Jeremy Bambers Injuries

[Jan]

I have no need to.  He killed to inherit money.  There is no requirment to have a hsitory of violence to kill for money and indeed most people who do so have no prior history of violence.

You in contrast are alleging Sheila was prone to violence and killed her family while having delusions and then killed herself.

You have the burden of proving she was violent but you failed miserably. 

Not only can't you establish she was likely to engage in violence against her family if she had delusions, worse yet you can't prove she would be likely to have delusions since she was not only medicated but over medicated.  She delusions in the past when she wasn't medicated which happnes to be when all with mental illness are at risk.

but he had to have violence within him to do that - what was he going to do bash them round the heads with some marshmallows?

[scipio_usmc]

but he had to have violence within him to do that - what was he going to do bash them round the heads with some marshmallows?

Being capable of violence when required and repeatedly resorting to violence out of habit or in many different situations are very different things.

If you are trying to establish someone did something out of habit and was prone to using violence in certain circumstances and was thus likely to use violence in a particualr situation then you must back up your claims with evidence someone was prone to such and that only serves for helping establish motive.  It doesn't help prove it deifntiely occurred you need other evidence to show that.

When motive is money there is no need to prove one has resorted int he past to violence to obtain money and in many instances prior bad acts can't be mentioned because it is prejudicial.  You can't argue in court that someone committed murder in the past so likely did it again.  You can bring up prior bad acts to the extent of saying someone used the same method of operation in the past if there is something that matches such aspect. 

There is no such thing as a magic answer to telling who is capable of murder.  Some give off warning signs some do not.  Some warning signs we never learn about because people failed to appreciate them, missed them or simply never told anyone about them later on even so we have no idea to this day such warning signs existed.

We don't know how many warning signs were missed and never mentioned but some have come to light.  Nevill being in fear Jeremy would kill him, Jeremy telling Ann soon he would be her partner and Nevill would be out of the picture with regards to the Caravan site. telling Robert Boutflour he could kill people and telling Julie about his plans are all warning signs that were missed at the time.  Who knows how many more there were.

The key evidence though is the physical evidence and how the murders went down.  I could tell someone I am going to kill my boss and my boss can turn up dead but that is not proof for sure I did it. His death could be from cancer a heart attack, stroke or even someone else murdering him.  I could have been out of state so it was impossible for me to have been the one who killed him.  The evidence against Jeremy is more than just what he told Julie it is tha the was aware of the murders and blamed Sheila but clearly Sheila did not do it.

Sheila could not have killed everyone else without her clothing and body having evidence of such including some injuries.  If she did it then she would have had at minimum some minor injuries and victim blood and GSR on her clothing.  She also would have had such evidence on her body and had no reason to wash but people insist she did anyway to try to pretend she didn't do it.  That won't work with the clothes or injuries that would not wash away simply. There is also evidence she can't have killed herself beecause after she was dead the moderator was put away, her body moved and the bible opened and closed in a pool of blood that formed after she was dead.

It is a total waste of time trying to pretend she had a propensisty for violence because even if she did that still doesn't change the fact she can't have done it and can't have killed herself. Change the facts a little to me being in Sheila's place and threatening to kill Nevill publicly.  DOes tha tmean I did it?  No I can't have killed everyone and then have committed suicide someone else did it.

So Jeremy supporters are always ignoring the most important aspects and always insist he is innocent not by looking at the most important key evidence but formulated their opinions he is innocent jsut on a hunch based on something else and are stuck trying to ignore the heart of the case and simply to dismiss it since it can't be refuted.

 

[Jan]

I hope that was a nice long post

[guest154]

I hope that was a nice long post

I have nugs and Maggie on ignore - you're right that it gives you a good break, I wish it would removed the posts completely though instead of you having to still scroll past it.

[Jan]

I have nugs and Maggie on ignore - you're right that it gives you a good break, I wish it would removed the posts completely though instead of you having to still scroll past it.

yes sometimes you have to be in a mood to read a trashy newspaper - other times you might want to read a fictional novel .

Just depends how the mood takes you really.

[grahameb]

I have no need to.  He killed to inherit money.  There is no requirment to have a hsitory of violence to kill for money and indeed most people who do so have no prior history of violence.

You in contrast are alleging Sheila was prone to violence and killed her family while having delusions and then killed herself.

You have the burden of proving she was violent but you failed miserably. 

Not only can't you establish she was likely to engage in violence against her family if she had delusions, worse yet you can't prove she would be likely to have delusions since she was not only medicated but over medicated.  She delusions in the past when she wasn't medicated which happnes to be when all with mental illness are at risk.

scipio. Take the blinkers off lad.

[scipio_usmc]

scipio. Take the blinkers off lad.

You have blinders on not me.

The shooter's clothing has to have high velocity spatter, medium velocity spatter and GSR on it particularly the vclothing ont he top half.  The killer would have some kind of wounds to the hand form the stock when it broke.  Just looking at these issues how did Sheila kill anyone?

