Author Topic: Guardian 21/9/18  (Read 1341 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47385
Re: Guardian 21/9/18
« Reply #45 on: September 24, 2018, 08:02:AM »
It is yet to be officially verified, but the mystery weapon belonged to the police!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47385
Re: Guardian 21/9/18
« Reply #46 on: September 24, 2018, 08:09:AM »
It is yet to be officially verified, but the mystery weapon belonged to the police!

It was never returned to the farmhouse...

It was subsequently returned to the force armoury along with the mystery weapon it had been attached to...

A record at the armoury confirms that one bullet had been discharged from the mystery rifle during the firearm operation conducted at whf (7th August 1985)..
« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 08:10:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47385
Re: Guardian 21/9/18
« Reply #47 on: September 24, 2018, 08:14:AM »
David Boutflour found the 1st Silencer at the scene on 10th August 1985, which had the exhibit references, 'SJ/1' and 'DB/1', it was provisionally examined at the Lab' on 13th August 1985, returned to police that same day so that it could be fingerprinted, and returned to the Lab' on 30th August 1985..
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47385
Re: Guardian 21/9/18
« Reply #48 on: September 24, 2018, 08:22:AM »
David Boutflour found the 1st Silencer at the scene on 10th August 1985, which had the exhibit references, 'SJ/1' and 'DB/1', it was provisionally examined at the Lab' on 13th August 1985, returned to police that same day so that it could be fingerprinted, and returned to the Lab' on 30th August 1985..

This was the same silencer which Cook exposed to super glue treatment on the 23rd August 1985, and the same silencer that Cook had dismantled and rebuilt on the 29th August 1985...

If there had been any blood at all on any of the baffle plates that Cook removed and separated, he would have been the person credited with discovering it. When Cook dismantled the silencer it suddenly dawned on him that the baffle plates were coated in super glue residue. He knew that it was a scientific fact that super glue fumes were harmful and damaging to blood if exposed to its effects...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline IndigoJ

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
Re: Guardian 21/9/18
« Reply #49 on: September 30, 2018, 09:26:AM »
How did the Guardian see the " confidential report" ?

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47385
Re: Guardian 21/9/18
« Reply #50 on: September 30, 2018, 09:55:AM »
How did the Guardian see the " confidential report" ?

It's contents must have been leaked..
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline IndigoJ

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
Re: Guardian 21/9/18
« Reply #51 on: September 30, 2018, 11:34:AM »
It's contents must have been leaked..

yes  , but by whom?

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47385
Re: Guardian 21/9/18
« Reply #52 on: September 30, 2018, 02:55:PM »
yes  , but by whom?

At the moment, I do not profess to know, all I know is as much as you in this matter, but no doubt we will all find out in the long run, the truth always eventually surfaces!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10571
Re: Guardian 21/9/18
« Reply #53 on: September 30, 2018, 03:16:PM »
How did the Guardian see the "confidential report" ?

The authors of the article will have been allowed to see it, probably with the proviso that not all is revealed in the subsequent piece. 

Offline IndigoJ

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
Re: Guardian 21/9/18
« Reply #54 on: October 01, 2018, 07:03:PM »
I’ve just listened to Jeremy’s interview in 2011 with the guardian , I have to say he is pretty convincing !

Offline Nickos

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
  • R.I. 90
Re: Guardian 21/9/18
« Reply #55 on: October 02, 2018, 01:35:PM »
See point 14) that I have been highlighting for some time now  ::)

# Case for Conviction


1)   Jeremy Bamber was the last living person to see them all alive - making him a prime suspect (EP were clearly duped by JB’s set up that night).

2)   JB had the MEANS (Semi auto .22 Anschutz Rifle / Bullets), MOTIVE (Greed) and OPPORTUNITY (All members of the relevant family were under one roof that night).

3)   Bambers story about leaving the gun out with a full magazine the night before is simply staging the scene to set up Sheila (why would you load the magazine to full if you were just taking pot shots at rabbits that would flee on the first /second shot).

