullets with the double magazine markings upon them, had already been inside the guns ammunition magazine, prior to Jeremy filling it up with additional new bullets on the evening of 6th August 1985. EP knew that the five bullets with the double magazine marks found on them, were already in the gun, before new bullets were put in - all the new bullets loaded into the gun only had one set of magazine markings upon them..

EP spoke to Jeremy about where the additional five bullets had originated from, and Jeremy told the police they were already in the gun before he put new bullets in...

Jeremy told the police that he had taken a new box of 50 .22 bullets, from the gun cupboard on the evening of the 6th August 1985, and removed the wrapping from the box, and that he loaded the ammunition magazine up, until it was fully loaded. The police found the wrapping which Jeremy told them he had removed from the new box of ammunition, on the kitchen worktop, when they examined the scene in the kitchen, and so EP were satisfied with Jeremy's explanation that he took bullets out of a new box of 50...

EP, nor the DPP, have ever challenged this as part of their case, and so I am afraid the facts regarding this are there for all to see, twenty new bullets missing from new box of ammunition, and twenty bullets which only had one lot of magazine marks upon them, and an additional five bullets which were already in the gun, and the existence of five double magazine marked bullets found at the scene - you do not need to be an Essex police detective (1985) to be able to work out the logistics relating to the implications of this...

The FACTS are there for all to see, EP and the DPP do not dispute this, and neither does Jeremy, or his legal team, or me, or anyone else, other than someone who might simply be out to cause some mischief, just for the sake of causing it...

[Kaldin]

Right - so Jeremy said he had opened a new box of ammunition. Thanks for that.  :D

Now I'll read the rest of your post. 

[mike tesko]

Right - so Jeremy said he had opened a new box of ammunition. Thanks for that.  :D

Now I'll read the rest of your post. 

------------------------------------------

EP were satisfied that Jeremy had opened up a new box of 50 new bullets, on evening of 6th August 1985, because they only found 30 bullets on the kitchen worktop; 29 loose ones tipped out onto the worktop, and a solitary bullet, still in the ammunition box, along with the plastic wrapper next to the ammunition on the kitchen worktop, and that 25 bullets had been fired during the incident - since a new box of ammunition only contained 50 bullets, and twenty were missing, EP knew that five additional bullets used in the shootings originated from some other source, and they accepted that there must have been, and was, five bullets already in the gun before Jeremy started to load new bullets in from the new box of ammunition on the evening of 6th August 1985...

EP did not only accept Jeremy's word for it, they had hard facts to back up what he told them...

These five bullets which were already in the ammunition magazine, had all previously been loaded into the ammunition magazine, and removed, and been replaced, as a result of non use of the loaded rifle on a previous occasion, when the weapon may have been taken out with a view to shoot vermin around the farm, or a spot of target shooting, and any bullets in the gun had been taken out and out to one side, until the next time, the gun was taken out with a view to using it for similar or the same reasons...

EP spoke to Jeremy at length about what would normally happen if he had taken the gun out with a view to shooting it, and he had not used it, and Jeremy told them that there was one of two things that might happen, (1) he would remove bullets from the guns ammunition magazine, or he would simply remove the magazine clip from the weapon, detaching it from the gun, so that it could not be fired, unless bullets were added back into the ammunition magazine, or the ammunition clip with the bullets in, was clipped back onto the weapon...

EP were satisfied that the five bullets which had already been preloaded into the weapons ammunition magazine, could have been loaded twice into it, and fired once from it...

Furthermore, they were also satisfied that Jeremy had loaded new bullets into the ammunition magazine, from the new box of 50...

EP had reason to suspect, or doubt that the twenty (20) new bullets taken from the new box of ammunition, had been loaded more than once into the ammunition magazine, and EP accepted that all the bullets which had single magazine marks upon them, were in fact the 20 new bullets taken out of the box, at some stage, between evening of 6th, and morning of 7th August 1985...

[Kaldin]

Right - so Jeremy said he had opened a new box of ammunition. Thanks for that.  :D

Now I'll read the rest of your post. 

