Exposing what took place by reference to use of broom handle in reconstruction

[maggie]

Yes but then you would expect to see either another line relating to the further challenge, or something which says that she ceased responding, as opposed to no response.

Hi Bridget, one may expect to see another line relating to the 'no response' but as most of the logs are bitty and unclear I guess this is just another situation when we simply don't know. 

[Bridget]

Hi Bridget, one may expect to see another line relating to the 'no response' but as most of the logs are bitty and unclear I guess this is just another situation when we simply don't know.

I can agree with that You'd still expect to see an account of such a conversation in a witness statement though, wouldn't you?

[maggie]

I can agree with that You'd still expect to see an account of such a conversation in a witness statement though, wouldn't you?

Seriously Bridget I don't know because there are so many anomalies in this case that what we expect should happen rarely seems to have done.  I am interested in jon's comment that David Shaw states in front of a solicitor that he has heard Sheila's or a female voice on the tape.....interesting.

[-Harters-]

The entry stating 'no response' was just 4 minutes after the one which suggested they were in a conversation. If there had have been a conversation don't you think they would have detailed what was said? If not in the logs then in someone's statement. It's far more likely that they spent 4 minutes shouting through a loudhailer and got no response.

Is it worth remembering that the person who wrote that log entry was not at the scene (Bonnett), when he heard the police trying to communicate with anybody in the house, it may well have sounded like a conversation, all be it a one sided one (which obviously by definition is not a conversation at all).

I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that this indicates that somebody was alive in the house at that time.

[lookout]

How easy is it to have said " no response " when none of US were there.! We unfortunately have to,,or not,rely on what the police say,,which isn't always true.

[Steve_uk]

The " lost clues " was in the MailOnline 11th of January 2008,,,which stated that Sheila wasn't dead when police had entered the farmhouse,so she was then put in the recovery position,,hence the blood-flow out of the corners of her mouth.
I'm sorry,,,but the indications must have been there,,even though I wasn't,,,to enable the police to see if they could have saved her life. A dead person,as you know,is completely lifeless,and visibly deceased in many ways.

I would suggest that this article is read alongside the Dickinson report,which clearly intimates that Jeremy is guilty.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-507801/The-lost-clues-clear-Bambi-killer-gunning-family.html

The scenario that there are two would-be killers in one household is just too far-fetched in my opinion.

[Jane]

I know very little of CPR, save that the head is tilted back to clear the air way. Had EP performed such an operation on Sheila, would not the contents of her mouth, resulting from the first injury, have been expelled, creating flow pattern different from what had previously been. Apologies for lack of clarity, but I'm trying not to be too graphic.

[lookout]

I would suggest that this article is read alongside the Dickinson report,which clearly intimates that Jeremy is guilty.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-507801/The-lost-clues-clear-Bambi-killer-gunning-family.html

The scenario that there are two would-be killers in one household is just too far-fetched in my opinion.

There are,,and always will be,conflicting views as to which newspaper you read,or prefer. Because the case was so badly investigated,,those who say that Jeremy is guilty are becoming a minority because of the public awareness of the sloppy way it was all handled,,,,as have been a lot of other high-profile cases since this one. Unless anyone was physically there,at the scene,,one can only surmise/assume what went on,and that includes those of us who say that Jeremy is innocent,,,except that personally speaking I remember the case well and so drew my own conclusions years ago without the use of a computer,etc,,or without opinions of others ( I don't listen to others anyway )  I work things out for myself and don't need prompting.
Reading " anti-Bamber " material isn't exactly the way forward,as then,you just get a biased opinion. The idea is to form your OWN opinion by looking at both sides and constructively form your own verdict without leaning on others for answers.
Newspapers,,,books,,links,,etc etc,don't know nor publish the real truth,,,it's still supposition whichever way you look at it. I reiterrate,,,we weren't there,,,none of us.
I imagine Mike knows a thing or two,,but he's biding his time.
Jeremy had a very unfair trial. That, you must agree with,,as he had the world and its wife against him,,made worse by the judge on that day,who swayed the jury,,,except for the two,who,,if they'd been joined by one more member would have secured Jeremys' freedom.
Why,,,during such a much publicised case,,do you think that it wasn't the whole 12 jury.?

