What REALLY Convinces You That Jeremy Is Innocent/Guilty?

[scipio_usmc]

Its ok Mat

I think what I get from reading the link is :

It is not IMPOSSIBLE that it was animal blood - but highly unlikely
There appeared to be some human protein
It was most likely that the assumption that the blood was blood group A was incorrect
By the time the DNA testing happened there was NO blood in the moderator - but they assumed the DNA came from blood? But this expert is saying that is an incorrect assumption because the moderator had been dismantled so the DNA could have come from contamination.
He was also putting the way the "flake" of blood was tested into question.
The DNA - that was not from blood - could have been SHeilas - but the expert could only show probability.

So basically not much information proven really

Jansus it is not that complex so I will try to help you understand.

This is ignoring that the defense also tested the blood, found it tested as human blood and was group A

1) How do you know if blood is human?  You do a test for human enzymes. The defense and prosecution both tested for human enzymes and found the blood they tested was human.  The blood tested by the defense was microscopic drops of blood found on the first 8 baffles.

2) The next step is to test the blood components and by these components you can tell what blood group it blongs to.  Both the blood teste dby the prosecution and defense found blood components that indicate it bleonged to group A.

3) The claim is that experts could potentially mess up and misidentify animal blood as human blood if they are not careful but in this instance it is unlikely that occurred because there is no evidence it occurred.  They tested the blood for human enzmyes they didn't simply assume it was human.

4) There was no blood left in the suppressor by the time it was tested for DNA so any DNA results cannot have come from blood and had to come from a different DNA source.  The prosecution removed all visible blood, the defense all invisible blood and this was confirmed in 1989 when a new test was conducted for the presence of blood and found none.   

5) Traditional DNA tests need a sizable sample and as such when a sizable sample of DNA is found it is unlikely such would have been accidentally transferred through contamination.  For instance how do you take dry saliva and accidentally transfer it to something else?  How do you take dry semen and accidentally transfer it elsewhere?  At best you can transer a tiny speck of such stains somewhere else and traditially DNA methods would not enable successful testing.  But thanks to 9/11 a new DNA test is available.  It takes a tiny speck and it replicates the DNA pattern until it is large enough to then type.

The great thing is that even a tiny speck of DNA can now be typed.  But a tiny speck can arrive by contamination it doesn't necessarily arrive directly from the DNA source. So you have to be much more careful with such evidence. If peopel have nothing at all in common then their DNA should not even accidentally find its way on you, not even a speck.  But specks can be innocestly transferred.

In the Amanda Knox case a tiny speck of Kercher's DNA was found on a knife in her boyfriend's kitchen.  But the knife didn't match the wounds, didn't match the imprint the murder weapon made in blood andwould have a lot more DNA than a tiny speck if it had been used in the commission of the crime.  Also it would have hasd scratches on the blade.  The speck was not tested to see if it was blood based DNA either.  So in the totality this speck of DNA was worthless. Tiny specks of Kercer's DNA was all over their flat and thus would be able to get on Knox who in turn could transfer it to other locations like the knife.

6) The jury touched exhibits that oculd have had tiny bits of DNA belonging to the victims and they potentially took apart the supporessor and could have contaminated the suppressor with tiny specks of DNA.

7) The court stated that the only way for a DNA test to determine whether the blood found by the prosecution expert and defense expert to be be group A blood was Sheila's or not would be by testing the exact blood that they tested to determine the DNA profile of the person the blood belonged to.  But that blood no longer exists to be tested so ther eis no DNA test that could be performed that would ever be of any value in this case.

I tried to adress all the issues as clearly as possible.   
     

       

[scipio_usmc]

One of the most prolific invalid arguments Jeremy Bamber supporters make is to assert that first impression must be true and that because Taff Jones bought the murder suicide claims that means it must be true and when he was replaced it was so that Jeremy could be framed.

His supporters ignore that it is routine and in fact proper to reserve judgment until all evidence is processed, the autopsy results come back and all other evidence is evaluated. 
Indeed, police had no way to know if anything Jeremy was telling them was true or not until they tested such claims later finding out many of his claims were lies.

First impressions do not mean a thing and can’t be used to contradict findings.  It is a false argument to claim that because the lead investigator bought Jeremy’s claims and the frame job based on the initial looks of things that this means it had to be the truth and any contrary results from the subsequent investigation should be ignored.   

Even more ironic is that Bamber supporters frequently point out that Jones and his subordinates did poor job early in the investigation.  How can one seriously claim the initial impressions of a sloppy investigation should be accepted instead of following the evidence where it leads?   

Intentionally ignored is that Jones was both biased and inept at his job.  Instead of supervising the investigation properly he botched it.  He did not treat the scene properly affecting the integrity.  Even wore though, instead of keeping all options open and collecting all evidence that could be potentially useful he declared it to be a murder suicide and it is his fault that evidence that should have been taken into evidence right away wasn’t.  He discouraged his officers from investigating properly and he was negligent in making sure they took and cataloged everything they should have taken. 
This ineptitude is why critical evidence like the suppressor was not collected until later.  Far from there being evidence of the suppressor being planted there is evidence it was not initially found because of ineptitude.  There is no evidence the family knew how significant the suppressor would be because the family had no idea what it could or could not prove.  Moreover the family turned in numerous items not merely the suppressor.  All firearms, the ammunition, and accessories were collected and turned in not merely the suppressor.  As a regulated weapon it was improper to leave them there in the first place.  Again this is evidence of a poor job being done. 

If it wasn’t for Jeremy’s claims then all police would have had to go on initially was the location of the murder weapon on Sheila.  That is all that would have existed to suggest maybe she was responsible.  That initial observation would not mean much.  A killer dumps weapons near bodies fairly frequently.  To determine if suicide occurred dor murder the bodies must all be thoroughly looked at including the wounds and to look for evidence of the suspected shooter of having fired a weapon.  The kinds of things the lab did in fact do in this case which changed the initial impression.

Jeremy did make many claims though and these claims initially swayed the head investigator.  Many of these claims turned out to be lies though.  Why was Jerey lying/  To make police think Sheila committed the killings.  Why would he lie and try to convince them she committed the killings unless he was in fact responsible and framing her?  These lies are evidence he was trying to frame her.  Jeremy Bamber supporters always ignore such evidence and try to pretend everything he said was honest.  They try to pretend that Sheila went shooting, that he regularly shot animals and that the ridiculous story of him leaving the gun out has to be true and even make up nonsense about how suppressors and telescopic sights don’t do anything.

