An acid test for forum members

[Steve A]

Two questions, kind of in opposition to each other.

1. Is it possible that if it was JB who carried out the crime, then the suicide staging simply presented itself as an opportunity, rather than it being a premeditated plan?

2. Even if the two bodies downstairs turned out to be nothing more than a communications mix up, and Sheila was already deceased when the police entered, it still doesn't mean that she couldn't have been the one responsible. Or is there something else which means that if she was guilty then she had to be alive when the police entered?

[grahameb]

Jeremy Bamber is in the Maldon and Burnham Standard this week talking about the freedom fortnight.

[ngb1066]

...Hearing the shot police then rushed into the bedroom and found Sheila.  They removed the rifle from her body and checked for signs of life, changing the position of the body.  Realising that they had messed up the raid they panicked.  They repositioned the body and the rifle.  They agreed that they would not mention originally seeing Sheila in the kitchen.

Neil - if this were true I don't see as it provides a compelling reason for the entire raid team to fall in behind a subsequent plot to frame JB. The actions of the raid team as described in your account are not negligent enough to warrant creating such a massive conspiracy to cover their tracks and for so many people to stay silent for so long.If they shot her themselves as Mike seems to think, then maybe that could support such a conspiracy, but simply failing to check signs of life whilst securing the house under such circumstances doesn't cut it for me as a reason for every one of them supporting the framing of JB.

Bob  - The point you make is a fair one.  I accept that the actions of the raid team in my suggested sequence of events would not have led to criminal proceedings against the officers involved and therefore on first analysis it seems surprising that they should have entered into a conspiracy of silence.  However they could have faced disciplinary action, as failing to ascertain that Sheila was still alive and also failing to render the rifle safe amounted to negligence and very poor leadership by the officer in charge of the team.  The decision to remain silent about initially finding Sheila in the kitchen may have appeared to the officers as a pragmatic step, with no harm done. This was not a case of fitting somebody up.  It was four murders and a suicide and Sheila had in fact shot herself in the bedroom and died there.  The silence was therefore only in relation to one detail in the sequence of events and as far as the officers were concerned, that detail did not really matter.  Having made the decision to conceal this detail the officers were then trapped.  When the nature of the enquiry changed from four murders and a suicide to five murders the officers could not reveal the truth because they would then have been in very serious trouble. 

The reason I have had to conclude that my version of events is likely to be correct is that on the evidence available it seems to me to be the least unlikely.  I believe that the evidence that initially the police found two bodies in the kitchen, one male and one female, is persuasive.  It is therefore necessary to present a sequence of events that fits in with that.  The only alternative explanation I can see is that the police for some reason moved Sheila's body upstairs.  I can think of no logical reason why they would do that.  Obviously if I am wrong about Sheila being found in the kitchen my suggested version of events can be simplified, with Sheila shooting herself twice in the bedroom.

Thanks for the detailed reply Neil - see what you are saying, but I wonder if avoiding getting into more serious trouble would be enough for every one of them to commit a man they knew to be innocent to a life behind bars? I would have guessed there would have been a least a few good men of conscience would would have gotten together and said enough is enough at some stage?

On your final point - do you at all entertain the possibility that Sheila was never downstairs, and the "one dead male, one dead female" was the result of confusion over an initial report of the misidentification of Ralph through the window being relayed locally to an officer stood outside the building? That's how I think it might have came about.

Bob -  you could be right on this and I was undecided about it for a while but what has swayed me is that the information about two bodies downstairs is not just contained in a single message.  The police continued with the two bodies downstairs belief for some time after entry to WHF.  The police surgeon was initially requested in relation to two bodies and there was a subsequent report of 3 bodies upstairs.  At the very least this is something which should have been properly explored before the jury at trial but the logs were not obtained until after the 2002 appeal. 



 

[Steve A]

...Hearing the shot police then rushed into the bedroom and found Sheila.  They removed the rifle from her body and checked for signs of life, changing the position of the body.  Realising that they had messed up the raid they panicked.  They repositioned the body and the rifle.  They agreed that they would not mention originally seeing Sheila in the kitchen.

Neil - if this were true I don't see as it provides a compelling reason for the entire raid team to fall in behind a subsequent plot to frame JB. The actions of the raid team as described in your account are not negligent enough to warrant creating such a massive conspiracy to cover their tracks and for so many people to stay silent for so long.If they shot her themselves as Mike seems to think, then maybe that could support such a conspiracy, but simply failing to check signs of life whilst securing the house under such circumstances doesn't cut it for me as a reason for every one of them supporting the framing of JB.

