Author Topic: Is this how it's going to work then?  (Read 16648 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #120 on: June 10, 2013, 03:35:PM »
Hi Nugnug  I have never read that she was prescribed sleeping pills.  Probably N/N would know or Patti.

Offline Daniel_day

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #121 on: June 10, 2013, 03:38:PM »
That is the problem, anything which doesn't fit with your own particular theory must be wrong. 

I do assure you that in 1985, medicine practiced in this country was NOT in the stone age.  Of course we know more now but a common sleeping pill would be easily detected in the liver. Sheila's behaviour had been strange for a few days enough to worry June to mention it to Pamela Boutflour, her sister and probably the only person apart from Nevill that she spoke to about Sheila's condition. 

We know it is common to be catatonic before an extroverted psychotic episode, this is medical fact, we know Sheila's Haloperidol, her antipsychotic drug was very low in her system.  These are facts.

We have no evidence at all that Sheila was taking sleeping tablets and none were found in her system.  For her to be that dopey all day long from sleeping pills she must have been taking a huge dose which couldn't possibly have completely left her system by the time she was killed. Remember after she was killed nothing changes and nothing else is processed.  Now it's my turn to say to you, you are wrong unless you show evidence to the contrary..
Again maggie you are headed down the road of no evidence. You have zero evidence that she had a psychotic episode. It could have happened but you have NO evidence that one did. In fact you have NO evidence that Sheila did anything that night at all- zero. Yet you make all kind of assumptions. How many times before this episode was Sheila's behaviour 'worrying'? You can argue the toss about what was found in her system it doesnt change anything at all. Drug testing in 1985 was nothing like it is today. Drugscope a body that offers advice on drugs stated that "Unfortunately, the majority of drug testing was poorly done and plagued with unreliable information"
I find it rather odd that you have questioned the validity of everything to do with this case - all apart from what suits your theory.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #122 on: June 10, 2013, 03:49:PM »
Again maggie you are headed down the road of no evidence. You have zero evidence that she had a psychotic episode. It could have happened but you have NO evidence that one did. In fact you have NO evidence that Sheila did anything that night at all- zero. Yet you make all kind of assumptions. How many times before this episode was Sheila's behaviour 'worrying'? You can argue the toss about what was found in her system it doesnt change anything at all. Drug testing in 1985 was nothing like it is today. Drugscope a body that offers advice on drugs stated that "Unfortunately, the majority of drug testing was poorly done and plagued with unreliable information"
I find it rather odd that you have questioned the validity of everything to do with this case - all apart from what suits your theory.






Daniel,,have you got any evidence/proof to say that it wasn't Sheila.?

Offline Daniel_day

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #123 on: June 10, 2013, 04:18:PM »





Daniel,,have you got any evidence/proof to say that it wasn't Sheila.?
Yes Lookout........since when do dead people put silencers back into cupboards? Since when do 8.5 stone women batter 15 stone 6ft 4" physically fit men into unconsciousness with the butt of a rifle?
Since when do people who shoot 5 other people in a bloody massacre and leave absolutely NO trace upon themselves?
Since when do young women grow arms long enough to put a rifle under their chin complete with a silencer which would have made the overall length of the rifle too long?
Since when do suicides shoot themselves twice  and the last time with the very last bullet? Two gunshots to her neck.  Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
I have heard all the theories surrounding the points above and I am NOT convinced one iota by them. They are not plausible and some border on the absurd- The police, a hit man, MI5, The SAS, drug dealers- anyone but Bamber.
It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator.  Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985.  Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen.  Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.

Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it.  Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it.  It wasn't.
This is without the circumstantial evidence of Bamber's culpability. Bamber made the phone call to police, effectively making it a two-horse race. It was either him or Sheila, with NO possibility of third party involvement.
Now considering the above I think we can effectively discount Sheila as being the culprit. This leaves only one possible suspect remaining - Jeremy Bamber.
Now  Lookout perhaps you could show me the evidence that it WASNT Jeremy?.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2013, 04:20:PM by Daniel_day »

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #124 on: June 10, 2013, 04:59:PM »
Hi Daniel  I'm back with more questions.  If Jeremy Bamber had murdered his entire family and shot Sheila with a silencer on the gun why would he either not clean it or remove it from the premises.  Had Jeremy had this terrible fight with his Father why did he not have any marks on him.  Most importantly why would he confide in his girl friend before and after the murders then dump her not a clever move at all.  I am also of the opinion had Jeremy carried out these horrendous murders he would have gone home made sure he had no incriminating evidence on his body get rid of the clothes then retire to bed and wait why invent these phone calls. He would not have allowed anyone into the house without him being present never mind hand over the keys he would not have informed the police he often used windows to enter the house he had no reason at all to talk about taking the gun outside to shoot rabbits.  I understand guns were easy to access at the farm so he did not have to pretend he left one out I gather his attitude in Court was one of maybe arrogance and he did nothing to help himself because he knew he was innocent and did not have to try and convince anyone he was.  The silencer now that is another thing.  Why did the Police not take the silencer and bag it and test it.  What were the relatives doing searching deep into the back of a gun cupboard taking the silencer home with them and when it was finally handed to the police it was at some stage I understand used as a paper weight what contamination that silencer was subjected to.  The crime scene was not treated as such 4 murders one suicide how do we know what forensic evidence was destroyed none was presented at Trial to incriminate Jeremy Bamber.  During the mayhem the two dogs one inside one out were barking why did Jeremy hang around purposely burning Ralph Bamber's back with the three circular burn marks which has been suggested were done by the end of the rifle being heated in the Aga.  Jeremy using his Mother's bike to cycle to and from the farm I would have expected at least one person to have had a sighting of him.  Daniel I could go on and on but I feel enough is enough for now.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #125 on: June 10, 2013, 05:59:PM »
Yes Lookout........since when do dead people put silencers back into cupboards? Since when do 8.5 stone women batter 15 stone 6ft 4" physically fit men into unconsciousness with the butt of a rifle?
Since when do people who shoot 5 other people in a bloody massacre and leave absolutely NO trace upon themselves?
Since when do young women grow arms long enough to put a rifle under their chin complete with a silencer which would have made the overall length of the rifle too long?
Since when do suicides shoot themselves twice  and the last time with the very last bullet? Two gunshots to her neck.  Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
I have heard all the theories surrounding the points above and I am NOT convinced one iota by them. They are not plausible and some border on the absurd- The police, a hit man, MI5, The SAS, drug dealers- anyone but Bamber.
It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator.  Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985.  Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen.  Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.

Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it.  Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it.  It wasn't.
This is without the circumstantial evidence of Bamber's culpability. Bamber made the phone call to police, effectively making it a two-horse race. It was either him or Sheila, with NO possibility of third party involvement.
Now considering the above I think we can effectively discount Sheila as being the culprit. This leaves only one possible suspect remaining - Jeremy Bamber.
Now  Lookout perhaps you could show me the evidence that it WASNT Jeremy?.




1) The silencer wasn't used,,it may have been handled downstairs,but proved too difficult to attach.
2) Size doesn't come into it when a 6footer is faced, and threatened with the barrel of a gun to his head.
3) No need to batter anyone unconscious with a rifle pressed to the skull.He wasn't battered.
4) There are over 400 negatives, some showing blood on the hands and feet of Sheila,,before washing her. Why are Essex police hanging on to them.? They're saying it's a copyright issue.!
5) No silencer in use,,there's virtually no difference in sound without one anyway.
6) It isn't unusual for a suicide to shoot themselves more than once.
7) My opinion is that there were two loaded rifles in use,so no need to re-load.( Anshutz and Bruno.)
8) JM,,had suggested a hitman.It was a lie that she retracted.
9 Blood was a mixture of June and Nevilles',with animal blood ( rabbit ) as they have the AK1 component
10) Jeremys' fingerprint was on the rifle as well as other male prints of unknown origin.?
11) Neville did make a phonecall to Jeremy,,who in turn phoned Chelmsford police at 03.26 after not being able to get back to his father because the WHF phone was engaged,,which I reckon was Neville phoning the police because Nevilles' call brought out a car which reached the farmhouse before the call that Jeremy made to them.

