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?.
Hi Daniel. I agree with you that all what you have stated and is believed by many as to what happened on that fateful day. Although on the surface it looks plain and logical. But in reality it may not have happened like that at all? It's a bit like those games of joining the dots to create a picture. Only we haven't got the numbers to go buy. So in a sense anyone can create any senario that they think looks logical to them.
But I don't think like that. I don't really like senarios, because to me they are all just guesswork in the end. When I first looked at this case 28 years ago I immediately saw that something was wrong with the verdict. I had listened to the case and I quite frankly thought that something didn't run true. I thought to myself how could this man be convicted on such shallow and circumstantial evidence such as this?
Basically all we have as evidence is (1) the silencer "found by the relatives" and kept for a few days and then allegedly used as a paperweight by Taff Jones. In fact I believe that this was the reason he was disciplined and replaced by someone else to lead the investigation? And (2) the evidence of his "ex" girlfriend, who apparently waited until their relationship was ended to go to the police and report him. Even the judge himself threw doubt upon her testimony.
So basically that is all the evidence that we have. None of which in themselves could convict Jeremy Bamber. They were reliant upon each other in order to obtain a conviction. Now all your other questions, although seemingly ver logical are really only one of several conclusions we can come to.
For instance you say, (1) "since when do dead people put silencers back into cupboards?" But this is based upon your and other people's assumption that a silencer was used. There are of course indications that it was used, ie the blood in it and what looks like a the mark of a silencer on one of the wounds on Sheila's neck. But with no actiual fingerprints found on the silencer it is still debatable that it was used?
(2) You ask, "Since when do 8.5 stone women batter 15 stone 6ft 4" physically fit men into unconsciousness with the butt of a rifle?" Well here again it may not have happened the way you assume that it did. There are several possibilities as to how it did and others have aired their opinions on this. But my opinion, for what it's worth is that Ralph had been incapacitated before he was beaten? Question: Was there any blood on either the butt of the rifle where the break took place or the spinter that was chipped off? Also was this chip on the rifle butt created by hitting Ralph or did it happen by some other means?
(3) You ask, "Since when do people who shoot 5 other people in a bloody massacre and leave absolutely NO trace upon themselves?" Here again the same thing could be applied to Jeremy. No marks on him to suggest that any fight took place between him and Ralph. But you did in fact answer this question yourself didn't you? When you said that there did not have to be any contact between Jeremy and Ralph. Well there again the same rule could be applied to Sheila?
(4) You ask, "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?" I too would ask the same question. I do not believe (even if this was demonstrated by a model girl as to how it could have been done) that this is what Sheila did? But I must mention what was proposed by some, that as Sheila rested the gun on the ground the kick-back wehen the gun went off it chipped a piece off the rifle butt. Personally I don't adhere to this theory.
(5) You ask, "Since when do suicides shoot themselves twice and the last time with the very last bullet?" Fair point and well worth questioning. But of course equally logical that that is in fact what could have happened?
(6) You ask, "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?" Again all fair questions and your logic is not at fault. I can't criticise you for your logic. It is what anyone would ask. But then again it could have happened the way police first said? And of course here as well as elsewhere there are many variables, ie the radio reports of police surgeon needed for two bodies etc. So the Sheila shooting may not have happened where she was found? But of course we get into all sorts of senarios if we take that stand. But the radio reports nevertheless are to be questioned in my humble opinion?
(7) You state, "They are not plausible and some border on the absurd- The police, a hit man, MI5, The SAS, drug dealers- anyone but Bamber.". I agree with you on this one. You would need to tie things in knots in order to arrive at these suggestions. Plus of course as you rightly say, the phone call by Ralph to Bamber puts him squarely in the frame. Whatever theories we have this one thing is definite and is the one thing that connects Bamber to the crime. The phone call. But here again, he may be telling the truth? Unless police are holding back the fact that they had the technology to find out whether such a phone call actually took place we have only got Bamber's word for it. Whether we believe him or not is entirely up to the individual and his/her opinion. We can say no more than that.
( 8 ) Your statement, it could only be Jeremy or Sheila I agree with. But we must also take into consideration Julie Mugford's statement that Jeremy told her that he paid Matthew Macdonald to commit the crime. She a prosecultion witness is introducing a third person. What do we do? Accept her statement as true and just reject those things in her statement that are not true? Or do we believe in the truth of her statement but blame Jeremy for her lies? Here again it is only our opinions as to what we believe?
