Author Topic: A shooting incident at White House farm  (Read 35150 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #210 on: July 12, 2014, 06:27:PM »
That word " diligent " should be altered to DILATORY.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17250
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #211 on: July 12, 2014, 07:00:PM »
now i think about it bills abslutly right they must till at least 2 hours after daybreak to go in.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #212 on: July 12, 2014, 07:54:PM »
When there is a fire, hostage situation or other type of emergency what is the natural reaction of concerned family and friends? 

1) to be nervous and worried
2) to go inside to try to help

First responders must typically try to calm down loved ones and to prevent them from going inside because they do not like to wait.  When they don't wait they often are injured or even perish hence why they are stopped.

What was Jeremy's reaction?

Did Jeremy rush there to help?  NO!

Did he immediately call police?  NO!

Jeremy called Julie around 3AM and finally got around to calling police at 3:26AM.  He claimed he didn't realize at first it was urgent so did NOTHING! other than phone Julie.  But after thinking about it a while became more concerned so then decided to call police.

After becoming concerned enough to call police did he go over?  No he wanted police to pick him up so they could see he was at his home and alibi him.  When that failed he set out to WHF driving 5MPH or less. Then as he saw the police car approaching he pulled over the the side of the road and parked.  Several minutes after they passed he got on the road again and finished the drive so that they could see him pull over severla minutes later and say he was not at WHF and thus alibi him. 

Is this how a concerned loved one acts?  No it is how someone guilty who needs to convince police he had been home all night acts.

Upon arriving does he try to go up to the house to look int he windows or listen to hear if he can hear anything?  Does he try to go in like relatives do in such cases?  NO!  Far from police having to hold him back he made no effort to go in or even get close he hid behind the police.  Was he panicked like a concerned love one would be?  NO!  Police say he was very calm, surprisingly calm.

He told police there was an arsenal in the house, that he had taken Sheila shooting, and that she had fired all wepaons in the house including one he left in the kitchen with a loaded magazine and extra ammunition nearby. This is what convinced police they needed armed personnel and could not go in.

Unarmed personnel could be shot.  Moreover, the people inside could also be shot upon police entering.  Worse yet after shooting everyone inside she could potentially escape. 

2 different firearms teams arrived on the scene the first around 5AM and the 2nd around 7AM.   Shortly after the first arrived they surrounded the house and tried to communicate to those inside but received no response.  The lack of a response meant:

1) Sheila did not want to talk and the hostages were being kept from talking

2) Sheila did not want to talk and the hostages were dead

3) They were all dead.

Police had no way to know which was the case.

If police entered at that point and everyone was still alive:

Sheila could shoot the hostages and/or police

If they were all dead except Sheila she could shoot police or even try to leave the house through a different door as they entered and threaten police outside or even flee the scene and be at large.

They thus needed enough armed personnel to enter the house and yet still have enough outside to be able to secure the perimiter in case she fled as they entered.  After the second batch arrived around 7AM is when they had enough to do that.

They set up the perimeter, assigned the team to enter, made a plan and then exectuted it. 

Was there any indication that had they entered the house sooner that anyone would have been alive/  No!  According to Dr. Craig the victims had been dead for hours.  Had they actually heard gunshots when armed personnel were outside then they would have gone in sooner because if hostages are being shot anyway it is worth trying to save the remainder by going in.  But no gunshots were heard and there is ZERO evidence to suggest that the victims died after police arrived on the scene.

The real question is why did Jeremy lie to the initial responders about Sheila firing all the weapons in the house?  Why did Jeremy not act like a person who would have in such situation if he had actually been concerned about his family.  Why did he lie about the gun being found with the scope and moderator detached and being left on the kitchen table and stage the bullets?
 
All reliable indications are that he staged everything and that the phone call was made up.

We are supposed to believe that:

1) Around 9 at night he "heard rabbits" quite a ways from the house.

