The last ultimate test of gun, to prove sound moderator was not used in shooting

[Jane]

It is a tactic to antagonize others in order to try and cause them to snap and lose their tempers. Then he can claim things like "according to others your family has a history of mental illness" and the like. Such people are unscrupulous. Just wait til my brother gets out of Broadmore.    Sorry sorry I have a sick sense of humour I know.

Grahame, somewhere down the line, he's probably picked up on the advantages of psychologically undermining ones opponent to cut them down to the size he feels safe with them being, so perhaps you could take it as a compliment, it's the only one you'll be likely to receive from him :D It's a tactic used, I suspect, by many prosecutors.

[lookout]

 April,,have you read the harrowing story about Victoria Evans and her " evil " adoptive mother ?
 I wasn't going to read it,but became intrigued by the fact that the " mother " told the young woman that she was in league with the" devil".
The tyrant was imprisoned for 12 years,but will be out any time, after 7 years. It upset me to say the least.

[maggie]

April,,have you read the harrowing story about Victoria Evans and her " evil " adoptive mother ?
 I wasn't going to read it,but became intrigued by the fact that the " mother " told the young woman that she was in league with the" devil".
The tyrant was imprisoned for 12 years,but will be out any time, after 7 years. It upset me to say the least.

Personally think there are 'evil' mothers adoptive or not, also mentally sick mothers, disabled mothers and many others. The term Mother is just that, the relationship with your child is earned not a right.

[lookout]

Personally think there are 'evil' mothers adoptive or not, also mentally sick mothers, disabled mothers and many others. The term Mother is just that, the relationship with your child is earned not a right.

I quite agree,Maggie. This particular case has a ring to it in that this woman obviously wasn't a suitable " candidate " to begin with,so how do these people slip through the net ? I'm including June too,given her medical background.

[maggie]

I quite agree,Maggie. This particular case has a ring to it in that this woman obviously wasn't a suitable " candidate " to begin with,so how do these people slip through the net ? I'm including June too,given her medical background.

It was all very different back in the 50s and 60s, attitudes to children's needs were very different for a start, it was recognised they needed feeding and warmth but not a great deal of attention was given to their psychological needs. You know yourself that priorities were different. There were thousands of babies available for adoption and often matching hair and eye colour with adoptive parents was high on the list of priorities.  These days it's hard to believe parents could slip through the net as vetting is very intensive but even now I guess there is human error from a social worker or another professional.
I know you include June but I have always argued that we have no real proof about June's mothering. I have never read Colin's book but found Alias' s extracts she posted very interesting however am not convinced Colin was the best judge of June as he seemed to blame all Sheila's problems on her. My arguement is that Sheila was a paranoid schizophrenic which is a highly destructive illness, there is every possibility this was a genetic illness Sheila inherited when I first applied to adopt we were warned we had to be aware any baby may develop PS later in life.
We don't know enough about June's illness, I can see it's quite a phenomena that both women had mental illness but they may have been unrelated? Back 50s/60s there was huge amount of ignorance about such illnesses, June had a 'breakdown' as many women did, it was obviously not taken seriously by the powers that be around at the time. They were a wealthy, white, god fearing family that ticked all the boxes I suppose. I know June seems to have shown a total lack of ability to emote with or understand her child, would guess she had a similarly difficult relationship with her Mother and was totally out of her depth with Sheila's illness etc.  I don't believe she was in any way evil, or that she deserved such a dreadful end.
The only person who knows the truth about June as mother is Jeremy, he speaks of a loving mother as a child, a difficult mother in adolescence with her illness and his lack of understanding and their later mutual understanding. We hear the guilters claim a different story. It's also naturally accepted Nevill was super man, he may have been but probably wasn't
being human!!!  I feel June is an easy target to blame, if she was cruel and hateful to Sheila I would be first to condemn her but without that proof I prefer to keep my options open and not judge her, I refuse to judge on random, out of context quotes any more than I judge Jeremy on similar.