4)   There was no call from Bambers father at c. 3am on the morning of the 7 August 1985. Bamber is attempting to use this story to create an alibi. Why would a fairly heathy 6’ 4’’ farmer call his son (3 miles away) at c. 3 am in the morning asking him to help when Nevill, if not shot, could have dealt with Sheila himself, or if shot, the priority would be to tackle the shooter head on or flee! Nevill would not have left his loved ones, being under threat, to make a call on a fixed land line, with a slow revolving dial, to someone who may not answer the phone (after a previous long day working in the fields) if there was a crazed person threatening the family with a loaded gun. There is no proof a call was made by Nevill Bamber to Jeremy or the police, and there never will be as the alleged call to Jeremy was never made!

5)   The head shots are a giveaway. The shots are effectively execution style and even though Nevill was moving around the house not one of the 25 shots fired missed its target.
 
6)   The fight between Nevill and his attacker points to Nevills assailant being a person of good physical strength.

7)   No gun shot residue found on Sheila’s hands

8)   After the murders Jeremy’s attitude and demeanor was strange to say the least.
 
9)   Loading the magazine a further two times would have been difficult for a person gone berserk, but not so for a more calculated killer.

10)    Sheila having two gunshot wounds to the neck? If Sheila was so efficient at killing the other 4 with gunshots to the head why would she then shoot herself in the neck so inefficiently that she had to shoot herself again!

11)    Why were the telescopic sights (which are difficult to align) removed (by JB?) from the gun just prior to the murders. This was so that the gun was easier to handle in the confined space of the house, and who needs telescopic sights when shooting at near point blank range.

12)    There is reference to the house on the ground floor being all locked up from the inside; however bedroom windows on the first floor were open. The whole house was therefore not totally secure. The downstairs window allegedly used by JB and banged shut by JB exiting WHF is quite feasible.
 
13)    There is still Julie Mugfords testimony for the prosecution (no matter what one thinks about her).

14)    There is the dubious silencer issue, but why did Rivlin not undermine the silencer evidence by pointing out to the jury how it had been found and tampered with by the relatives?

Book - Forensics for Dummies - copyright 2004 (USA) - Keeping the chain of custody intact - page 45

Without a continuous record showing that the evidence has been kept safe and secure from the crime scene to the lab and ultimately the courtroom, evidence may be rendered inadmissible in court. ANY defense attorney worth his or her salt would rightly question the authenticity and integrity of any evidence for which outside contamination cannot be ruled out. That’s why every person who handled the evidence must be accounted for and recorded as a link in the unbroken chain of custody, from crime scene to courtroom.

What was Rivlin playing at!!? - okay it may have been 1985/86, but it wasn’t the Middle Ages - and the above comes from a book titled …”for dummies”.

15)    JB’s defence - Rivlin not only failed to undermine the silencer issue that even a “dummy” could do, but was the first to actually coin the term “trick of the light” when cross examining Bews over the alleged movement at the farm house window, giving Bews the ability to simply agree with JB’s defence. I am not convinced that JB’s defence actually thought him innocent, and I have neither read nor seen very little from Rivlin (in a retired capacity) still supporting JB’s bid for freedom!!

Reality Check - What evidence is there to free JB? Answers on a very small postcard!

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47385
Re: Guardian 21/9/18
« Reply #56 on: October 02, 2018, 04:03:PM »
See point 14) that I have been highlighting for some time now  ::)

# Case for Conviction


1)   Jeremy Bamber was the last living person to see them all alive - making him a prime suspect (EP were clearly duped by JB’s set up that night). He didn't see the twins when he returned from working in the fields on his tractor at supper time! He wasn't the last person to talk to June Bamber or Sheila Caffell on that last evening they spent alive on this earth, Pamela Boutflour was. Insofar as Neville Bamber was concerned, the farm secretary was the last person to speak to him on the telephone that same evening...

2)   JB had the MEANS (Semi auto .22 Anschutz Rifle / Bullets), MOTIVE (Greed) and OPPORTUNITY (All members of the relevant family were under one roof that night). Except Jeremy once he left white house farm at 9.30pm, only to return again at about 3.52am on the following morning. Three police officers (Bews, Myall and Saxby) were already there by that stage. Jeremy had been home at is cottage in Head Street all night under surveillance by the drugs squad, who used a low flying aircraft 2 video the countryside around Whitehouse farm and nearby Goldhanger as part of that operation!

