the shooting party in scotland.

[lebaleb]

Once again the same oh she lived on a farm she had to be around guns.  Being in a house with guns doesn't mean you know how to use any let alone all of them.

Lynette Fromme grew up around guns and she didn't even know she needed to chamber a round:

"As Ford drew near, Fromme pulled a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol, aimed it at the president and pulled the trigger.

Witnesses nearby heard the "click" of the hammer dropping. Secret Service agents later found that the pistol had four rounds in its magazine, but the chamber was empty.

Agents swarmed Fromme and wrestled the weapon from her hand as she shouted, "Don't get excited! It didn't go off! It didn't go off!"


http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Would-be-assassin-Squeaky-Fromme-is-paroled-3221893.php

There is no evidence she used any guns at all but certianly not the murder weapon or a gun like it.  Not knowing she needed to chamber a roudn let alone how would result in the same fate as Fromme, having it taken away without doing any harm.

You grossly underestimate how much knowledge is required to operate a weapon. Many wepaons have safeties as well.

The fact she payed no interest to weapons menas she would be unlikely to go for one if she wanted to arm herself instead being likely to go for something she used in the past like a pot or pan which is the weapon of choice for women- moreso than knives.  Women in a kitchen tend to grab pots and pans more than they do knives. 

She certainly would not be likely to load 11 rounds which is what was fired in the initial hail in themaster  bedroom.  That is a clue it was Jeremy.  Another clue is the staging of the bullets in the kitchen.  She would not have used 20 bullets from the bullets in the kitchen then ran to the closet to get 5 more when there were still 30 in the pile she was using.

Jeremy said she had been out with him while he was shooting and so would have learned by observation. The relatives were the ones keen to propagate the idea she had no interest in guns. The truth is they didn't know Sheila that well.
We don't know for sure how many bullets were fired in the master bedroom in the initial hail. About the bullets:You are again applying logic to the behavior of someone having a psychotic episode. Having experience of this has taught me one can never predict what a person would do. She probably didn't have to run at all.

[Jane]

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that, if she went on shoots, she reloaded for the guns if they carried spares.

[lookout]

Who do you think you are kidding?  You haven't posted anything accurate or sensible since I have been here.  You have posted one bogus claim after the enxt.

I posted the accurate account of the testimony with respect to the supposed shooting party.

The family said they did not see her ever take any intereste din guns or fire any guns.  Jeremy stated in his first written statement that he never saw her handle or fire a gun.

At trial Rivlin tried to get Boutflour to say he took her shooting on a trip to Scotland and he repeatedly said no and after being badgered the most he would say was that maybe she did go once but he didn't remember her going, she didn't carry a gun and her certainly didn't remember her firing any gun ever if she did go to Scotland with them.   

That was his testimony,  This is the 3rd time in this thread I posted such go read his testimony.

Carry on doing your ostrich impressions !!

[nugnug]

would anybody go on a shooting trip if they had no intrest in guns.

[lookout]

 I doubt it nugs.I know I wouldn't.

 Sheila would have watched how the guns/rifles were loaded,,as part of her trip there,or she wouldn't have gone. DB would have been by her side too.

[nugnug]

i mean at a shooting event theres nothing much else to do exept shoot if you have no interest in guns your going to be pretty bored.

[nugnug]

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that, if she went on shoots, she reloaded for the guns if they carried spares.

if she had gone on those shoots and never the relative should of been able to give a definite answer.

i mean you would rember the only person who never shot becouse they would be the odd one out.

[lookout]

 Of course you'd notice,nugs. They're being very cagey about what she did obviously do as regards shooting. Afterall,,there'd have been enough practice and sightings as to how it's accomplished, on the farm.  It went with the territory and that's all there is to it.

[scipio_usmc]

Let's see who is right the posters who have spent years debating this subject or the guy who has been here 2 weeks and has only studied the case for 2 months.

1) The Jeremy-apologists assert that DB stated Sheila went to shooting parties and shot at them. 

2) The newcomer asserts that DB stated she didn't go to shooting parties and after being pressed repeatedly by the defense said maybe she did go but he didn't recall her going, and certainly didn't recall her firing a gun.

Who correctly characterized said testimony?

Rivlin : Did you ever take her on a shooting holiday?

DB: Jeremy Bamber with his father came on a shooting holiday, but I cannot honestly recollect Sheila coming on one.

Rivlin : Do you remember an occasion when you went to Scotland on a shooting holiday with Sheila?”

DB : I do not recollect a shooting holiday with Sheila, but I do recollect a shooting holiday with Nevill Bamber and his son Jeremy, and also my now wife Karen Boutflour.

Rivlin: Are you saying you have never been to Scotland with Sheila and/or others on a shooting holiday?

DB : I cannot recollect Sheila being on the shooting holiday you are referring to.

Rivlin: Did you not go on a shooting holiday with Sheila and Jeremy Bamber being present?

DB: My mind is somewhat blurred at this time. There may have been and occasion when Nevill Bamber and Jeremy . . . . but this must have been many years before that.

Rivlin: It may have been some years before. I cannot give you a date, do you understand but doing the best I can, may I suggest to you 1978/79 period, when you went on a shooting holiday with Sheila?

Mr Justice Drake: Where abouts are you putting?

Mr Rivlin: In Scoland

Mr Justice Drake: Just the two of them, it is suggested?

