Dr. Ian Donaldson Craig 12-11-86

[Nickos]

Nickos,,why,after that first shot,didn't Sheila summon help.? There was ample time to have phoned for assistance if a domestic argument had boiled over into what it did.

Nobody summoned help initially that night because the occupants didn't think that the situation would warrant it,,and it must have been terrifying to see, and believe what they saw.

Hi lookout, I believe the first shot to SC' throat may have actually rendered her unconscious hence she could not summon any help. I believe the pathologist has mentioned a potential for unconsciousness following the "throat shot".

If SC, following the throat shot, then entered a form of catatonia (through shock) she may have looked " lifeless" on the floor (or bed) for some time (alive; but looking dead). This may have also convinced JB that SC was dead.

If then (after Craig had seen her) the second shot was accidental , then that’s all it was.

I personally believe that no one got the opportunity to summon help that night, as they were all dead, or believed to be dead, before the murderer left WHF!

[lookout]

Hi lookout, I believe the first shot to SC' throat may have actually rendered her unconscious hence she could not summon any help. I believe the pathologist has mentioned a potential for unconsciousness following the "throat shot".

If SC, following the throat shot, then entered a form of catatonia (through shock) she may have looked " lifeless" on the floor (or bed) for some time (alive; but looking dead). This may have also convinced JB that SC was dead.

If then (after Craig had seen her) the second shot was accidental , then that’s all it was.

I personally believe that no one got the opportunity to summon help that night, as they were all dead, or believed to be dead, before the murderer left WHF!

Nickos,,what are your thoughts on that second shot having been " accidental " during what might have been a catatonic shock and not actual death. ? Bearing in mind that Jeremy would have been outside.
Also,,do you have in mind, anyone else who would have had a motive,or who may have overheard Jeremy at some time when he spoke " ill " of his family,,and who may have framed him.? Just a thought.

[Bridget]

I mentioned this recently but put it in a different way.  Nobody who veers towards guilt seems to have cottoned on to a scenario where both JB is the killer (responsible for first shot) and the police also bungle the raid.  I do not believe this my self but I do feel that among posters who veer towards guilt, there is an aversion to the concept of police corruption.  That might explain why nobody else seems to have been down this road.

As Hartley has said, it has nothing to do with "cottoning on", none of us have seen any credible evidence at all that the police shot Sheila, and the available evidence points to the contrary. In the absence of any reason for the police to either frame Jeremy, or cover anything up, there is no reason to suspect corruption in this case, but that doesn't mean we deny that it exists generally.

I do wonder if anything possibly could or would indicate to you that corruption had occurred.  I reserve the right to treat with a pinch of salt your alleged lack of aversion to the concept of police corruption or your stance that it does occur... but not in this case. Without wishing to offend, a cynic might suggest that denial of police corruption goes hand in hand with a stance in the case.  An acceptance of police corruption leads to the uncomfortable realisation of a need to readjust that stance. Therefore denial of corruption becomes a defensive crutch employed to avert the need to readjust a guilty stance.  All just my opinion.

A cynic might also suggest that police corruption is a crutch widely used by pro-Bambers to explain the evidence against him, and the lack of evidence against Sheila.

[maggie]

Mags (or anyone), would you care to comment of the following bit of my earlier post?

"However; JB could still  have administered the first shot some time earlier, SC lived and that's why her blood may have still been wet when photographed!!

The second shot, even if accidental and possibly inflicted after Craig had seen her body, may show further EP incompetence, but it does not necessarily exonerate JB."

In my view EP incompetence does not = JB innocent.

I agree with you Nick, this proves nothing.  I only mentioned it because I found it a surprising way to certify death....one I had never seen before but I have never seen death certified at a murder scene.  Hospitals etc are supposedly, a slightly more civilised environment.

[-Harters-]

Try this site.  It contains the docs plus a clear image of the vivid / enhanced / blow-up photo, to assist in understanding the point I made about the pools obscuring.

http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/bamber.php4

Regarding MacDonnell, his work is from the 90's I think.  He will therefore not have seen any batches of wet blood photos.  That seems to be the argument.  Perhaps Mike can give an opinion.

You may have noticed that I pinched most of those documents from that site and posted them on here last year.

Can you speak Italian? We could put it through google translate I suppose, but without having access to the CCRC's reasons for rejection I'm afraid I am unable to hold an informed opinion.

[-Harters-]

I do wonder if anything possibly could or would indicate to you that corruption had occurred.  I reserve the right to treat with a pinch of salt your alleged lack of aversion to the concept of police corruption or your stance that it does occur... but not in this case. Without wishing to offend, a cynic might suggest that denial of police corruption goes hand in hand with a stance in the case.  An acceptance of police corruption leads to the uncomfortable realisation of a need to readjust that stance. Therefore denial of corruption becomes a defensive crutch employed to avert the need to readjust a guilty stance.  All just my opinion.

