A photograph of interest

[Bubo bubo]

I wonder what members think of this?

http://i.imgur.com/ombpV.jpg

[guest29835]

I wonder what members think of this?

http://i.imgur.com/ombpV.jpg

You believe the neck/shoulder gunshot wound was the result of the latter shot because, if I understand you right, you theorise that the police or some other third party shot Sheila.

But if you look carefully at the image, you can see that the muzzle end of the rifle is raised.  It is not in line with the neck/shoulder gunshot wound at all.  It just looks that way due to aspect distortion.

In my view, the lower shot could easily have come first.  I also think it is unlikely the angle of shot was away from the head region.  I think I know why you believe it could be.  You think Sheila was moving around, hence it makes more sense - if you theorise that way - for Sheila to have been shot at an angle away from the head region.  To me, this has to be wrong because Sheila is the only one with a firearm.  It only works if you then theorise that a police officer shot her, but given the theorised angle of shot, that would mean the police shot her while she was perambulating around.  I don't see any evidence to support this conjecture.  Why wouldn't the police report the shot and say she was armed?  What do the police have to gain by lying?  And more importantly, where is the physical evidence?

It must have been towards her head, hence the image attached is - in my view - likely to be wrong.  For me, the photograph has a different significance:

(i). Unless the aspect is misleading, Sheila could not have naturally fallen with her head under the bedside cabinet.  This means somebody has moved the body prior to that photograph having been taken.

(ii). Ismail's evidence about the shot sequence is wrong, but Vanezis' evidence is possibly correct. 

(iii). A reasonable person looking at this could form the view that the differing angles of shot support Jeremy's guilt - and initially this was one of my Ten Reasons For Believing Jeremy Is Guilty.  But I have come to the realisation that I was wrong, one reason being that I now believe Ismail's evidence at the 2002 appeal was flawed.  If you factor in Vanezis' evidence and consider everything in the round, the shot angles support reasonable doubt. 

But it is a convoluted/concatenated argument.  I outlined at length why I take the above view on a different thread.

[Rob_]

I am no expert but is that a gunshot on SC's neck or a spot of blood? If it's a gunshot then to me something is very wrong here?

[lookout]

Yes---there's only one shot.

[mike tesko]

'DS Jones' and 'DC Clark' visited the main bedroom crime scene at about 9.10 am, on the first morning of the police investigation into the five deaths before leaving 'whf' for the purpose of taking a witness statement from 'Jeremy Bamber' at his cottage [`9 Head Street']. Upon arrival of 'Ann Eaton' at that address, 'DS  Jones' told her that they [`the police'] had just come from the scene, and `he' told 'her' that 'Sheila Caffell' and 'Mrs Bamber' senior, were found dead alongside one another on top of the bed in the main bedroom and that 'a rifle was resting on the bed' in 'between both bodies' . Additionally, 'Sheila' had got 'a Bible' resting 'on top of her chest' . More astonishingly, 'DS Jones' told 'Ann Eaton' that both 'June' and 'Sheila' had 'been shot' only 'once' , each...

In one of 'DS Jones' statements, he described the sight of 'Sheila Caffell' laying on top of the bed' as though 'she was merely sleeping' soundly 'not dead'..

Earlier, 'Doctor Craig' had described seeing the body of 'Sheila Caffell' on 'the far side of the bed' in the 'main bedroom' with what appeared to be 'only a solitary shot to her neck'...

At around the same time, other senior officers [`Gibbons', and others'] who entered the main bedroom,  stated 'that' the victim, [`Sheila Caffell'] only had 'what appeared' to be 'a single bullet wound' to her neck...

Some years ago, whilst I was visiting 'Jeremy Bambers' [`Ewen Smith'] then legal representative at his 'Birmingham office', I was given an opportunity to view a full version of the 'Senior Investigating Officers photographic album', [`which had previously been under the strict control of 'ACC Peter Simpson' who kept that full version under lock and key in his office safe at 'Chelmsford Police Headquarters'] which contained crime scene photograph's previously never disclosed or seen by' Bamber' and 'his defence', or for that matter, unseen by the jury!  Albeit, I only had a very brief glance 'at some of the photographs' that the police took in the main bedroom, and other rooms of the farmhouse, where bodies of victims had allegedly been found by the firearm officers when they entered the premises at around 7.30am, 'thereafter' on that same morning.  'Some of the photographs the police took, were' shocking' and 'disgusting' - police officers were being photographed next to the dead bodies of the victims. The were 'using the bodies of the three adult victims' like 'props in a theatre production'. Amongst some of the ma y crime scene photograph's were several photo's of each of the three adult victims with parts of their private anatomy exposed whilst those involved took turns at having their photographs taken with the deceased adults beside, or next to them..

