Burning down of the caravan park shop.

[Roch]

Roch are you going to reply to this and my post #112? You,ve had a month to get a chance. 

I will when I get a chance. I forget about things. But reading the couple of sentences of KE's post, it doesn't sound like he agrees with you anyway. I think yous need to get your story straight, instead of multiple options.

[lookout]

Bamber wanted to be more involved with the farm business. Rather than be a labourer. However Nevill said he had no business sense.

WRONG ! Nevill said this of RWB,not JB !! Get your facts right.Which is why Nevill bought the piece of land for the Eaton's to work on because they had little else caused by mismanagement of the farm.

[Adam]

WRONG ! Nevill said this of RWB,not JB !! Get your facts right.Which is why Nevill bought the piece of land for the Eaton's to work on because they had little else caused by mismanagement of the farm.

Why would Nevill say that about RWB?

Bamber was the one who wanted to be involved in the farm business rather than be a labourer.

[lookout]

Why would Nevill say that about RWB?

Bamber was the one who wanted to be involved in the farm business rather than be a labourer.

Nevill had said that RWB was a bad manager. It's possibly in Wilkes book.

[Adam]

Nevill had said that RWB was a bad manager. It's possibly in Wilkes book.

The thread is about Bamber burning down the caravan site.

Prior to the caravan robbery, massacre & meeting Julie.

This was to give him the chance of being more involved in the business side of things.

[David1819]

I will when I get a chance. I forget about things. But reading the couple of sentences of KE's post, it doesn't sound like he agrees with you anyway. I think yous need to get your story straight, instead of multiple options.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11342.msg525069.html#msg525069

[David1819]

Seriously?

You have an alleged cut on Sheila's shoulder with blood running out towards the floor (as it should). Then on Sheila's arm the rules of gravity have completely reversed and is pulling the blood upwards away from the ground.



Then on top of that, you have all these alleged wounds that only seem to have bled in one direction despite allegedly suffering from these wounds while standing and mobile.

Then you have the autopsy evidence that requires a convoluted conspiracy you have no scintilla of evidence to support.

Then you have June inflicting all these wounds and going back to bed.

Then you have June inflicting fingernail wounds that caused blood to flow out of Sheila's arm. While Sheila is supposed to have inflicted the same nature of wounds to Nevills arm yet no blood is flowing from Nevill's arm and the injuries on Nevill's arm looks completely different to what is on Sheila's arm. Yet they are supposed to be the same type of injuries (according to you).

Then you have the evidence of two other experts - Bernard Knight and Helbert MacDonnell that contradict this idea. The excuse being the photos were not good enough despite the fact none of them complained about the quality and felt them to be of adequate quality to draw their conclusions on.

This entire hodgepodge of lunacy rests solely on the claims of someone who has assumed there is expert evidence to support the claim because someone in the CT told him it would be part of the submission. The same person who told everyone to put money on JB being released by Christmas 2017.

So who is all over the place here? 

It seems Roch is not going to answer this and cannot. Has the fantasy world finally come to an end?   

[Adam]

Seriously?

You have an alleged cut on Sheila's shoulder with blood running out towards the floor (as it should). Then on Sheila's arm the rules of gravity have completely reversed and is pulling the blood upwards away from the ground.



Then on top of that, you have all these alleged wounds that only seem to have bled in one direction despite allegedly suffering from these wounds while standing and mobile.

Then you have the autopsy evidence that requires a convoluted conspiracy you have no scintilla of evidence to support.

Then you have June inflicting all these wounds and going back to bed.

Then you have June inflicting fingernail wounds that caused blood to flow out of Sheila's arm. While Sheila is supposed to have inflicted the same nature of wounds to Nevills arm yet no blood is flowing from Nevill's arm and the injuries on Nevill's arm looks completely different to what is on Sheila's arm. Yet they are supposed to be the same type of injuries (according to you).

Then you have the evidence of two other experts - Bernard Knight and Helbert MacDonnell that contradict this idea. The excuse being the photos were not good enough despite the fact none of them complained about the quality and felt them to be of adequate quality to draw their conclusions on.

This entire hodgepodge of lunacy rests solely on the claims of someone who has assumed there is expert evidence to support the claim because someone in the CT told him it would be part of the submission. The same person who told everyone to put money on JB being released by Christmas 2017.

So who is all over the place here? 

The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."

[Roch]

It seems Roch is not going to answer this and cannot. Has the fantasy world finally come to an end?   

I just haven't had time to sit and go through your post and the post by KE that you asked me to reply to. I don't like trying to do posts like that on my phone. It's too fiddly. I will get on laptop at some point. I expect answering to be pretty easy.

[Steve_uk]

It seems Roch is not going to answer this and cannot. Has the fantasy world finally come to an end?   

From the 2002 Appeal Point 45:

"There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle."  http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[Rob_]

From the 2002 Appeal Point 45:

"There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle."  http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Whats your thoughts Steve on these stains?

In know Dave disagrees but they look like wounds to me? plus I am struggling to see if it's Sheila's blood from the shots to her neck how they came about?

[Steve_uk]

Whats your thoughts Steve on these stains?

In know Dave disagrees but they look like wounds to me? plus I am struggling to see if it's Sheila's blood from the shots to her neck how they came about?

I don't take close-ups on this site seriously unless I see them in context. I suppose they could have happened between first and second shots when Jeremy was forcing her hands to grasp the gun but I don't know.