3)   Bambers story about leaving the gun out with a full magazine the night before is simply staging the scene to set up Sheila (why would you load the magazine to full if you were just taking pot shots at rabbits that would flee on the first /second shot). Jeremy didn't leave the gun out with a full magazine of ammunition the night before, there were only  9 X .22 bullets loaded into the magazine at that stage, according to what Jeremy told me. And his reference to leaving the rifle on the table was actually a reference to him having left the rifle on the settle (woodenbench) which was in the back hallway near the office..

4)   There was no call from Bambers father at c. 3am on the morning of the 7 August 1985. yes there was, a fact which is not yet discounted by the drug squad who had Jeremy under surveillance at the time of the shooting incident, including a round-the-clock phone tap! Bamber is attempting to use this story to create an alibi. Jeremy doesn't need to create an alibi he already has one, nobody can prove that Jeremy Bamber was at the farm at any stage between 9:30 pm. on the Tuesday evening until 3:52 am. on the following morning! Thereafter, the sighting of the silhouetted figure at the first floor main bedroom window was one of numerous events against which he was Alibi'd, other events during the course of that same morning included the fact that at 5:25 a.m. the firearms officers at the scene were engaged in 'conversation with a person' from inside the farmhouse! Additionally, the status of the Farm telephone line altered from its state of being off the hook, into becoming engaged which caused the operator to patch an ongoing call through to the control room at Chelmsford police station via the 999 emergency system! At this time an ambulance was requested to attend the farmhouse during a request from a person inside the house, who stated that a person or persons had been shot and needed urgent medical treatment! Please also do not overlook the fact, that prior to these firearms officers entering the farmhouse, that PC Collins and PC Delgado had peered through the laundry window and seen the body of a woman in the laundry. That woman was not there after the police officers forced open the Courtyard door (on WHITESIDE of the premises)! Thereafter, and once the firearms officers got into the kitchen, they reported a presence of two bodies there, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, the two deaths being described as a murder and a suicide! Neither of these two bodies were present upstairs by 8:10 a.m. when the police found a further three bodies, and declaring in total there were 5 dead victims which have been found inside the house, two bodies downstairs and three bodies upstairs! This presents Jeremy Bamber with two Alibis, proving that he could not have been responsible for killing the family as has been claimed! The woman's body that was seen in the laundry room, and the woman's body reportedly present in the kitchen (between 7.35am and 8.10am) are documented events both of which independently of one another provided Jeremy Bamber with an assured alibi. Then, by 8.44am with Sheila's body upstairs in the main bedroom positioned 'on the far side of the bed', and 'laid on top of the bed alongside the body of June Bamber' shortly after 9.05am, provide further Alibi's confirming that Jeremy Bamber could not have staged his sisters death scene as a suicide once somebody had moved her body onto the bedroom floor and placed the anschutz rifle in her possession!Why would a fairly heathy 6’ 4’’ farmer call his son (3 miles away) at c. 3 am in the morning asking him to help when Nevill, if not shot, could have dealt with Sheila himself, or if shot, the priority would be to tackle the shooter head on or flee! the probable reason why Neville Bamber decided to make a quick call to Jeremy was almost certainly because Jeremy only lived 3 miles away from the farm house, Nevill would not have left his loved ones, being under threat, to make a call on a fixed land line, with a slow revolving dial, to someone who may not answer the phone (after a previous long day working in the fields) first of all, there is no evidence to prove that the other three victims we're still alive by the time that Neville made a quick call to Jeremy, followed by the call to the police at 3:26 am. Credit where credit is due, Jeremy had tried on several occasions to phone his father back at the farm, only for him to be met with a constant engaged tone suggesting the Nevill Bamber was speaking to someone else which in all probability were the emergency services, but as it turned out Neville had phoned the police at 3:26 am. Notwithstanding this obstacle Jeremy try to phone witham police station but the phone line kept ringing out suggesting that the police who might be there were busy! This was Jeremy's first attempt to contact the police, a call which you try to make before he actually called Julie mugford at 3: 30am. During his call to Julie Mugford he told her that there was something wrong at the farm, and she told him to go back to bed! Thereafter, he looked in the telephone directory to try and find the telephone number to Chelmsford Police Station, and a 3.36am Jeremy managed to talk to the police recounting what is father had said to him, this was the second occasion that morning that Jeremy had tried to contact the police, either side of his call to Julie mugford at 3:30 am if there was a crazed person threatening the family with a loaded gun. but the evidence points to the fact that somebody who was 'crazed' had threatened the family with a loaded gun, and the only person who could have been that crazed person, was Neville Bambers daughter / Jeremy Bambers sister! It cannot Simply Be a coincidence, that the 3.26am call log made to the police mentions the fact that 'MY DAUGHTER HAS GOT HOLD OF ONE OF MY GUNS' or that she was going 'BERSERK', or that the 3.36am call log that was made to the police, that the caller on this second occasion, used different language when passing on the recorded message, 'SHEILA'S (or 'she has') GOT THE GUN, SHE HAS GONE CRAZY'.. There is no proof a call was made by Nevill Bamber to Jeremy Yes, there is..or the police I disagree.. and there never will be as the alleged call to Jeremy was never made!You can't prove that, but the drug squad can because Jeremy was under surveillance covering the period 6th and 7th August 1985! Julie Mugford had already been giving information about Jeremy's drug cultivating, drug dealings, and importation of drugs to the drug squad, she acted as an agent provocateur, for sure both prior to the shooting tragedy, and afterwards!

