Trial Transcript from Examination of Dr. Peter Vanezis

[guest29835]

'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.

Not really.  She could (and I think, should) have had June's blood all over her.  Or are you saying she just left her mother to die and didn't help or comfort her?  I know she didn't necessarily like June, but isn't that a bit much?  At the least, wouldn't the instinctive thing be to rush to help her, getting all her blood on her in the process?  Maybe that explains the palm print on the night dress?

But OK, maybe Carol Ann Lee's guesswork is wrong and she went to the twins' room instead.  If so, why didn't she stay with the twins, even if she realised they were dead?  Why didn't she hide?  Why didn't she run around in circles and scream and shout and shake it all about?  Why is she naked under that nightdress, with no bra and knickers?  Yet at the same time, she went straight into the melee?

Adam, like you I suspect Jeremy is guilty, but it doesn't stack up and, allowing for oddities and inconsistencies that always arise, the 'overall narrative' needs to stack up.

Besides which the CT say there was blood on Sheila's feet.

You can't have it both ways, Adam. The evidence is the evidence.  I don't have an agenda here, but if a man after 35 years in a close confinement prison is still protesting his innocence, then we have to test the evidence, don't we?  It's only fair.

Also, maybe he's done his time now?  Even if he is guilty, maybe we should accept that he's lost his life and allow him some freedom in his last years, as a gesture of magnanimity?

I'm not responsible for what Jeremy Bamber himself or his Campaign Team say about the finer points of evidence, and if Jeremy really is innocent, he won't know any more than you or me.  If anything, he'll have even less of a clue.

[guest29835]

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

Are you waiting for me to disagree?

[Adam]

Not really.  She could (and I think, should) have had June's blood all over her.  Or are you saying she just left her mother to die and didn't help or comfort her?  I know she didn't necessarily like June, but isn't that a bit much?  At the least, wouldn't the instinctive thing be to rush to help her, getting all her blood on her in the process?  Maybe that explains the palm print on the night dress?

But OK, maybe Carol Ann Lee's guesswork is wrong and she went to the twins' room instead.  If so, why didn't she stay with the twins, even if she realised they were dead?  Why didn't she hide?  Why didn't she run around in circles and scream and shout and shake it all about?  Why is she naked under that nightdress, with no bra and knickers?  Yet at the same time, she went straight into the melee?

Adam, like you I suspect Jeremy is guilty, but it doesn't stack up and, allowing for oddities and inconsistencies that always arise, the 'overall narrative' needs to stack up.

You can't have it both ways, Adam. The evidence is the evidence.  I don't have an agenda here, but if a man after 35 years in a close confinement prison is still protesting his innocence, then we have to test the evidence, don't we?  It's only fair.

Also, maybe he's done his time now?  Even if he is guilty, maybe we should accept that he's lost his life and allow him some freedom in his last years, as a gesture of magnanimity?

I'm not responsible for what Jeremy Bamber himself or his Campaign Team say about the finer points of evidence, and if Jeremy really is innocent, he won't know any more than you or me.  If anything, he'll have even less of a clue.

Now blood all over Sheila.

Don't need it both ways. But if supporters want to say Sheila's foot had blood on. It just means she walked near June.

[Steve_uk]

OK, but what about on the landing?  Was there blood on the landing between the master bedroom and the second bedroom?

There was a trace amount of June's blood on the landing outside Sheila's bedroom if I recall correctly, but this may have been transfer from one of the Raid Team.

[Steve_uk]

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.

Sorry but this is all nonsense.

[Adam]

Bamber's plan was to kill Nevill, June, Daniel & Nicholas with a minimum of noise.  Then go to a still sleeping Sheila.

Sheila would then be shot either in bed or after he moved her.

This is what most likely happened.

[guest29835]

Sorry but this is all nonsense.

Were you there? No, you weren't.  Sorry but I disagree!  And I'm entitled to form my own view.  You're not judge and jury.  It's all opinions.  It serves your purposes and your narrative that he is some sort of cardboard cut-out greedy psychopath.  I reject that view on the facts.  I think this whole thing is much more complex.

Thank you.

[guest29835]

Bamber's plan was to kill Nevill, June, Daniel & Nicholas with a minimum of noise.  Then go to a still sleeping Sheila.

Sheila would then be shot either in bed or after he moved her.

This is what most likely happened.

Thank you for reiterating your opinion.