[lookout]

No bruising to indicate any gripping/forcing to any of them. No force showed to have been used against Sheila at all.

[Roch]

Seriously?

You have an alleged cut on Sheila's shoulder with blood running out towards the floor (as it should). Then on Sheila's arm the rules of gravity have completely reversed and is pulling the blood upwards away from the ground.

The upper 'wound' you refer to was only discovered recently.  I use inverted commas to denote that it is certainly an interesting and contested mark, given other factors in the immediate vicinity.

Regarding what you describe as Sheila's arm. Your argument falls down before it has even begun. It presupposes that the wounds were inflicted while Sheila was in the same position that she was photographed in. Interestingly though, the marks displayed on the wrist (as per the image you posted up) prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jeremy Bamber didn't stage his sister's crime scene.

Then on top of that, you have all these alleged wounds that only seem to have bled in one direction despite allegedly suffering from these wounds while standing and mobile.

I assume you mean the collection of single streak marks present on the upper arm.  I don't normally make reference to them in my posts, as I cant work out why they would be singular - however - that is not to say that I support your theory (that they were caused by the gunshot/s). 
 

Then you have the autopsy evidence that requires a convoluted conspiracy you have no scintilla of evidence to support.

I don't see why the post mortem needs to be a convoluted conspiracy.  That would need to be explained to me.  Pretty sure I could provide a rebuttal.

Then you have June inflicting all these wounds and going back to bed.

It's a suggestion. The bed is large and is the focal point of the room, it might be the natural instinct of a bedroom inhabitant to retreat to it.  I hate to use the word cower, but in its physical sense, I could see that happening. Furthermore, I have long said, we do not know how many incidents occurred that night.  There may have been some kind of earlier non-fatal precursor, that was brought back under control (or so they thought).

Then you have June inflicting fingernail wounds that caused blood to flow out of Sheila's arm. While Sheila is supposed to have inflicted the same nature of wounds to Nevills arm yet no blood is flowing from Nevill's arm and the injuries on Nevill's arm looks completely different to what is on Sheila's arm. Yet they are supposed to be the same type of injuries (according to you).

OK, it could simply be that June's fingernails were more sharp than Sheila's.  In addition, for the marks to be caused by the barrel of the gun, it is very difficult to imagine how this could be achieved.  It is an awkward and unwieldy process and motion, that would be prone to slips. Furthermore, how does it tie in with where Nevill was found?

Then you have the evidence of two other experts - Bernard Knight and Helbert MacDonnell that contradict this idea. The excuse being the photos were not good enough despite the fact none of them complained about the quality and felt them to be of adequate quality to draw their conclusions on.

Well it's difficult to know that their briefs were.  I don't think either were advised to be on the lookout for non-disclosed wounds.

This entire hodgepodge of lunacy rests solely on the claims of someone who has assumed there is expert evidence to support the claim because someone in the CT told him it would be part of the submission.

An expert was commissioned and provided with the necessary images (from the previous release of the negatives). 

[David1819]

The upper 'wound' you refer to was only discovered recently.  I use inverted commas to denote that it is certainly an interesting and contested mark, given other factors in the immediate vicinity.

Regarding what you describe as Sheila's arm. Your argument falls down before it has even begun. It presupposes that the wounds were inflicted while Sheila was in the same position that she was photographed in. Interestingly though, the marks displayed on the wrist (as per the image you posted up) prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jeremy Bamber didn't stage his sister's crime scene.

How does this explain the sudden reversal of the direction gravity pulling the blood upwards? Why is none of it going downwards like it the picture of the left?

I assume you mean the collection of single streak marks present on the upper arm.  I don't normally make reference to them in my posts, as I cant work out why they would be singular - however - that is not to say that I support your theory (that they were caused by the gunshot/s). 
 

In other words, you have no answer.

I don't see why the post mortem needs to be a convoluted conspiracy.  That would need to be explained to me.  Pretty sure I could provide a rebuttal.

It has been explained to you.

It's a suggestion. The bed is large and is the focal point of the room, it might be the natural instinct of a bedroom inhabitant to retreat to it.  I hate to use the word cower, but in its physical sense, I could see that happening. Furthermore, I have long said, we do not know how many incidents occurred that night.  There may have been some kind of earlier non-fatal precursor, that was brought back under control (or so they thought).

No, its a fact. The blood on Junes pillow and the bullets holes in the pillow show she had her head on the pillow while shot. You are now suggesting June suffered all these imaginary cuts then went back to bed without plastering them and there are somehow no corresponding bloodstains on the bed to show this is the case? madness.

OK, it could simply be that June's fingernails were more sharp than Sheila's.  In addition, for the marks to be caused by the barrel of the gun, it is very difficult to imagine how this could be achieved.  It is an awkward and unwieldy process and motion, that would be prone to slips. Furthermore, how does it tie in with where Nevill was found?

How does this explain the fact that Nevills wounds appear like circular bruises while Sheila's "wounds" appear like blobs of blood with blood running upwards away from the force of gravity?

Well it's difficult to know that their briefs were.  I don't think either were advised to be on the lookout for non-disclosed wounds.
 

They all had photos of these "wounds" and concluded they were bloodstains.

An expert was commissioned and provided with the necessary images (from the previous release of the negatives). 

Allegedly.