[scipio_usmc]

I am not making up fairytales. All I am doing is quoting the radio logs and giving my opinion and explanation of them, nothing more. I will accept the radio logs as correct until there is concrete proof that they are not.
That does not include stories made up by any of the raid team after the act. To me each of their testimonies appear to be "harmonized" if you like, too good to be true, as if they had sat in a debriefing room (which they did of course) and made to fit so as to avoid a police investigation from the Commissioners.

All the radio logs indicate is that police not inside radioed at some point to say it was relayed to them two bodies found so far.

One log says one male and 1 female in the kitchen but the other says simply one male and 1 female not where either was found.  Neither identifies the male or female by name.  So claims the logs say Sheila was found second is not what the logs say at all let alone that Sheila was found in the kitchen.

So right off the bat there is a conflict in the log.  one claims the bodies were found in the kitchen the other does not.  So that means the person who wrote they were found in the kitchen could have been assuming and wrong.
 
It also could mean there was a correction and the account not mentioning the kitchen could have lacked the part about the kitchen because it was retracted.

Since there is ambiguity and conflict in the log you go to the source.  That is where you go anyway since the logs are utterly lacking in any detail about names let alone where each and every body was found.

Going to the source means going to witnesses.  The witnesses are those who actually entered the house and found the bodies.

People ar eindeed making thing sup by ignoring the physical evidence, ignoring all the testimony of everyone on site and suggesting the logs assert Sheila was killed by police in the kitchen.  The logs don't even assert Sheila was ever in the kitchen. 1 log asserts a dead female body was found in the kitchen not that she was shot by police there or who she was. The account was radioed in from nonwitnesses and clearly was wrong.  Whether the police radioing it in was wrong or the person keeping the log misunderstood matters not at all.  Only dishonest people assert the log was right and those same dishonest people have no evidence at all to suggest it was right and that there was  a female body in the kitchen.  But worse these dishonest people misrepresent that the log says Sheila was in the kitchen and then make up wild tales about her being shot by police which are not supported by the log or anything else.

[grahameb]

All the radio logs indicate is that police not inside radioed at some point to say it was relayed to them two bodies found so far.

One log says one male and 1 female in the kitchen but the other says simply one male and 1 female not where either was found.  Neither identifies the male or female by name.  So claims the logs say Sheila was found second is not what the logs say at all let alone that Sheila was found in the kitchen.

So right off the bat there is a conflict in the log.  one claims the bodies were found in the kitchen the other does not.  So that means the person who wrote they were found in the kitchen could have been assuming and wrong.
 
It also could mean there was a correction and the account not mentioning the kitchen could have lacked the part about the kitchen because it was retracted.

Since there is ambiguity and conflict in the log you go to the source.  That is where you go anyway since the logs are utterly lacking in any detail about names let alone where each and every body was found.

Going to the source means going to witnesses.  The witnesses are those who actually entered the house and found the bodies.

People ar eindeed making thing sup by ignoring the physical evidence, ignoring all the testimony of everyone on site and suggesting the logs assert Sheila was killed by police in the kitchen.  The logs don't even assert Sheila was ever in the kitchen. 1 log asserts a dead female body was found in the kitchen not that she was shot by police there or who she was. The account was radioed in from nonwitnesses and clearly was wrong.  Whether the police radioing it in was wrong or the person keeping the log misunderstood matters not at all.  Only dishonest people assert the log was right and those same dishonest people have no evidence at all to suggest it was right and that there was  a female body in the kitchen.  But worse these dishonest people misrepresent that the log says Sheila was in the kitchen and then make up wild tales about her being shot by police which are not supported by the log or anything else.

No there are no conflict in the logs, but rather as they both agree on one female and one male found together (otherwise they wouldn't have reported it that way) that in fact one verifies the sighting of the other. Not only that you get the report that 3 more bodies discovered upstairs. Who were they?
Then you get the call for two ambulances. Why two? Because one ambulance can only carry one body at a time. Again there is another indication that there were two bodies found on entry.
You know what that tells me? That with these very clear logs that the documents that should be re-examined should be the raid team statements that were harmonized after the events, not those logs that were contemporary to the events.

