Julie, Colin And Thoughts On Death

[guest29835]

Disingenous?  Most of us will not have to go through what Colin has.  Who are you to pass judgement about how he came to terms with his losses? 

How can you compare Colin and Julie in this regard?  Julie didn't have any real emotional involvement with Bamber's family.  She was simply his girlfriend for the past 18 months and met the family on occasions. 

What is your interpretation of Bamber's note pinned to his flowers on Daniel and Nicholas' coffins?  "HAPPINESS ON YOUR TRAVELS LOVE TO YOU BOTH UNCLE JEREMY AND JULIE xxx"

A criminal trial sealed Bamber's fate and it wasn't based on religion and/or dogma. 

With respect you're the one who goes all round the houses with irrelevancies.  You might recall that it was me who pointed out to you that it isn't scientifically possible to gauge a person's emotional state at the point of death based on their facial expression.  Hence pathologists do not included such in the PM report. You want to believe that Sheila committed suicide because it fits your narrative that Bamber is innocent.

I don't understand why you're attacking me.  I'm genuinely baffled by this Forum.  I've been on other fora on different subjects, even other languages and cultures, and I've never seen anything like it.  If you've got personal issues, please take them up with professionals or other people you trust.  I'm not sure what else there is to say, really.  Unless of course you are somehow connected to the case.  If so, please accept my condolences, but what can I do about it?  I haven't murdered anybody.  I'm just discussing the case, which is what this Forum is supposed to be for.  Obviously, in the process, we will inevitably cause offence to some of the people involved.  It's difficult to see how that can be avoided, but certainly in my case, I am not being malicious, I am just making honest observations and trying to be fair.

Depends on the objectives of members: philosophise about esoteric matters which have little, if any, relevance to the case; score points; attempt to win over others who hold opposing views/neutral; attempt to identify flaws with the defence/prosecution cases to uphold/acquit. 

Have I missed anything?  Maybe feel part of something; fill a void.  I am sure others can probably think of things I haven't.

It's a critical and creative reflection on an aspect of the case, maybe something more common in French  literature than in Anglophone culture, where there is more of an expectation that the writer should make a 'point'.  The essay isn't necessarily meant to make a 'point', as such, and may address things that are peripheral or tangential but of interest to me. It's just intended to offer reflections from a different angle and stimulate thought and further discussion.  If you don't like it, you needn't read it. 

[killingeve]

I don't understand why you're attacking me.  I'm genuinely baffled by this Forum.  I've been on other fora on different subjects, even other languages and cultures, and I've never seen anything like it.  If you've got personal issues, please take them up with professionals or other people you trust.  I'm not sure what else there is to say, really.  Unless of course you are somehow connected to the case.  If so, please accept my condolences, but what can I do about it?  I haven't murdered anybody.  I'm just discussing the case, which is what this Forum is supposed to be for.  Obviously, in the process, we will inevitably cause offence to some of the people involved.  It's difficult to see how that can be avoided, but certainly in my case, I am not being malicious, I am just making honest observations and trying to be fair.

Attacking you?  Do me a favour pal and cut with the melo-drama.  Why on earth would you want to criticise Sheila, in a previous post, a woman with a diagnosed mental illness, and Colin Caffell who lost his two young sons in the most awful circumstances? 

It's a critical and creative reflection on an aspect of the case, maybe something more common in French  literature than in Anglophone culture, where there is more of an expectation that the writer should make a 'point'.  The essay isn't necessarily meant to make a 'point', as such, and may address things that are peripheral or tangential but of interest to me. It's just intended to offer reflections from a different angle and stimulate thought and further discussion.  If you don't like it, you needn't read it.

But we're not discussing any of the above.  We're discussing a true crime by way of a British mass murder.   

[Rob_]

Disingenous?  Most of us will not have to go through what Colin has.  Who are you to pass judgement about how he came to terms with his losses? 

How can you compare Colin and Julie in this regard?  Julie didn't have any real emotional involvement with Bamber's family.  She was simply his girlfriend for the past 18 months and met the family on occasions. 

What is your interpretation of Bamber's note pinned to his flowers on Daniel and Nicholas' coffins?  "HAPPINESS ON YOUR TRAVELS LOVE TO YOU BOTH UNCLE JEREMY AND JULIE xxx"

A criminal trial sealed Bamber's fate and it wasn't based on religion and/or dogma. 

With respect you're the one who goes all round the houses with irrelevancies.  You might recall that it was me who pointed out to you that it isn't scientifically possible to gauge a person's emotional state at the point of death based on their facial expression.  Hence pathologists do not included such in the PM report. You want to believe that Sheila committed suicide because it fits your narrative that Bamber is innocent.

"You might recall that it was me who pointed out to you that it isn't scientifically possible to gauge a person's emotional state at the point of death based on their facial expression.  Hence pathologists do not included such in the PM report."

I disagree with this, I believe you can tell quite a bit from a person's facial and bodily expression at the time of death.

[killingeve]

"You might recall that it was me who pointed out to you that it isn't scientifically possible to gauge a person's emotional state at the point of death based on their facial expression.  Hence pathologists do not included such in the PM report."

I disagree with this, I believe you can tell quite a bit from a person's facial and bodily expression at the time of death.

Perhaps you could tell Prof's Vanezis and Knight where they've gone wrong 

[killingeve]

Wrong again

About what?

QC has given a fair description of Julie Mugford and not tried to influence anyone

Anything to do with Julie Mugford is subjective.

Julie very much and always will matter in this case

Compared with what?

There’s not a person alive who could know when Mugford is telling the truth
undesputable fact

I doubt most people alive have any awareness of Julie Mugford let alone whether or not she's telling the truth about anything.