5)   The head shots are a giveaway. both Nevill Bamber and June Bamber had already been shot in numerous other parts of their bodies prior to the headshots being inflicted! It stands to reason that these initial shots would have considerably weakened them both, restricting their movement or the ability to escape drastically! Once that occurred, both Neville and June would have been sitting ducks, who could have been shot in the head by anybody including Nevill Bambers daughter, or Jeremy Bambers sister! The distribution of the non-fatal shots in both instances, were clearly fired in a frenzied fashion requiring very little accuracy at such a short distance between the shooter and the Victims! Insofar as the shootings of Neville and June Bamber is concerned their daughter could have been and almost certainly was the shooter! All she had to do was fire a number of shots in the direction of each parent to incapacitate them and restrict their movement! The headshots that followed required very little skill or accuracy as either parent would have quite literally been sitting ducks!The shots are effectively execution style I disagree, since at least 4 Non fatal shots well fired into various parts of Nevill Bamber spotty in a frenzied fashion. Similarly, the shooter had fired 5 non fatal shots in a frenzied fashion into various parts of June Bambers body - that's a total of 9 non fatal shots which were fired in a frenzied fashion which could not be described effectively as execution Style shots! A ratio of in total 9 non fatal shots, followed by 6 headshots..and even though Nevill was moving around the house June Bamber moved around in the main bedroom.. not one of the 25 shots fired missed its target. this may not be true, since a total of 25 spent cartridge cases were found and recovered from the scene, despite a total of 26 bullets having been fired during the shooting incident! Yet to be explained by the police, is what happened to the 26th spent cartridge case associated with the unrecovered bullet that was not recovered from the head of Nicholas Caffell during autopsy performed by pathologist Peter Vanesiz on 8th August 1985! In total there was 27 bullets involved in this police investigation, since at least one control round was unofficially test fired in the anschutz rifle post date the shooting tragedy, which was used in an exchange process involving the original PV/20 exhibit (a small piece of a badly fragmented bullet) which was replaced by a test fired whole bullet, which enabled the police to treat the shootings as a one gun crime when in fact at least two different guns were used in the shootings!
 
6)   The fight between Nevill and his attacker points to Nevills assailant being a person of good physical strength No, I'm afraid it doesn't! Let's examine what happened to Neville before the first of four fatal headshots finished him off..

The person who shot at Neville Bamber on the first four occasions, did not need to be a good shot!

Shoot at me four times, and I am considerably incapacitated...


7)   No gun shot residue found on Sheila’s hands This is not true, no tests were done at the Lab' in relation to gunshot residue being detected, or present upon either hand of Sheila Caffell - allow me to educate you, the only tests which were eventually carried out insofar as the handswabs taken from Sheila's hands, were done in order to detect the levels of 'Lead Depiosits' that were present upon her fingers! So please do not try to switch the tests that were done, and the significance of the results that were eventually obtained!

8)   After the murders Jeremy’s attitude and demeanor was strange to say the least. How do you know this to be true?
 
9)   Loading the magazine a further two times would have been difficult for a person gone berserk, but not so for a more calculated killer I believe you are wrong, because these shootings almost certainly involved at least two different rifles, with a good chance that as many as three different guns, were used in these shootings - if true, where does that / this leave your scenario?

