Author Topic: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:  (Read 605 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17554
It was 7.30am in the summer. Therefore full daylight.

They are highly trained & trained to not to knock things over.

They said they didn't knock anything over.

There was no resistance in the kitchen as Bamber shot her upstairs.

There was no resistance in the kitchen according to the CT's/Bamber's own version.

Nevill was found in the kitchen with multiple horrific injuries not created by bullet shots. Suggesting there was a huge fight.

The raid team just had to walk through the kitchen on the way to go upstairs.

There was a smashed ceiling light & aga scratches. Again suggesting a kitchen fight.  The raid team would not smash ceiling lights & scratch aga's.

The 2002 COA dismissed the suggestion the police disturbed the kitchen crime scene.

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

Hopefully the rather lame claim that the police disturbed the crime scene will no longer be made.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 09:56:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17554
Re: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2017, 10:34:AM »
Hopefully there will be some good discussion on this.

It was briefly discussed by me & Jan yesterday & the allegation has been made before.

I've never believed the police knocked anything over prior to the crime scene photo's being taken.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 10:56:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2017, 11:31:AM »
It was 7.30am in the summer. Therefore full daylight.

They are highly trained & trained to not to knock things over.

They said they didn't knock anything over.

There was no resistance in the kitchen as Bamber shot her upstairs.

There was no resistance in the kitchen according to the CT's/Bamber's own version.

Nevill was found in the kitchen with multiple horrific injuries not created by bullet shots. Suggesting there was a huge fight.

The raid team just had to walk through the kitchen on the way to go upstairs.

There was a smashed ceiling light & aga scratches. Again suggesting a kitchen fight.  The raid team would not smash ceiling lights & scratch aga's.

The 2002 COA dismissed the suggestion the police disturbed the kitchen crime scene.

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

Hopefully the rather lame claim that the police disturbed the crime scene will no longer be made.

Huge fight but jb didn't have a mark on him. I suppose your going to say he was dressed in a wetsuit or something that would have stopped any marks but that is just pure rubbish . If jb had a huge fight with Neville he would have marks the same as Shiela would of done. So maybe there was no huge fight eh

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17554
Re: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2017, 11:39:AM »
I forgot to mention Nevill's watch. Which I understand was in the kitchen & damaged.

Nevill's arms had several bruises, probably defence bruises which must be when the watch fell off his arm.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17554
Re: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2017, 11:44:AM »
Huge fight but jb didn't have a mark on him. I suppose your going to say he was dressed in a wetsuit or something that would have stopped any marks but that is just pure rubbish . If jb had a huge fight with Neville he would have marks the same as Shiela would of done. So maybe there was no huge fight eh

A recent thread was created on the advantages Bamber had over Sheila in the kitchen fight.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17554
Re: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2017, 12:13:PM »
Bamber's massacre clothes may have had damage,  blood & oil on them. And certainly gun shot residue on. He had a month to dispose them.

Sheila's nightdress was totally unmarked. Supporters seem to be in divided on this. Susan & Lookout believing Sheila committed the massacre naked or just in underwear she then took off.  While David's 3D diagrams have Sheila committing  massacre in the nightdress she was found in.

Sheila not wearing a nightdress during the 4x murder obviously means she had even less protection to potential injuries. However the pathologist said she had no injuries.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 12:14:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:
« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2017, 12:54:PM »
its all covered in the appeal basically some officers admitted the raid team did it and others said they did not. Take your pick .

Nothing else on the table broken though .



249. We have considered the potential impact that Action 94 might have had on the jury. We think it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that the jury might have been persuaded by it that there had not been a violent struggle in the kitchen. Even if one discounts the evidence of the overturned stools and chairs and the broken sugar bowl, there was sufficient other evidence to suggest a violent struggle. Mr Bamber's body lay across an overturned chair that can have had nothing to do with the actions of the TFG, the light fitting was broken, there were the injuries apart from the shot wounds to Mr Bamber, there was the piece broken off the rifle stock, there were score marks under the mantelpiece where it had been struck by the sound moderator attached to the rifle, and there was Mr Bamber's watch lying damaged under a rug on the other side of the room.