This doesn't even take into account that Sheila could not have killed herself because after she was dead she could not have put the moderator away, moved her own body and opened and closed the bibble in a pool of blood that formed after her death.  Nor does it look at the 30 staged bullets Jeremy left in the kitchen which do not match the evidence and he could not even think up a lie a year later to account for or having removed the scope to the rifle as he admitted to doing to RWB or the phone he hid and replaced with the bedroom phone by his own admission.

You can't address these things so you don't you just pretend they don't exist that means yo uhave the blinders on and hiding from them doesn't make them go away or refute them.

[grahameb]

You have blinders on not me.

The shooter's clothing has to have high velocity spatter, medium velocity spatter and GSR on it particularly the vclothing ont he top half.  The killer would have some kind of wounds to the hand form the stock when it broke.  Just looking at these issues how did Sheila kill anyone?

This doesn't even take into account that Sheila could not have killed herself because after she was dead she could not have put the moderator away, moved her own body and opened and closed the bibble in a pool of blood that formed after her death.  Nor does it look at the 30 staged bullets Jeremy left in the kitchen which do not match the evidence and he could not even think up a lie a year later to account for or having removed the scope to the rifle as he admitted to doing to RWB or the phone he hid and replaced with the bedroom phone by his own admission.

You can't address these things so you don't you just pretend they don't exist that means yo uhave the blinders on and hiding from them doesn't make them go away or refute them.

Whats this got to do with a tendency to violence. Here is your theory: Jeremy didn't have a tendency for violence. But he didn't need to have in order to have committed the murders. But on the other hand Sheila didn't have a tendency for violence therefore she couldn't have done the murders.
So what do we have according to your theory. A person doesn't need to have a tendency for murder to be a murderer. On the other hand Sheila didn't have a tendency for violence therefore she couldn't have done it. Why on earth did you introduce this argument in the first place if it makes no difference if a person has a tendency for violence or not. Furthermore why are you arguing your pants off trying to prove that Sheila was a really ok person and was a  very stable character in fact.
Forgive me (this is not an apology) but why are ytou arguing BS?

[scipio_usmc]

Whats this got to do with a tendency to violence. Here is your theory: Jeremy didn't have a tendency for violence. But he didn't need to have in order to have committed the murders. But on the other hand Sheila didn't have a tendency for violence therefore she couldn't have done the murders.
So what do we have according to your theory. A person doesn't need to have a tendency for murder to be a murderer. On the other hand Sheila didn't have a tendency for violence therefore she couldn't have done it. Why on earth did you introduce this argument in the first place if it makes no difference if a person has a tendency for violence or not. Furthermore why are you arguing your pants off trying to prove that Sheila was a really ok person and was a  very stable character in fact.
Forgive me (this is not an apology) but why are ytou arguing BS?

You are the one arguing BS not me.  You always pick strawmen because you can't ever actually succesfuly challenge my actual arguments.

"But on the other hand Sheila didn't have a tendency for violence therefore she couldn't have done the murders."

That's not my argument.  The longest posts on this board contain my arguments of why he is guilty and the evidence that supports my arguments.  That wa snot among them.  The fact Sheila had no tendency for violence is one of the MANY reasons why it is unlikely she would commit such a crime.  I never argued that proves she didn't do it.

My evidence that she didn't kill anyone else it is that the killer installed the moderator and used it, obtained at least 5 bullets from the gun closet to use if not entirely using bullets from the closet, loaded the gun to capacity (11 rounds) firing all of them at the parents in the bedroom, wore gloves, had to have been covered in victim back spatter and GSR and landed 25 of 25 rounds therefore had to be skilled with the gun.

Sheila had never used a semi-auto before and in fact was not known to have ever used any guns, she would not have known she needed to chamber a round before firing the gun let alone knew how to do so and would not have known how to load 11 rounds let alone bothered to do so and she had hand eye-coordination problems so would not have landed all rounds she fired.  She would not have gone to the closet to get the moderator to install and would not have used 20 rounds from the kitchen but ran to the closet to get 5 more when there were still 30 left. The bullets in the kitchen were clearly staged there by Jeremy. She would not have had any reason to use gloves but if she were the killer she would have and the gloves would have been found by police and her clothes would have been covere din blood/GSR.  Sh would have had no reaosn to wash and change before killing herself but if she had done the unlikely then her blouse, nightdress or whatever she wore on her upper body that was stained with blood and GSR would have been found.  The fact no such clothing or gloves were at WHF means she cna't have killed anyone.  Nor could she have killed herself because after she was dead the killer removed the moderator and put it away in the closet, moved her blody flat and opened and closed the bible in a pool of her wet blood that formed after she died.

That is why Sheila can't have done it not because she didn't have a history of violence.

Since you can't dent my actual argument which is multifaceted you create a simple strawman that I never argued.