2) For the first time in his life he decided to shoot rabbits though he was opposed to it

3) Nevill decided to remove the scope and moderator for no reason at all instead of leaving them attached like he noramlly did when storing the gun because you would always want to use the gun with the scope and moderator attached and it is a hassle to rezero the scope and there is simply no reaosn to bother taking it off and requiring the effort of rezeroing later

4) That Jeremy decided to load the magazine in the kitchen right in front of Sheila so she could get a good look at how to do it.  He took a box of ammo containing 48-50 rounds and dumped it out next to the phone

5) That he left the gun and magazine somewhere in the kitchen. The location changed each time he told the story sometimes the kitchen table sometimes the settle... 

6) That June and Nevill didn't bother to move the gun or bullets and left it in the kitchen despite the twins staying over

7) That Sheila used 18-20 rounds from the ammunition supply he left in the kitchen but went to the closet to get an additional 5-7 rounds because there were 30 rounds left in the kitchen and in order for Jeremy's claims to be true that means the killer had to use 5-7 rounds obtained from somewhere else.

8) That despite being in a frenzy Sheila managed to load the rounds without chipping her nails or getting lead on her hands

9) That sheila managed to beat Nevill without getting any blood spatter on her body or chothing and even suffered no scratches, wounds or broken nails in the incident despite the stock breaking where she would have been holding it and thus would have cut, scratched or otherwise wounded her hand in some way unless she had gloves on

10) That Sheila managed to shoot everyone including herself without getting any GSR on her body or clothing and no back spatter on her clothing or body from the other victims

11) Sheila figured out how to load the gun to capacity (11 rounds) and decided to do so even though she never used the gun before and would not have even likely known how to chamber a round.  11 rounds were fired in the master bedroom at June and Nevill before Nevill managed to run to the kitchen.  The way to load the gun to capacity is to insert eh magazine, chamber a round, remove the magazine, load another round into the magazine, reinsert the magazine.  Why would Sheila bother with such let alone know how?  Only someone who was planning to kill everyone would go out of their way to load an 11th round.   

This doesn't even take into account the evidence that proves Sheila can't have killed herself.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #213 on: July 12, 2014, 08:25:PM »
Me either but such BS is coming from Jeremy supporters.  The unarmed cops were worried about being shot and the hostages potentially being shot not because they might get attacked by dogs.

From what I've read previously, armed back up was not issued lightly.  Detailed reports had to be made to state the need.  This wasn't Michigan or Bakersville or Hazzard County.  It was rural Essex, 1985.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2014, 08:26:PM by Roch »

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #214 on: July 12, 2014, 08:33:PM »
From what I've read previously, armed back up was not issued lightly.  Detailed reports had to be made to state the need.  This wasn't Michigan or Bakersville or Hazzard County.  It was rural Essex, 1985.

The need was that a man claimed his father phoned him to say his daughter with mental problems was running around with a loaded gun and there were 4 people in the house she could shoot including him. 

This son also claimed she had an arsenal at her disposal and was proficient with all the weapons in this arsenal.

The unarmed cops were scared for their safety and the 4 peopel believed to be hostages. That is why armed personnel were summoned.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #215 on: July 12, 2014, 08:39:PM »
The need was that a man claimed his father phoned him to say his daughter with mental problems was running around with a loaded gun and there were 4 people in the house she could shoot including him. 

This son also claimed she had an arsenal at her disposal and was proficient with all the weapons in this arsenal.

The unarmed cops were scared for their safety and the 4 peopel believed to be hostages. That is why armed personnel were summoned.

That's actually not a bad reply, off the cuff.  However, it doesn't seem to tie in with what elements within the defence have been informed about 80's policing practices at that time.  The police didn't send in Dirty Harry or an armed response because of Bamber's phone call to them.  They sent an armed response team because of the Bews / Myall / Saxby assessment of the scene.  So where is that assessment?

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #216 on: July 12, 2014, 09:04:PM »
That's actually not a bad reply, off the cuff.  However, it doesn't seem to tie in with what elements within the defence have been informed about 80's policing practices at that time.  The police didn't send in Dirty Harry or an armed response because of Bamber's phone call to them.  They sent an armed response team because of the Bews / Myall / Saxby assessment of the scene.  So where is that assessment?