Jeremy’s story is that after eating a late dinner with his family he looked out the window and saw rabbits by the barn (sometimes he even claimed he heard them).  He said that he got the rifle and a full box of ammo and then loaded the magazine but by the time he finished loading it they were gone so he unloaded it and then he placed it on the kitchen table.  He noted it did not have any accessories attached.

The first problem with this story is that he would be unlikely to see the rabbits from the window let alone easily target them given the time of day.  It would not have been full light out.  Even worse though, why would the accessories be removed?  There was no reason at all why the scope would ever be removed.  This gun was used for target shooting and to shoot vermin.  For both a scope is extremely useful and it is not as useful for either without the scope.  Others who used the weapon said the scope was never removed because there was no call to use it without the scope and it would be a nuisance to unscrew it and then have to screw it back on and re-zero it.  The goal was to just be able to take it from the gun closet, load it and use it.  The suppressor could be removed and reinstalled rather quickly but they did not do that either it was routinely stored with the suppressor also attached. 

The suppressor eliminates the noise made by the gases that are expelled when the gun is fired and this also reduces the recall making it even more accurate.  Reducing the noise provides 2 advantages.  1) you don’t have to worry about hearing loss and can use the weapon without needing hearing protection.  2) it means others around are not disturbed by noise from the weapon.  For vermin shooting reducing noise is extremely useful because what do vermin do when they hear the noise?  They run.  Not only does it present the prospect of ruining the shot you wish to make, it ruins the prospect of future successful shots because a group of vermin will take off upon hearing the initial shot. 

The bottom line is that it made no sense for the weapon to be in the closet with the accessories removed and at minimum Jeremy would have wanted to take a few seconds to install the suppressor though he should have wanted to install the scope as well to go shoot rabbits.  So his tale makes no sense in numerous respects.  He even lied and claimed the gun did not fit in the closet with the suppressor attached even though it did and that is in fact how it was usually stored.  The gun was usually stored with the scope attached too.  Jeremy made up the claim it would not fit with the attachments to pretend it would be natural to find it without the attachments.  If that were the case he would want to add them to go shoot rabbits anyway but the fact is it was false and the gun was routinely stored with them attached.   

Jeremy Bamber supporters never explain why we should believe he removed the gun from the closet without it having any attachments when it was routinely stored that way.  Moreover, why we should believe anyone who wanted to go shoot vermin would not want the scope and suppressor attached and would choose not to attach them if they were not attached when the gun was found.  Also why should we believe he took out the gun to shoot rabbits given the time of day and fact that others insist he never shot animals because didn’t like to do so?  Jeremy Bamber supporters ignore that people who worked on the farm and relatives say that Jeremy did not have an interest in shooting and especially did not shoot vermin.  Thus seriously calls into question Jeremy’s claim that his father bought the murder weapon for him and that Jeremy merely stored it at WHF.

Jeremy’s claims were contradictory in a number of significant respects.  He changed his story over time when witnesses contradicted him.  In some cases he changed his claims to match theirs but in other instances he changed his claim to keep alive his prior claims.

For example, after the bodies were discovered he was questioned multiple times about his use of the gun prior to the night of the murders.  His original story was that he had not touched it for at least a week prior to taking it out to shoot the rabbits.  Police determined that the last person known to using the rifle prior to the murders was Anthony.  Anthony testified the gun was routinely stored with the suppressor and scope attached and that they were attached when he took it from the closet and he left them attached when he put the weapon away after using it.  This strongly suggests the attachments should have been on the gun if Jeremy had in fact taken it out as claimed.  To refute this Jeremy changed his story.  He claimed he used it multiple times the week before the murders to shoot vermin.  Again though others contradict his claim he did such.  Furthermore he suggested that during this week of use sometimes the gun had the attachments when he removed it from the closet other times it didn’t and suggested the gun had been frequently used by Nevill not just him during this week.  He insisted he is not the one who removed or added the attachments rather Nevill sometimes removed them but other times didn’t and that Jeremy just used it however he found it.  So his story became that Nevill used the gun multiple times the week before the murders and so did he and that sometimes the gun had the attachments other times it didn’t so he ended up admitting it did fit in the closet with the attachments still in place, contradicting his claim that it didn’t.

So his changed story was specifically constructed to rebut evidence that the last time the gun was used it had the attachments and also to try to rebut testimony that Nevill never removed the accessories he always stored it with them attached.  So his changed claim had a set purpose- to contradict claims of others but had no means of being corroborated and is suspect because if true he would not have stated he had not used it the week prior.  It is a big deal to suddenly remember you used it many times after saying you used it never.  It is especially suspicious when others say he didn’t like to shoot vermin or shoot at all for that matter.

Jeremy Bamber supporters gloss over this because it is evidence of Jeremy trying to frame his sister.  What is the purpose of this tale?  No one believes Sheila would have gone to fetch a gun herself so the purpose of this tale is to claim the gun and bullets were sitting in the open for her to grab while arguing with her family.

Why would Nevill and June leave a gun and bullets on their kitchen table at all let alone with the young boys visiting?  Testimony was that with the boys there Nevill was very careful with weapons.  Why would Jeremy leave it on the table instead of putting it away?  It makes no sense, in fact it appears the kitchen table had been set for breakfast before going to bed so why would they leave the gun there and set plates around it?  It doesn’t pass the smell test that if Jeremy had left it out that they would not put it away.

But Jeremy does better.  He claims he left a box of bullets too and these bullets were not moved they were in the same place he left them so they probably didn’t put the gun away or they would have put the bullets away too and this box of bullets is where Sheila supposedly got the ammo to use for the murders because it was not far from the gun.  She had easy access to a loaded magazine, more bullets and the gun how convenient.  And even more convenient the gun just so happened to not have the scope which would have been a hindrance for the murders, though very useful for shooting vermin- the actual purpose of the rifle.

It is quite obvious this box of ammo was staged by Jeremy to support this tale he made up.  The box had 30 rounds in it and he claimed it was either full or missing only a couple of rounds when he removed it from the closet.  So he claims there was a box of 48-50 rounds.  He claims he loaded around 10 from this box into the magazine which means Sheila would have found a magazine with around 10 round and then the box would have another 38-40 rounds for reloading purposes.  25 rounds were fired which means there should have been 23-25 rounds left in the box. But there were 30 rounds left which means one of two things.  Either the box was not used at all and it always had 30 rounds in it or some rounds were used from this box but the killer also went to the closet and got additional rounds from it.  Why would Sheila do that?  Why would Sheila go to the closet to get additional rounds when the box still had 30 left?  This was a major blunder on Jeremy’s part and demonstrates he staged the scene.  Jeremy Bamber supporters never want to talk about this.

