Jury, given ultimatum, it was either Sheila, or Jeremy - gaff...

[lookout]

Source please.

Maybe Sheila needed the lights on while she changed and washed her clothes in the bucket. Then made herself a cheese & pickle sandwich.

PC Myalls' incident report @3.45am,   Polly.

Yes,,that would have been the time that Sheila changed,soaked her clothes,washed,then ate something.

[Alias]

Yo!!!

Yes if we look at when the police first arrived and the observations made it was clear that the only lights on within the house were on the white side of the house, thus being the kitchen where NB was later found. The upstairs bathroom light, twins room and landing. Although in later years Bew's has said there were no lights on at the back of the house.   His note books say different of course.

Mildenhall was the only person to have have spotted the light on in the main bedroom and the window slightly open from the red/white side where he was stationed.

Bew's, Myall and the other one, ;us Jeremy do not say in any of there statements that a light was on at the front of the house, they say it was in darkness. 

My question has always been...who put the main bedroom light on they don't turn on their own??

Hope this heloops....lol 

It does, thanks! But only in the sense that nothing is "fixed" here - it is indeed unclear which lights were on and which off. Just like everything else in this case. 

[Patti]

It does, thanks! But only in the sense that nothing is "fixed" here - it is indeed unclear which lights were on and which off. Just like everything else in this case. 

It is Alias, but all of the raid team report lights on at the back of the house. I think we can safely that they were. 

The only thing different is that Mildenhall was very precise in his account of what he was looking at, he certainly has an eye for detail,  to the point of saying that the window was open.

The crime scene photographs also show the light to be on in the main bedroom yet it was daylight.  If the light was on then the trick of the moonlight never happened.....

[lookout]

 So,,Jeremy who knew the inside of the farmhouse like the back of his hand,would be switching on lights here and there,giving himself a full silhouette to any passer-by that might be ?

[Alias]

It is Alias, but all of the raid team report lights on at the back of the house. I think we can safely that they were. 

The only thing different is that Mildenhall was very precise in his account of what he was looking at, he certainly has an eye for detail,  to the point of saying that the window was open.

The crime scene photographs also show the light to be on in the main bedroom yet it was daylight.  If the light was on then the trick of the moonlight never happened.....

It is very important whether that light was on or off! If Jeremy shot Sheila, he could have turned off the light (but why?? would look "wrong" if he wanted it to appear to be a suicide). If Sheila shot herself, she wouldnt have done it in the dark, would she, but would have needed light - then turned the light off! Impossible.
In any case, the lights must have been on during the shootings.
Wish they has been more precise!

[Alias]

It is Alias, but all of the raid team report lights on at the back of the house. I think we can safely that they were. 

The only thing different is that Mildenhall was very precise in his account of what he was looking at, he certainly has an eye for detail,  to the point of saying that the window was open.

The crime scene photographs also show the light to be on in the main bedroom yet it was daylight.  If the light was on then the trick of the moonlight never happened.....

Just read Mildenhall´s statement (it is here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1476.0.html).

He does say loud and clear that the light in the bedroom was on. No "flick of light" possible - or is it? Have been looking at windows opposite, and even though the lights are on, you can still see mirroring of sky/other houses in them. It isn´t quite dark yet - will look again later.
I trust this officer´s account because of his meticulous and clear description of everything he saw, so I think the lights were on in the bedroom. Which also makes sense.

What did Bews say about this? Lights or no lights? I remember Jeremy saying the light was on in the bedroom.

[nugnug]

well you think about it follows that nevile would of turned the light on before going out to struggle with anybody.

[lookout]

well you think about it follows that nevile would of turned the light on before going out to struggle with anybody.

That's right,nugs,,and it was Bews who'd said the light was on in the kitchen.

[Patti]

Just read Mildenhall´s statement (it is here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1476.0.html).

He does say loud and clear that the light in the bedroom was on. No "flick of light" possible - or is it? Have been looking at windows opposite, and even though the lights are on, you can still see mirroring of sky/other houses in them. It isn´t quite dark yet - will look again later.
I trust this officer´s account because of his meticulous and clear description of everything he saw, so I think the lights were on in the bedroom. Which also makes sense.

What did Bews say about this? Lights or no lights? I remember Jeremy saying the light was on in the bedroom.

Hi Alias I don't think anyone else states the light was on. Its clear in Bew's hand notes and the other raid team statements there in mention of the light being on in the main bedroom.  Only that the front of the house was in darkness....Mildenhall's statement was a breath of fresh air, like you say he was meticulous in his description of what he saw. 

I too have looked at houses with the lights on and there is no way the moon can play a trick of the light, plus they looked not only once at that window but went back to look at it again...and still not one of them mentions the light being on.  Its strange! 

[Alias]

Yes, it´s strange!
Now it is darker - in the windows where lights are on, I cannot see reflection of anything at all. No flick of light...
They saw movement inside - that is what they saw! 
Very strange that Jeremy´s defence didn´t make more of this.

I am not sure Jeremy saw anything. I think he may now think he did after thinking about it for years. I think that at the time of the trial, Jeremy did not realize the importance of this, since he didn´t see it himself. It was one of the officers who noticed this.

