Rifle flush with body, gun barrel under chin, clue...

[Roch]

Though I accept that EP didn't state what I stated, merely that the first page has been lost.

[Steve_uk]

hi steve
that's why i said that if the phone calls were only a FEW (ie (say) 3) minutes minutes apart!!!
jim

I think the telephone calls were ten minutes apart,but in any case neither Police Officer recalls speaking personally to Ralph(Nevill) Bamber.

[Steve_uk]

I'd be interested in Steve's opinions of why EP have stated that the first page of the event log, which includes the alleged sighting  / trick of the light incident has been lost.   Very convenient.   It was only a trick of the light but the first page relating to it only being a trick of the light, has had to be ditched?

I've no doubt there was some concealment of evidence to try and simplify matters in front of a jury. Wasn't all the evidence garnered against Sheila stolen in a burglary whilst it was in the loft..as for the trick of the light and the other "male" shadow being seen,I can't believe that with those Police Officers having surrounded the house that someone would escape from the skylight as was suggested by a local workman,and the Jeremy supporters should get their theory straight as to whether it was Sheila they think was wandering around the house having shot herself once with no forensic evidence that she was doing so,or whether it was this male figure who presumably was the hitman whom Jeremy hired and yet who lingered inside the property unnecessarily until the Police arrived.

[lebaleb]

I've no doubt there was some concealment of evidence to try and simplify matters in front of a jury. Wasn't all the evidence garnered against Sheila stolen in a burglary whilst it was in the loft..as for the trick of the light and the other "male" shadow being seen,I can't believe that with those Police Officers having surrounded the house that someone would escape from the skylight as was suggested by a local workman,and the Jeremy supporters should get their theory straight as to whether it was Sheila they think was wandering around the house having shot herself once with no forensic evidence that she was doing so,or whether it was this male figure who presumably was the hitman whom Jeremy hired and yet who lingered inside the property unnecessarily until the Police arrived.

We all have our own opinions that differ, even amongst Jeremy supporters

[-Harters-]

I think I've pretty much portrayed accurately the meaning of what Hunter states in the above relevant para.  If people want to go along with the concept of Hunter making up that an official response was that the page has been lost, then that is up to them.  Personally I don't go along with the idea that he would do so, merely because he supports the defence.  In fact I think the suggestion is insulting.  I asked Mike if there was a source document that accompanied Hunter's manuscript and he said he might be able to find one.  No offence but it's a pity you don't apply the same skeptical scrutiny to edited, composite, unsigned and changing prosecution witness statements.  They seem to be the gospel truth.

There is no way the police can allow the radio message relating to a potential sighting of a figure at the window, to be available.  it would simply undermine their prosecution of Bamber.  We have seen another document not supportive to their prosecution of Bamber, crossed in ink with the word "NO" written across it.  So I don't have much faith in the idea that the police didn't filter out anything that would cause real problems to their case.

With all due respect Rochy, that's rubbish, Hunters work features more unsubstantiated accusations than it does facts, also as an unpublished work, he commands no responsibility for it's accuracy. Unlike sworn statements for example.

In any event, you stated that the police had lost the front page of a log, where as you would have been more accurate to state that a supporter of Jeremy alleges that the police withheld and then mislaid a page of the log.

With regards to your scutiny comment, I'm quite certain that you are mistaken, I apply the same reasoning regardless of the direction that a particular theory or document points in. I reference things rather than citing what others have said as fact.

Like the allegations of statement editing, nothing indicates that to be the case, nothing at all. The memo describing the abridged typed statements, bears no resemblence to what is actually being alleged.