Why would Nevill and Sheila be in the kitchen around 3AM for her to grab the rifle and load it in the first place?  They would be asleep.  There is evidence to suggest they had been in their beds.  She no longer had sleeping problems once her medication was reduced to 100ML. Moreover evidence suggests the killer marched into the master bedroom and opened fire on them in there.  The goal was to kill everyone in bed except Sheila.  But this is further supported by the fact that Jeremy was caught staging things to frame Sheila.  He staged the bullets before police were called and crafted the story about the gun to make it appear the gun were out for easy access and this way police would not think the suppressor had been attached since he claimed it had not been when he left it out.

He had no idea police would be able to figure out it was her blood inside the suppressor or that it was used in the murders, he didn’t know enough about science and figured his word the gun was left out without the suppressor attached would be good enough.

He also lied to police by telling them Sheila was proficient with all weapons in the house and had fired them all.  Later he told a tale of her going shooting with Anthony and Nevill and using the murder weapon during the shoot.  Anthony denied this.  The entire family and farm workers and friends said she had no interest in guns and no one even saw her touch one.  On this issue rather than look like a liar he changed and agreed he had not seen her touch or fire a gun.  Which means his prior statements were lies and clearly these lies were calculated to support the frame- his goal was to get police to believe she knew how to use weapons and thus could have carried out the murders.

Jeremy Bamber supporters love to claim police framed him without any evidence it happened.  Here there is evidence he was framing Sheila and it is all ignored.
   
           

 
   

[Jan]

One step at a time - you so carefully explained to such a lesser mortal as me the DNA - blood evidence - but what is your expert conclusion then - does it differ the EXPERT in forensics in the link?


Here is the link to JB statement 8/8 - where does it say she is proficient in handling the rifle it says just the opposite.

Also he left the gun in the "back kitchen" which is not exactly the room you are referring to

Also you have conveniently ignored the statement of the relative saying he had seen Sheila with a gun ( but his statement was crossed through.


Just a few points to start off with - I am sure some other posters can help out as well.


try and not be so patronising in your posts - or can you just not help it? Is it part of your nature?

[Jan]

One of the most prolific invalid arguments Jeremy Bamber supporters make is to assert that first impression must be true and that because Taff Jones bought the murder suicide claims that means it must be true and when he was replaced it was so that Jeremy could be framed. NOT TRUE WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS AND HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS

His supporters ignore that it is routine and in fact proper to reserve judgment until all evidence is processed, the autopsy results come back and all other evidence is evaluated. 
Indeed, police had no way to know if anything Jeremy was telling them was true or not until they tested such claims later finding out many of his claims were lies. SHAME THEY DID NOT TAKE THE FAMILY SERIOUSLY THEN WHEN THEY TRIED TO TELL THEM WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS

First impressions do not mean a thing and can’t be used to contradict findings.  It is a false argument to claim that because the lead investigator bought Jeremy’s claims and the frame job based on the initial looks of things that this means it had to be the truth and any contrary results from the subsequent investigation should be ignored.    WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE EVIDENCE FROM THE FIRST ENQUIRY THAT IS UNDER PII

Even more ironic is that Bamber supporters frequently point out that Jones and his subordinates did poor job early in the investigation.  How can one seriously claim the initial impressions of a sloppy investigation should be accepted instead of following the evidence where it leads?   NOT TRUE -WE FEEL IF THEY HAD DONE A BETTER JOB THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MANY AMBIGOUS LOGS ETC - WHICH WOULD MEAN WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS POSITION

Intentionally ignored is that Jones was both biased and inept at his job.  Instead of supervising the investigation properly he botched it.  He did not treat the scene properly affecting the integrity.  Even wore though, instead of keeping all options open and collecting all evidence that could be potentially useful he declared it to be a murder suicide and it is his fault that evidence that should have been taken into evidence right away wasn’t.  He discouraged his officers from investigating properly and he was negligent in making sure they took and cataloged everything they should have taken.   TRUE
This ineptitude is why critical evidence like the suppressor was not collected until later. SEE TH HISTORY OF THE MODERATOR I POSTED (COURTESY OF ROCH) BEFORE THERE ARE DOCUMENTS TO BACK IT UP  Far from there being evidence of the suppressor being planted there is evidence it was not initially found because of ineptitude.  There is no evidence the family knew how significant the suppressor would be because the family had no idea what it could or could not prove.  Moreover the family turned in numerous items not merely the suppressor.  All firearms, the ammunition, and accessories were collected and turned in not merely the suppressor.  As a regulated weapon it was improper to leave them there in the first place.  Again this is evidence of a poor job being done. 

If it wasn’t for Jeremy’s claims then all police would have had to go on initially was the location of the murder weapon on Sheila.  That is all that would have existed to suggest maybe she was responsible.  That initial observation would not mean much.  A killer dumps weapons near bodies fairly frequently.  To determine if suicide occurred dor murder the bodies must all be thoroughly looked at including the wounds and to look for evidence of the suspected shooter of having fired a weapon.  The kinds of things the lab did in fact do in this case which changed the initial impression.?? THEY ACCEPTED IT WAS SUICIDE INITIALLY

Jeremy did make many claims though and these claims initially swayed the head investigator.  Many of these claims turned out to be lies though.  Why was Jerey lying/  To make police think Sheila committed the killings.  Why would he lie and try to convince them she committed the killings unless he was in fact responsible and framing her?  These lies are evidence he was trying to frame her.  Jeremy Bamber supporters always ignore such evidence and try to pretend everything he said was honest.  They try to pretend that Sheila went shooting, that he regularly shot animals and that the ridiculous story of him leaving the gun out has to be true and even make up nonsense about how suppressors and telescopic sights don’t do anything.NOT TRUE -SEE HIS STATMENT - WHAT OTHER LIES ?

Jeremy’s story is that after eating a late dinner with his family he looked out the window and saw rabbits by the barn (sometimes he even claimed he heard them THAT WAS ADAM < HE WAS BEING IRONIC ).  He said that he got the rifle and a full box of ammo and then loaded the magazine but by the time he finished loading it they were gone so he unloaded it and then he placed it on the kitchen table NOT TRUE .  He noted it did not have any accessories attached.