Bob  - The point you make is a fair one.  I accept that the actions of the raid team in my suggested sequence of events would not have led to criminal proceedings against the officers involved and therefore on first analysis it seems surprising that they should have entered into a conspiracy of silence.  However they could have faced disciplinary action, as failing to ascertain that Sheila was still alive and also failing to render the rifle safe amounted to negligence and very poor leadership by the officer in charge of the team.  The decision to remain silent about initially finding Sheila in the kitchen may have appeared to the officers as a pragmatic step, with no harm done. This was not a case of fitting somebody up.  It was four murders and a suicide and Sheila had in fact shot herself in the bedroom and died there.  The silence was therefore only in relation to one detail in the sequence of events and as far as the officers were concerned, that detail did not really matter.  Having made the decision to conceal this detail the officers were then trapped.  When the nature of the enquiry changed from four murders and a suicide to five murders the officers could not reveal the truth because they would then have been in very serious trouble. 

The reason I have had to conclude that my version of events is likely to be correct is that on the evidence available it seems to me to be the least unlikely.  I believe that the evidence that initially the police found two bodies in the kitchen, one male and one female, is persuasive.  It is therefore necessary to present a sequence of events that fits in with that.  The only alternative explanation I can see is that the police for some reason moved Sheila's body upstairs.  I can think of no logical reason why they would do that.  Obviously if I am wrong about Sheila being found in the kitchen my suggested version of events can be simplified, with Sheila shooting herself twice in the bedroom.

Thanks for the detailed reply Neil - see what you are saying, but I wonder if avoiding getting into more serious trouble would be enough for every one of them to commit a man they knew to be innocent to a life behind bars? I would have guessed there would have been a least a few good men of conscience would would have gotten together and said enough is enough at some stage?

On your final point - do you at all entertain the possibility that Sheila was never downstairs, and the "one dead male, one dead female" was the result of confusion over an initial report of the misidentification of Ralph through the window being relayed locally to an officer stood outside the building? That's how I think it might have came about.

Bob -  you could be right on this and I was undecided about it for a while but what has swayed me is that the information about two bodies downstairs is not just contained in a single message.  The police continued with the two bodies downstairs belief for some time after entry to WHF.  The police surgeon was initially requested in relation to two bodies and there was a subsequent report of 3 bodies upstairs.  At the very least this is something which should have been properly explored before the jury at trial but the logs were not obtained until after the 2002 appeal.

The three bodies upstairs is in PC Malcolm Wests log, why don't the other logs mention it? Also if it was a mix up in communications, then why wasn't it corrected?

[ngb1066]

Two questions, kind of in opposition to each other.

1. Is it possible that if it was JB who carried out the crime, then the suicide staging simply presented itself as an opportunity, rather than it being a premeditated plan?

2. Even if the two bodies downstairs turned out to be nothing more than a communications mix up, and Sheila was already deceased when the police entered, it still doesn't mean that she couldn't have been the one responsible. Or is there something else which means that if she was guilty then she had to be alive when the police entered?

Steve - First of all welcome to the forum.  It will be interesting to hear your views.  In answer to your questions:

1. It is possible but if there would have been difficulties in explaining a motive for a 3rd party killer of five family members and there would have been an immediate and extensive police enquiry.  If Jeremy Bamber was guilty (which I do not believe) logic suggests that Sheila's apparent suicide would have been part of the plan as it was likely to result in the police investigation being closed down very quickly.

2. Even if there was a communictions mix up and Sheila was in fact found upstairs the defence case is not weakened.  The evidence is still consistent with the four murders and a suicide scenario.

   

[Jackiepreece]

Anothey reply about Rochy but I might let Andy handle Fernando as he might be the closest she gets to Oliver Reed

[ngb1066]

Good morning Jackie,

I am not suggesting McDonald was the shooter - only that he told people that he was.

It is not a poll as such. It is more like this. Of the 25 people I have spoken to 24 are going for guilty. I'm sorry if this disappoints you.

It could well be that you or anyone else would get completely different feedback from other people.

I would much rather the 25 to 1 be in favour of Jeremy, because if this was so it would encourage me to work more on the case

This forum gives people the opportunity to express their views.

How about you give us your clear and definitive version of events in plain and simple language.

I will make no attempt to smash it down.