------------------------------------------

EP were satisfied that Jeremy had opened up a new box of 50 new bullets, on evening of 6th August 1985, because they only found 30 bullets on the kitchen worktop; 29 loose ones tipped out onto the worktop, and a solitary bullet, still in the ammunition box, along with the plastic wrapper next to the ammunition on the kitchen worktop, and that 25 bullets had been fired during the incident - since a new box of ammunition only contained 50 bullets, and twenty were missing, EP knew that five additional bullets used in the shootings originated from some other source, and they accepted that there must have been, and was, five bullets already in the gun before Jeremy started to load new bullets in from the new box of ammunition on the evening of 6th August 1985...

EP did not only accept Jeremy's word for it, they had hard facts to back up what he told them...

Right then, so the Appeal document was wrong because it said in there that Jeremy had said he put 8 to 10 bullets in the magazine. You say he told the police he filled up the magazine. You also say that double marked bullets were found.  Why was that not looked into at the time by the defence? 

[Kaldin]

Even if one accepts that the first bullets fired were new, and that the next five were shot in a sequence:

2 in bedroom
2 in boys room
1 in kitchen

How does that indicate that Jeremy didn't do it? It makes it look haphazard of course, and it raises the question of whether or not Neville was up and down the stairs a lot, but how does that exonerate Jeremy?

I'd like to hear more about this idea that four bullets were planted in the bedroom or attributed to the bedroom. Why was that done, and where were they from? Also, is there any proof or is that just speculation because otherwise it doesn't make sense?

[mike tesko]

Right - so Jeremy said he had opened a new box of ammunition. Thanks for that.  :D

Now I'll read the rest of your post. 

------------------------------------------

EP were satisfied that Jeremy had opened up a new box of 50 new bullets, on evening of 6th August 1985, because they only found 30 bullets on the kitchen worktop; 29 loose ones tipped out onto the worktop, and a solitary bullet, still in the ammunition box, along with the plastic wrapper next to the ammunition on the kitchen worktop, and that 25 bullets had been fired during the incident - since a new box of ammunition only contained 50 bullets, and twenty were missing, EP knew that five additional bullets used in the shootings originated from some other source, and they accepted that there must have been, and was, five bullets already in the gun before Jeremy started to load new bullets in from the new box of ammunition on the evening of 6th August 1985...

EP did not only accept Jeremy's word for it, they had hard facts to back up what he told them...

Right then, so the Appeal document was wrong because it said in there that Jeremy had said he put 8 to 10 bullets in the magazine. You say he told the police he filled up the magazine. You also say that double marked bullets were found.  Why was that not looked into at the time by the defence?

-------------------------------------------------------

EP accepted what Jeremy told them, because what they found out after making inquiries, was that everything which they quizzed Jeremy about, in so far as there were already bullets in the ammunition magazine, seemed to be borne out, and was acceptable. However, EP were also mindful that there could have been six bullets already in the guns ammunition magazine, before Jeremy put new bullets in, and that one of these six old bullets, was already situated inside the breach of the weapon, making for a total of eleven bullets being in the gun, by the time Jeremy had loaded new bullets into the gun, on the evening of 6th August 1985...

Six bullets which were already in the gun, and five new ones which Jeremy put into the gun from the new box, which I have been referring to...

If there were already five old bullets in the ammunition magazine, and one old bullet in its breach, when Jeremy put five new bullets in, the gun would have had the capacity to fire eleven bullets (11)  from the first load of the gun, not ten(10) - EP were aware of this possible anomaly, but in general they accepted what Jeremy had told them, as being a truthful, and accurate answer...

[mike tesko]

Inquiries made by EP established that six double marked bullet cases, DRH/4, DRH/8, DRH/19, DRH/38, DRH/39(a) and DRH/39 (b) were found at different occasions, around the inside of the farmhouse. I have previously referred to there only having been five double marked bullet cases found at the scene, but there were in truth a total of six, where two of these double marked bullet cases were originally given the exact same exhibit reference of DRH/39 (both found in the children's bedroom), along with another double marked bullet case, bearing the exhibit reference DRH/38...

I did not seek intentionally to mislead anyone by suggesting there were only five double marked bullet cases found at the scene, since, two of these double marked bullet cases, bore the exact same bullet exhibit reference DRH/39...

In addition, one of the double marked bullet cases, namely, DRH/4, was introduced to the main bedroom scenario, along with three other single marked bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2 and DRH/3, which must have been recovered from somewhere else at the scene, and displaced to the main bedroom, so that a case could be falsely set out for Ralph to have been shot four times non fatally in the bedroom, when he was not...