The first problem with this story is that he would be unlikely to see the rabbits from the window??YOU ARE JOKING ? AT THAT TIME OF YEAR IT WAS PERFECTLY POSSIBLE let alone easily target them given the time of day.  It would not have been full light out.  Even worse though, why would the accessories be removed?  There was no reason at all why the scope would ever be removed.  This gun was used for target shooting and to shoot vermin.  For both a scope is extremely useful and it is not as useful for either without the scope.  Others who used the weapon said the scope was never removed because there was no call to use it without the scope and it would be a nuisance to unscrew it and then have to screw it back on and re-zero it.  The goal was to just be able to take it from the gun closet, load it and use it.  The suppressor could be removed and reinstalled rather quickly but they did not do that either it was routinely stored with the suppressor also attached. 

The suppressor eliminates the noise made by the gases that are expelled when the gun is fired and this also reduces the recall making it even more accurate.  Reducing the noise provides 2 advantages.  1) you don’t have to worry about hearing loss and can use the weapon without needing hearing protection.  2) it means others around are not disturbed by noise from the weapon.  For vermin shooting reducing noise is extremely useful because what do vermin do when they hear the noise?  They run.  Not only does it present the prospect of ruining the shot you wish to make, it ruins the prospect of future successful shots because a group of vermin will take off upon hearing the initial shot. 

The bottom line is that it made no sense for the weapon to be in the closet with the accessories removed and at minimum Jeremy would have wanted to take a few seconds to install the suppressor though he should have wanted to install the scope as well to go shoot rabbits.  So his tale makes no sense in numerous respects.  He even lied and claimed the gun did not fit in the closet with the suppressor attached even though it did and that is in fact how it was usually stored.  The gun was usually stored with the scope attached too.  Jeremy made up the claim it would not fit with the attachments to pretend it would be natural to find it without the attachments.  If that were the case he would want to add them to go shoot rabbits anyway but the fact is it was false and the gun was routinely stored with them attached.   

Jeremy Bamber supporters never explain why we should believe he removed the gun from the closet without it having any attachments when it was routinely stored that way.  Moreover, why we should believe anyone who wanted to go shoot vermin would not want the scope and suppressor attached and would choose not to attach them if they were not attached when the gun was found.  Also why should we believe he took out the gun to shoot rabbits given the time of day and fact that others insist he never shot animals because didn’t like to do so?  Jeremy Bamber supporters ignore that people who worked on the farm and relatives say that Jeremy did not have an interest in shooting and especially did not shoot vermin.  Thus seriously calls into question Jeremy’s claim that his father bought the murder weapon for him and that Jeremy merely stored it at WHF.

Jeremy’s claims were contradictory in a number of significant respects.  He changed his story over time when witnesses contradicted him.  In some cases he changed his claims to match theirs but in other instances he changed his claim to keep alive his prior claims.

For example, after the bodies were discovered he was questioned multiple times about his use of the gun prior to the night of the murders.  His original story was that he had not touched it for at least a week prior to taking it out to shoot the rabbits.  Police determined that the last person known to using the rifle prior to the murders was Anthony.  Anthony testified the gun was routinely stored with the suppressor and scope attached and that they were attached when he took it from the closet and he left them attached when he put the weapon away after using it.  This strongly suggests the attachments should have been on the gun if Jeremy had in fact taken it out as claimed.  To refute this Jeremy changed his story.  He claimed he used it multiple times the week before the murders to shoot vermin.  Again though others contradict his claim he did such.  Furthermore he suggested that during this week of use sometimes the gun had the attachments when he removed it from the closet other times it didn’t and suggested the gun had been frequently used by Nevill not just him during this week.  He insisted he is not the one who removed or added the attachments rather Nevill sometimes removed them but other times didn’t and that Jeremy just used it however he found it.  So his story became that Nevill used the gun multiple times the week before the murders and so did he and that sometimes the gun had the attachments other times it didn’t so he ended up admitting it did fit in the closet with the attachments still in place, contradicting his claim that it didn’t.

So his changed story was specifically constructed to rebut evidence that the last time the gun was used it had the attachments and also to try to rebut testimony that Nevill never removed the accessories he always stored it with them attached.  So his changed claim had a set purpose- to contradict claims of others but had no means of being corroborated and is suspect because if true he would not have stated he had not used it the week prior.  It is a big deal to suddenly remember you used it many times after saying you used it never.  It is especially suspicious when others say he didn’t like to shoot vermin or shoot at all for that matter. 

Jeremy Bamber supporters gloss over this because it is evidence of Jeremy trying to frame his sister.  What is the purpose of this tale?  No one believes Sheila would have gone to fetch a gun herself so the purpose of this tale is to claim the gun and bullets were sitting in the open for her to grab while arguing with her family. THEY COULD HAVE BEEN PUT AWAY DURING THE EVENING FOR ALL JB KNEW AND FOR ALL WE KNOW AS WELL

Why would Nevill and June leave a gun and bullets on their kitchen table NOT TRUE  at all let alone with the young boys visiting?  Testimony was that with the boys there Nevill was very careful with weapons.  Why would Jeremy leave it on the table instead of putting it away?  It makes no sense, in fact it appears the kitchen table had been set for breakfast before going to bed so why would they leave the gun there and set plates around it?  It doesn’t pass the smell test that if Jeremy had left it out that they would not put it away.

But Jeremy does better.  He claims he left a box of bullets too and these bullets were not moved they were in the same place he left them so they probably didn’t put the gun away or they would have put the bullets away too and this box of bullets is where Sheila supposedly got the ammo to use for the murders because it was not far from the gun.  She had easy access to a loaded magazine, more bullets and the gun how convenient.  And even more convenient the gun just so happened to not have the scope which would have been a hindrance for the murders, though very useful for shooting vermin- the actual purpose of the rifle.

It is quite obvious this box of ammo was staged by Jeremy to support this tale he made up.  The box had 30 rounds in it and he claimed it was either full or missing only a couple of rounds when he removed it from the closet.  So he claims there was a box of 48-50 rounds.  He claims he loaded around 10 from this box into the magazine which means Sheila would have found a magazine with around 10 round and then the box would have another 38-40 rounds for reloading purposes.  25 rounds were fired which means there should have been 23-25 rounds left in the box. But there were 30 rounds left which means one of two things.  Either the box was not used at all and it always had 30 rounds in it or some rounds were used from this box but the killer also went to the closet and got additional rounds from it.  Why would Sheila do that?  Why would Sheila go to the closet to get additional rounds when the box still had 30 left?  This was a major blunder on Jeremy’s part and demonstrates he staged the scene.  Jeremy Bamber supporters never want to talk about this.