[Moe Cassani]

I've no doubt there was some concealment of evidence to try and simplify matters in front of a jury. Wasn't all the evidence garnered against Sheila stolen in a burglary whilst it was in the loft..as for the trick of the light and the other "male" shadow being seen,I can't believe that with those Police Officers having surrounded the house that someone would escape from the skylight as was suggested by a local workman,and the Jeremy supporters should get their theory straight as to whether it was Sheila they think was wandering around the house having shot herself once with no forensic evidence that she was doing so,or whether it was this male figure who presumably was the hitman whom Jeremy hired and yet who lingered inside the property unnecessarily until the Police arrived.

I do not believe for one minute that Sheila got up after she was first shot. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this. In fact the evidence shows that she did not. I also do not believe the police were in a conversation with someone inside the house either. I have looked closely at the evidence and it does not suggest either of these ideas. However, this does not mean that Jeremy definitely did it. It just removes that particular theory for me.

[susan]

Well done Moe I like a person who will stand up and speak their mind especially when they have studied the evidence.  Must dash now off pole dancing

[maggie]

Well done Moe I like a person who will stand up and speak their mind especially when they have studied the evidence.  Must dash now off pole dancing

Break a leg susie

[rhodes]

I do not believe for one minute that Sheila got up after she was first shot. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this. In fact the evidence shows that she did not. I also do not believe the police were in a conversation with someone inside the house either. I have looked closely at the evidence and it does not suggest either of these ideas. However, this does not mean that Jeremy definitely did it. It just removes that particular theory for me.

Any person shot in the neck with a rifle would have had blood all over there hands and neck if they were still conscious.  As Sheila didn't have this secondary blood staining on her hands and neck she must have been unconscious throughout.  IMO Sheila was given something to temporarily render her unconscious such as a general anaesthetic.  This would not have been found in her bloodstream or urine. 

[Margot]

Absolute nonsense.

If I am standing beside my car for instance and I am shot by a rifle, a revolver or even a machine gun then why on earth would I have blood on my hands ? I would be most probably dead.

[rhodes]

Absolute nonsense.

If I am standing beside my car for instance and I am shot by a rifle, a revolver or even a machine gun then why on earth would I have blood on my hands ? I would be most probably dead.

Yes you would be dead and totally incapable of shooting yourself twice.   

[mike tesko]

I do not believe for one minute that Sheila got up after she was first shot. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this. In fact the evidence shows that she did not. I also do not believe the police were in a conversation with someone inside the house either. I have looked closely at the evidence and it does not suggest either of these ideas. However, this does not mean that Jeremy definitely did it. It just removes that particular theory for me.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but it differs from what the pathologist Peter Venezis said, and from what the defence expert Professor Knight said...

The opinion of Venezis, differed from the opinion of Knight...

And then of course...

Enter the fray, Professor Herbert Leon McDonnel (New York, backspatter and bloodstain expert), who concluded after seeing all the crime scene photographs (senior investigating officers album 581 pictures) that the fingers of Sheila Caffells right hand had been pressed or position against one of the upper entry wounds and blood had pooled in the fold of her right arm which was the principle cause of the large triangular bloodstain on the front upper right hand side of her nightdress. Now, please educate me and try to persuade me exactly how that large bloodstain managed to get there on that part of her nightdress, and more importantly you tell me in clear, unambiguous, and precise terms, which of the two wounds that triangular bloodstain got there, and at what time? How for example, did the blood retained in the tyriangular shaped stain that we are talking about, manage to run horizontally in the fold of her arm and cause that bloodstain there, and why didn't the police at the scene upon finding or discovering Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, with her right hand upon or around the trigger mechanism of the rifle, and the muzzle of the rifle under or against her chin, conclude as they surely must have done (for gods sake) that somebody must have stage managed Sheila's body there on the bedroom floor, in order for that triangular shaped bloodstain to be there for all to see on the front upper right of the nightdress?

Which wound did the blood in that triangular stain on her nightdress originate from, non fatal (bullet PV/20), or fatal (bullet PV/19)?

[mike tesko]

With all due respect Rochy, that's rubbish, Hunters work features more unsubstantiated accusations than it does facts, also as an unpublished work, he commands no responsibility for it's accuracy. Unlike sworn statements for example.

