Jeremy Bambers Injuries

[Alias]

I not only read what others write I actually address it. 

I'm not arrogant I actually use my brain, something that others should try to do.

You are guided purely by emotion and bias not any common sense at all.

Your claim you know your nails would not break is pure speculation based on not actually trying to beat anyone or do anything rough. You just assume it without having a clue what is actually entailed and suggest that all women could be like that and thus there is no way to tell what will happen.  I saw a female rip her nail by firing a weapon.  She was clowning around and her finger slipped and shen she pulled her finger to fire her nail hit the trigger instead of her finger.  I doubt your nails would hold up any better than hers under those conditions.  Sheila firing wildly in a rage very well could have done the same thing.

Women with long nails have to slowly carefully load magazines or they get chipped.

Women with long nails break their nails using shovels, picks, hammers, baesball bats even brooms. 

They not only break them during fights when they punch and scratch and slap hands also get abrasions and cuts during such including male hands.

There is a reason why women who undergo military training do not have long nails.  Nails break during all sorts of activities from hand to hand combat to rope climbing to loading and firing weapons and using their weapon to batter an enemy!   

There are countless ways one's hands get injured while fighting an opponent and battering him with a rifle. 

You clearly have no experience at all with weapons.  On the other hand I not only know what a pain that would be to hold a weapon by the barrel, I know how easy it is to disarm someone who is holding it by a barrel.

I also know how and where a stock is most likely to break when beating someone with a rifle.  I know because of experience in addition to research.

I also know that iron sights can cut and scratch.  The iron sights would be right under her hands.  What happens when she is swinging it and hits someonthing or worse someone yanks the gun the iron sights are going to come into contact with her hands and cause her to let go probably in addition to cutting her.

I also know that if someone walks in the kitchen holding the gun and then someone tries to take it away the shooter is not goign to let go so the other person gets it and then try to grab the barrel. You are going to keep holding the stock and the foregrip which is how you would have held it to begin with.   You are going to try to swing the butt into the other person's jaw or if they are too tall then into their abdomen.

The fact of the matter is that you and others put very little thought into the subject at all beyond what amounts to a pathetic claim your nails will never break or chip no matter and completely ignores the nature of the break to the stock, how the weapon would most likely be handled and all the rest.

To try to say there was no damage to the hand when the stock sheered the claim is made up that she would have been holding it by the lightest part which would be extremely hard to handle and woudl fail to account for the damage that occurred.

The notion she would have been able to beat Nevill without having any injuries including on her feet is simply ludicrous to anyone with a clue.

Likewise she would have been covered in spatter from the victims had she done anything. 

She would have had spatter from the victims and GSR on her clothing.  There is no way she could have avoided such.   

There is no reason at all she would have washed and changed her clothes just to kill herself.  It is ludicrous and the best anyone can come to as far as suggesting suicide "victims" who did such is ritualistic suicide which clealry is not the case.  But worse whashing up would not be able to heal wounds that she would have suffered.  Worst of all she would not have been able to change out of blood/GSR stained clothing and to have hidden same without anyone finding same let alone had any reason to do such. 

People who honestly believe such are complete fools.  But most just assert they believe such and depp down they don't thye are just liars not fools.

This doesn't even take into acocunt though the evidence that Sheila can't have killed herself which people choose to ignore and hide from with wild tales of police planting evidence and moving her body flat while she was stil lblleeding and openeing and closing the bible in her wet blood because she can't have done these things herself and obviously that means she didn't kill herself so to keep the farce alive she could have killed herself people have to assert absurd things. 

I don't beleive anyone honestly believes the BS they assert here I think that people just want to pretend they do.   If Mike actually believe Jeremy was innocent he would not need to make up lies to try to establish it.

I don't see any sincere beliefs at all what I see is are beliefs people wish they could have and trying any way possible to avoid having to face that their beliefs are a pipedream. 

If that pipedream is burst then they have to find a different dream and something else to regularly talk about. That would be a catastrophe to many.

 

 

I think you are a little bit crazy to be honest! Such a long post for so little! OMG
I never claimed I had any knowledge of weapons - never touched one, never will!
You clearly have no knowledge about fingernails! 

[scipio_usmc]

Excuse me mate but the gun is so light it could be handled easily by a child. Please don't give the impression that it is so heavy that only Rambo could shoot the thing. Man you must be incredibly weak?