Why would Nevill and Sheila be in the kitchen around 3AM for her to grab the rifle and load it in the first place?  They would be asleep.  There is evidence to suggest they had been in their beds.  She no longer had sleeping problems once her medication was reduced to 100ML. Moreover evidence suggests the killer marched into the master bedroom and opened fire on them in there.  The goal was to kill everyone in bed except Sheila.  But this is further supported by the fact that Jeremy was caught staging things to frame Sheila.  He staged the bullets before police were called and crafted the story about the gun to make it appear the gun were out for easy access and this way police would not think the suppressor had been attached since he claimed it had not been when he left it out. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ BORED NOW

He had no idea police would be able to figure out it was her blood inside the suppressor or that it was used in the murders, he didn’t know enough about science and figured his word the gun was left out without the suppressor attached would be good enough. ?? BUT HE WAS A COLD PLANNING CALCULATING MURDERER - WHAT A SILLY BOY

He also lied to police by telling them Sheila was proficient with all weapons in the house and had fired them all.  Later he told a tale of her going shooting with Anthony and Nevill and using the murder weapon during the shoot.  Anthony denied this.  The entire family and farm workers and friends said she had no interest in guns and no one even saw her touch one.  On this issue rather than look like a liar he changed and agreed he had not seen her touch or fire a gun.  Which means his prior statements were lies and clearly these lies were calculated to support the frame- his goal was to get police to believe she knew how to use weapons and thus could have carried out the murders.  NOT TRUE

Jeremy Bamber supporters love to claim police framed him without any evidence it happened.  Here there is evidence he was framing Sheila and it is all ignored.

ASLEEP NOW ZZZZZ  IMO!!!!!!
   
           

 
 

[lookout]

 The former Detective Chief Superintendant Mick Gradwell who oversaw the investigation said it was abysmal,or words to that effect. He'd " pinched his nose " when asked how the investigation went.
Also,didn't the same man make reference to the destruction of the evidence as being an " accident " ?
How can destroying vital evidence be accidental ? He was once a top man in his field saying this. They're not always right.
His words when shown images of the deceased,were,I quote," The standard of the investigation did not meet the standard of the time," unquote.

It's when you have annoyances like this that you start to question the things that did go wrong from the very beginning,,and it's this sort of sloppy work which then creates theories and scenarios and hearsay that the case seems to be based on and nothing evidential.

[Jan]

Jansus it is not that complex so I will try to help you understand.

This is ignoring that the defense also tested the blood, found it tested as human blood and was group A

1) How do you know if blood is human?  You do a test for human enzymes. The defense and prosecution both tested for human enzymes and found the blood they tested was human.  The blood tested by the defense was microscopic drops of blood found on the first 8 baffles. IN 1986 - yes IKNOW THAT

2) The next step is to test the blood components and by these components you can tell what blood group it blongs to.  Both the blood teste dby the prosecution and defense found blood components that indicate it bleonged to group A. - THE EXPERT IN THE LINK DOES NOT CONFIRM THAT

3) The claim is that experts could potentially mess up and misidentify animal blood as human blood if they are not careful but in this instance it is unlikely that occurred because there is no evidence it occurred.  They tested the blood for human enzmyes they didn't simply assume it was human. YES I KNOW THAT - ITS WHAT I SAID UNLIKELY BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE

4) There was no blood left in the suppressor by the time it was tested for DNA so any DNA results cannot have come from blood and had to come from a different DNA source.  The prosecution removed all visible blood, the defense all invisible blood and this was confirmed in 1989 when a new test was conducted for the presence of blood and found none.  I SAID THAT AS WELL?!!!

5) Traditional DNA tests need a sizable sample and as such when a sizable sample of DNA is found it is unlikely such would have been accidentally transferred through contamination THE EXPERT DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU HERE  .  For instance how do you take dry saliva and accidentally transfer it to something else?  How do you take dry semen and accidentally transfer it elsewhere?  At best you can transer a tiny speck of such stains somewhere else and traditially DNA methods would not enable successful testing.  But thanks to 9/11 a new DNA test is available.  It takes a tiny speck and it replicates the DNA pattern until it is large enough to then type.

The great thing is that even a tiny speck of DNA can now be typed.  But a tiny speck can arrive by contamination it doesn't necessarily arrive directly from the DNA source. So you have to be much more careful with such evidence. If peopel have nothing at all in common then their DNA should not even accidentally find its way on you, not even a speck.  But specks can be innocestly transferred.

In the Amanda Knox case a tiny speck of Kercher's DNA was found on a knife in her boyfriend's kitchen.  But the knife didn't match the wounds, didn't match the imprint the murder weapon made in blood andwould have a lot more DNA than a tiny speck if it had been used in the commission of the crime.  Also it would have hasd scratches on the blade.  The speck was not tested to see if it was blood based DNA either.  So in the totality this speck of DNA was worthless. Tiny specks of Kercer's DNA was all over their flat and thus would be able to get on Knox who in turn could transfer it to other locations like the knife.

6) The jury touched exhibits that oculd have had tiny bits of DNA belonging to the victims and they potentially took apart the supporessor and could have contaminated the suppressor with tiny specks of DNA.YES SO-WHAT IS YOUR POINT HERE??

7) The court stated that the only way for a DNA test to determine whether the blood found by the prosecution expert and defense expert to be be group A blood was Sheila's or not would be by testing the exact blood that they tested to determine the DNA profile of the person the blood belonged to.  But that blood no longer exists to be tested so ther eis no DNA test that could be performed that would ever be of any value in this case.  SO NO DEFINTE SUMMARY ABOUT THE BLOOD IN THE SILENCER THEN???

I tried to adress all the issues as clearly as possible.   
     

     

[lookout]

 You do very well indeed,Jansus.

[scipio_usmc]

One step at a time - you so carefully explained to such a lesser mortal as me the DNA - blood evidence - but what is your expert conclusion then - does it differ the EXPERT in forensics in the link?

The forensic link seemed to suggest on 1 hand that is is unlikely but there is a small possibility to mistake human blood for animal blood if you only use a certain test on a certain component
and use no other tests but made no effort to actually apply this to the case at hand by evaluating what tests they actually performed on the blood.  When you look at the fact they tested for human enzymes, they didn't simply test the component he cited, his possibility doesn't seem to apply.