What I posted was their assessment.  It came from Jeremy's claims to them and the phone being off the hook so no one could phone the house to ask if they are ok or what is going on.  Why would a phone be off the hook at that hour after placing a call like Jeremy claimed to have received?

"The phone is off the hook so something is wrong, I wonder if there really is a crazy girl with a bunch of guns in there holding 4 people hostage like Jeremy claims. Let me break down a door or break a window and stick my head in and see if I hear any hostages shot in response or my head is blown off."

Does that sound like something you would expect the unarmed cops to do?  Unarmed cops hear about guns and they want armed cops around that is the way it goes.  The same way that armed cops want SWAT if there are guys running aorund with automatic wepaons and body armor.     

Dirty Harry is fake while some of the things he did to poke fun at the establishment were valid his exploits of running into a hostage situations were outlandish and broke police rules that exist for the protection of innocent people as well as cops.

I love Dirty Harry but in Sudden Impact I can't figure out why the robbers in the diner did not kill him before he drew his weapon. In real life he would have been killed by the shotguns along with some of the diners.  Surely in other stores as well the hostages would have been killed. 

You rush a hostage situation when:

1) someone starts shooting hostages already so you are not causing them to be shot but rather trying to stop the shooting before they are all killed

2) if you have reason to think the person is going to start shooting and you are in a position to try to stop them from even getting off a first shot.  For this to work you have to know exactly where the perp and hostages are located to be able to pull it off.  Sometimes it involves snipers othertimes flashbang grenades.  The object is to surprise the killers and take them out before they have time to respond and harm the hostages.

In one movie Dirty Harry's flash bang grenade was to drive a car through the store window to surprise the perps and then he was able to shoot them before they killed any hostages though in real life they probably would have managed to kill someone.  But even Dirty Harry had talked to them first and saw how many were holding the hostages and where before he drove in gun blazing and he had a 44 magnum not a whistle or billy club like Bews et al.       
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #217 on: July 12, 2014, 09:10:PM »
What I posted was their assessment.  It came from Jeremy's claims to them and the phone being off the hook so no one could phone the house to ask if they are ok or what is going on.  Why would a phone be off the hook at that hour after placing a call like Jeremy claimed to have received?

"The phone is off the hook so something is wrong, I wonder if there really is a crazy girl with a bunch of guns in there holding 4 people hostage like Jeremy claims. Let me break down a door or break a window and stick my head in and see if I hear any hostages shot in response or my head is blown off."

Does that sound like something you would expect the unarmed cops to do?  Unarmed cops hear about guns and they want armed cops around that is the way it goes.  The same way that armed cops want SWAT if there are guys running aorund with automatic wepaons and body armor.     

Dirty Harry is fake while some of the things he did to poke fun at the establishment were valid his exploits of running into a hostage situations were outlandish and broke police rules that exist for the protection of innocent people as well as cops.

I love Dirty Harry but in Sudden Impact I can't figure out why the robbers in the diner did not kill him before he drew his weapon. In real life he would have been killed by the shotguns along with some of the diners.  Surely in other stores as well the hostages would have been killed. 

You rush a hostage situation when:

1) someone starts shooting hostages already so you are not causing them to be shot but rather trying to stop the shooting before they are all killed

2) if you have reason to think the person is going to start shooting and you are in a position to try to stop them from even getting off a first shot.  For this to work you have to know exactly where the perp and hostages are located to be able to pull it off.  Sometimes it involves snipers othertimes flashbang grenades.  The object is to surprise the killers and take them out before they have time to respond and harm the hostages.

In one movie Dirty Harry's flash bang grenade was to drive a car through the store window to surprise the perps and then he was able to shoot them before they killed any hostages though in real life they probably would have managed to kill someone.  But even Dirty Harry had talked to them first and saw how many were holding the hostages and where before he drove in gun blazing and he had a 44 magnum not a whistle or billy club like Bews et al.     