Another straw argument, that seems to be all you are capable if.  Who siad it was too heavy for a woman to fire?  The issue is all the weight is in the rear of the gun so it would be top heavy to handle from the barrel.  Moreover, handling it in such manner leaves little traction to grip.  Someone coudl take it away and just pulling would result in the iron sights gouging the hands. Also the barrel could be bent or worse ripped out of the gun.  It is not a gun where the barrel is attached to the receiver.  The barrel is removable.  If somehow the barrel held and the stock broke from being wielded like an axe then the break woud be formt he inside out.  The break that sheered a piece off happens from the butt of the rifle being used to batter not the side of the stock.  Then there is the whole issue of what kind of damage would occur to someone wildly bashing the rifle not to mention all the back spatter that would cover such person. 

But hey this is all stuff that you can't refute so instead you create a straw argument about the gun being too heavy for a girl to shoot instead because that you can address.

[grahameb]

Another straw argument, that seems to be all you are capable if.  Who siad it was too heavy for a woman to fire?  The issue is all the weight is in the rear of the gun so it would be top heavy to handle from the barrel.  Moreover, handling it in such manner leaves little traction to grip.  Someone coudl take it away and just pulling would result in the iron sights gouging the hands. Also the barrel could be bent or worse ripped out of the gun.  It is not a gun where the barrel is attached to the receiver.  The barrel is removable.  If somehow the barrel held and the stock broke from being wielded like an axe then the break woud be formt he inside out.  The break that sheered a piece off happens from the butt of the rifle being used to batter not the side of the stock.  Then there is the whole issue of what kind of damage would occur to someone wildly bashing the rifle not to mention all the back spatter that would cover such person. 

But hey this is all stuff that you can't refute so instead you create a straw argument about the gun being too heavy for a girl to shoot instead because that you can address.

How do you know how Sheila would have handled the gun in order for a piece of the butt to break off. In order to generate enough force behind it she needed to hold it at the opposite end to the butt. Maybe not right at the end of the barrel, but somewhere near the end. Physics old chap, physics. The force relies on leverage and for the butt to be struck at right angles. Not straw argument at all. Just a different opinion as is your own opinion. I'm not even sure that the butt of the rifle hit Ralph? It obviously hit a hard unmoveable object?

[Jane]

How do you know how Sheila would have handled the gun in order for a piece of the butt to break off. In order to generate enough force behind it she needed to hold it at the opposite end to the butt. Maybe not right at the end of the barrel, but somewhere near the end. Physics old chap, physics. The force relies on leverage and for the butt to be struck at right angles. Not straw argument at all. Just a different opinion as is your own opinion. I'm not even sure that the butt of the rifle hit Ralph? It obviously hit a hard unmoveable object?

I hadn't actually thought of it before, but it does seem as if it MAY have been an act of frustration, the barrel held with both hands raised above the head and bought down with full force onto something harder and less malleable than a skull.

[grahameb]

I hadn't actually thought of it before, but it does seem as if it MAY have been an act of frustration, the barrel held with both hands raised above the head and bought down with full force onto something harder and less malleable than a skull.

Yes all this time we may have been thinking in the wrong direction? In effect it doesn't really matter how Sheila held the gun to smash it. The question must be were there any injuries on Ralph that match the bit of the gun that was chipped off?

[Jane]

Yes all this time we may have been thinking in the wrong direction? In effect it doesn't really matter how Sheila held the gun to smash it. The question must be were there any injuries on Ralph that match the bit of the gun that was chipped off?

And was there evidence on the gun, of it having been in close contact with Nevill?

[JackiePreece]

Caroline

Can you post details again of why you believe Jeremy is guilty?

Can you give me some idea what you believed happened that night and do you believe Mugford?

[Caroline]

Caroline

Can you post details again of why you believe Jeremy is guilty?

Can you give me some idea what you believed happened that night and do you believe Mugford?

Hi Jackie.

I'll dig out some old post later but I can answer the Mugford question now - I think there might be 'some' truth in what she said BUT, I don't think he confided that much in her and most of what she said was reported in the papers.

[scipio_usmc]

I think you are a little bit crazy to be honest! Such a long post for so little! OMG
I never claimed I had any knowledge of weapons - never touched one, never will!
You clearly have no knowledge about fingernails! 