An anaology would be the following scenario:

DNA was found at a crime scene.  The prosecution found no link between the victim and the source of the DNA.  They had no common acquaintances and did not know one another.  There is no innocent explanation how the DNA could have gotten to the crime scene.

An expert declares that DNA can be accidentally transferred in general so it could have accidentally been transferred to our crime scene.

The expert presented a general rule but failed to look at what the prosecution did that ruled out contamination as a possibility.  So the general rule is true but saying it applies to a case where such possibility was ruled out is not proper.

Here is the link to JB statement 8/8 - where does it say she is proficient in handling the rifle it says just the opposite.

Also he left the gun in the "back kitchen" which is not exactly the room you are referring to

Also you have conveniently ignored the statement of the relative saying he had seen Sheila with a gun ( but his statement was crossed through.


Just a few points to start off with - I am sure some other posters can help out as well.


try and not be so patronising in your posts - or can you just not help it? Is it part of your nature?

He told police she was proficient and had fired all guns in the house prior to them storming it.  Likewise he told them he left it on the kitchen table at that time.  That is why such figured into their preceptions when they found the bodies.

As this statement shows he changed his story to match the family and then made up the new story that she was there watching him and this was his new excuse of how she would know how to operate it and load it.  He also changed the location of where precisely he left the gun.  It seems he is unsure where it was supposedly left because he is not consistent which makes one think he is just making it up. 

I don't know how to post documents so won't post the various statements instead this quote from the 2002 appeal decision should be sufficient:

"Having walked to the house from the lane there was further conversation. The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year."

Something else from the page you provided strikes me though.  Ann Eaton and others say Jeremy didn't use guns or show any interest in them and this seems to bear that out.  The weapon in question did not have an external hammer to cock nor is it a lever action where you need to cock it so he can't have cocked it, there is nothing to cock.  I will assume he meant he chambered a round using the bolt.  Another answer he gave reveals he doesn't relaly understand suppressors either very well. He suggested it stops the sonic boom from a bullet.  Actually it doesn't though it serves a different purpose that is why subsonic ammunition must be used in conjunction with a suppressor for there to be maximum effect.  He seems to have used a gun for the crime because it was the best for the job not because he was skilled in gun use.  So assuming he would have realized the suppressor would have telltale clues is far from a safe bet and seems to explain his error. 


 

[Jan]

He told police she was proficient and had fired all guns in the house prior to them storming it.  Likewise he told them he left it on the kitchen table at that time.  That is why such figured into their preceptions when they found the bodies.


No he did not - He said he had beenwith family members whilst they were shooting its not the same thing

He did not put  gun the kitchen on the table -it was the back kitchen - like a scullery/ hall type room

If you accept the statement from BW  I guess his father must have been terrified of Jeremy having the gun and put it away as soon as he left ,

[Jane]

The forensic link seemed to suggest on 1 hand that is is unlikely but there is a small possibility to mistake human blood for animal blood if you only use a certain test on a certain component
and use no other tests but made no effort to actually apply this to the case at hand by evaluating what tests they actually performed on the blood.  When you look at the fact they tested for human enzymes, they didn't simply test the component he cited, his possibility doesn't seem to apply.

An anaology would be the following scenario:

DNA was found at a crime scene.  The prosecution found no link between the victim and the source of the DNA.  They had no common acquaintances and did not know one another.  There is no innocent explanation how the DNA could have gotten to the crime scene.

An expert declares that DNA can be accidentally transferred in general so it could have accidentally been transferred to our crime scene.

The expert presented a general rule but failed to look at what the prosecution did that ruled out contamination as a possibility.  So the general rule is true but saying it applies to a case where such possibility was ruled out is not proper.


He told police she was proficient and had fired all guns in the house prior to them storming it.  Likewise he told them he left it on the kitchen table at that time.  That is why such figured into their preceptions when they found the bodies.

As this statement shows he changed his story to match the family and then made up the new story that she was there watching him and this was his new excuse of how she would know how to operate it and load it.  He also changed the location of where precisely he left the gun.  It seems he is unsure where it was supposedly left because he is not consistent which makes one think he is just making it up. 

I don't know how to post documents so won't post the various statements instead this quote from the 2002 appeal decision should be sufficient:

"Having walked to the house from the lane there was further conversation. The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year."

Something else from the page you provided strikes me though.  Ann Eaton and others say Jeremy didn't use guns or show any interest in them and this seems to bear that out.  The weapon in question did not have an external hammer to cock nor is it a lever action where you need to cock it so he can't have cocked it, there is nothing to cock.  I will assume he meant he chambered a round using the bolt.  Another answer he gave reveals he doesn't relaly understand suppressors either very well. He suggested it stops the sonic boom from a bullet.  Actually it doesn't though it serves a different purpose that is why subsonic ammunition must be used in conjunction with a suppressor for there to be maximum effect.  He seems to have used a gun for the crime because it was the best for the job not because he was skilled in gun use.  So assuming he would have realized the suppressor would have telltale clues is far from a safe bet and seems to explain his error.

I find it odd that the gun was said to have been placed on the table which was clearly and very neatly set for breakfast. I THOUGHT the gun had been left on the settle. It also occurs to me to wonder if by talking about how proficient was Sheila with guns, Jeremy was encouraging them NOT to keep out, but urging them to hurry in.

[grahameb]

I find it odd that the gun was said to have been placed on the table which was clearly and very neatly set for breakfast. I THOUGHT the gun had been left on the settle. It also occurs to me to wonder if by talking about how proficient was Sheila with guns, Jeremy was encouraging them NOT to keep out, but urging them to hurry in.

He actually didn't try and put the blame on Sheila that night. But blamed the raid team. Those men killed them he said, or words to that effect.