Sparks -  I am not doubting that your informant has stated that McDonald boasted about being the shooter, but I do doubt that McDonald actually said what has been reported to you.   It appears that McDonald liked to create the impression that he was "heavy", for example by claiming to have been a mercenary.  Someone like that might conceivably suggest that he had committed murders acting as a hitman, as I accept that this might create a certain aura in criminal circles.  However I seriously doubt whether someone like McDonald would brag about committing specific murders in view of the potential danger.  Bragging about the murders at WHF seems even more unlikely to me, as this involved not only the murder of three adults but also of two 6 year old children.  Such a crime would cause revulsion in criminal circles and certainly would not have engendered respect or awe for the person claiming to have committed the crimes.  A murderer of children would keep quiet.

It sounds to me as if this report results from gossip rather than from anything actually said by McDonald.

 

[ngb1066]

Jeremy Bamber is in the Maldon and Burnham Standard this week talking about the freedom fortnight.

Grahame - is this available online?

[grahameb]

Jeremy Bamber is in the Maldon and Burnham Standard this week talking about the freedom fortnight.

Grahame - is this available online?

No I looked. I could scan the page and put it on the forum if you want? But I'm not sure if that comes under copyright law?

[ngb1066]

Jeremy Bamber is in the Maldon and Burnham Standard this week talking about the freedom fortnight.

Grahame - is this available online?

No I looked. I could scan the page and put it on the forum if you want? But I'm not sure if that comes under copyright law?

It would be interesting to read see the article so if you can scan and post it that would be great.  It technically does breach copyright but it is unlikely the paper will object and if they do it is only necessary to take down the post.

 

[boheme]

The hit man explaination of how Sheila was killed seems logical - imagine a mafia execution where the victim kneels down with his hands behind his back before being shot through the back of the head - I imagine if somone points a gun at you and demands a position one would have little option but to comply, the fact she moved therefore it required 2 shots is a pretty good explaination - as opposed to her shooting herself in the kitchen and then going upstairs for another go.....

[Steve A]

The hit man explaination of how Sheila was killed seems logical - imagine a mafia execution where the victim kneels down with his hands behind his back before being shot through the back of the head - I imagine if somone points a gun at you and demands a position one would have little option but to comply, the fact she moved therefore it required 2 shots is a pretty good explaination - as opposed to her shooting herself in the kitchen and then going upstairs for another go.....

I don't buy into the hitman/third party theory on the basis that they would surely not rely on using weapons found at the scene and a .22 rifle hardly seems the weapon of choice.

I could see Jeremy persuading Sheila in the manner you describe.

Alternatively I could see Sheila shooting herself in the bedroom, I don't think she was seen downstairs, but that doesn't mean she isn't the guilty party.

Another thought, why was the .22 rifle used and not a shotgun? It's noisier and needs reloading more, but seems a better weapon to use to me.

[grahameb]

The hit man explaination of how Sheila was killed seems logical - imagine a mafia execution where the victim kneels down with his hands behind his back before being shot through the back of the head - I imagine if somone points a gun at you and demands a position one would have little option but to comply, the fact she moved therefore it required 2 shots is a pretty good explaination - as opposed to her shooting herself in the kitchen and then going upstairs for another go.....

I should imagine that the shots into Sheila's throat would be exactly where there were if she were to point the gun at her throat and turn her head away so as not to look. Thus the unsuccessful first shot? Just my opinion of course.

[grahameb]

The hit man explaination of how Sheila was killed seems logical - imagine a mafia execution where the victim kneels down with his hands behind his back before being shot through the back of the head - I imagine if somone points a gun at you and demands a position one would have little option but to comply, the fact she moved therefore it required 2 shots is a pretty good explaination - as opposed to her shooting herself in the kitchen and then going upstairs for another go.....

I don't buy into the hitman/third party theory on the basis that they would surely not rely on using weapons found at the scene and a .22 rifle hardly seems the weapon of choice.

I could see Jeremy persuading Sheila in the manner you describe.

Alternatively I could see Sheila shooting herself in the bedroom, I don't think she was seen downstairs, but that doesn't mean she isn't the guilty party.

Another thought, why was the .22 rifle used and not a shotgun? It's noisier and needs reloading more, but seems a better weapon to use to me.

A shotgun is a far heavier weapon for Sheila to use. If she were to fire one normally it would have knocked her off her feet each time.

[HMEssex]

The hit man explaination of how Sheila was killed seems logical - imagine a mafia execution where the victim kneels down with his hands behind his back before being shot through the back of the head - I imagine if somone points a gun at you and demands a position one would have little option but to comply, the fact she moved therefore it required 2 shots is a pretty good explaination - as opposed to her shooting herself in the kitchen and then going upstairs for another go.....

Then where would the hitman be positioned in this scenario?  Sheila would have to be standing stock still for him to shoot her cleanly under the chin, so was he kneeling whilst she complied?  Or was he lying prone on the floor next to her or on the bed to execute her?