10)    Sheila having two gunshot wounds to the neck? Good point - Let's recap the now known evidence! According to the police surgeon, Dr Craig, at 8.44am, Sheila had what appeared to be a solitary gunshot wound to her neck (at that stage)! When DS Jones and DC Clark saw Sheila's body laid on top of the bed in the main bedroom after around 9.05am, they told Ann Eaton within an hour of viewing her body there, alongside the body of June Bamber, that Sheila had only been shot once by that time! Ignoring the contents of firearm officers witness statements, the very moment there is any mention of Sheila having two bullet entry wounds to her neck, comes from the Coroner's officer, PC Wright who states that Sheila's body was seen to be laying on the main bedroom floor, with two gunshot wounds to her neck!

If Sheila was so efficient at killing the other 4 with gunshots to the head why would she then shoot herself in the neck so inefficiently that she had to shoot herself again!

11)    Why were the telescopic sights (which are difficult to align) removed (by JB?) from the gun just prior to the murders. This was so that the gun was easier to handle in the confined space of the house, and who needs telescopic sights when shooting at near point blank range.

12)    There is reference to the house on the ground floor being all locked up from the inside; however bedroom windows on the first floor were open. The whole house was therefore not totally secure. The downstairs window allegedly used by JB and banged shut by JB exiting WHF is quite feasible.
 
13)    There is still Julie Mugfords testimony for the prosecution (no matter what one thinks about her).

14)    There is the dubious silencer issue, but why did Rivlin not undermine the silencer evidence by pointing out to the jury how it had been found and tampered with by the relatives?

Book - Forensics for Dummies - copyright 2004 (USA) - Keeping the chain of custody intact - page 45

Without a continuous record showing that the evidence has been kept safe and secure from the crime scene to the lab and ultimately the courtroom, evidence may be rendered inadmissible in court. ANY defense attorney worth his or her salt would rightly question the authenticity and integrity of any evidence for which outside contamination cannot be ruled out. That’s why every person who handled the evidence must be accounted for and recorded as a link in the unbroken chain of custody, from crime scene to courtroom.

What was Rivlin playing at!!? - okay it may have been 1985/86, but it wasn’t the Middle Ages - and the above comes from a book titled …”for dummies”.

15)    JB’s defence - Rivlin not only failed to undermine the silencer issue that even a “dummy” could do, but was the first to actually coin the term “trick of the light” when cross examining Bews over the alleged movement at the farm house window, giving Bews the ability to simply agree with JB’s defence. I am not convinced that JB’s defence actually thought him innocent, and I have neither read nor seen very little from Rivlin (in a retired capacity) still supporting JB’s bid for freedom!!
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 09:30:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: Guardian 21/9/18
« Reply #57 on: October 02, 2018, 04:06:PM »
See point 14) that I have been highlighting for some time now  ::)

# Case for Conviction


1)   Jeremy Bamber was the last living person to see them all alive - making him a prime suspect (EP were clearly duped by JB’s set up that night).

2)   JB had the MEANS (Semi auto .22 Anschutz Rifle / Bullets), MOTIVE (Greed) and OPPORTUNITY (All members of the relevant family were under one roof that night).

3)   Bambers story about leaving the gun out with a full magazine the night before is simply staging the scene to set up Sheila (why would you load the magazine to full if you were just taking pot shots at rabbits that would flee on the first /second shot).

4)   There was no call from Bambers father at c. 3am on the morning of the 7 August 1985. Bamber is attempting to use this story to create an alibi. Why would a fairly heathy 6’ 4’’ farmer call his son (3 miles away) at c. 3 am in the morning asking him to help when Nevill, if not shot, could have dealt with Sheila himself, or if shot, the priority would be to tackle the shooter head on or flee! Nevill would not have left his loved ones, being under threat, to make a call on a fixed land line, with a slow revolving dial, to someone who may not answer the phone (after a previous long day working in the fields) if there was a crazed person threatening the family with a loaded gun. There is no proof a call was made by Nevill Bamber to Jeremy or the police, and there never will be as the alleged call to Jeremy was never made!

5)   The head shots are a giveaway. The shots are effectively execution style and even though Nevill was moving around the house not one of the 25 shots fired missed its target.
 
6)   The fight between Nevill and his attacker points to Nevills assailant being a person of good physical strength.