One such crime scene photograph which caught my attention showed 'Sheila Caffell' laying 'on the far side of the bed' in the 'main bedroom'. The photographer who had taken this particular photograph must have been stood at the foot of the bed facing it. 'Sheilas' body was laid on the left hand side of the bed [`as viewed by whoever took that photograph']. 'she' was laid on top of the quilt on the bed, her 'head resting on the pillow'. 'She' was wearing 'a light blue coloured nightie', the 'hem of which' had been 'raised up' , so that 'you could see her intimate private area'. 'She`wasn't wearing any' underwear'.. At the time this particular photograph was taken, there only 'a single bullet entry wound to her neck'. There wasn't the large triangular shaped bloodstains in the region of 'her' right Shoulder and armpit! There were  'no bloodied finger marks' on the front, lower, 'right hand side of her blue coloured nightie'. There was 'no gun' or 'a rifle on her body' , or 'beside it'. There was 'no bible' resting 'on her chest' or 'nearby'. I instinctively removed this photograph from its plastic sleeve of the album it was contained in, and concealed it in my rucksack, intending to break the news to 'Jeremy' who was due to speak with me later that evening over the telephone...

[mike tesko]

I instinctively took the photograph never intending to deprive anyone of access to it! I intended to give it to 'Jeremy' on our next 'McKensie man' visit, believing that it proved conclusively that ' Jeremy' did not shoot his sister twice, it was as clear as day that the police must have shot her, on that second occasion ('at the very Least'). The rest is historically documented mentioned elsewhere on 'another thread of the forum'..

[mike tesko]

When I spoke to Jeremy later that evening, and told him what I had seen earlier in the day, and that I had seized one crime scene photograph show g Sheila on her parents bed, with only one bullet wound to her neck, no rifle on her body, no bible on her chest, 'he' told me to send it into him, under the rule 37a protocol whereby  a prisoners correspondence between a 'McKensie man' and himself, prison security were not allowed to open it and read the contents, because it could be important information that coukd be used to appeal any conviction and sentences he or she might be serving. So, the next day I wrote a quick message on a piece of A4 paper explaining about the enclosed photograph, and put the message and the photograph in an envelope, which I addressed it to 'Jeremy' at 'HMP Full Sutton' making sure that at the top of the front of the envelope, and also on its reverse side, 'Rule 37A..

A couple of days later I got a telephone call from Jeremy, he was fuming because prison security had intercepted the photograph with my explanation about it. They told him the letter and its contents would be kept on his Home Office File, and that any further correspondence between 'Jeremy' and his new legal representative [`Giivani De Stefano'] relying on the 'Rule 37A' fer. S would no longer apply...

I didn't even know that 'Jeremy' had hired a new solicitor, I thought that I was the only one trying to help him, because 'Ewen Smith' had apied for a position with the CCRC as a Commissioner!

[mike tesko]

Police shot 'Sheila Caffell' during a training exercise with the bodies of victims[`informatives'] placed in different positions, the 'shooting incident' was 'covered up by Essex police', who were keen to present the investigation into the five deaths, as a case of 'four murders' , and 'a suicide'..

[mike tesko]

The second shot inflicted into the neck of 'Sheila Caffell' occurred after the firearms officers brought the operation to a conclusion at 8.10am, with confirmation that five dead bodies had been found and located in different rooms downstairs and upstairs inside the farmhouse. 'Jeremy Bamber', ckukd not have 'shot his sister twice' before staging her body to try to convince the police that 'Sheila' had 'shot and killed' the 'other four victims' before shooting herself dead by way of an act of suicide!