[Caroline]

One of the most prolific invalid arguments Jeremy Bamber supporters make is to assert that first impression must be true and that because Taff Jones bought the murder suicide claims that means it must be true and when he was replaced it was so that Jeremy could be framed. That's never been the case at all

His supporters ignore that it is routine and in fact proper to reserve judgment until all evidence is processed, the autopsy results come back and all other evidence is evaluated. 
Indeed, police had no way to know if anything Jeremy was telling them was true or not until they tested such claims later finding out many of his claims were lies. Everyone had an opinion, not least of all Stand Jones, Miller and Cook

First impressions do not mean a thing and can’t be used to contradict findings.  It is a false argument to claim that because the lead investigator bought Jeremy’s claims and the frame job based on the initial looks of things that this means it had to be the truth and any contrary results from the subsequent investigation should be ignored.  Doesn't meant it isn't the truth either but no one thinks your reasoning is why the silencer evidence was engineered. Personally I think because it was badly handled and most of the evidence destroyed, they just didn't have enough evidence to prosecute so got their heads together and pulled out a rabbit 

Even more ironic is that Bamber supporters frequently point out that Jones and his subordinates did poor job early in the investigation.  How can one seriously claim the initial impressions of a sloppy investigation should be accepted instead of following the evidence where it leads? I can tell you where is doesn't lead -  back to the gun cupboard to a silencer carelessly left by a killer

Intentionally ignored is that Jones was both biased and inept at his job.  Instead of supervising the investigation properly he botched it.  He did not treat the scene properly affecting the integrity.  Even wore though, instead of keeping all options open and collecting all evidence that could be potentially useful he declared it to be a murder suicide and it is his fault that evidence that should have been taken into evidence right away wasn’t.  He discouraged his officers from investigating properly and he was negligent in making sure they took and cataloged everything they should have taken.  I'd agree with that

This ineptitude is why critical evidence like the suppressor was not collected until later.  Far from there being evidence of the suppressor being planted there is evidence it was not initially found because of ineptitude.  There is no evidence the family knew how significant the suppressor would be because the family had no idea what it could or could not prove.  Moreover the family turned in numerous items not merely the suppressor.  All firearms, the ammunition, and accessories were collected and turned in not merely the suppressor.  As a regulated weapon it was improper to leave them there in the first place.  Again this is evidence of a poor job being done.  Hmmmm, wouldn't agree with that, being as they (the family) first suggested that the silencer SHOULD have been on the rifle - then all of a sudden, a silencer becomes key!

If it wasn’t for Jeremy’s claims then all police would have had to go on initially was the location of the murder weapon on Sheila.  That is all that would have existed to suggest maybe she was responsible.  That initial observation would not mean much.  A killer dumps weapons near bodies fairly frequently.  To determine if suicide occurred dor murder the bodies must all be thoroughly looked at including the wounds and to look for evidence of the suspected shooter of having fired a weapon.  The kinds of things the lab did in fact do in this case which changed the initial impression. Well as the pathologists notes claim that Sheila had blood on her hands then later that they didn't - not exactly helpful as this point has consequences for the hand swab evidence (not that I'm trying to labour this POINT but I will because it keeps being ignored)

Jeremy did make many claims though and these claims initially swayed the head investigator.  Many of these claims turned out to be lies though.  Why was Jerey lying/  To make police think Sheila committed the killings.  Why would he lie and try to convince them she committed the killings unless he was in fact responsible and framing her?  These lies are evidence he was trying to frame her.  Jeremy Bamber supporters always ignore such evidence and try to pretend everything he said was honest.  They try to pretend that Sheila went shooting, that he regularly shot animals and that the ridiculous story of him leaving the gun out has to be true and even make up nonsense about how suppressors and telescopic sights don’t do anything. Lies or mistakes? Didn't you say that it's often difficult for people to recall things? And actually, Peter Eaton DID in fact state that he had seen Sheila with a gun

Jeremy’s story is that after eating a late dinner with his family he looked out the window and saw rabbits by the barn (sometimes he even claimed he heard them).  He said that he got the rifle and a full box of ammo and then loaded the magazine but by the time he finished loading it they were gone so he unloaded it and then he placed it on the kitchen table.  He noted it did not have any accessories attached. He said he put the rifle next to the 'settle' he leaned it near the wall where the coats were hung. It's Miller who said he left it on the kitchen table but that's incorrect.

The first problem with this story is that he would be unlikely to see the rabbits from the window let alone easily target them given the time of day.  It would not have been full light out.  Even worse though, why would the accessories be removed?  There was no reason at all why the scope would ever be removed.  This gun was used for target shooting and to shoot vermin.  For both a scope is extremely useful and it is not as useful for either without the scope.  Others who used the weapon said the scope was never removed because there was no call to use it without the scope and it would be a nuisance to unscrew it and then have to screw it back on and re-zero it.  The goal was to just be able to take it from the gun closet, load it and use it.  The suppressor could be removed and reinstalled rather quickly but they did not do that either it was routinely stored with the suppressor also attached. How do yu know how they 'usually' kept the rifle? Because people who weren't regular visitors to the farm said so? The scope was in it's box, it wasn't just discarded in hurry. If you were going to kill everyone would tidiness be your first thought?

The suppressor eliminates the noise made by the gases that are expelled when the gun is fired and this also reduces the recall making it even more accurate.  Reducing the noise provides 2 advantages.  1) you don’t have to worry about hearing loss and can use the weapon without needing hearing protection.  2) it means others around are not disturbed by noise from the weapon.  For vermin shooting reducing noise is extremely useful because what do vermin do when they hear the noise?  They run.  Not only does it present the prospect of ruining the shot you wish to make, it ruins the prospect of future successful shots because a group of vermin will take off upon hearing the initial shot. But if he wasn't using the rifle for shooting rabbits, why would he need the silencer? You've just indicated that you don't believe the rabbit story yet you use it to as evidence that the silencer would have been attached?

The bottom line is that it made no sense for the weapon to be in the closet with the accessories removed and at minimum Jeremy would have wanted to take a few seconds to install the suppressor though he should have wanted to install the scope as well to go shoot rabbits.  So his tale makes no sense in numerous respects.  He even lied and claimed the gun did not fit in the closet with the suppressor attached even though it did and that is in fact how it was usually stored.  The gun was usually stored with the scope attached too.  Jeremy made up the claim it would not fit with the attachments to pretend it would be natural to find it without the attachments.  If that were the case he would want to add them to go shoot rabbits anyway but the fact is it was false and the gun was routinely stored with them attached. Again, how do you/we know how it was usually stored?

Jeremy Bamber supporters never explain why we should believe he removed the gun from the closet without it having any attachments when it was routinely stored that way.  Moreover, why we should believe anyone who wanted to go shoot vermin would not want the scope and suppressor attached and would choose not to attach them if they were not attached when the gun was found.  Also why should we believe he took out the gun to shoot rabbits given the time of day and fact that others insist he never shot animals because didn’t like to do so?  Jeremy Bamber supporters ignore that people who worked on the farm and relatives say that Jeremy did not have an interest in shooting and especially did not shoot vermin.  Thus seriously calls into question Jeremy’s claim that his father bought the murder weapon for him and that Jeremy merely stored it at WHF. If he didn't go out to shoot rabbits, why would the silencer need to be attached?