1) There is no forensic evidence whatsoever to say it was Jeremy.
2) The sniffer alsation didn't detect any sign of gunpowder on Jeremy at all.No positive results.
3) The house was locked all round from the inside.
4) There was no sign that Jeremys' car had been driven that night.
5) There wasn't any sign of a struggle,i.e bruising,cuts,etc on Jeremys' body as JM saw his body 24 hours later and if anyone had anything to report,it would have been her.
6) Who thought there'd be six bodies,as six body bags were sent.? Was the phone-call from the farm to lure him there.?
7) Jeremy was seen by 27 different psychiatrists and none of them detected any violence or any mental problems. He also passed the polygraph test.
8) Myall reported a " male " figure at the window,,,while Jeremy was outside the farmhouse.This conveniently turned into " a trick of the light ", yet Myall was adamant it was a figure.
9 ) The gun in the window which " vanished " into the undisclosed material basket. That was logged as having been seen by Jeapes. Again when Jeremy was outside.
10) Prior to the murders,Neville had received threats which both Barbara Wilson and Pamela Boutflour knew of,,but not the nature of them,they knew that Neville was bothered by them. Nothing to do with Jeremy and whether he knew about what was going on I don't know.
11 ) Again,prior to the murders,Neville was involved in a scuffle which rendered him a black eye.This was done by one of the relatives for reasons we don't know,,but for a young man to punch an elderly man is the pits in my book,,whatever it was about.
12) That in 1991,police admitted that the mess in the kitchen was caused by all the officers stampeding through the kitchen after 07.40am.
13) How did that second shot to Sheila occur if she,herself didn't do it,and Jeremy was outside,,because presumably,Sheila had suffered a cardiac arrest after the first shot.? According to Vanezis.

There is something very unsettling about this case the more I look into it,,like the police insisting that it was 4 murders and a suicide. Some officers apparently disagreed,but were told in no uncertain terms that's how it was.
Everyone was suspicious of the lad simply because nobody liked him,not even the police. Certainly not grounds in which to arrest him and lock him away for all these years. They'll like him even less seeing that he's protested his innocence non-stop for the length of time he's been imprisoned.I don't know of anyone else who's protested for this long,,do you.?

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #126 on: June 10, 2013, 06:03:PM »
Again maggie you are headed down the road of no evidence. You have zero evidence that she had a psychotic episode. It could have happened but you have NO evidence that one did. In fact you have NO evidence that Sheila did anything that night at all- zero. Yet you make all kind of assumptions. How many times before this episode was Sheila's behaviour 'worrying'? You can argue the toss about what was found in her system it doesnt change anything at all. Drug testing in 1985 was nothing like it is today. Drugscope a body that offers advice on drugs stated that "Unfortunately, the majority of drug testing was poorly done and plagued with unreliable information"
I find it rather odd that you have questioned the validity of everything to do with this case - all apart from what suits your theory.
Sorry DD but most of your posts are filled with assumption, you are the one insisting Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath when he is proven to not be.  I find your post very offensive dd. 
I am not 'arguing the toss' about the pm results concerning drugs in her body  as you put it I am stating facts.  I might add I don't need a lecture from you on psychopathy or drug testing in the 1980s, thank you  You are also making huge assumptions about every part of this case.


Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #127 on: June 10, 2013, 06:14:PM »
"
I find it rather odd that you have questioned the validity of everything to do with this case - all apart from what suits your theory.
What are you trying to infer DD?
I have not questioned the validity of everything to do with this case and I do not have theories about the case as no one knows what happened that night and there is little or no evidence except that 5 people died violently. 
I have as much right as anyone else to point out possibilities and I am always open to suggestions from either side of the argument. However you just dismiss everything that doesn't suit you and therefore you are the one who is following their own 'theory' changing the facts of evidence to fit your belief that Jeremy Bamber is guilty imo

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #128 on: June 10, 2013, 06:18:PM »
Thank you for that NN, but you failed conveniently to include the paragraph directly written underneath. Sheila had smoked marijuana sometime before her death and she may of taken sedation medication; this would have made her slow, deliberate and uncoordinated. In fact Pamela Boutflour who spoke with Sheila on the phone the evening before certainly thought she was.

Hi DD

What para written directly underneath?

SC's blood etc was tested for a wide range of substances and I'm afraid you are wrong unless of course you want to dispute the forensic scientist who carried out the toxicological analysis.


Lugg

  • Guest
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #129 on: June 10, 2013, 06:19:PM »



1) The silencer wasn't used,,it may have been handled downstairs,but proved too difficult to attach.
2) Size doesn't come into it when a 6footer is faced, and threatened with the barrel of a gun to his head.
3) No need to batter anyone unconscious with a rifle pressed to the skull.He wasn't battered.
4) There are over 400 negatives, some showing blood on the hands and feet of Sheila,,before washing her. Why are Essex police hanging on to them.? They're saying it's a copyright issue.!
5) No silencer in use,,there's virtually no difference in sound without one anyway.
6) It isn't unusual for a suicide to shoot themselves more than once.
7) My opinion is that there were two loaded rifles in use,so no need to re-load.( Anshutz and Bruno.)
8) JM,,had suggested a hitman.It was a lie that she retracted.
9 Blood was a mixture of June and Nevilles',with animal blood ( rabbit ) as they have the AK1 component
10) Jeremys' fingerprint was on the rifle as well as other male prints of unknown origin.?
11) Neville did make a phonecall to Jeremy,,who in turn phoned Chelmsford police at 03.26 after not being able to get back to his father because the WHF phone was engaged,,which I reckon was Neville phoning the police because Nevilles' call brought out a car which reached the farmhouse before the call that Jeremy made to them.

1) There is no forensic evidence whatsoever to say it was Jeremy.
2) The sniffer alsation didn't detect any sign of gunpowder on Jeremy at all.No positive results.
3) The house was locked all round from the inside.
4) There was no sign that Jeremys' car had been driven that night.
5) There wasn't any sign of a struggle,i.e bruising,cuts,etc on Jeremys' body as JM saw his body 24 hours later and if anyone had anything to report,it would have been her.
6) Who thought there'd be six bodies,as six body bags were sent.? Was the phone-call from the farm to lure him there.?
7) Jeremy was seen by 27 different psychiatrists and none of them detected any violence or any mental problems. He also passed the polygraph test.
8) Myall reported a " male " figure at the window,,,while Jeremy was outside the farmhouse.This conveniently turned into " a trick of the light ", yet Myall was adamant it was a figure.
9 ) The gun in the window which " vanished " into the undisclosed material basket. That was logged as having been seen by Jeapes. Again when Jeremy was outside.
10) Prior to the murders,Neville had received threats which both Barbara Wilson and Pamela Boutflour knew of,,but not the nature of them,they knew that Neville was bothered by them. Nothing to do with Jeremy and whether he knew about what was going on I don't know.
11 ) Again,prior to the murders,Neville was involved in a scuffle which rendered him a black eye.This was done by one of the relatives for reasons we don't know,,but for a young man to punch an elderly man is the pits in my book,,whatever it was about.
12) That in 1991,police admitted that the mess in the kitchen was caused by all the officers stampeding through the kitchen after 07.40am.
13) How did that second shot to Sheila occur if she,herself didn't do it,and Jeremy was outside,,because presumably,Sheila had suffered a cardiac arrest after the first shot.? According to Vanezis.

