Sheila attempted to commit suicide (but failed), and was shot by the police...

[mike tesko]

Bews & co weren't delayed.

There was a delay in deploying the firearms team to the scene, until Bews, Myall, and Saxby, were sent there to carry out a situation report, if Sheila had the gun as claimed by Ralph (Daughter has got one of my guns), or by Jeremy (Sheila has got the gun), every second that passed placed the family in more and more danger. Nothing changed with the arrival of the Bews, Myall and Saxby at the scene, only the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window. Bews did not pass a message saying that they had seen something at the bedroom window which could have been a trick of light, he reported that a figure had been seen who was probably armed with a loaded rifle...

This could easily be resolved by disclosing the contents of the message which Bews passed at the material time...

[Bridget]

There was a delay in deploying the firearms team to the scene, until Bews, Myall, and Saxby, were sent there to carry out a situation report, if Sheila had the gun as claimed by Ralph (Daughter has got one of my guns), or by Jeremy (Sheila has got the gun), every second that passed placed the family in more and more danger. Nothing changed with the arrival of the Bews, Myall and Saxby at the scene, only the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window. Bews did not pass a message saying that they had seen something at the bedroom window which could have been a trick of light, he reported that a figure had been seen who was probably armed with a loaded rifle...

This could easily be resolved by disclosing the contents of the message which Bews passed at the material time...

It takes time to organise a firearms team, and even if they had been called in straight away, that wouldn't have changed the decision to hold off until daylight, or to call in additional firearms officers once the size / layout of the building was known.

[Roch]

We are at the stage where the defence claim that Sheila committed suicide, but the photographic evidence taken at the scene (as per the MASTER COPY ALBUM) proves that her body was stage managed. If her body was stage managed by someone, Sheila could not and did not take her own life by way of bullet PV/20. Prosecution have proved that her body was stage managed, how is the defence going to prove that Sheila committed suicide if someone stage managed her body? So, Sheila committed suicide it is - I await with bated breath for the outcome...

Well argued.  I'm not sure where Jim is coming from or why he is crowing so much about what the defence do or do not claim?

[Roch]

But, at his Trial, Jeremy did not contend that a police officer shot Sheila!!! The defence team(s) employed by Jeremey, without exception, have always accepted that it's a straight choice between Jeremy and Sheila as to the identity of the murderer.
Take it from me, Jeremy's case is and always will be that Sheila was the murderer and Jeremy will never contend that it was a police officer who killed Sheila

Why are you so hung up on what the defence do now or did 26-7 years ago?     Cases like this evolve as per disclosure of evidence and received info.  Why are you so het up about the suggestion that cops at the seen made blunders or may have mishandled a rifle?   

[jim ignatowski]

Because you have to think like a judge !!!
If a submission is made to a judge that the police shot Sheila, the judge will simply enquire if that is a serious submission ? There is no evidence to support it and it is quite simply too ridiculous for words!!
Jeremy has had some very, very able legal representatives and not one has yet made that submission - it would cause a judge to become very angry!!
Jeremy's legal representatives will never, in the absence of evidence, make that submission- indeed, in the absence of evidence, the submission simply cannot be made
Mike tells us that he has a photograph of Sheila on the bed depicting a single bullet wound - this is a powerful piece of evidence since it begs the question how Sheila was subsequently photographed on the floor with two bullet wounds and it lays the evidential foundation for a submission that either Sheila subsequently re-shot herself or that she was shot by the police - in those circumstances, a judge, far from becoming angry with Jeremy, would direct his anger to Essex Police!!!
However, in the absence of such evidence, the submission that Sheila was shot by the police is, I repeat, a quite ridiculous submission
So, come on Mike, let's see the photograph!!!

[Roch]

Because you have to think like a judge !!!
If a submission is made to a judge that the police shot Sheila, the judge will simply enquire if that is a serious submission ? There is no evidence to support it and it is quite simply too ridiculous for words!!
Jeremy has had some very, very able legal representatives and not one has yet made that submission - it would cause a judge to become very angry!!
Jeremy's legal representatives will never, in the absence of evidence, make that submission- indeed, in the absence of evidence, the submission simply cannot be made
Mike tells us that he has a photograph of Sheila on the bed depicting a single bullet wound - this is a powerful piece of evidence since it begs the question how Sheila was subsequently photographed on the floor with two bullet wounds and it lays the evidential foundation for a submission that either Sheila subsequently re-shot herself or that she was shot by the police - in those circumstances, a judge, far from becoming angry with Jeremy, would direct his anger to Essex Police!!!
However, in the absence of such evidence, the submission that Sheila was shot by the police is, I repeat, a quite ridiculous submission
So, come on Mike, let's see the photograph!!!