My reason for dismissing Jeremy out of the equation was because I'd worked in a mental hospital and had experienced what women were capable of,,,with or without treatment. Most medication for psychotics carries the risk of side effects which mimic what they'd be like without it. There is no " one fits all " when it comes to mental illness. It's all very trial and error as to which is going to be the most suitable,,,and I'd have said that in Sheilas' case,,,that some of what she was taking was unsuitable for her and caused more problems than cured her.

BTW,,so far as I'm concerned,there were no killers in that household,,just a very sick and misguided woman who wasn't responsible for her actions of that fateful night.

[Steve_uk]

There are,,and always will be,conflicting views as to which newspaper you read,or prefer. Because the case was so badly investigated,,those who say that Jeremy is guilty are becoming a minority because of the public awareness of the sloppy way it was all handled,,,,as have been a lot of other high-profile cases since this one. Unless anyone was physically there,at the scene,,one can only surmise/assume what went on,and that includes those of us who say that Jeremy is innocent,,,except that personally speaking I remember the case well and so drew my own conclusions years ago without the use of a computer,etc,,or without opinions of others ( I don't listen to others anyway )  I work things out for myself and don't need prompting.
Reading " anti-Bamber " material isn't exactly the way forward,as then,you just get a biased opinion. The idea is to form your OWN opinion by looking at both sides and constructively form your own verdict without leaning on others for answers.
Newspapers,,,books,,links,,etc etc,don't know nor publish the real truth,,,it's still supposition whichever way you look at it. I reiterrate,,,we weren't there,,,none of us.
I imagine Mike knows a thing or two,,but he's biding his time.
Jeremy had a very unfair trial. That, you must agree with,,as he had the world and its wife against him,,made worse by the judge on that day,who swayed the jury,,,except for the two,who,,if they'd been joined by one more member would have secured Jeremys' freedom.
Why,,,during such a much publicised case,,do you think that it wasn't the whole 12 jury.?

My reason for dismissing Jeremy out of the equation was because I'd worked in a mental hospital and had experienced what women were capable of,,,with or without treatment. Most medication for psychotics carries the risk of side effects which mimic what they'd be like without it. There is no " one fits all " when it comes to mental illness. It's all very trial and error as to which is going to be the most suitable,,,and I'd have said that in Sheilas' case,,,that some of what she was taking was unsuitable for her and caused more problems than cured her.

BTW,,so far as I'm concerned,there were no killers in that household,,just a very sick and misguided woman who wasn't responsible for her actions of that fateful night.

Lookout I am in no way decrying those who are afflicted with mental illness and some of the posts here go beyond the bounds of human decency in that regard. Had Sheila killed or slayed her family I would be the first to say she was not mentally culpable and had she survived and confessed to the crime she would now in all probability be serving time in an institution for the criminally insane.

The reason I ask people to read both the Daily Mail "new evidence" and the Dickinson report is that you get two views slanted at both sides of the argument. One might if one were being unkind say that the Daily Mail article's primary concern was to sell newspapers for that day,and the Dickinson report was to cover the backs of the officialdom who dealt with the murders,but again both assertions would be sweeping. I am pleased that you have made time to study the case,but I reiterate myself,there were two pillars to this case-the Julie Mugford testimony and the silencer evidence,and unless or until both of these pillars have been totally dismantled then in my opinion Jeremy Bamber is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and his conviction remains safe.