[scipio_usmc]

Well it would seem that indeed I do have command of all the facts judging by your post. The more you tell me that I'm wrong,,making things up,,don't have an understanding of the case,etc etc,,brains of a rocking horse,,,the more I'm inclined to think I'm right,,so keep shovelling the sh1t if it makes you feel good. Unfortunately,,I just look upon you as being an arrogant and pedantic oaf,,who,,when the time comes,,,won't like losing,,one bit. Not nice being insulted,is it ??

BTW,there WAS a piece of Sheilas' toenail in the kitchen because it was first mistaken for paint from the Aga. Must have been a relative of yours in the force !
There were contradictory reports by various officers that lights within the farmhouse were on and off in certain rooms,,which again indicated that Sheila was still alive inside. The time of that was 03.45am. Bews saw that the light in the kitchen was on when he went to what he classed as,the back of the farmhouse.

Once again you demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about.  This was explained to you countless times so at this point the only clnclusionsis that you are either intentionally misrepresenting or you have a low IQ.

The defense hired a phto expert who made outrageous claims that were rejected by the court and also laughed at my other experts.  One such claim is that he enlarged a tiny speck in a photo and matched this speck to a piece of varnish missing from Sheila's toenail.  He claimed the speck was a tiny fleck of varnish not a toenail.  I'm not the only one who explaned this to you so did others.  His allegation is was a piece of varnish has not been corroborated by anyone and is not considered credible.  The poor quality of the photos combined makes it impossible to enlarge a tin speck to the point it can be shape matched to a piece of varnish missing.  His methodology was criticized by prosecution experts.

So even claiming it was definitely a speck of varnish from her toe would be inaccurate but especially to claim it was a piece of toenail.

You claim that police saw lights turning on and off is patently false.  Now you claim well some gave conflicting accounts of which ones were on.  That doesn't establish that anyone saw a light turn on and off. Many didn't pay close attention to record such and to later include it in their reports.  NO ONE claims to have seen a light turn on and off or off and on.

To establish lights were turning on and off you need a witness who saw such. not even Jeremy claimed he saw that. 

[Patti]

Yes, it´s strange!
Now it is darker - in the windows where lights are on, I cannot see reflection of anything at all. No flick of light...
They saw movement inside - that is what they saw! 
Very strange that Jeremy´s defence didn´t make more of this.

I am not sure Jeremy saw anything. I think he may now think he did after thinking about it for years. I think that at the time of the trial, Jeremy did not realize the importance of this, since he didn´t see it himself. It was one of the officers who noticed this.

I have often wondered if the flick of light was the light being turned off?

his is only a theory. But, the corner of that building has me puzzled.  A firearms officer Jeaps sees a rifle leaning at the window of the box room. Brown also see a rifle in the same window.  The window in question cannot have been the window of the main bedroom as first thought because Jeaps is back at base at 8:30 and the photographs of the crime scene were not taken in the main bedroom till 10am. 

If I was in that building and wanted to watch what was going off outside I would flit from main bedroom to box room. I would also have to turn the light off because its almost impossible to see the outside clearly when the light is on. Its more clear when the light is off....

[scipio_usmc]

Yes, it´s strange!
Now it is darker - in the windows where lights are on, I cannot see reflection of anything at all. No flick of light...
They saw movement inside - that is what they saw! 
Very strange that Jeremy´s defence didn´t make more of this.

I am not sure Jeremy saw anything. I think he may now think he did after thinking about it for years. I think that at the time of the trial, Jeremy did not realize the importance of this, since he didn´t see it himself. It was one of the officers who noticed this.

Make more of what?  The cops noted a fact- that moving one's head gives the appearance of object you are looking at to be moving.  They said that in retrospect their head movement created the appearance of movement.  None recorded seeing a clear image of a person.  There was not much the defense could do with this. Plus it would be difficult to claim she shot herself while police were there and them not to have heard a thing.

[Alias]

Make more of what?  The cops noted a fact- that moving one's head gives the appearance of object you are looking at to be moving.  They said that in retrospect their head movement created the appearance of movement.  None recorded seeing a clear image of a person.  There was not much the defense could do with this. Plus it would be difficult to claim she shot herself while police were there and them not to have heard a thing.

Do me a favour, put me on ignore.

[scipio_usmc]

I have often wondered if the flick of light was the light being turned off?

his is only a theory. But, the corner of that building has me puzzled.  A firearms officer Jeaps sees a rifle leaning at the window of the box room. Brown also see a rifle in the same window.  The window in question cannot have been the window of the main bedroom as first thought because Jeaps is back at base at 8:30 and the photographs of the crime scene were not taken in the main bedroom till 10am. 

If I was in that building and wanted to watch what was going off outside I would flit from main bedroom to box room. I would also have to turn the light off because its almost impossible to see the outside clearly when the light is on. Its more clear when the light is off....

No one knows when the earliest photo taken was in fact taken.  It is possible a photo was taken right away and the gun then moved.  No police gave their statements right away as soon as they got back to the station.  There is no way to say they were not influenced by photos taken of the scene or tlaking with others when they made their reports.  They also could have been mistaken about details just because that is what happens when you don't document everything. Recollections of acocunts and the actual details captured by a camera often reveals differences. 

At any rate, the notion police would not have heard shots is nonsense and she still can't have shot herself and then moved her own body nor shot herself with the suppressor.