In any event, you stated that the police had lost the front page of a log, where as you would have been more accurate to state that a supporter of Jeremy alleges that the police withheld and then mislaid a page of the log.

With regards to your scutiny comment, I'm quite certain that you are mistaken, I apply the same reasoning regardless of the direction that a particular theory or document points in. I reference things rather than citing what others have said as fact.

Like the allegations of statement editing, nothing indicates that to be the case, nothing at all. The memo describing the abridged typed statements, bears no resemblence to what is actually being alleged.

What a load of garbage...

Of course statements were edited, there is a document from the DPP's office confirming this - Jesus Christ, these perople will twist everything and anything...

What the fuck does "Abridged typed statements" mean?

[Roch]

With all due respect Rochy, that's rubbish, Hunters work features more unsubstantiated accusations than it does facts, also as an unpublished work, he commands no responsibility for it's accuracy. Unlike sworn statements for example.

In any event, you stated that the police had lost the front page of a log, where as you would have been more accurate to state that a supporter of Jeremy alleges that the police withheld and then mislaid a page of the log.

With regards to your scutiny comment, I'm quite certain that you are mistaken, I apply the same reasoning regardless of the direction that a particular theory or document points in. I reference things rather than citing what others have said as fact.

Like the allegations of statement editing, nothing indicates that to be the case, nothing at all. The memo describing the abridged typed statements, bears no resemblence to what is actually being alleged.

I'm not going to get in to an argument with you but I will give my opinions straight.

If you want to run with Essex Police benignly misplacing the front page of a document, then that's up to you.  If you want to trash Hunter, out of loyalty to certain prosecution witnesses, then that is also up to you.  Hunter scrutinised the case very deeply and had access to numerous sources.  I do not believe that Hunter was in any way incorrectly motivated in carrying out his studies.  His unpublished work is out of date, which is in keeping with the momentum and dynamics of this particular case, where so much has been withheld.  The purpose of withholding is not designed to aid the defence, it is designed to impede it.  So in this case, the defence is definitely the under dog.   

But as the saying goes, every dog has his day.

I find your opinion that no editing of statements has taken place both staggering yet predictable.

[-Harters-]

I'm not going to get in to an argument with you but I will give my opinions straight.

If you want to run with Essex Police benignly misplacing the front page of a document, then that's up to you.  If you want to trash Hunter, out of loyalty to certain prosecution witnesses, then that is also up to you.  Hunter scrutinised the case very deeply and had access to numerous sources.  I do not believe that Hunter was in any way incorrectly motivated in carrying out his studies.  His unpublished work is out of date, which is in keeping with the momentum and dynamics of this particular case, where so much has been withheld.  The purpose of withholding is not designed to aid the defence, it is designed to impede it.  So in this case, the defence is definitely the under dog.   

But as the saying goes, every dog has his day.

I find your opinion that no editing of statements has taken place both staggering yet predictable.

You're crediting me with views and intentions that I do not have.

Hunter, like Shaw, is not a reliable source of information, just because you agree with their claims, it doesn't make them any more real. The same logic should be equally applied to people making claims in support of the prosecutions case.

I'm not putting a missing front page of a log down to some minor irrelevance, I'm questioning whether a first page of a log even existed, you on the other hand are quick to simply accept that it did without any actual indication that it did. You try and suggest that such an item was withheld to try and hide the "trick of light" incident, yet you fail to accept that Jeremy was there in person, or was his memory also erased in an attempt to hide this?

Again, with editing of statements, where is the evidence that statements were edited in an attempt to mislead the defence? Surely the inconsistancies between statements clearly show that no straightening out of stories took place, or at least not in the sinister manner that you allege. I'd suggest that it is your own, unsupported views on this which are more predictable than me merely questioning these accusations. I'm not simply dismissing them without a second thought, I am asking for proof.

Obtuse?