The Role of DCI "Terry" Gibbons, at the scene - 7th August 1985...

[shonapugs]

what - still nothing? No flakey silencer crap, no picture of Sheila on the bed, no explanation of Ralph with his head in a coal bucket, no theory as to why the boys were cleanly killed, yet June staggered round the bedroom, then was eventually shot between the eyes? And poor, confused Sheila did all this?

[shonapugs]

Hi, Si. xx. I posted after you. And I agree. But it's all getting a bit silly. I'm just so tired of folk trying to fit Sheila up. She might have been poorly, but she wouldn't have hurt the boys. And she didn't have the shooting skills. Just look at the last images of her. I think that it was abs who said "even graceful, in death". Look again, everyone. Mike, seriously, look again. She was murdered.

[smiffy]

I see 2 posters who have no argument resort to attacking posters (myself..but sometimes others).
no probs folks...
Deciding Sheila did not do it ..based on wishful thinking...seems to be the approach of shonapugs.
Reality is reality ...it can  be painful and not what you want it to be...but it is reality.

People can spew forth lies...and do...
the best evidence is that which is not corrupted by lies.
If you have learned the skills to distinguish between lies and deception and truth ..then much becomes clear.

[bob]

I see 2 posters who have no argument resort to attacking posters (myself..but sometimes others).
no probs folks...
Deciding Sheila did not do it ..based on wishful thinking...seems to be the approach of shonapugs.
Reality is reality ...it can  be painful and not what you want it to be...but it is reality.

Not sure I folllow this Smiffy.

Surely the reality is that JB was found guilty and Sheila is considered innocent in the eyes of the law? You might think that erroneous but it's certainly the reality of the situation.

[smiffy]

Stick with reality and not the nonsense that courts come out with what they think happened or what they want people to believe happened.
Reality is that JB was wrongly convicted. I am certain of that.

What really happened that night/morning is what should matter to people and what came out in court was way off from establishing what really went on.

[simong]

I see 2 posters who have no argument resort to attacking posters (myself..but sometimes others).
no probs folks...
Deciding Sheila did not do it ..based on wishful thinking...seems to be the approach of shonapugs.
Reality is reality ...it can  be painful and not what you want it to be...but it is reality.

People can spew forth lies...and do...
the best evidence is that which is not corrupted by lies.
If you have learned the skills to distinguish between lies and deception and truth ..then much becomes clear.

Condoscending drivel. I don't attack you. Bit of a persecution complex there Billy. I just take the piss out of you. 

[lucy70]

Stick with reality and not the nonsense that courts come out with what they think happened or what they want people to believe happened.
Reality is that JB was wrongly convicted. I am certain of that.

What really happened that night/morning is what should matter to people and what came out in court was way off from establishing what really went on.

You're certain of that are you smiffy?
Is this certainty based on so called 'evidence' being drip fed to you on here?
You might want to remember that this is a pro Bamber site run by Bamber supporters who only allow you to see the evidence that they believe helps JB. Am sure that there is plenty of evidence in their possession that also points to his guilt but you can bet that they won't be posting that.
Why do you think we haven't seen the original trial transcript posted on here?
Maybe because then we'd know exactly why JB was convicted and why every appeal has failed and probably will continue to do so.
Am really hoping that despite all his weaseling legal manoeuvres JB doesn't get out on a technicality because (in my opinion) anyone who can cold bloodily murder his family, especially 2 innocent little boys doesn't deserve to ever be freed.

[smiffy]

rightio simong....WHY DO YOU CALL ME BILLY...?
I noticed that the gutless coward that you appear to be...you evaded answering that question before.


lucy70  you seem decidely fake too
...nothing of substance to your big claims but also noted you avoid discussion when it comes to real evidence and embrace a wishy washy fantasy world..in a determination to claim JB is guilty when you have really no evidence of worth that has held up to any serious scrutiny.

I go on what is credible and apply common sense and reason.
Those who have no good argument resort to attacking those who put forward good argument.
I shall keep posting good points , and arguments and keep to the subject as much as I can without getting distracted too  much  by losers who cant argue reasonably.

[lucy70]

rightio simong....WHY DO YOU CALL ME BILLY...?
I noticed that the gutless coward that you appear to be...you evaded answering that question before.


lucy70  you seem decidely fake too
...nothing of substance to your big claims but also noted you avoid discussion when it comes to real evidence and embrace a wishy washy fantasy world..in a determination to claim JB is guilty when you have really no evidence of worth that has held up to any serious scrutiny.

I go on what is credible and apply common sense and reason.
Those who have no good argument resort to attacking those who put forward good argument.
I shall keep posting good points , and arguments and keep to the subject as much as I can without getting distracted too  much  by losers who cant argue reasonably.