[jon]

Inquiries made by EP established that six double marked bullet cases, DRH/4, DRH/8, DRH/19, DRH/38, DRH/39(a) and DRH/39 (b) were found at different occasions, around the inside of the farmhouse. I have previously referred to there only having been five double marked bullet cases found at the scene, but there were in truth a total of six, where two of these doable marked bullet cases were originally given the exact same exhibit reference of DRH/39 (both found in the children's bedroom), along with another double marked bullet case, bearing the exhibit reference DRH/38...

I did not seek intentionally to mislead anyone by suggesting there were only five double marked bullet cases found at the scene, since, two of these double marked bullet cases bore the exact same bullet exhibit reference DRH/39...

Do you have an opinion why ?

[mike tesko]

Inquiries made by EP established that six double marked bullet cases, DRH/4, DRH/8, DRH/19, DRH/38, DRH/39(a) and DRH/39 (b) were found at different occasions, around the inside of the farmhouse. I have previously referred to there only having been five double marked bullet cases found at the scene, but there were in truth a total of six, where two of these doable marked bullet cases were originally given the exact same exhibit reference of DRH/39 (both found in the children's bedroom), along with another double marked bullet case, bearing the exhibit reference DRH/38...

I did not seek intentionally to mislead anyone by suggesting there were only five double marked bullet cases found at the scene, since, two of these double marked bullet cases bore the exact same bullet exhibit reference DRH/39...

Do you have an opinion why ?

---------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but before I offer such an opinion, I would like to provide for everyone, diagrams which were drawn up by the police, which purport to show exactly where each of the bullet cases found in the main bedroom, children's bedroom, and kitchen were allegedly found, including the location for the six double marked bullet cases, (DRH/4, DRH/8, DRH/19, DRH/38, DRH/39(a) and DRH/39 (b)), I have been speaking about...

Please click on images to enlarge...

[Kaldin]

Right - so Jeremy said he had opened a new box of ammunition. Thanks for that.  :D

Now I'll read the rest of your post. 

------------------------------------------

EP were satisfied that Jeremy had opened up a new box of 50 new bullets, on evening of 6th August 1985, because they only found 30 bullets on the kitchen worktop; 29 loose ones tipped out onto the worktop, and a solitary bullet, still in the ammunition box, along with the plastic wrapper next to the ammunition on the kitchen worktop, and that 25 bullets had been fired during the incident - since a new box of ammunition only contained 50 bullets, and twenty were missing, EP knew that five additional bullets used in the shootings originated from some other source, and they accepted that there must have been, and was, five bullets already in the gun before Jeremy started to load new bullets in from the new box of ammunition on the evening of 6th August 1985...

EP did not only accept Jeremy's word for it, they had hard facts to back up what he told them...

Right then, so the Appeal document was wrong because it said in there that Jeremy had said he put 8 to 10 bullets in the magazine. You say he told the police he filled up the magazine. You also say that double marked bullets were found.  Why was that not looked into at the time by the defence?

-------------------------------------------------------

EP accepted what Jeremy told them, because what they found out after making inquiries, was that everything which they quizzed Jeremy about, in so far as there were already bullets in the ammunition magazine, seemed to be borne out, and was acceptable. However, EP were also mindful that there could have been six bullets already in the guns ammunition magazine, before Jeremy put new bullets in, and that one of these six old bullets, was already situated inside the breach of the weapon, making for a total of eleven bullets being in the gun, by the time Jeremy had loaded new bullets into the gun, on the evening of 6th August 1985...

Six bullets which were already in the gun, and five new ones which Jeremy put into the gun from the new box, which I have been referring to...

If there were already five old bullets in the ammunition magazine, and one old bullet in its breach, when Jeremy put five new bullets in, the gun would have had the capacity to fire eleven bullets (11)  from the first load of the gun, not ten(10) - EP were aware of this possible anomaly, but in general they accepted what Jeremy had told them, as being a truthful, and accurate answer...

But that wasn't what Jeremy told them, not according to the Appeal document anyway. According to that, he told them that he loaded 8 to 10 bullets, and he didn't mention any bullets being already in there. Anyway, what did he tell his defence lawyers?