Post Mortem

[Roch]

No, I think LD tests are inaccurate

I accept we are going round in circles Bridget.  The NDI result from the 2007 LD test is not in contradiction to the 2011 Psychological tests.  It is complimentary.  The argument used to trash the 2007 test is that Bamber has either convinced him self he is not guilty or that the tester is unaware of manipulation on the part of Bamber.  Manipulation and self deception are not born out in the 2011 Psychological tests.   Furthermore, the Dr. pours scorn on the suggestion that a manipulative Bamber is able to keep up such facades. 

It's guilty camp nonsense.  Smoke and mirrors, as you might put it.

[Bridget]

Well of course it is natural  ....She sat on the bed reading a bible while the rest of her family were being shot, then when it came her turn she leaned back and allowed herself to be shot. Right oh!

I think I will join Susan and have a drink! 

We will never know, but she could have been asleep in her bed whilst the boys were shot, people have said often enough that the rifle is quiet. She could have awoken when the commotion started in the bedroom, or in the kitchen, and went into her parents bedroom and been shot herself. 

I'm not suggesting she "allowed" herself to be shot. She could have been backed up against something, like the bed perhaps, and finding herself trapped naturally leaned back. I don't see why that's so difficult to believe.

[Bridget]

I accept we are going round in circles Bridget.  The NDI result from the 2007 LD test is not in contradiction to the 2011 Psychological tests.  It is complimentary.  The argument used to trash the 2007 test is that Bamber has either convinced him self he is not guilty or that the tester is unaware of manipulation on the part of Bamber.  Manipulation and self deception are not born out in the 2011 Psychological tests.   Furthermore, the Dr. pours scorn on the suggestion that a manipulative Bamber is able to keep up such facades. 

It's guilty camp nonsense.  Smoke and mirrors, as you might put it.

Don't confuse other people's arguments with mine. I have no trouble at all in believing that Dr Egan's findings in 2011 were entirely correct, whilst at the same time believing that LD tests are rubbish. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

[Roch]

Don't confuse other people's arguments with mine. I have no trouble at all in believing that Dr Egan's findings in 2011 were entirely correct, whilst at the same time believing that LD tests are rubbish. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Then, what argument are you going to put forward to back up your astounding statement, that the LD test was passed because it was inaccurate? 

[Bridget]

Then, what argument are you going to put forward to back up your astounding statement, that the LD test was passed because it was inaccurate?

He passed, even though he did it.

You can't use Egan's report to support your argument because he was not assessing whether or not JB was being deceptive when taking the test in 2007. If you can get Egan to say that he believes in LD tests and that that was what he was referring to in his 2011 report I'll start listening.

[Roch]

He passed, even though he did it.

You can't use Egan's report to support your argument because he was not assessing whether or not JB was being deceptive when taking the test in 2007. If you can get Egan to say that he believes in LD tests and that that was what he was referring to in his 2011 report I'll start listening.

Very weak.  And pedantic.  it is quite clear what Egan expressed.  He is not supportive of Jeremy Bamber presenting with any indicators which would match the index offence he has been convicted of, nor manipulation, nor self deception. 

This is complimentary and not contradictory, to an NDI result in the LD. 

If he had scored higher for self deception or psychopathy, you know as well as I, that you would be screaming from the roof tops this is why he passed the LD. 

[curiousessex]

So then Bridget, you are looking at your attacker, you stand there while he is approaching you with a gun, you can see your mother dead on the floor then you allow that attacker to place that gun under your chin and lean back voluntarily.....

Sorry, but I would have thrown everything I could have, i would have run and fought.....there would be no way I would allow someone to shot me without a fight...

Patti

If I take what I have assumed to be your instinctive post above I do get confused if I apply your response and consider Sheila to be the killer.

If one takes your instinctive response and apply it to Nevill. Given Jeremy alleges Nevill identified to him that Sheila was going berserk with the gun. We know Nevill got shot at close range and so must have been faced with his killer which, if Jeremy is telling the truth, would be Sheila in this scenario.

There are a number of clear images of Sheila's body which include bare arms, legs, feet, neck and face etc. Such images are posted on the forum. These images will have been taken within a short time frame of Nevill being killed.