[guest29835]

There was a trace amount of June's blood on the landing outside Sheila's bedroom if I recall correctly, but this may have been transfer from one of the Raid Team.

That is helpful, thank you.  I will have to go back and look over the statements, etc.

[Steve_uk]

Were you there? No, you weren't.  Sorry but I disagree!  And I'm entitled to form my own view.  You're not judge and jury.  It's all opinions.  It serves your purposes and your narrative that he is some sort of cardboard cut-out greedy psychopath.  I reject that view on the facts.  I think this whole thing is much more complex.

Thank you.

You don't know or haven't read any of the interactions between the dramatis personae in this story. How on earth was Sheila shot in her own bedroom when there was no blood whatsoever found there? How did Jeremy manage to control five individuals if this was a spur of the moment crime? How did he overestimate the lethality of the rifle when 25 shots were fired? Why would Jeremy want Sheila to wander into the twins' room?

It's all complete nonsense.

[guest29835]

You don't know or haven't read any of the interactions between the dramatis personae in this story. How on earth was Sheila shot in her own bedroom when there was no blood whatsoever found there? How did Jeremy manage to control five individuals if this was a spur of the moment crime? How did he overestimate the lethality of the rifle when 25 shots were fired? Why would Jeremy want Sheila to wander into the twins' room?

It's all complete nonsense.

All of this has been explained above, and further explanations could be provided if you would be polite and civil and ask.  You need to appreciate that I have been studying this case for years, so I have my own take on it, just like you do.

I am sorry but I will not engage with somebody who is rude.  I think attacking other people's opinions as "nonsense" is rude and is not conducive to harmony on a discussion forum.  It also suggests defensiveness or that you are worried about something I have raised.  I sense from looking back through your posts that you have some sort of emotional investment in this case and you struggle to discuss things without launching into personal remarks.  Even the owner of this Forum has called you "annoying".

Therefore, I would prefer not to engage with you, as I sense you are trying to drag me into a row.  I may be wrong and completely overreacting, but that's the gut sense I have about you.

In any event, I have already tackled the points above.

Thank you.

[Steve_uk]

All of this has been explained above, and further explanations could be provided if you would be polite and civil and ask.  You need to appreciate that I have been studying this case for years, so I have my own take on it, just like you do.

I am sorry but I will not engage with somebody who is rude.  I think attacking other people's opinions as "nonsense" is rude and is not conducive to harmony on a discussion forum.  It also suggests defensiveness or that you are worried about something I have raised.  I sense from looking back through your posts that you have some sort of emotional investment in this case and you struggle to discuss things without launching into personal remarks.  Even the owner of this Forum has called you "annoying".

Therefore, I would prefer not to engage with you, as I sense you are trying to drag me into a row.  I may be wrong and completely overreacting, but that's the gut sense I have about you.

In any event, I have already tackled the points above.

Thank you.

Please yourself. There is no hidden agenda.

[guest29835]

Please yourself. There is no hidden agenda. But maybe for the benefit of members at large you may wish to introduce yourself in the Foyer, as was once obligatory though these days the formality seems to have been too often overlooked.

If you don't have a hidden agenda, then that makes it worse, as it means there's no excuse.  If you were a relative or family member or something similar, I could understand it.

As you're rude, I'd prefer not to engage with you.

It's not over-sensitivity on my part, it's more in the interests of harmony on the Forum, and I don't want to contribute to a dismissive culture.  I think arrogant people like you should be marginalised.

I don't have the same dismissive attitude towards others and therefore I don't see why I should put up with it - and I won't.

I'd prefer that you ignore my posts from now on and I'll try to ignore yours.

Thank you.

[David1819]

If you don't have a hidden agenda, then that makes it worse, as it means there's no excuse.  If you were a relative or family member or something similar, I could understand it.

As you're rude, I'd prefer not to engage with you.

It's not over-sensitivity on my part, it's more in the interests of harmony on the Forum, and I don't want to contribute to a dismissive culture.  I think arrogant people like you should be marginalised.

I don't have the same dismissive attitude towards others and therefore I don't see why I should put up with it - and I won't.

I'd prefer that you ignore my posts from now on and I'll try to ignore yours.

Thank you.

Steve_uk has a peculiar infatuation with the prosecution witness Julie Mugford.

[lookout]

Whitehouse Farm is now known as East Coast Classic's---a place where VW's are restored and used for weddings etc. Whether the Eaton's are still there I don't know.

Just thought I'd share this little nugget in case you weren't already aware. Same place, different business.