Fake smiffy?
Why, because I don't blindly believe your ridiculous attempts in arguing JB's innocence? :-)
FACT>JB was found guilty and convicted of murdering his family.
FACT>JB has lost every appeal ever since.
These facts are not wishy washy fantasies unlike your..........'I wuz fitted up guvnor, it was the Mum, Dad, Sheila, Crispy (the dog!), some bent coppers, a nasty big criminal man who wanted my poppies, anyone but me, honest guv' scenario!
As for fake.........you're sounding more n more like other profiles on here every day.........including the insults!
Back up your JB arguments with real evidence not just what you believe and then people might listen to you.

[bigpod]

Fake smiffy?
Why, because I don't blindly believe your ridiculous attempts in arguing JB's innocence? :-)
FACT>JB was found guilty and convicted of murdering his family.
FACT>JB has lost every appeal ever since.
These facts are not wishy washy fantasies unlike your..........'I wuz fitted up guvnor, it was the Mum, Dad, Sheila, Crispy (the dog!), some bent coppers, a nasty big criminal man who wanted my poppies, anyone but me, honest guv' scenario!
As for fake.........you're sounding more n more like other profiles on here every day.........including the insults!
Back up your JB arguments with real evidence not just what you believe and then people might listen to you.

You are right in proclaiming your two facts, but that doesn't change another fact. (I posted the following in another thread, but it saves re-typing it.)

"This might be so - but can you name a single piece of hard evidence which shows JB guilty?

JM had theoritical reason to lie, the silencer evidence could be wrong on a number of levels, the logging of events is far short of what might be expected. Large amounts of evidence are missing or withheld. None of that proves JB's innocence, but they are the hard facts used to prove his guilt and are, to my mind, short of proving the case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT (the measure by which we should look at any case.

My biggest problem is it appears there is clear evidence SC probably died considerably later than 3.30am (particularly regarding lividity and rigor). This would be fairly hard evidence suggesting innocence."

[simong]

rightio simong....WHY DO YOU CALL ME BILLY...?
I noticed that the gutless coward that you appear to be...you evaded answering that question before.

If being a gutless coward is not answering a question, then fine, guilty as charged. 

Billy, why should i answer any question from you? 

[andrea]

can this argument take place via personal messages?


this has been mentioned before, keep personal attacks OFF THIS FORUM, sorry folks but i dont wish to read it and i suspect other posters would agree.

[lucy70]

Fake smiffy?
Why, because I don't blindly believe your ridiculous attempts in arguing JB's innocence? :-)
FACT>JB was found guilty and convicted of murdering his family.
FACT>JB has lost every appeal ever since.
These facts are not wishy washy fantasies unlike your..........'I wuz fitted up guvnor, it was the Mum, Dad, Sheila, Crispy (the dog!), some bent coppers, a nasty big criminal man who wanted my poppies, anyone but me, honest guv' scenario!
As for fake.........you're sounding more n more like other profiles on here every day.........including the insults!
Back up your JB arguments with real evidence not just what you believe and then people might listen to you.

You are right in proclaiming your two facts, but that doesn't change another fact. (I posted the following in another thread, but it saves re-typing it.)

"This might be so - but can you name a single piece of hard evidence which shows JB guilty?

JM had theoritical reason to lie, the silencer evidence could be wrong on a number of levels, the logging of events is far short of what might be expected. Large amounts of evidence are missing or withheld. None of that proves JB's innocence, but they are the hard facts used to prove his guilt and are, to my mind, short of proving the case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT (the measure by which we should look at any case.

My biggest problem is it appears there is clear evidence SC probably died considerably later than 3.30am (particularly regarding lividity and rigor). This would be fairly hard evidence suggesting innocence."

There isn't any clear evidence exactly when Sheila died.
Yes most of the evidence against JB is circumstantial but when added together along with his own behaviour was enough to convince me and plenty of others since.
One of my biggest problems with JB is the telephone call. He stated that he immediately attempted to phone Ralph back using the redial facility on his phone which would mean almost instantly after the line went dead. This has been proven to be impossible as it would have taken 90-120 seconds for the line to reset itself during which time he wouldn't have been able to phone out at all. I can remember that this was considered to be a crucial piece of evidence during the trial and one that JB hasn't been able to answer.  Also his claim to have heard rabbits outside...........have you ever heard rabbits? Maybe Essex bunnies are a lot more vocal that anywhere else but seems like the perfect excuse to explain his fingerprints on the gun and for him to leave it laying around that night.

[Alias]

can this argument take place via personal messages?


this has been mentioned before, keep personal attacks OFF THIS FORUM, sorry folks but i dont wish to read it and i suspect other posters would agree.

Yes. 

[mike tesko]

Hi, Si. xx. I posted after you. And I agree. But it's all getting a bit silly. I'm just so tired of folk trying to fit Sheila up. She might have been poorly, but she wouldn't have hurt the boys. And she didn't have the shooting skills. Just look at the last images of her. I think that it was abs who said "even graceful, in death". Look again, everyone. Mike, seriously, look again. She was murdered.

--------------

I agree that her body was stage managed, and it makes it look like she was murdered, but who did the stage managing?