7)   No gun shot residue found on Sheila’s hands

8)   After the murders Jeremy’s attitude and demeanor was strange to say the least.
 
9)   Loading the magazine a further two times would have been difficult for a person gone berserk, but not so for a more calculated killer.

10)    Sheila having two gunshot wounds to the neck? If Sheila was so efficient at killing the other 4 with gunshots to the head why would she then shoot herself in the neck so inefficiently that she had to shoot herself again!

11)    Why were the telescopic sights (which are difficult to align) removed (by JB?) from the gun just prior to the murders. This was so that the gun was easier to handle in the confined space of the house, and who needs telescopic sights when shooting at near point blank range.

12)    There is reference to the house on the ground floor being all locked up from the inside; however bedroom windows on the first floor were open. The whole house was therefore not totally secure. The downstairs window allegedly used by JB and banged shut by JB exiting WHF is quite feasible.
 
13)    There is still Julie Mugfords testimony for the prosecution (no matter what one thinks about her).

14)    There is the dubious silencer issue, but why did Rivlin not undermine the silencer evidence by pointing out to the jury how it had been found and tampered with by the relatives?

Book - Forensics for Dummies - copyright 2004 (USA) - Keeping the chain of custody intact - page 45

Without a continuous record showing that the evidence has been kept safe and secure from the crime scene to the lab and ultimately the courtroom, evidence may be rendered inadmissible in court. ANY defense attorney worth his or her salt would rightly question the authenticity and integrity of any evidence for which outside contamination cannot be ruled out. That’s why every person who handled the evidence must be accounted for and recorded as a link in the unbroken chain of custody, from crime scene to courtroom.

What was Rivlin playing at!!? - okay it may have been 1985/86, but it wasn’t the Middle Ages - and the above comes from a book titled …”for dummies”.

15)    JB’s defence - Rivlin not only failed to undermine the silencer issue that even a “dummy” could do, but was the first to actually coin the term “trick of the light” when cross examining Bews over the alleged movement at the farm house window, giving Bews the ability to simply agree with JB’s defence. I am not convinced that JB’s defence actually thought him innocent, and I have neither read nor seen very little from Rivlin (in a retired capacity) still supporting JB’s bid for freedom!!

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10818
Re: Guardian 21/9/18
« Reply #58 on: October 02, 2018, 11:55:PM »


1) We only have Bamber's account of what transpired round the kitchen table. He told Julie post-murders he was the one who raised the issue of taking the twins away from their mother in an attempt to foment an argument. There was no indication that Sheila had turned against her family at any stage that week.

2) Nickos is correct. I very much doubt with the public expenditure cuts of the 1980s that Police were shadowing the movements of what would have been classified as small fry drugs dealing.

3) It's only Jeremy's word here. I doubt he would have left out a gun which his father would have cleared away after his nocturnal walk. Far likelier is that Jeremy hid the rifle in the barn for collection later.

4) Nevill never reached a telephone that night, which is why Jeremy removed the bedroom phone in the first place. He has no alibi whatsoever (those incriminating Julie might wonder why the plan might not have been for her to vouch for a call and remain at Bourtree Cottage that evening..the fact that she was absent gives credence to Jeremy being sole instigator of the murders).

5) The head shots are the giveaway if the perpetrator is a confused relapsing schizophrenic who never misses twenty-five times. Jeremy has to incapacitate then hurry downstairs to reload.

6) Remember Jeremy did not bargain for the fight, but cannot resist the quip that Nevill was strong for his age, the man who had dominated his son for twenty-four years yet finally received his comeuppance.


7) Not only no gun shot residue but no nails broken, no pattern of blood on the nightie suggesting any struggle or indeed sign of any physical contact with either parent that morning.


 8) He's not concerned in the slightest for any of his victims, and thinks he has made amends with Colin by offering to pay for his sons' funerals.


9) There's no evidence more than one weapon was used and indeed Jeremy himself never suggested it because all the focus was to be on the Anschutz lying on the settle which Sheila was supposed to have picked up.


10) The riskiest part of the murder plan in staging the final death went awry when the initial shot came prematurely and failed to kill outright.


11) The removal of the telescopic sights is yet another indication that the Anschutz was primed for murder.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 12:00:AM by Steve_uk »