[scipio_usmc]

No there are no conflict in the logs, but rather as they both agree on one female and one male found together (otherwise they wouldn't have reported it that way) that in fact one verifies the sighting of the other. Not only that you get the report that 3 more bodies discovered upstairs. Who were they?
Then you get the call for two ambulances. Why two? Because one ambulance can only carry one body at a time. Again there is another indication that there were two bodies found on entry.
You know what that tells me? That with these very clear logs that the documents that should be re-examined should be the raid team statements that were harmonized after the events, not those logs that were contemporary to the events.

You are playing games to pretend there is no ambiguity and conflict between the logs but that is not the case at all.  Only one entry mentions a location for the bodies and that is the one that says 2 bodies in the kitchen.

The rest do not specify any were found upstairs versus downstairs.  Your claim it stated 3 bodies found upstairs is false.  "Now confirmed a further 3 bodies found 5 bodies total"

The logs don't state any bodies were found upstairs.  They do not specify where the other bodies were found nor do any that specify a male and female found state who the male and female were.

The claim that the logs estbalish Sheila was found in the kitchen is false, if there really were a female body it could be June just as easily as Sheila if we go only by gender and if we include the visual account before of an old lady that means more likely June.

Dishonest peopel say we should trust the log over the police who were actually there and worse lie and pretend the log stated Sheila was in the kitchen though it doesn't say that at all let alone provide any support for wild claims of police finding her alive and shooting her then taking her upstairs while still alive and killing her up there.

It is all fantasy and growssly distorting the log.


 

[Jan]

7.40  two bodies found one male one female



8.10 further three bodies found



so if one of those bodies at 7.40 was Sheila it took them 30 minutes to find June who was on the bed which was next  to her as she lay on the floor.


That is quite a feat really.

[scipio_usmc]

7.40  two bodies found one male one female



8.10 further three bodies found



so if one of those bodies at 7.40 was Sheila it took them 30 minutes to find June who was on the bed next to her .


That is quite a feat really.

This is a perfect example of how you are making things up not following the log.

Where does it claim the female found was Sheila?

Where does it say June and Sheila were found in June's bed?

WHere does it say all 3 further bodies were found at 8:10?

The log gives updates of calls.  At 8:10 is when someone radioed to say 3 bodies further found 5 total found not the time they were found by those inside.  A radio call was not made each time a body was found there were updates at intervals.

The update at 7:40 could includ Nevill and June who was seen on the floor pretty soon after entry.  The raid team used a periscope to look around upstairs before going up there and saw June's body.

The update also could have simply been Nevill and the person making the call added the female seen through the window.  The only way to clarify what was meant by the person making the call is to ask the person who made the call.

What the person making the call thought to be the case doens't matter though, the person making the calls was not a witness and thus is in no position to be able to say what actually was the actual case.  For that you go to the actual witnesses and the physical evidence.

 

[mike tesko]

Sheila was the only female who could have been shot downstairs and survived...

[grahameb]

You are playing games to pretend there is no ambiguity and conflict between the logs but that is not the case at all.  Only one entry mentions a location for the bodies and that is the one that says 2 bodies in the kitchen.

The rest do not specify any were found upstairs versus downstairs.  Your claim it stated 3 bodies found upstairs is false.  "Now confirmed a further 3 bodies found 5 bodies total"

The logs don't state any bodies were found upstairs.  They do not specify where the other bodies were found nor do any that specify a male and female found state who the male and female were.

The claim that the logs estbalish Sheila was found in the kitchen is false, if there really were a female body it could be June just as easily as Sheila if we go only by gender and if we include the visual account before of an old lady that means more likely June.

Dishonest peopel say we should trust the log over the police who were actually there and worse lie and pretend the log stated Sheila was in the kitchen though it doesn't say that at all let alone provide any support for wild claims of police finding her alive and shooting her then taking her upstairs while still alive and killing her up there.

It is all fantasy and growssly distorting the log.