Ok I'm with you.  I view this forum as a place of debate, about what took place, rather than some kind of direct  feed  in to Bamber's official defence.  It is a shocking allegation but I do not believe it is a ridiculous allegation.  Do you not think that the defence is stuck between a rock and a hard place?  There's no pleasing people on your side.  The defence are supposed to come up with an explanation for a fabricated piece of evidence.  But it was not the defence who fabricated the evidence in the first place!!!  Why should the defence jump through hoops for a referral by having to provide the exact explanation for the fabrication inflicted upon their client?  The defence can only provide what it can provide.  it cannot fill the gaps with submissions just to fill the gaps.  filling in the gaps is what this forum is about.  WE speculate on this forum, by a process of elimination, argument and debate about was actually in the gaps.

[Bridget]

Ok I'm with you.  I view this forum as a place of debate, about what took place, rather than some kind of direct  feed  in to Bamber's official defence.  It is a shocking allegation but I do not believe it is a ridiculous allegation.  Do you not think that the defence is stuck between a rock and a hard place?  There's no pleasing people on your side.  The defence are supposed to come up with an explanation for a fabricated piece of evidence.  But it was not the defence who fabricated the evidence in the first place!!!  Why should the defence jump through hoops for a referral by having to provide the exact explanation for the fabrication inflicted upon their client?  The defence can only provide what it can provide.  it cannot fill the gaps with submissions just to fill the gaps.  filling in the gaps is what this forum is about.  WE speculate on this forum, by a process of elimination, argument and debate about was actually in the gaps.

The defence have to show that it was fabricated (if that is what they assert) which is naturally going to take some sort of explanation. You can't just say "this is fabricated because we say so, now you prove it wasn't". I agree it's an uphill struggle, not least because the CCRC / CoA are going to strongly resist finding any impropriety on the part of the police without very strong evidence. To my mind this is why the Arizona tests weren't accepted as grounds for referral. They didn't show conclusively that a silencer wasn't used, and so the results could still be countered by the blood in the silencer evidence.

[Buddy]

The defence have to show that it was fabricated (if that is what they assert) which is naturally going to take some sort of explanation. You can't just say "this is fabricated because we say so, now you prove it wasn't". I agree it's an uphill struggle, not least because the CCRC / CoA are going to strongly resist finding any impropriety on the part of the police without very strong evidence. To my mind this is why the Arizona tests weren't accepted as grounds for referral. They didn't show conclusively that a silencer wasn't used, and so the results could still be countered by the blood in the silencer evidence.

Bridget, do you not think that the silencer evidence is tainted? First David supposedly scraped blood from it. Secondly the family had possesion of it for some considerable time. Third Bird dismantled it, before the forensics had seen it, also bearing in mind that the baffles may have been re assembled in the wrong order.
The silencer/s should never been allowed as part of the prosecutions case IMO.

[Bridget]

Bridget, do you not think that the silencer evidence is tainted? First David supposedly scraped blood from it. Secondly the family had possesion of it for some considerable time. Third Bird dismantled it, before the forensics had seen it, also bearing in mind that the baffles may have been re assembled in the wrong order.
The silencer/s should never been allowed as part of the prosecutions case IMO.

Hi Buddy, yes I think it's unsatisfactory, for most of the reasons you've stated. If I recall correctly, David didn't actually scrape the blood from it, he said that it was thick enough to be scraped off with a razor blade (not that he actually did it). But even so, I think if the defence were to turn it's mind to showing a real possibility of innocent contamination rather than any conspiracy to frame Jeremy they may actually get somewhere  towards discrediting the silencer evidence.

[Buddy]

Hi Buddy, yes I think it's unsatisfactory, for most of the reasons you've stated. If I recall correctly, David didn't actually scrape the blood from it, he said that it was thick enough to be scraped off with a razor blade (not that he actually did it). But even so, I think if the defence were to turn it's mind to showing a real possibility of innocent contamination rather than any conspiracy to frame Jeremy they may actually get somewhere  towards discrediting the silencer evidence.