It is also an undesputable fact that Colin has tried to mislead the general public about Sheila

Its an indisputable fact that Colin made available the following letter to Essex police when he could quite easily have withheld it.  How has Colin misled the public about Sheila?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2762.0;attach=19783;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2762.0;attach=19777;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2762.0;attach=19778;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2762.0;attach=19779;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2762.0;attach=19780;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2762.0;attach=19781;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2762.0;attach=19782;image

[Rob_]

Perhaps you could tell Prof's Vanezis and Knight where they've gone wrong 

Did they actually say nothing could be discerned from Sheila's appearance?

[guest29835]

Attacking you?  Do me a favour pal and cut with the melo-drama. 

I am not the one kicking off and starting melodrama.  You are.

Why on earth would you want to criticise Sheila, in a previous post, a woman with a diagnosed mental illness, and Colin Caffell who lost his two young sons in the most awful circumstances? 

Neither of the people you have just mentioned are exempt from criticism.  It is not for you to go round telling people on this Forum what they can and can't say and discuss in regard to the case.

But we're not discussing any of the above.  We're discussing a true crime by way of a British mass murder.

Let me decide what I want to discuss on here, please, and you can decide what you want to discuss.

[JackieD]

About what?

Anything to do with Julie Mugford is subjective.

Exactly

Compared with what?
 
Julie Mugford is the main prosecution witness and known liar without her stories there would not have been a conviction. The newspaper deal she did before trial was only on condition she could persuade the jury she was telling the truth. Her behaviour on the stand at trial meant it was impossible to cross examine her

I doubt most people alive have any awareness of Julie Mugford let alone whether or not she's telling the truth about anything.

The public will be very much aware of Julie Mugford when the next documentary is aired. Public opinion in a case like this is everything

Its an indisputable fact that Colin made available the following letter to Essex police when he could quite easily have withheld it.  How has Colin misled the public about Sheila?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2762.0;attach=19783;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2762.0;attach=19777;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2762.0;attach=19778;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2762.0;attach=19779;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2762.0;attach=19780;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2762.0;attach=19781;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2762.0;attach=19782;image

Colin is a liar and recently went on national tv to state Sheila could not have carried out the murders at point blank range.
Unforgivable

[killingeve]

Colin is a liar and recently went on national tv to state Sheila could not have carried out the murders at point blank range.
Unforgivable

In his opinion Sheila didn't have the wherewithal.  This doesn't make him a liar.  In any event a jury found Bamber guilty based on 'expert' evidence not based on what Colin, an artist, said.   

[killingeve]

Did they actually say nothing could be discerned from Sheila's appearance?

No.  Why would they?  It isn't possible to discern anything from a person's facial expression in such circumstances.

You can read the full PM report in the library here.
 
https://www.rcpath.org/discover-pathology/what-is-pathology/information-about-post-mortems-for-friends-and-relatives-/the-post-mortem-report-.html

[David1819]

Colin is a liar and recently went on national tv to state Sheila could not have carried out the murders at point blank range.
Unforgivable

I still wonder why JBs letters are heavily redacted in the 2nd edition of his book.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10164.msg475926.html#msg475926

[killingeve]

I am not the one kicking off and starting melodrama.  You are.

Neither of the people you have just mentioned are exempt from criticism.  It is not for you to go round telling people on this Forum what they can and can't say and discuss in regard to the case.

Let me decide what I want to discuss on here, please, and you can decide what you want to discuss.

No one is above forum rules -

"Please ensure that references to the victims in any case discussed on the forum are made in a respectful manner.  Please remember that victims may include those living as well as those deceased".

[lookout]

"You might recall that it was me who pointed out to you that it isn't scientifically possible to gauge a person's emotional state at the point of death based on their facial expression.  Hence pathologists do not included such in the PM report."

I disagree with this, I believe you can tell quite a bit from a person's facial and bodily expression at the time of death.

Yes, you can tell by a person's expression etc. on how their death came about. Having worked both on wards and A&E where deaths have occurred there's obviously a marked difference in dying from an illness and dying from a violent attack.
I've always maintained that Sheila had been at peace when she'd died, therefore there hadn't appeared to have been any fear, in fact she'd had a restful appearance about her face and not that of a tear-stained and fearful expression from some I've seen in the past if they've suddenly appeared in A&E dying from loss of blood caused by wounds and knowing/ realising they're dying.
Sad to say, but Sheila had been prepared, many aren't and that's the difference.

[killingeve]

Yes, you can tell by a person's expression etc. on how their death came about. Having worked both on wards and A&E where deaths have occurred there's obviously a marked difference in dying from an illness and dying from a violent attack.
I've always maintained that Sheila had been at peace when she'd died, therefore there hadn't appeared to have been any fear, in fact she'd had a restful appearance about her face and not that of a tear-stained and fearful expression from some I've seen in the past if they've suddenly appeared in A&E dying from loss of blood caused by wounds and knowing/ realising they're dying.
Sad to say, but Sheila had been prepared, many aren't and that's the difference.

In which case why did the experts not comment on such at trial?

38. At 8.10 a.m., Dr Craig attended the scene to formally certify the deaths. In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night. The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand. In answer to the judge the witness made it clear this was not an opinion the jury should rely upon as a true indication that the injuries had been self-inflicted.

I am afraid there's no room for pseudoscience here. 

[lookout]

In which case why did the experts not comment on such at trial?

38. At 8.10 a.m., Dr Craig attended the scene to formally certify the deaths. In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night. The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand. In answer to the judge the witness made it clear this was not an opinion the jury should rely upon as a true indication that the injuries had been self-inflicted.

I am afraid there's no room for pseudoscience here.

The experts didn't need to comment did they ? Why would they if there was no other facial expression other than calmness ?