250. DI Cook's comments on the Action 94 are unsatisfactory in themselves. The words "There was no sugar on the floor it was all confined to an area under the table and if it was, officers would have been walking in the same. Sugar was later found because the table was moved and sugar swept around" are in themselves potentially contradictory depending upon how they are read. It should not be forgotten that DI Cook was one of the officers who had supported the murder/suicide conclusion and that at the date of Action 94, different officers had taken over responsibility for the inquiry and concluded that the original investigation had missed significant evidence. In such circumstances DI Cook had every motive to seek to support his original view by reading into matters that had been reported to him more than was the reality of the situation.






Report to moderator    Logged

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...



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





Offline mike tesko
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
 
Posts: 38503
View Profile
 Email
 Personal Message (Offline)
 




 

Re: 2002 appeal judgement...

« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2013, 10:47:PM »


Quote

 

251. We find that there is nothing in the hearsay comments recorded in the Action 94 that even if they could have been introduced into evidence could realistically have been thought to lead to a conclusion other than that there had been a violent struggle in the kitchen.

252. Looking at the Ainsley Reports, we consider that the comment "there is of necessity a certain amount of disturbance" was entirely in accord with the evidence of the TFG officers. A sledgehammer was taken to a door, a window opened, a door unlocked, a chair moved, stools moved, a cellar door forced, a window unlocked and the door opposite the children's room forced. We reject the submission that Ainsley's reports in any way support the appellant's submission that the firearms officers "knocked over the chairs, stools, and a sugar bowl".

253. As to the Essex Police Report, we can find no evidential support for the hearsay suggestion that "It is now believed the stools were possibly knocked over by members of the TFG". By the time of that inquiry, there must have been a number of officers who had every motive to down play the failure to spot important factors in the early stage of the inquiry and the situation was such that just such a proposition might very well be floated. However there is nothing to cause us to believe that it originated from anyone who could give first hand information about the matter.

254. As already explained Ann Eaton's recollection years after the event of what she had been told cannot be factually right whether or not she correctly recalled that which she was told.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17554
Re: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2017, 01:09:PM »
You forgot to post this section of the COA.

DCI Cook - ". We have been supplied with statements from every member of the firearms team all of whom positively assert that save for moving two stools they moved nothing and disturbed nothing upon entering the kitchen".


239. We have considered with great care the statements of PC Collins and PC Delgado who must have been the two officers who entered first at about 7.30 a.m. on the 7 August. PC Collins in a statement of the same date describes forcing an entry into the house and seeing the body of a male person positioned over an upturned chair, which balanced against a cupboard. Having described that person and concluding that he was dead he said:

"On looking around the kitchen I saw upturned chairs and stools and broken crockery on the floor, and on the floor on the far side of the room there were small spots of what appeared to be blood. It appeared that a violent struggle had taken place within this room".

241. On 30 September PC Collins made a second statement in which he said:

"I moved two kitchen stools which were laying down near to the hallway entrance. I moved these stools about 2 or 3 feet but left them in a similar position as they were found.

« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 01:09:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12801
Re: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2017, 01:09:PM »
Huge fight but jb didn't have a mark on him. I suppose your going to say he was dressed in a wetsuit or something that would have stopped any marks but that is just pure rubbish . If jb had a huge fight with Neville he would have marks the same as Shiela would of done. So maybe there was no huge fight eh
Or maybe Sheila was marked, scratched, scraped, bruised and cut.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17554
Re: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2017, 01:14:PM »
its all covered in the appeal basically some officers admitted the raid team did it and others said they did not. Take your pick .

Nothing else on the table broken though .



249. We have considered the potential impact that Action 94 might have had on the jury. We think it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that the jury might have been persuaded by it that there had not been a violent struggle in the kitchen. Even if one discounts the evidence of the overturned stools and chairs and the broken sugar bowl, there was sufficient other evidence to suggest a violent struggle. Mr Bamber's body lay across an overturned chair that can have had nothing to do with the actions of the TFG, the light fitting was broken, there were the injuries apart from the shot wounds to Mr Bamber, there was the piece broken off the rifle stock, there were score marks under the mantelpiece where it had been struck by the sound moderator attached to the rifle, and there was Mr Bamber's watch lying damaged under a rug on the other side of the room.