DB: I think I can possibly explain this a little further. It is such a long time ago I am having a lot of trouble recollecting this but, having suddenly put me on the spot, I think I can remember occasions when I have taken members of the family up to Scotland, and I belonged to a shooting party of about eight members, which we invited a guest on one or the second occasion, and we would shoot on August 12th – The Glorious Twelfth – and sometimes in September shooting on three days on each occasion.

Rivlin: You understand I am not concerned to ask you about just any old holiday that you may have been on, however pleasant, but to ask you about a time when you took Sheila up with you, and there was such an occasion, was there not Mr Boutlfour?

DB: I have a feeling, now you have brought back the grey matter a little, Sheila may have come up with me on one occasion.

Rivlin: Can you tell the court, did she do any shooting?”

DB: It’s such a long time ago, I cannot recollect, but she certainly did not carry a gun. She may have fired a gun off in the party perhaps.
 
Rivlin: She may have, but you cannot recollect?

DB: I can recollect somebody firing a 12 bore off and putting it up to their shoulder, but I do not recollect whether it was Sheila or another lady.


-------------------

So he said he doesn't recall taking Sheila at all, doesn't recall her firing a gun and simply recalls a woman who fired a .410 but is not sure who that woman was.

Thi sis a far cry from the claim of the author of this thread and the various resident jeremy apologists who insist that DB stated she definitely went to a shoot. 

My characterization was correct all along.  That begs the question was this misrepresented by Jeremy-apologists intentionally or was it simply ignorance and the matter of being wrong as opposed to lying?

In the meantime a 410 is not a semi auto and firing a .410 once doesn't even mean someone would necessarily be able to load a 410 let alone to load a semi-auto which doesn't function in the same manner.

Nor doe sit establish SHeila would be likely to go for a gun and load it as opposed to going for her own staple which is also the staple of women across the globe- pots and pans.

If she did go for a gun and try to load it before Nevill could stop her from inserting the magazine  chances are she still would not have known how to chamber a round let alone be aware that she needed to do so. Thus the same thing that happened to Lynette Fromme likely would have happened to her- pulling the tirgger and nothing happening because she had not chambered a round.

Jeremy aplogists also ignore time and again she would not have the knowledge or desire to load 11 rounds instead of just loading 10.  11 were fired inthe bedroom at the parents before Nevill escaped.

Worse yet, why would Sheila load 20 rounds from the bullets in the kitchen and in the middle of loading the magazine suddenly stop half way though there were 30 bullets left, go to the closet and load 5 more bullets from the closet?  Supporters don't ever even attempt to answer this question because there is no rational explanation. It is ignored completely because it is so damaging.

Jeremy apologists ignore evidence and intentionally twist evidence to support what they decided they want to believe instead of objectively following evidence where it leads.

Jeremy himself admitted he is the one who left these bullets on the counter near the phone.  He admits he dumped them out.  He asserts that the box had been full or only missing a couple of rounds when he dumped it out. 

There are only 2 possibilities- either he lied and staged these 30 bullets making up that there had actually been 48-50 originally to falsely suggest the killer used these bullets or the killer used 18-20 bullets then went to the closet to get another 5-7 instead of continuing to use these.  Why would the  killer do that?  It doesn't matter who the killer is such would not make any sense.  The claim is not credible and an objective person using the reasonable person standard would view this as evidence that Jeremy staged th escene before phoning police.

 

[nugnug]

he cant recollect shiela well that's a blatant lie.

we know becouse of the word of sheilas husband and hes got no reason to lie.

[lookout]

 It's just ONE lie like this which should have rung alarm bells as to what other lies have been told,,and being hesitant in your answer as to whether Sheila was there or not,,got off to a bad start on that question alone.
They weren't that old that they wouldn't have remembered. In fact,,the older you get,,you can remember more of the past than you can of the present in some cases.

[scipio_usmc]

he cant recollect shiela well that's a blatant lie.

we know becouse of the word of sheilas husband and hes got no reason to lie.

No a blatant lie would be claiming one can't remember if they shot someone or not without having been severely under the influence of drugs or receiving a head injury afterwards that would harm he memory.  Something that significant would stand out in someone's mind.  Whether Sheila went with him many years earlier would have little reason to stand out in his mind and can't be estbalished as a lie.

In fact we still don't know if she actually went let alone fired a gun so you cna't evne prove he was wrong let alone tha the lied.

Your bias is only exceeded by your lack of reason.

The quesiton stands did yo uand your cohorts intentionally lie about DB's testimony or did you just make a mistake because you were too biased to try to learn the truth and be accurate?

[scipio_usmc]

It's just ONE lie like this which should have rung alarm bells as to what other lies have been told,,and being hesitant in your answer as to whether Sheila was there or not,,got off to a bad start on that question alone.
They weren't that old that they wouldn't have remembered. In fact,,the older you get,,you can remember more of the past than you can of the present in some cases.

The only potential lie is from you and your cohorts.

Did you intentionally misrepresent DB's testimony or were you just ignorant?

Either way it is not flattering for you.

[nugnug]

if colin says she went then she went hes got no reason to lie.

[lookout]

 I would imagine that in a court of law,,you should have ALL your answers at the ready without having to fumble for your words. That's IF you're telling the truth of course !