Seeing how I have seen fingernals break while a female was shooting a weapon, while women used bats and tools and during physical altercations it would seem I am on much more solid ground than you.

But that is not unusual you constantly make spurious claims without any basis such as insiting that th emdoerator would be not admissible under today's existing rules of court though you have no evidence at all to support such claim and simply mad eit up.  Today's evidentiary rules are little different substantively than back in 1985.  Tere is no legal basis to exclude evidenc ejsu tbecause it was found by someone other than police.

To attack it on the basis of saying evidence coudl have been planted requires establish a likelihood the evidence was planted.  Of course the family would have lacked the know how, skill and much more so trying to pretend they could have done so is a joke which is why neithe rat trial nor on appeal the defense has not been able to allege such to the courts.

They would need an evidentiary basis to make such suggestions. You on the other hand don't worry about needing evidence and just believe any nonsense you feell like which is your right but it does make you foolish to do so.

[Jane]

Seeing how I have seen fingernals break while a female was shooting a weapon, while women used bats and tools and during physical altercations it would seem I am on much more solid ground than you.

But that is not unusual you constantly make spurious claims without any basis such as insiting that th emdoerator would be not admissible under today's existing rules of court though you have no evidence at all to support such claim and simply mad eit up.  Today's evidentiary rules are little different substantively than back in 1985.  Tere is no legal basis to exclude evidenc ejsu tbecause it was found by someone other than police.

To attack it on the basis of saying evidence coudl have been planted requires establish a likelihood the evidence was planted.  Of course the family would have lacked the know how, skill and much more so trying to pretend they could have done so is a joke which is why neithe rat trial nor on appeal the defense has not been able to allege such to the courts.

They would need an evidentiary basis to make such suggestions. You on the other hand don't worry about needing evidence and just believe any nonsense you feell like which is your right but it does make you foolish to do so.

So are we to draw the conclusion that, because YOU have seen women break fingernails whilst shooting, EVERY woman who has ever handled a gun has broken her nails?

[grahameb]

Seeing how I have seen fingernals break while a female was shooting a weapon, while women used bats and tools and during physical altercations it would seem I am on much more solid ground than you.

But that is not unusual you constantly make spurious claims without any basis such as insiting that th emdoerator would be not admissible under today's existing rules of court though you have no evidence at all to support such claim and simply mad eit up.  Today's evidentiary rules are little different substantively than back in 1985.  Tere is no legal basis to exclude evidenc ejsu tbecause it was found by someone other than police.

To attack it on the basis of saying evidence coudl have been planted requires establish a likelihood the evidence was planted.  Of course the family would have lacked the know how, skill and much more so trying to pretend they could have done so is a joke which is why neithe rat trial nor on appeal the defense has not been able to allege such to the courts.

They would need an evidentiary basis to make such suggestions. You on the other hand don't worry about needing evidence and just believe any nonsense you feell like which is your right but it does make you foolish to do so.

Maybe not. But my contention is that it was found by interested parties, in that if Bamber was to be banged up for the murders then the interested parties would benefit greatly.

[grahameb]

So are we to draw the conclusion that, because YOU have seen women break fingernails whilst shooting, EVERY woman who has ever handled a gun has broken her nails?

Probably by shooting much larger weapons that have a recoil. This rifle has practically no recoil. I've shot a .22 pistol and that had a little recoil.

[Caroline]

Caroline

Can you post details again of why you believe Jeremy is guilty?

Can you give me some idea what you believed happened that night and do you believe Mugford?

It's basiically all in here Jackie http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5565.0.html

[Jan]

And was there evidence on the gun, of it having been in close contact with Nevill?

this is what I have asked as well - if he was beaten with the gun then his blood and perhaps skin would have been on the gun . But although it seems they can make detailed reports on the small amount of  blood in the moderator I have not seen the same type of reports on the rifle.

[Jane]

this is what I have asked as well - if he was beaten with the gun then his blood and perhaps skin would have been on the gun . But although it seems they can make detailed reports on the small amount of  blood in the moderator I have not seen the same type of reports on the rifle.

Jansus, I don't believe I know the details of what were Nevill's injuries, save that they were vicious. That being said I would have expected the presence of, not just blood, but tissue, hair and possibly bone to have been found on the weapon.