There is something very unsettling about this case the more I look into it,,like the police insisting that it was 4 murders and a suicide. Some officers apparently disagreed,but were told in no uncertain terms that's how it was.
Everyone was suspicious of the lad simply because nobody liked him,not even the police. Certainly not grounds in which to arrest him and lock him away for all these years. They'll like him even less seeing that he's protested his innocence non-stop for the length of time he's been imprisoned.I don't know of anyone else who's protested for this long,,do you.?
A good write up of the incident lookout. I too am of the opinion that things are not as obvious as they appear to be at first glance. They can't even find out the order of the killings and I too am not convinced by the so called silencer evidence. Indeed I personally suspect that it was entirely compromised by contamination and therefore should never have been used in court and certainly the judge should not have put his seal of approval on it. I believe the silencer was accepted aas evidence unlawfully.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #130 on: June 10, 2013, 06:21:PM »
Wow lookout that is some post so much I did not know and now I am starting to understand things better.  Well done you must have studied all the documents in depth to come up with all that  information.  Think the fight in the pub was to do with land being bought by Ralph and maybe the other guy some relative wanted it something to that effect.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #131 on: June 10, 2013, 06:55:PM »
A good write up of the incident lookout. I too am of the opinion that things are not as obvious as they appear to be at first glance. They can't even find out the order of the killings and I too am not convinced by the so called silencer evidence. Indeed I personally suspect that it was entirely compromised by contamination and therefore should never have been used in court and certainly the judge should not have put his seal of approval on it. I believe the silencer was accepted aas evidence unlawfully.


Lugg I would think by now that the majority of the public have been well and truly brainwashed into thinking that Jeremy murdered for the inheritance.
What we don't know,and never will,,is the order in which each one of them died,,in order for the estate to have been dictated by order of death. That was a question put to the police by Jeremy,,,to which there was nothing sinister in him having asked,,,as he too was trying to work it out,,,not for financial gain himself,but the way his fathers' will was written.
I've said all along that it was vital from the start to have given appx. times of death of each individual.
If that had been done,properly,you'd have seen the fun and games alright, along with the proof who was the greedy one/s.  That at least would have seen fairness in its distribution,,as there were beneficiaries of beneficiaries per capita in that will.
Even without Jeremy having been imprisoned,,there'd have been arguments and bitterness galore,,but not coming from Jeremy. As things stood,,there were still bitter battles,,,and Jeremy was nowhere near.

Do you think Jeremy would have asked the order in which everyone died,if he'd have committed them.?
Because I don't. Stan Jones and the relatives have got a lot to answer for. If the relatives were intelligent,,why were they swayed by Stan Jones.? The answer is in the question.!
It's ironic to think that the police blamed Jeremy for the murders on account of the financial gain,,yet it was the relatives who've done well. The jury weren't told of that.!

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #132 on: June 10, 2013, 07:07:PM »
Hi Lugg

I think the silencer evidence was dodgy and would not be accepted in a Court of Law today as it was not found by EP and it was days before it was handed to them and it was never protected and highly contaminated.  Disgrace I call it as is the statement made by Julie.  No real concrete evidence to convict how it happened I will never know.  Had Jeremy been guilty he would have put on some act after the murders instead he did himself no favours by his behaviour.

Offline SirSimeon2003

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #133 on: June 10, 2013, 10:48:PM »
Well,first of all I don't recall asking for your opinion,and secondly - the poster sirsimon, whoever he or she is,does not come here to debate,only to make snide comments every now and again.
Pointing out in two sentences or less the ironic contradiction of people who simultaneously persecute Julie Mugford and defend Jeremy Bamber (if she's guilty.....then he's guilty! can't have it both ways!) is not defined as "making snide comments" and ad hominem retorts such as yours negate your credibility.

Lugg

  • Guest
Re: Is this how it's going to work then?
« Reply #134 on: June 10, 2013, 10:52:PM »
Pointing out in two sentences or less the ironic contradiction of people who simultaneously persecute Julie Mugford and defend Jeremy Bamber (if she's guilty.....then he's guilty! can't have it both ways!) is not defined as "making snide comments" and ad hominem retorts such as yours negate your credibility.
Not really. People don;t like her, not because she;s guilty of murder. But of purgery.