250. DI Cook's comments on the Action 94 are unsatisfactory in themselves. The words "There was no sugar on the floor it was all confined to an area under the table and if it was, officers would have been walking in the same. Sugar was later found because the table was moved and sugar swept around" are in themselves potentially contradictory depending upon how they are read. It should not be forgotten that DI Cook was one of the officers who had supported the murder/suicide conclusion and that at the date of Action 94, different officers had taken over responsibility for the inquiry and concluded that the original investigation had missed significant evidence. In such circumstances DI Cook had every motive to seek to support his original view by reading into matters that had been reported to him more than was the reality of the situation.






Report to moderator    Logged

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...



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





Offline mike tesko
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
 
Posts: 38503
View Profile
 Email
 Personal Message (Offline)
 




 

Re: 2002 appeal judgement...

« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2013, 10:47:PM »


Quote

 

251. We find that there is nothing in the hearsay comments recorded in the Action 94 that even if they could have been introduced into evidence could realistically have been thought to lead to a conclusion other than that there had been a violent struggle in the kitchen.

252. Looking at the Ainsley Reports, we consider that the comment "there is of necessity a certain amount of disturbance" was entirely in accord with the evidence of the TFG officers. A sledgehammer was taken to a door, a window opened, a door unlocked, a chair moved, stools moved, a cellar door forced, a window unlocked and the door opposite the children's room forced. We reject the submission that Ainsley's reports in any way support the appellant's submission that the firearms officers "knocked over the chairs, stools, and a sugar bowl".

253. As to the Essex Police Report, we can find no evidential support for the hearsay suggestion that "It is now believed the stools were possibly knocked over by members of the TFG". By the time of that inquiry, there must have been a number of officers who had every motive to down play the failure to spot important factors in the early stage of the inquiry and the situation was such that just such a proposition might very well be floated. However there is nothing to cause us to believe that it originated from anyone who could give first hand information about the matter.

254. As already explained Ann Eaton's recollection years after the event of what she had been told cannot be factually right whether or not she correctly recalled that which she was told.

It is also another point that the rifle stock broke. Again suggesting a huge kitchen fight.

Point 252 which you underlined just states what is already known - the door was knocked down, a window opened, another door opened & upturned stools moved three feet.

Do you believe there was a huge kitchen fight ?
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 01:18:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15654
Re: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2017, 02:14:PM »
Bamber's massacre clothes may have had damage,  blood & oil on them. And certainly gun shot residue on. He had a month to dispose them.

Sheila's nightdress was totally unmarked. Supporters seem to be in divided on this. Susan & Lookout believing Sheila committed the massacre naked or just in underwear she then took off.  While David's 3D diagrams have Sheila committing  massacre in the nightdress she was found in.

Sheila not wearing a nightdress during the 4x murder obviously means she had even less protection to potential injuries. However the pathologist said she had no injuries.

Adam please stick to the facts I have NEVER said I thought Sheila killed her family either naked or in her underclothes I did say I thought she had changed her clothes

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17554
Re: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2017, 02:16:PM »
Adam please stick to the facts I have NEVER said I thought Sheila killed her family either naked or in her underclothes I did say I thought she had changed her clothes

So what did she commit the massacre in ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15654
Re: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2017, 02:18:PM »
Huge fight but jb didn't have a mark on him. I suppose your going to say he was dressed in a wetsuit or something that would have stopped any marks but that is just pure rubbish . If jb had a huge fight with Neville he would have marks the same as Shiela would of done. So maybe there was no huge fight eh

Notsure if Jeremy had marks anywhere on his body Julie would have mentioned it I am sure.  We have been told by an excellent poster that Sheila had numerous marks on her being and we did see grazes and scratches on her hand well I and some others did too.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12801
Re: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2017, 02:20:PM »
So what did she commit the massacre in ?
Like Susan I cannot believe Sheila would have carried out the murders naked anymore than JB would have worn a wetsuit. Both are flights of fancy with nothing to back either theory up.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15654
Re: Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:
« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2017, 02:25:PM »
So what did she commit the massacre in ?

Adam none of us mortal beings knows if some of Sheila's clothes were removed from the crime scene or indeed maybe more evidence on her nightie that is being denied to us I have no source and neither have you keep an open mind like I do.