Jeremy’s claims were contradictory in a number of significant respects.  He changed his story over time when witnesses contradicted him.  In some cases he changed his claims to match theirs but in other instances he changed his claim to keep alive his prior claims.

For example, after the bodies were discovered he was questioned multiple times about his use of the gun prior to the night of the murders.  His original story was that he had not touched it for at least a week prior to taking it out to shoot the rabbits.  Police determined that the last person known to using the rifle prior to the murders was Anthony.  Anthony testified the gun was routinely stored with the suppressor and scope attached and that they were attached when he took it from the closet and he left them attached when he put the weapon away after using it.  This strongly suggests the attachments should have been on the gun if Jeremy had in fact taken it out as claimed.  To refute this Jeremy changed his story.  He claimed he used it multiple times the week before the murders to shoot vermin.  Again though others contradict his claim he did such.  Furthermore he suggested that during this week of use sometimes the gun had the attachments when he removed it from the closet other times it didn’t and suggested the gun had been frequently used by Nevill not just him during this week.  He insisted he is not the one who removed or added the attachments rather Nevill sometimes removed them but other times didn’t and that Jeremy just used it however he found it.  So his story became that Nevill used the gun multiple times the week before the murders and so did he and that sometimes the gun had the attachments other times it didn’t so he ended up admitting it did fit in the closet with the attachments still in place, contradicting his claim that it didn’t. Yes, Jeremy does contradict himself - but he certainly isn't alone there, however, when it's pointed out to you that others have done the same, you simply dismiss this as bad recall

So his changed story was specifically constructed to rebut evidence that the last time the gun was used it had the attachments and also to try to rebut testimony that Nevill never removed the accessories he always stored it with them attached.  So his changed claim had a set purpose- to contradict claims of others but had no means of being corroborated and is suspect because if true he would not have stated he had not used it the week prior.  It is a big deal to suddenly remember you used it many times after saying you used it never.  It is especially suspicious when others say he didn’t like to shoot vermin or shoot at all for that matter.

Jeremy Bamber supporters gloss over this because it is evidence of Jeremy trying to frame his sister.  What is the purpose of this tale?  No one believes Sheila would have gone to fetch a gun herself so the purpose of this tale is to claim the gun and bullets were sitting in the open for her to grab while arguing with her family.

Why would Nevill and June leave a gun and bullets on their kitchen table at all let alone with the young boys visiting?  Testimony was that with the boys there Nevill was very careful with weapons.  Why would Jeremy leave it on the table instead of putting it away?  It makes no sense, in fact it appears the kitchen table had been set for breakfast before going to bed so why would they leave the gun there and set plates around it?  It doesn’t pass the smell test that if Jeremy had left it out that they would not put it away. Because it was never on the table

But Jeremy does better.  He claims he left a box of bullets too and these bullets were not moved they were in the same place he left them so they probably didn’t put the gun away or they would have put the bullets away too and this box of bullets is where Sheila supposedly got the ammo to use for the murders because it was not far from the gun.  She had easy access to a loaded magazine, more bullets and the gun how convenient.  And even more convenient the gun just so happened to not have the scope which would have been a hindrance for the murders, though very useful for shooting vermin- the actual purpose of the rifle.

It is quite obvious this box of ammo was staged by Jeremy to support this tale he made up.  The box had 30 rounds in it and he claimed it was either full or missing only a couple of rounds when he removed it from the closet.  So he claims there was a box of 48-50 rounds.  He claims he loaded around 10 from this box into the magazine which means Sheila would have found a magazine with around 10 round and then the box would have another 38-40 rounds for reloading purposes.  25 rounds were fired which means there should have been 23-25 rounds left in the box. But there were 30 rounds left which means one of two things.  Either the box was not used at all and it always had 30 rounds in it or some rounds were used from this box but the killer also went to the closet and got additional rounds from it.  Why would Sheila do that?  Why would Sheila go to the closet to get additional rounds when the box still had 30 left?  This was a major blunder on Jeremy’s part and demonstrates he staged the scene.  Jeremy Bamber supporters never want to talk about this.

Why would Nevill and Sheila be in the kitchen around 3AM for her to grab the rifle and load it in the first place?  They would be asleep.  There is evidence to suggest they had been in their beds.  She no longer had sleeping problems once her medication was reduced to 100ML. Moreover evidence suggests the killer marched into the master bedroom and opened fire on them in there.  The goal was to kill everyone in bed except Sheila.  But this is further supported by the fact that Jeremy was caught staging things to frame Sheila.  He staged the bullets before police were called and crafted the story about the gun to make it appear the gun were out for easy access and this way police would not think the suppressor had been attached since he claimed it had not been when he left it out.

He had no idea police would be able to figure out it was her blood inside the suppressor or that it was used in the murders, he didn’t know enough about science and figured his word the gun was left out without the suppressor attached would be good enough.

He also lied to police by telling them Sheila was proficient with all weapons in the house and had fired them all.  Later he told a tale of her going shooting with Anthony and Nevill and using the murder weapon during the shoot.  Anthony denied this.  The entire family and farm workers and friends said she had no interest in guns and no one even saw her touch one.  On this issue rather than look like a liar he changed and agreed he had not seen her touch or fire a gun.  Which means his prior statements were lies and clearly these lies were calculated to support the frame- his goal was to get police to believe she knew how to use weapons and thus could have carried out the murders.

Jeremy Bamber supporters love to claim police framed him without any evidence it happened.  Here there is evidence he was framing Sheila and it is all ignored.
 

Sorry but the post is too long, can't you split them?

 
 

[grahameb]

I'm afraid scipio's posts are too long for people. Although well constructed I feel that he may do better if he shorten them somewhat. It will also make them easier to answer without writing a sermon one's self.

[Jane]

Caroline, I think you must have become lost in that forest of words. Can you wave so we know where you are?

[Caroline]

I'm afraid scipio's posts are too long for people. Although well constructed I feel that he may do better if he shorten them somewhat. It will also make them easier to answer without writing a sermon one's self.

This is true, he puts so much effort into writing them but then I don't have time to answer, then I forget or just can't find it again.