Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[-Harters-]

How do you know there was no evidence or the the review found no evidence    You are not being very clear at all.

It's clear to me. 

[Roch]

It's clear to me. 

Go on...

[Bridget]

How do you know there was no evidence or the the review found no evidence    You are not being very clear at all.

Because none has ever been presented? What evidence do you think there is?

[-Harters-]

Go on...

Well there is no indication one way or the other, is there?

[Roch]

Because none has ever been presented? What evidence do you think there is?

Are you referring to physical evidence?  i.e. (allegedly genuine) clean hand swabs, lack of blood on nightie etc?  If so then I can possibly see where you are coming from.  However imo a distinction should be drawn between what evidence existed  / was available to police and what evidence was later presented by police / prosecution.  The two are not necessarily the same. 

[Bridget]

Are you referring to physical evidence?  i.e. (allegedly genuine) clean hand swabs, lack of blood on nightie etc?  If so then I can possibly see where you are coming from.  However imo a distinction should be drawn between what evidence existed  / was available to police and what evidence was later presented by police / prosecution.  The two are not necessarily the same.

No, absolutely nothing to do with hand swabs or nighties. Again, there is no evidence that Sheila was suffering a psychotic episode that night - if you know different kindly enlighten me.

[Roch]

No, absolutely nothing to do with hand swabs or nighties. Again, there is no evidence that Sheila was suffering a psychotic episode that night - if you know different kindly enlighten me.

You've lost me again.  You seem to be saying that there is no evidence of such, therefore it didn't happen... but you also seem to be saying that even if a psychotic episode had taken place, there wouldn't be any evidence of it anyway.  By my reckoning, if you take that approach, lack of evidence of a psychotic episode does not equate to one definitely not having taken place.  In my opinion it is the likelihood of a psychotic episode that seems to be being implied by the defence.  In other words, if you look at everything as whole, a psychotic episode fills in the gap. 

Your stance regarding a demand for proof of evidence is being directed wrongly.  I was never in control of the evidence of what took place at WHF.  The Essex Police were.  Now we have seen previously non-disclosed documents which have crosses through them and are annotated "NO".  There are crossings out and date changes left right and centre which have come to light.  I suggest that if EP were able to deliberately disregard or edit statements, that were contradictory to their aims in prosecuting Bamber, then they don't really get the thumbs up trust-wise on the case they have presented.   What else have they left out and what caused the reviewing officer reporting to top brass as late as 6th Sept, to concur in Sheila being culpable?  it cant have been nothing or no evidence. 

[Bridget]

You've lost me again.  You seem to be saying that there is no evidence of such, therefore it didn't happen... but you also seem to be saying that even if a psychotic episode had taken place, there wouldn't be any evidence of it anyway.  By my reckoning, if you take that approach, lack of evidence of a psychotic episode does not equate to one definitely not having taken place.  In my opinion it is the likelihood of a psychotic episode that seems to be being implied by the defence.  In other words, if you look at everything as whole, a psychotic episode fills in the gap. 

Your stance regarding a demand for proof of evidence is being directed wrongly.  I was never in control of the evidence of what took place at WHF.  The Essex Police were.  Now we have seen previously non-disclosed documents which have crosses through them and are annotated "NO".  There are crossings out and date changes left right and centre which have come to light.  I suggest that if EP were able to deliberately disregard or edit statements, that were contradictory to their aims in prosecuting Bamber, then they don't really get the thumbs up trust-wise on the case they have presented.   What else have they left out and what caused the reviewing officer reporting to top brass as late as 6th Sept, to concur in Sheila being culpable?  it cant have been nothing or no evidence.

I think I must be speaking a foreign language. I've said that there is no evidence that Sheila had a psychotic episode that night. That is a fact, there isn't, and there cannot be any because everyone who was there that night apart from Jeremy is dead. I have never said that the lack of evidence of an episode means that one didn't occur. If you are trying to say that the fact that 5 people died is evidence that she did suffer one, please refer back to Hartley's chicken and egg analogy.

[Roch]

I have never said that the lack of evidence of an episode means that one didn't occur.

That is all I need to clarify.  Apologies if I read you wrong on that score.

If you are trying to say that the fact that 5 people died is evidence that she did suffer one, please refer back to Hartley's chicken and egg analogy

I'm not familiar with his analogy but if somebody could provide the gist of what he meant, I'd be interested in trying to understand it.

[grahameb]

I think I must be speaking a foreign language. I've said that there is no evidence that Sheila had a psychotic episode that night. That is a fact, there isn't, and there cannot be any because everyone who was there that night apart from Jeremy is dead. I have never said that the lack of evidence of an episode means that one didn't occur. If you are trying to say that the fact that 5 people died is evidence that she did suffer one, please refer back to Hartley's chicken and egg analogy.

The telephone logs are evidence of that. Even if the court rejected them and accepted the polluted silencer evidence and the testimony of a proven liar it was still registered as evidence. If JB  is found innocent at some time then that evidence will have to be accepted as true because the police themselves wrote it down. In other words, it is still evidence whether you think it untrue or not.

[Roch]

The telephone logs are evidence of that. Even if the court rejected them and accepted the polluted silencer evidence and the testimony of a proven liar it was still registered as evidence. If JB  is found innocent at some time then that evidence will have to be accepted as true because the police themselves wrote it down. In other words, it is still evidence whether you think it untrue or not.

Great post. 

[Bridget]

That is all I need to clarify.  Apologies if I read you wrong on that score.

I'm not familiar with his analogy but if somebody could provide the gist of what he meant, I'd be interested in trying to understand it.

Basically that you are starting from the assumption that Sheila must have killed everyone in order to arrive at the conclusion that she had an episode, which is back to front. I realise that the same could be said for some of the assumptions made by the prosecution about JB.

[Roch]

Basically that you are starting from the assumption that Sheila must have killed everyone in order to arrive at the conclusion that she had an episode, which is back to front.

I'm not sure whether back to front is totally avoidable in the world we live in.

[Jane]

Basically that you are starting from the assumption that Sheila must have killed everyone in order to arrive at the conclusion that she had an episode, which is back to front. I realise that the same could be said for some of the assumptions made by the prosecution about JB.

Gosh, Bridget, this is beginning to feel like Wimbledon with words. What you are saying is the complete reverse of my thinking. My starting point was the apparent indecision on what constituted an appropriate dose of medication. followed by a time lapse in the consultant receiving the information that she had been given 50mgs less than the originally recommended lower dose.

[Patti]

Colin implied that there was a party the night before the murders that Sheila went to, he then drove them to WHF the next day and didn't want to leave them there, that night they were murdered. At least that was what I understood and I only read it a few days ago,I did question this to myself when i read it however as one of the problems with the book is that the chronology of events isn't very clear. Please correct me or I can look again in a day or two. No updates from me today, I read a little in the Drs surgery this morning but have been suffering a bit from the whiplash caused by the idiot driving into the side of my car yesterday! Patti - this has put the shelves on hold but thanks for asking. 

Hi AJ the party was held on the Saturday, the 3rd of August. Colin took Sheila to WHF on the 4th which was the Sunday. I admit he is not clear on that in his book, but his statement in the archives confirms it......