Question

Why does Sheila not have any suggestive wounds of a violent struggle / fight, barring the obvious 'self inflicted' gun shot wounds?

Nevill was 6' 4" and a physically fit farmer.

[Bridget]

Very weak.  And pedantic.  it is quite clear what Egan expressed.  He is not supportive of Jeremy Bamber presenting with any indicators which would match the index offence he has been convicted of, nor manipulation, nor self deception. 

This is complimentary and not contradictory, to an NDI result in the LD. 

If he had scored higher for self deception or psychopathy, you know as well as I, that you would be screaming from the roof tops this is why he passed the LD.

No, you're twisting it again. He was not testing for indications of whether or not JB is a murderer, he was assessing whether or not his apparent demeanour was false in order to assist in determining whether or not it would be safe to downgrade his category status. If that were not the case we would have no need for courts and all violent criminals would be Cat A for the entirety of their sentence. Don't you ever wonder what was in the other 13 pages?

[simong]

Very weak.  And pedantic.  it is quite clear what Egan expressed.  He is not supportive of Jeremy Bamber presenting with any indicators which would match the index offence he has been convicted of, nor manipulation, nor self deception. 

This is complimentary and not contradictory, to an NDI result in the LD. 

If he had scored higher for self deception or psychopathy, you know as well as I, that you would be screaming from the roof tops this is why he passed the LD.

Which company carried out the lie detector tests? Do you know if each answer was given a percentage chance of being accurate? or just a definitive Yes he is telling the truth?

[Nuala]

If you say so

I respectfully do say so, Bridget, because....

AE's statement says that AE found one or two buckets in the area loosely known as the kitchen, containing bloodstained panties and dark coloured (black?) joggers, which also had to be bloodstained, in my view.

These clothes had been left to soak in a bucket/buckets of water because they were bloodstained.

A little dark top and a pair of dark socks could quite easily have been tangled up in those joggers.

[Roch]

Which company carried out the lie detector tests? Do you know if each answer was given a percentage chance of being accurate? or just a definitive Yes he is telling the truth?

Tester:

http://www.terrymullins.co.uk/

Instrument company:

http://www.lafayettepolygraph.com/

I cant answer your other question, other than I have read that parameters were set up prior to the test and that result for each question was NDI.

[Nuala]

I respectfully do say so, Bridget, because....

AE's statement says that AE found one or two buckets in the area loosely known as the kitchen, containing bloodstained panties and dark coloured (black?) joggers, which also had to be bloodstained, in my view.

These clothes had been left to soak in a bucket/buckets of water because they were bloodstained.

A little dark top and a pair of dark socks could quite easily have been tangled up in those joggers.

AE effectively identified the clothes in the bucket/s as Sheila's when she told the police officer who was there at the time that the blood was of menstrual origin, which, AE said, smells differently to other blood.

Voila, we have Sheila's missing clothes!

[Nuala]

AE effectively identified the clothes in the bucket/s as Sheila's when she told the police officer who was there at the time that the blood was of menstrual origin, which, AE said, smells differently to other blood.

Voila, we have Sheila's missing clothes!

And Sheila's missing clothes were bloodstained!

[Bridget]

I respectfully do say so, Bridget, because....

AE's statement says that AE found one or two buckets in the area loosely known as the kitchen, containing bloodstained panties and dark coloured (black?) joggers, which also had to be bloodstained, in my view.

These clothes had been left to soak in a bucket/buckets of water because they were bloodstained.

A little dark top and a pair of dark socks could quite easily have been tangled up in those joggers.

For that to work you have to assume there was a top and socks, assume there was blood on them, and then assume the blood was that of the victims. That's a lot of assumptions.

[bloggs and son]

Well of course it is natural  ....She sat on the bed reading a bible while the rest of her family were being shot, then when it came her turn she leaned back and allowed herself to be shot. Right oh!

I think I will join Susan and have a drink! 

I rather think the natural thing for anyone to do if their family were being attacked would be to fight them off, not just standle idly by and watch their children be shot? But there were no marks on Sheila to say she put up a fight of any kind.