Someone was listening in on the phone, all they could hear was the dog barking.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #218 on: July 12, 2014, 09:36:PM »
So Scipio

in your opinion, because after all that is all that your posts are, why did they go in at the time they did? Just because it was light? So they felt safer? And why after all those hours of NO response what so ever were they so jumpy and on alert as they went in? And do you think they felt guilty when they got in and   realised every body had been dead for hours. For all they knew at that point they could have saved those poor children as they were not to know death was instant. Sorry but whatever your opinion you were not there and it still makes  no sense to me.



Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #219 on: July 12, 2014, 09:37:PM »
Someone was listening in on the phone, all they could hear was the dog barking.

All that proves is that no one was talking near that phone.  They were not even sure which room the phone off the hook was in at the time.  When you take a phone off the hook you do so for a reason so something was clearly wrong and they had no reason to disbelieve Jeremy and just go bang on the door and hope no one answers with a gun or starts shooting anyone in the house. 

Police broke in an saw Nevill was dead.  Did they decide that Sheila killed herself and that there was no longer a threat?  Absolutely not.  They were very slow in their room to room searches out of fear she was in hiding somewhere waiting to shoot them.  They gew more bold after finding her dead with the gun on her and then broke into other rooms with less fear though they still cleared the whole house to make sure there was no one else inside with a gun. 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #220 on: July 12, 2014, 09:42:PM »
So Scipio

in your opinion, because after all that is all that your posts are, why did they go in at the time they did? Just because it was light? So they felt safer? And why after all those hours of NO response what so ever were they so jumpy and on alert as they went in? And do you think they felt guilty when they got in and   realised every body had been dead for hours. For all they knew at that point they could have saved those poor children as they were not to know death was instant. Sorry but whatever your opinion you were not there and it still makes  no sense to me.

1) They wanted it light so they would not accidentally shoot hostages, eachother and would be able to see any potential threat.

2) they wanted a perimeter of armed people so that a gunman could not escape and successfully flee the scene from a different door than the one the raid team was going in through. 

They had sufficient personnel around 7, it was sufficiently light so they stationed the people around who would portect the perimeter, selected the raid team formulated their plan and went in.   
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #221 on: July 12, 2014, 09:49:PM »
1) They wanted it light so they would not accidentally shoot hostages, eachother and would be able to see any potential threat.
DAYLIGHT AT 5am. LIGHTS ON IN HOUSE?

2) they wanted a perimeter of armed people so that a gunman could not escape and successfully flee the scene from a different door than the one the raid team was going in through.
A PERIMETER OF ARMED PEOPLE AGAINST ONE "SLIGHT" GIRL? 

They had sufficient personnel around 7, it was sufficiently light so they stationed the people around who would portect the perimeter, selected the raid team formulated their plan and went in.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17250
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #222 on: July 13, 2014, 12:32:AM »
1) They wanted it light so they would not accidentally shoot hostages, eachother and would be able to see any potential threat.

2) they wanted a perimeter of armed people so that a gunman could not escape and successfully flee the scene from a different door than the one the raid team was going in through. 

They had sufficient personnel around 7, it was sufficiently light so they stationed the people around who would portect the perimeter, selected the raid team formulated their plan and went in.

but they dident go in at 5 am did they.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #223 on: July 13, 2014, 01:44:AM »
but they dident go in at 5 am did they.

At 5AM it wasn't light, they had not even tried to communicate with the occupants and they didn't have enough personnel to go inside and protect a perimeter.  The first armed personnel just arrived and needed to be briefed as to what was going on.

So I repeat at 7AM the second firearms team arrived so tha tthey had enough personnel to establish a perimeter AND also go inside.

It was sufficiently light to go inside.

They had already been trying to communicate with those inside to no avail.

So they formulated a plan, reconnoitered the building, saw Nevill dead through the window and then executed their raid plan with some armed personnel entering while the remainder secured the scene to make sure no armed perpetrators could escape.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: A shooting incident at White House farm
« Reply #224 on: July 13, 2014, 09:07:AM »
At 5am it was LIGHT !