It must also be the case, that when the rifle discharged the second shot into 'Sheila Caffells' neck', whether or not there was a silencer, 'attached on the end of the guns barrel' when things 'started to go pear shaped'. With this in mind, Essex police knew whether or not 'a Silencer' was used when 'Sheila' received the second shot. If there was, why did the police hide the truth from the outset from everyone by 'claiming they had not found a silencer', or taken possession of 'a Silencer' on 'the first morning of the police investigation'[`7th August 1985']. YET, 'DS Jones' did, Infact return to the farmhouse from Jeremys' cottage, and 'he took possession of a Silencer' [SBJ/1]..

[Bubo bubo]

The second shot inflicted into the neck of 'Sheila Caffell' occurred after the firearms officers brought the operation to a conclusion at 8.10am, with confirmation that five dead bodies had been found and located in different rooms downstairs and upstairs inside the farmhouse. 'Jeremy Bamber', ckukd not have 'shot his sister twice' before stagi g her body to try to convince the police that 'Sheila' had 'shot and killed' the 'other four victims' before shooting herself dead by way of an act of suicide!

It must also be the case, that when the rifle discharged the second shot into 'Sheila Caffells' neck', whether or not there was a silencer, 'attached on the end of the guns barrel' when things 'started to go pear shaped'. With this in mind, Essex police knew whether or not 'a Silencer' was used when 'Sheila' received the second shot. If there was, why did the police hide the truth from the outset from everyone by 'claiming they had not found a silencer', or taken possession of 'a Silencer' on 'the first morning of the police investigation'[`7th August 1985']. YET, 'DS Jones' did, Infact return to the farmhouse from Jeremys' cottage, and 'he took possession of a Silencer' [SBJ/1]..

I have my take on the silencer/SM it is much the same as yours but with a few twists. I will post this as I develop my arguments. Can you say why you believe that the second shot to SC was an accident during training. If that were the case they could have admitted it and fessed up. It made no difference to the outcome and they could have cleared things up more quickly. They could argue that few opportunities presented themselves for real time practice and they had made a stupid mistake for which they were truly sorry. If this were the case why would they need to swap PV20. They were using another rifle to preserve the integrity of the actual weapon.. There would be no need to move bodies around. Something entirely more sinister happened IMO. It has to be more than an accident to warrant the effort expended over the last 36 years.

[JackieD]

You believe the neck/shoulder gunshot wound was the result of the latter shot because, if I understand you right, you theorise that the police or some other third party shot Sheila.

But if you look carefully at the image, you can see that the muzzle end of the rifle is raised.  It is not in line with the neck/shoulder gunshot wound at all.  It just looks that way due to aspect distortion.

In my view, the lower shot could easily have come first.  I also think it is unlikely the angle of shot was away from the head region.  I think I know why you believe it could be.  You think Sheila was moving around, hence it makes more sense - if you theorise that way - for Sheila to have been shot at an angle away from the head region.  To me, this has to be wrong because Sheila is the only one with a firearm.  It only works if you then theorise that a police officer shot her, but given the theorised angle of shot, that would mean the police shot her while she was perambulating around.  I don't see any evidence to support this conjecture.  Why wouldn't the police report the shot and say she was armed?  What do the police have to gain by lying?  And more importantly, where is the physical evidence?

It must have been towards her head, hence the image attached is - in my view - likely to be wrong.  For me, the photograph has a different significance:

(i). Unless the aspect is misleading, Sheila could not have naturally fallen with her head under the bedside cabinet.  This means somebody has moved the body prior to that photograph having been taken.

(ii). Ismail's evidence about the shot sequence is wrong, but Vanezis' evidence is possibly correct. 

(iii). A reasonable person looking at this could form the view that the differing angles of shot support Jeremy's guilt - and initially this was one of my Ten Reasons For Believing Jeremy Is Guilty.  But I have come to the realisation that I was wrong, one reason being that I now believe Ismail's evidence at the 2002 appeal was flawed.  If you factor in Vanezis' evidence and consider everything in the round, the shot angles support reasonable doubt. 

But it is a convoluted/concatenated argument.  I outlined at length why I take the above view on a different thread.

Interesting QC 😳

[Bubo bubo]

What about this thread Adam

[Bubo bubo]

What about this thread Adam

I would be interested to know what you make of this information. It seems you have no interest.