Show me evidence that police corruption occurred in this case and I will accept it, the reason why I do not accept it is because I have not seen such evidence.
Nor have you, otherwise you would no doubt point it out to me.

Also, just my opinion. 

We could have a similar conversation about the Lochness Monster if you are a believer?

[Nickos]

Nickos,,

1) what are your thoughts on that second shot having been " accidental " during what might have been a catatonic shock and not actual death. ? Bearing in mind that Jeremy would have been outside.

2) Also,,do you have in mind, anyone else who would have had a motive,or who may have overheard Jeremy at some time when he spoke " ill " of his family,,and who may have framed him.? Just a thought.

1) If the 2nd shot, fired accidentally whist SC was catatonic, and fired after Craig had seen her, then as previously stated it was simply accidental.

I still believe JB administered the first shot  (probably both), and that if following the first shot, SC was catatonic, he simply left her for dead.

Anyone suggesting the second, and therefore fatal shot to SC, was administered "accidentally" or otherwise, by "the police", and that that the police are trying to cover this up, are in my mind simply trying to throw some off the scent, so to speak, in respect of JB's crime.

2) Mmmm, that's an interesting one. I have in the past toyed with a third party, or an accomplice, but all with JB's backing. It's down to that alleged phone call referring to SC - it didn't happen imo. Therefore it was JB.



As fascinating/intriguing as the story is, I do not follow that if EP accidentally shot SC, then JB must be innocent.

What concerns me is that if a cock up of this magnitude (1 above) happened and comes to light, EP and all there "evidence" will be thrown out, and a murderer based on a technicality (albeit a pretty big one!)could be released.
 
What seems to happen time and time again on the forum is that if one paints a dark enough picture against the relatives (and I am sure they were not all angels), the pathologist, the police (and they certainly screwed up), the doctors, Sheila, June, etc., then of course that must mean that JB is innocent, and imo it does not.

I made a statement some time ago to the effect that it is hard evidence that is needed to free JB (not hard evidence to convict him - he has already been convicted).

JB’s freedom is now dependant on him needing hard evidence to free him - and there is certainly nothing in the form of hard evidence on this (or any other) forum that will free him.

If JB’s legal teams had hard evidence he would be out, but they do not!
 
If the hard evidence eventually comes to light then so be it.

[jon]

How many policemen were disciplined over the Bamber case and why were they disciplined ?

[lookout]

1) If the 2nd shot, fired accidentally whist SC was catatonic, and fired after Craig had seen her, then as previously stated it was simply accidental.

I still believe JB administered the first shot  (probably both), and that if following the first shot, SC was catatonic, he simply left her for dead.

Anyone suggesting the second, and therefore fatal shot to SC, was administered "accidentally" or otherwise, by "the police", and that that the police are trying to cover this up, are in my mind simply trying to throw some off the scent, so to speak, in respect of JB's crime.

2) Mmmm, that's an interesting one. I have in the past toyed with a third party, or an accomplice, but all with JB's backing. It's down to that alleged phone call referring to SC - it didn't happen imo. Therefore it was JB.



As fascinating/intriguing as the story is, I do not follow that if EP accidentally shot SC, then JB must be innocent.

What concerns me is that if a cock up of this magnitude (1 above) happened and comes to light, EP and all there "evidence" will be thrown out, and a murderer based on a technicality (albeit a pretty big one!)could be released.
 
What seem to happen time and time again on the forum is that if one paints a dark enough picture against the relatives (and I am sure they were not all angels), the pathologist, the police (and they certainly screwed up), the doctors, Sheila, June, etc., then of course that must mean that JB is innocent, and imo it does not.

I made a statement some time ago to the effect that it is hard evidence that is needed to free JB (not hard evidence to convict him - he has already been convicted).

JB’s freedom is now dependant on him needing hard evidence to free him - and there is certainly nothing in the form of hard evidence on this (or any other) forum that will free him.

If JB’s legal teams had hard evidence he would be out, but they do not!
 
If the hard evidence eventually comes to light then so be it.

Nickos,,I don't mean to insult your intelligence in any way,but could you look up the term,Akathisia.
You see,,there is far more proof that Sheila carried out those killings while the balance of her mind was disturbed.

[-Harters-]

What seem to happen time and time again on the forum is that if one paints a dark enough picture against the relatives (and I am sure they were not all angels), the pathologist, the police (and they certainly screwed up), the doctors, Sheila, June, etc., then of course that must mean that JB is innocent, and imo it does not.