[Jane]

There are,,and always will be,conflicting views as to which newspaper you read,or prefer. Because the case was so badly investigated,,those who say that Jeremy is guilty are becoming a minority because of the public awareness of the sloppy way it was all handled,,,,as have been a lot of other high-profile cases since this one. Unless anyone was physically there,at the scene,,one can only surmise/assume what went on,and that includes those of us who say that Jeremy is innocent,,,except that personally speaking I remember the case well and so drew my own conclusions years ago without the use of a computer,etc,,or without opinions of others ( I don't listen to others anyway )  I work things out for myself and don't need prompting.
Reading " anti-Bamber " material isn't exactly the way forward,as then,you just get a biased opinion. The idea is to form your OWN opinion by looking at both sides and constructively form your own verdict without leaning on others for answers.
Newspapers,,,books,,links,,etc etc,don't know nor publish the real truth,,,it's still supposition whichever way you look at it. I reiterrate,,,we weren't there,,,none of us.
I imagine Mike knows a thing or two,,but he's biding his time.
Jeremy had a very unfair trial. That, you must agree with,,as he had the world and its wife against him,,made worse by the judge on that day,who swayed the jury,,,except for the two,who,,if they'd been joined by one more member would have secured Jeremys' freedom.
Why,,,during such a much publicised case,,do you think that it wasn't the whole 12 jury.?

My reason for dismissing Jeremy out of the equation was because I'd worked in a mental hospital and had experienced what women were capable of,,,with or without treatment. Most medication for psychotics carries the risk of side effects which mimic what they'd be like without it. There is no " one fits all " when it comes to mental illness. It's all very trial and error as to which is going to be the most suitable,,,and I'd have said that in Sheilas' case,,,that some of what she was taking was unsuitable for her and caused more problems than cured her.

BTW,,so far as I'm concerned,there were no killers in that household,,just a very sick and misguided woman who wasn't responsible for her actions of that fateful night.

Lookout, hi. I totally support all you've said. I've said previously, that whilst I think Sheila's finger pulled the trigger, it wasn't Sheila's brain giving the instructions.

Is it known at what time the family had supper that night? I've just read that Jeremy and his father finished work at 10.30pm which would be about right at harvest time. This must have meant that supper was very early as it would hardly have been worth N and J taking time out at between, say, 7 or 8, to go in and eat and then go back to work. Conjecture on my part, of course, but which ever way the timing of the meal pans out, it seems to me, save for feeding, bathing and putting the twins to bed, that Sheila and June would have been alone together for several hours. I imagine, at the best of times, June might have been as red rag to a bull when it came to dealing with Sheila. If she had no concept of the stresses Sheila was experiencing, a mother/daughter tete a tete wouldn't have been a good idea. Jeremy makes no mention of an atmosphere, but Neville may have experienced one, which may explain why he was terse with his secretary when she phoned. It may have been that during time they spent alone together June threatened Sheila with the removal of her boys/told her they would get her sectioned/told her they would sell the London property and she and the boys would have to return to the farm.

I remain convinced that June had a very strong emotional and psychological hold on Sheila which caused her to be dependent when she longed to be free.

[Steve_uk]

And don't you think Jeremy sensed this? An unhappy sister who would not be reconciled with Colin,twins who were preventing his ex brother-in-law from obtaining regular employment,a mother who may well have exercised a hold on Sheila through biblical references and who had sought psychiatric help in the past,and a father who was disappointed by him because he hadn't taken to the farming lifestyle. All this mulling around the head of a person who yearned to be free of it all,who had made plans for a year on how the crime would be carried out,quizzing Colin about when the twins would be present at the farm,trying to get Sheila to load the rifle,knowing an entrance to the farm bypassing the main thoroughfares,the ladies' bicycle which he had himself ridden in front of Ann Eaton,the telephone calls to Julie,the delay in calling the Police,the charade of his behaviour at the funerals and his haste to call Basil Cock the executor..to my mind it's all beyond reasonable doubt sorry..

