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

[Bridget]

But there is - Jeremy made a complaint to a police officer at the scene on the morning of the shootings that the police had shot and killed all of his family, and that complaint was never investigated by anyone at any time, and some 27 years have elapsed since he made that complaint to a police officer at the scene upon learning that all his family inside the farmhouse were dead...

With respect, that is not evidence.

[grahameb]

With respect, that is not evidence.

Every complaint to the police must by law be investigated. This they apparently did not do?

[lookout]

He'd have heard the gunshots,Grahame,,but probably at the time didn't attach anything overly serious,,more of, say,warning shots being fired in the air,as opposed to him thinking the worst,,,as what happened. He was used to Sheila " kicking off ",but this action took it to extremes which he wouldn't have really been aware of,or expecting at the onset,until reaching the farmhouse. He would have been in shock, but felt suppressed at showing it because of the " unemotional " upbringing,,,as well as his macho image  being shot to pieces.

It's sad to think that he must have done his grieving while being locked up like that,,,as that in itself can take a couple of years to get over in normal circumstances,,,but these were not normal circumstances which he found himself in,,,but he will have been trying to come to terms with what had happened and to also try and fathom out how and why he got the blame. Which is evident in the reams of written  paperwork which has been mounting up since he was incarcerated.
 

[Bridget]

Every complaint to the police must by law be investigated. This they apparently did not do?

I mean, a complaint in itself is not evidence.

[mike tesko]

With respect, that is not evidence.

With counter respect, it is evidence because a police officer took the complaint and refers to it in a witness statement. Of course it is evidence, Jeremy made a complaint that the police shot and killed his family, what more needs to be done or said to make it into evidence? How convenient that whenever anything shows the police investigation and handling of the case in a poor light, or there is anything which favours Jeremy's defence, it is always described as not being evidence, or whatever?

Jeremy made a complaint to a police officer that the police had shot and killed his family and that police officer who was on duty at the material time the complaint was made, had an obligation to act upon that complaint and deal with it accordingly. These were the very first words spoken by Jeremy upon being told by the police that all his family were in fact dead inside the farmhouse, so this was an important part of the case which the jury ought to have been told about (along with many other things which the police and the prosecution swept under the carpet)...

This was one of those occasions where the police were not too keen to verbal Jeremy up and use what he said upon first being notified that his entire family was dead, since to take that approach might alert everyone to the possibility that police did shoot one or more of the victims?

[Roch]

This was one of those occasions where the police were not too keen to verbal Jeremy up and use what he said upon first being notified that his entire family was dead, since to take that approach might alert everyone to the possibility that police did shoot one or more of the victims?

Classy posting Mike. 

[mike tesko]

And the thing is - the police were / are responsible for Sheila being shot for the second time by bullet PV/20 under the chin, whichever way you look at it, or whichever way you want to describe how she got shot for the second time in the bedroom, whether or not she actually pulled the trigger or the police did accidentally or otherwise. It should not have happened, it could have been prevented from happening, but instead of holding their hands up and coming to the table and saying it was a terrible accident, the police have chosen to lie about it. They have falsified records, tampered with exhibits, used all manner of underhand techniques to get away with them being responsible for Sheila's death inside the bedroom at whf. The then DPP even got in on the act, and typed out witness statements for prosecution witness to sign which were made up in the absence of the witnesses in question. They can lie and falsify evidence at the stroke of a pen and they appear to be able to get away with it, without fear of prosecution or loss of liberty - in my book there are all criminals, and anyone who supports what they did and what they do, must be themselves corrupted...

[Bridget]

With counter respect, it is evidence because a police officer took the complaint and refers to it in a witness statement. Of course it is evidence, Jeremy made a complaint that the police shot and killed his family, what more needs to be done or said to make it into evidence? How convenient that whenever anything shows the police investigation and handling of the case in a poor light, or there is anything which favours Jeremy's defence, it is always described as not being evidence, or whatever?

Jeremy made a complaint to a police officer that the police had shot and killed his family and that police officer who was on duty at the material time the complaint was made, had an obligation to act upon that complaint and deal with it accordingly. These were the very first words spoken by Jeremy upon being told by the police that all his family were in fact dead inside the farmhouse, so this was an important part of the case which the jury ought to have been told about (along with many other things which the police and the prosecution swept under the carpet)...

This was one of those occasions where the police were not too keen to verbal Jeremy up and use what he said upon first being notified that his entire family was dead, since to take that approach might alert everyone to the possibility that police did shoot one or more of the victims?

Firstly, it was a comment, not a complaint. Secondly the fact that Jeremy made the comment is not evidence that it happened, Jeremy was not in the house and has not mentioned hearing shots. Thirdly, Jeremy knows what he said, and could have used it in whatever way he thought would best serve him, but didn't. 