Hi Bridget, David stated that he scraped the blood off because he was curious. Not only that but when the police arrived to collect the silencer the cop noticed a grey hair on it which then vanished.
Yes I agree the defence should have been more robust on the silencer evidence.

[mike tesko]

It takes time to organise a firearms team, and even if they had been called in straight away, that wouldn't have changed the decision to hold off until daylight, or to call in additional firearms officers once the size / layout of the building was known.

Essex police could simply release the message passed from the scene (CA07) by PS Bews, at the time the request for the firearms team to be deployed to whf. Not too difficult a request to make, but on the part of Essex police, a very difficult position to be in, considering that PS Bews made mention of the figure at the bedroom widow possibly in possession of a rifle? Not only have Essex police not provided a transcript of what PS Bews told the control room at the material time, but PS Bews makes no mention of what he actually said at that time in any witness statement. Neither is there any record of such a message having been received at the control room by any member of staff, police officer or civilian worker? How very odd do you not agree? I wonder why the police are very reluctant to release any information about what was said by PS Bews to someone at the control room? I also wonder what the person at the control room said to the senior police officer the information was passed onto when the request was made to deploy the firearms team? I wonder why we have not heard from the senior poice officer who was contacted and given the information which PS Bews had passed from the scene, and so on and so forth, on and on it goes, until the firearms team is deployed, and we still don't get any confirmation about who said what to whom, and in fact I am a little confused as to how exactly the firearms team managed to end up at the scene at around 5am? Was it as a result of information passed to the control room after the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window the reason for the deployment of the firearms team? Or, did they respond to the scene as a result of the attack alarm being activated? Seems to me to a very good chance that the occupants of CA07 went to the scene as a result of the attack alarm being activated, followed by the firearms team who took a while longer to organise and deploy?

There is no information passed from PS Bews to the control room about the figure sighted at the bedroom window because police went to the scene because the attack alarm had been activated, which overrode any other reason why armed police, or any police should be at the scene? If the attack alarm was activated, to be borne in mind is the reason why that alarm had been installed in the first place - it was installed because threats against Ralph Bambers life, and the lives of his family had been made arising out of Ralph's duties as a magistrate. If someone threatens to kill a magistrate and his family and an attack alarm has to be installed at the magistrates home, and it gets activated in the middle of the night, there is a very good chance that police will be deployed to the scene to deal with it, and that sooner or later the firearms team are going to be arriving at the scene...

I think this is what happened and why there is no disclosure of information passed by PS Bews to the control room after the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window. If anything the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window was linked in the mindset of the police to the threats to kill for which the attack alarm had been installed. They did not treat it as a trick of light at the material time, that came later when they put Jeremy in the frame....

[grahameb]

It takes time to organise a firearms team, and even if they had been called in straight away, that wouldn't have changed the decision to hold off until daylight, or to call in additional firearms officers once the size / layout of the building was known.

But how do you know that? There have been situations where police were sent in when it was dark. They may very well have held off too long for all you know? Perhaps lives would have been saved if they had gone in earlier?

[grahameb]

Why are you so hung up on what the defence do now or did 26-7 years ago?     Cases like this evolve as per disclosure of evidence and received info.  Why are you so het up about the suggestion that cops at the seen made blunders or may have mishandled a rifle?

Believe me cops aint that bright at the best of time. They've shot people by mistake before remember.

[Bridget]

Hi Bridget, David stated that he scraped the blood off because he was curious. Not only that but when the police arrived to collect the silencer the cop noticed a grey hair on it which then vanished.
Yes I agree the defence should have been more robust on the silencer evidence.

Hi Buddy, do you know what statement that was in? I was reading one a few days ago and all he says is that the blood was thick enough to be scraped off but not that he actually did it. I'll see if I can find it again when I get time.

[Bridget]

But how do you know that? There have been situations where police were sent in when it was dark. They may very well have held off too long for all you know? Perhaps lives would have been saved if they had gone in earlier?

Perhaps, but Mike's suggestion was that their policy of sending in a PS to assess the situation first delayed the calling in of the firearms team and may have cost lives. What I'm saying is that had they have sent in a firearms team earlier there's no reason to think that the decsions made concerning when to enter would have been any different - I mean, they sat around for a couple of hours or more anyway, why would it have been any different if they'd have arrived a half hour earlier?