I made a statement some time ago to the effect that it is hard evidence that is needed to free JB (not hard evidence to convict him - he has already been convicted).

JB’s freedom is now dependant on him needing hard evidence to free him - and there is certainly nothing in the form of hard evidence on this (or any other) forum that will free him.

If JB’s legal teams had hard evidence he would be out, but they do not!
 
If the hard evidence eventually comes to light then so be it.

I think it would be extremely difficult for anybody to disagree with what you have written here.

[Roch]

As Hartley has said, it has nothing to do with "cottoning on", none of us have seen any credible evidence at all that the police shot Sheila, and the available evidence points to the contrary. In the absence of any reason for the police to either frame Jeremy, or cover anything up, there is no reason to suspect corruption in this case, but that doesn't mean we deny that it exists generally.

A cynic might also suggest that police corruption is a crutch widely used by pro-Bambers to explain the evidence against him, and the lack of evidence against Sheila.

I do not expect everyone to agree with me on the following and am perfectly happy for others to disagree...

My view on this is that if a person cannot see corruption in the Bamber case, then they are either not wanting to see it or they would be unlikely to recognise corruption in any other case either.  Which leads to me to feel that some people do have an aversion to the concept of police corruption.  In my opinion, this manifests itself in two ways.  An absurd demand for evidence of corruption, as if police would evidence their own corruption, in a similar format to the evidence that they present when prosecuting a case.  Also a repetitive insistance that every hint of corruption is merely a benign error or misunderstanding.  Again, this simply leads me to feel that some do have an aversion as expressed.

[Bridget]

I do not expect everyone to agree with me on the following and am perfectly happy for others to disagree...

My view on this is that if a person cannot see corruption in the Bamber case, then they are either not wanting to see it or they would be unlikely to recognise corruption in any other case either.  Which leads to me to feel that some people do have an aversion to the concept of police corruption.  In my opinion, this manifests itself in two ways.  An absurd demand for evidence of corruption, as if police would evidence their own corruption, in a similar format to the evidence that they present when prosecuting a case.  Also a repetitive insistance that every hint of corruption is merely a benign error or misunderstanding.  Again, this simply leads me to feel that some do have an aversion as expressed.

Or perhaps the reason that we don't see corruption in this case is because none exists. There is also no reason for the police to have done anything corrupt - I think I've lost count now of how many times I've asked why they would need to lie or falsify evidence and not received an answer.

There are also those who appear to have an aversion to the concept of Jeremy's guilt, and hide behind the police corruption claim every time their argument stalls... just sayin'

[-Harters-]

I do not expect everyone to agree with me on the following and am perfectly happy for others to disagree...

My view on this is that if a person cannot see corruption in the Bamber case, then they are either not wanting to see it or they would be unlikely to recognise corruption in any other case either.  Which leads to me to feel that some people do have an aversion to the concept of police corruption.  In my opinion, this manifests itself in two ways.  An absurd demand for evidence of corruption, as if police would evidence their own corruption, in a similar format to the evidence that they present when prosecuting a case.  Also a repetitive insistance that every hint of corruption is merely a benign error or misunderstanding.  Again, this simply leads me to feel that some do have an aversion as expressed.

That's good then, because I do not agree with you, I think you are being obtuse, which oddly enough appears to be the same thing that you are accusing others of. Oh well. 

[-Harters-]

Or perhaps the reason that we don't see corruption in this case is because none exists. There is also no reason for the police to have done anything corrupt - I think I've lost count now of how many times I've asked why they would need to lie or falsify evidence and not received an answer.

There are also those who appear to have an aversion to the concept of Jeremy's guilt, and hide behind the police corruption claim every time their argument stalls... just sayin'

^^^ Yeah, that's what I should have posted. 

[Nickos]

I do not expect everyone to agree with me on the following and am perfectly happy for others to disagree...

My view on this is that if a person cannot see corruption in the Bamber case, then they are either not wanting to see it or they would be unlikely to recognise corruption in any other case either.  Which leads to me to feel that some people do have an aversion to the concept of police corruption.  In my opinion, this manifests itself in two ways.  An absurd demand for evidence of corruption, as if police would evidence their own corruption, in a similar format to the evidence that they present when prosecuting a case.  Also a repetitive insistance that every hint of corruption is merely a benign error or misunderstanding.  Again, this simply leads me to feel that some do have an aversion as expressed.

Hi Roch, I believe you may recall that indeed I am willing to accept that there may have been a form of corruption involved (noble cause).

We don't need to go over the detail again, but I believe it helped the Jury reach the right verdict.