Quite frankly I think that you are ignoring the fact that two different people said virtually the same thing. They both could not make the same mistake. The fact that one omits the word "kitchen" in fact far from weakening my argument rather strengthens it because it means that there were two separate people who witnessed it. Add to that the fact that these logs were not presented at court, but rather were released under pressure by Essex police 20 years later is further indication that they didn't want them to be seen. Now what people really need to be concerned with is the fact that, instead of rejecting these logs as a simple mistake, they should be asking the very pertinent question, "why do the raid team statements contradict their own logs?" I simply cannot even entertain the possibility that they made mistakes as vital as these. If they had make the same kind of mistakes if a group of gunmen were waiting for them, then that would have been a complete disaster for the raid team.
Nope! I just do not believe it and will not accept the raid team statements that were all "harmonized" in a debriefing room after the event.

[mike tesko]

Lets examine the pocketbook entries of the six man raid team responsible for forcing an entry into the premises...

Lets start with the claim that they all made original notes in A58 format...

[scipio_usmc]

Quite frankly I think that you are ignoring the fact that two different people said virtually the same thing. They both could not make the same mistake. The fact that one omits the word "kitchen" in fact far from weakening my argument rather strengthens it because it means that there were two separate people who witnessed it. Add to that the fact that these logs were not presented at court, but rather were released under pressure by Essex police 20 years later is further indication that they didn't want them to be seen. Now what people really need to be concerned with is the fact that, instead of rejecting these logs as a simple mistake, they should be asking the very pertinent question, "why do the raid team statements contradict their own logs?" I simply cannot even entertain the possibility that they made mistakes as vital as these. If they had make the same kind of mistakes if a group of gunmen were waiting for them, then that would have been a complete disaster for the raid team.
Nope! I just do not believe it and will not accept the raid team statements that were all "harmonized" in a debriefing room after the event.

Since you always believe the opposite of the truth the fact you disagree simply means I am correct.  You have demonstrated you are completely irraitonal and incapable of coherent thought.   

These logs are not the raid team logs.  This was explained to you countless times and you admitted it hence asking what the logs are even good for.  Why are you lying about the being raid team logs when you know it is not true?  All that does is further ruin your credibility.

The raid team was not making any calls to HQ they were inside the building.  Someone outside was listening to the raid team talking and passes a message to other police.  Other police passed it to other police and eventually it reached police who contacted the people keeping the logs.  The people passing the message to the people keeping the logs witnessed NOTHING they were not raid team members.   

How can the raid team wintesses be contradicted by documents written by someone who was not a witness and thus is not in a position to contradict the raid team?

Anyone who claims such is irrational.  It is an invalid argument.

Further evidence you are irrational is that Sheila's body had a dry blood pool near it. If she died downstairs then her blood pool would have bene in the kitchen instead.

The logs do not even claim the supposed femal found is Sheila.  You insist you want to follow the logs not police but the log doesn't say squat about Sheila.

Nor do the logs match.  One log has 2 updates.  1 update is after 2 bodies were found.  The second update is after 3 more bodies are found.  The police did not call each time a room was cleared. 

There was no reaosn to use to log in court that is why it wa snot used.  Courts take live testimony.  The raid team statements and testimony mattered not  alog which provides very little detail because those keeping the incident log were far from the scene and not in contact with the raid team. They had to wait for updates from the police on the scene and were not fed much by way of detail.

Your, "I don't trust cops so I will neve rbeliev anything they say" is simply evidence of your irrationality and why no opinions you have are worth anything because they are all not thought out rationally but simply irrationally conceived based on the irrational notions you have.

[scipio_usmc]

No there are no conflict in the logs, but rather as they both agree on one female and one male found together (otherwise they wouldn't have reported it that way) that in fact one verifies the sighting of the other. Not only that you get the report that 3 more bodies discovered upstairs. Who were they?
Then you get the call for two ambulances. Why two? Because one ambulance can only carry one body at a time. Again there is another indication that there were two bodies found on entry.
You know what that tells me? That with these very clear logs that the documents that should be re-examined should be the raid team statements that were harmonized after the events, not those logs that were contemporary to the events.

The ambulances were there before the raid team ever went in.

The logs hold no hope at all for establishing Sheila was in the kitchen.  Not one log says Sheila's body was found in the kitchen.  Nor is their any physical support for here body being found in the kitchen let alone any testimonial support of any kind. Every cop that actually entered say only Nevill was in the kitchen.

Only deranged people or the dishonest assert otherwise.