[Roch]

The entry stating 'no response' was just 4 minutes after the one which suggested they were in a conversation. If there had have been a conversation don't you think they would have detailed what was said? If not in the logs then in someone's statement. It's far more likely that they spent 4 minutes shouting through a loudhailer and got no response.

You'd still expect to see an account of such a conversation in a witness statement though, wouldn't you?

Extremely unlikely, given the direction of the prosecution's case and the execution of the second investigation under Ainsley.  Though it's possible that what you are saying re unmet challenges is correct.   However, a series of unmet loudhailer challenges, described specifically as 'in conversation with a person from inside the farm' 

[Bridget]

Extremely unlikely, given the direction of the prosecution's case and the execution of the second investigation under Ainsley.  Though it's possible that what you are saying re unmet challenges is correct.   However, a series of unmet loudhailer challenges, described specifically as 'in conversation with a person from inside the farm' 

If there was an actual conversation with a person inside then the belief would have been that there was indeed a person alive inside who had a gun. The firearms teams, including the raid team, would have been briefed accordingly. Several of them describe what they were told before taking up their positions, and none of them mention being briefed in such a way. So if you are suggesting that the statement of the officer with the loudhailer was edited to exclude that information, so too must those of the firearms officers. At what point does all of this editing and collusion to suppress evidence for no apparent reason become just too ridiculous to believe?

[lookout]

Steve,,let's remember,,we're talking about a 24 year old young man,,who'd found freedom living on his own at Goldhanger. No time for family upheavals,,just going out enjoying himself,as men of that age did,and still do. They're not interested in family" set-to's " and only perhaps listen to snippets of conversation in between thinking about other things in their young lives.
I doubt if he even took much notice of what was really going on. It's only as he's got older that he's realised that his sister was more sick than anyone realised.
In Jeremys' defence,,I doubt that he overworked himself at the farm,,and what bit he did,probably knocked him for six as he wouldn't have been used to hard graft as a lot of us have probably experienced,,so therefore,besides the fact that he didn't commit any murders that night,,he wouldn't have had the energy,let alone the mindset to have done such a thing.
Like a lot of young men,,he was just full of hot air with his " supposed threats ",but it certainly didn't mean that he'd ever carry them out. He wouldn't have said boo to a goose. He had respect for his parents,,and they thought a lot of him.Poor Sheila was the thorn in their sides with her unpredictable behaviour over the years which would have taken its toll on her parents.


Just say for instance that he had murdered his family. It would have been between midnight and 3am,,,if he went home at all. What blows that theory out of the water is the fact that blood had been pumping out of Sheilas' neck by the time the police had gained entry. So we all know that she was the last one to die,,,,it would seem,while Jeremy was outside with the police,,,though why he wasn't allowed into the house to at least try and reason with Sheila,I don't know. Why was he kept out of the house.? Plus,there was no sign of mortis,either rigor or livor. What does let the side down is the fact that none of the deceased were given a time of death,,which to my mind, is/should have been a vital part of the investigation,,,as it's a recognised part of  a coroners report. 

[Roch]

If there was an actual conversation with a person inside then the belief would have been that there was indeed a person alive inside who had a gun. The firearms teams, including the raid team, would have been briefed accordingly. Several of them describe what they were told before taking up their positions, and none of them mention being briefed in such a way. So if you are suggesting that the statement of the officer with the loudhailer was edited to exclude that information, so too must those of the firearms officers. At what point does all of this editing and collusion to suppress evidence for no apparent reason become just too ridiculous to believe?

As far we're concerned, firearms team statements only came to light in the wake of the case becoming a prosecution against Bamber.  No such prosecution is going to include in their attack, statements relating to a conversation with a live person in the farmhouse are they?  The firearms team did not enter the farmhouse under the impression that everyone was dead.   At one point, an officer calls for Sheila Bamber to make her self known, due to noises heard.  It also might be worth noting at this point, how many statements are actually signed and how many firearms officers testified at trial?