[mike tesko]

Firstly, it was a comment, not a complaint. Secondly the fact that Jeremy made the comment is not evidence that it happened, Jeremy was not in the house and has not mentioned hearing shots. Thirdly, Jeremy knows what he said, and could have used it in whatever way he thought would best serve him, but didn't.

Comments made by witnesses always find there way into evidence, he felt justified in making such a complaint because he and the other police officers had seen someone moving around inside the farmhouse shortly after arriving there, and later Jeremy had seen men carrying guns going towards the farmhouse. He did not have to hear any gunshots, the fact that he and the other two police officers had seen someone alive moving around in the bedroom, beforehand, and the fact that he saw men with guns rushing off in the direction of the farmhouse, justified him making the observation he did, and should have been acted upon. It was a complaint / comment that you simply cannot just dismiss, since Jeremy was not to know at that time, that police officers would later on try to explain away the sighting of the moving figure at the bedroom widow as a simple trick of light? The complaint made by Jeremy at that time was evidence which ought to have been given during the trial, and given by the police officer who received the complaint, since such a complaint was linked to the claim of the sighting of the moving figure at the bedroom window. It establishes in the mind of Bamber that he believed all his family to still be alive inside the farmhouse after his and the arrival of the police at just before 4am? This complaint made by Bamber to that police officer, had some substance to it, since the police themselves acted upon the earlier sighting of the figure at the bedroom window by treating the incident as a siege - hence why it was several hours before they decided to force their way into the building...

[Bridget]

Comments made by witnesses always find there way into evidence, he felt justified in making such a complaint because he and the other police officers had seen someone moving around inside the farmhouse shortly after arriving there, and later Jeremy had seen men carrying guns going towards the farmhouse. He did not have to hear any gunshots, the fact that he and the other two police officers had seen someone alive moving around in the bedroom, beforehand, and the fact that he saw men with guns rushing off in the direction of the farmhouse, justified him making the observation he did, and should have been acted upon. It was a complaint / comment that you simply cannot just dismiss, since Jeremy was not to know at that time, that police officers would later on try to explain away the sighting of the moving figure at the bedroom widow as a simple trick of light? The complaint made by Jeremy at that time was evidence which ought to have been given during the trial, and given by the police officer who received the complaint, since such a complaint was linked to the claim of the sighting of the moving figure at the bedroom window. It establishes in the mind of Bamber that he believed all his family to still be alive inside the farmhouse after his and the arrival of the police at just before 4am? This complaint made by Bamber to that police officer, had some substance to it, since the police themselves acted upon the earlier sighting of the figure at the bedroom window by treating the incident as a siege - hence why it was several hours before they decided to force their way into the building...

It was treated as a siege because he had told them that Sheila was a 'nutter' who had gone crazy and had a gun, and she had not responded when they used the loudhailer.

Both the 'trick of the light' incident and Jeremy's comment to Saxby (?) were known to Jeremy, so it was up to him to put them into evidence. I suggest he didn't because he knew that neither had any substance.

[mike tesko]

It was treated as a siege because he had told them that Sheila was a 'nutter' who had gone crazy and had a gun, and she had not responded when they used the loudhailer.

Both the 'trick of the light' incident and Jeremy's comment to Saxby (?) were known to Jeremy, so it was up to him to put them into evidence. I suggest he didn't because he knew that neither had any substance.

It was treated as a siege because the police went to whf so that they could send in a situation report accompanied by a request for the firearms team to be sent out - If it had been a trick of light I doubt that a request would have been sent out for the attendance of the firearms team to come to the scene. It was not a trick of light at the material time, it only became a trick of light excuse in time for the trial to foil Jeremy's alibi (in my opinion)...

PC Myall the other police officer who witnessed the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window has not reverted to the "trick of light" excuse /story, and details of the message passed from the scene to the control room have not been disclosed so that an informed assessment of what took place, and what is now being used as an excuse, can be evaluated? It did not turn into a siege situation because of what Jeremy told the police, it turned into a siege situation because the police were sent to the scene to carry out an evaluation account and report back to the control room which is what took place. It was the detail passed back to the control room and the request for the firearms team to attend which resulted in it turning into a siege, so Jeremy can't be blamed for that I am afraid...

[jim ignatowski]

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

[mike tesko]

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

and that my friend is why Jeremy is still where he is, and why his case keeps getting nowhere fast...

[mike tesko]

The police have not gone to all this trouble to falsify the evidence, withhold hundreds of thousands of documents and crime scene photographs and cover up the circumstances of Sheila's death in the bedroom at whf,  if Sheila really did commit suicide?

Do you not agree?

[mike tesko]

The police have not gone to all this trouble to falsify the evidence, withhold hundreds of thousands of documents and crime scene photographs and cover up the circumstances of Sheila's death in the bedroom at whf,  if Sheila really did commit suicide?

Do you not agree?

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...