Since she can't have done it who did?  That is where all the evidence against Jeremy comes in from him pretending he got a phone call from Nevill, his alleged reactions to that call which made no sense, to removing the scope in anticipation fo the murders, to staging the bullets in the kitchen, to hiding the phone to all his documented lies aimed at framing Sheila to, his various lies to police and changing story to telling Julie of his plans beforehand and admitting he was repsonsible after.

The evidence against Jeremy is overwhelming.  So overwhlming that for you to have even a remote chance of pretending he is innocent you have to ignore all the actual arguments and evidence presented and create simple strawmen.       

[lebaleb]

Sheila would not have had to load a full magazine at any time.
Backspatter occurs from close contact shots where the blood is drawn into the weapon by the vacuum.
How come she didn't have GSR on her nightdress when the rifle was laying on top of her?
Coordination problems may have been an invention by AE. Did she know Sheila that well? How often did she see her? It may have been when she was stoned on some other drug or receiving the full dose of Halperol.
Reason does not come into the equation talking about people having psychotic episodes.
She could have been naked at the time of the murders.
Where did you get the information about the garments in the buckets only having menstrual blood on them?
Freddie was very fearful that Sheila would become violent. Who do you think gouged Neville's arm?
Please be concise if you answer... or is verbal diarrhea your MO to wear people down.

[Jane]

Sheila would not have had to load a full magazine at any time.
Backspatter occurs from close contact shots where the blood is drawn into the weapon by the vacuum.
How come she didn't have GSR on her nightdress when the rifle was laying on top of her?
Coordination problems may have been an invention by AE. Did she know Sheila that well? How often did she see her? It may have been when she was stoned on some other drug or receiving the full dose of Halperol.
Reason does not come into the equation talking about people having psychotic episodes.
She could have been naked at the time of the murders.
Where did you get the information about the garments in the buckets only having menstrual blood on them?
Freddie was very fearful that Sheila would become violent. Who do you think gouged Neville's arm?
Please be concise if you answer... or is verbal diarrhea your MO to wear people down.

Lebaleb, hello It was just going through my head to question exactly what we know, and from who we know it, of those soaking clothes!!!!!

Regarding Sheila, Ann's "set piece" was that she couldn't, accurately, get beans on toast!!! Curious, don't you think for a girl who could accurately apply make-up and nail polish. Reading her WS, the underlying message is that Ann used every trick in the book to avoid contact with Sheila. Indeed, on several occasions, ignoring Sheila's overtures,she actually snubbed her, saying she was too busy to talk. In fairness, I don't believe they had ANYTHING in common. There was an 8-10 year age difference, their lifestyles were totally polarized and what comes over loud and clear was Ann's jealousy of Sheila, or at least the money SPENT on her.

[maggie]

Sheila would not have had to load a full magazine at any time.
Backspatter occurs from close contact shots where the blood is drawn into the weapon by the vacuum.
How come she didn't have GSR on her nightdress when the rifle was laying on top of her?
Coordination problems may have been an invention by AE. Did she know Sheila that well? How often did she see her? It may have been when she was stoned on some other drug or receiving the full dose of Halperol.
Reason does not come into the equation talking about people having psychotic episodes.
She could have been naked at the time of the murders.
Where did you get the information about the garments in the buckets only having menstrual blood on them?
Freddie was very fearful that Sheila would become violent. Who do you think gouged Neville's arm?
Please be concise if you answer... or is verbal diarrhea your MO to wear people down.

I agree lebaleb we have to be very careful of sources as so many so called 'facts' are built on myths, personally I find AEs statements fairly bizarre and agree her insistence that Sheila was badly coordinated very questionable.  It is perfectly clear to all willing to look at the true picture that Sheila she was quite capable of rolling ciggies etc and applying makeup, at the time of the killings.
We know for a fact June was worried about Sheila's behaviour, she told Pamela that on the very night of her worries........ that is the most up to date info we have of Sheila's behaviour, we KNOW that is fact unless Pamela Boutflour made it up which is highly unlikely.

[grahameb]

You are the one arguing BS not me.  You always pick strawmen because you can't ever actually succesfuly challenge my actual arguments.

"But on the other hand Sheila didn't have a tendency for violence therefore she couldn't have done the murders."

That's not my argument.  The longest posts on this board contain my arguments of why he is guilty and the evidence that supports my arguments.  That wa snot among them.  The fact Sheila had no tendency for violence is one of the MANY reasons why it is unlikely she would commit such a crime.  I never argued that proves she didn't do it.

My evidence that she didn't kill anyone else it is that the killer installed the moderator and used it, obtained at least 5 bullets from the gun closet to use if not entirely using bullets from the closet, loaded the gun to capacity (11 rounds) firing all of them at the parents in the bedroom, wore gloves, had to have been covered in victim back spatter and GSR and landed 25 of 25 rounds therefore had to be skilled with the gun.

Sheila had never used a semi-auto before and in fact was not known to have ever used any guns, she would not have known she needed to chamber a round before firing the gun let alone knew how to do so and would not have known how to load 11 rounds let alone bothered to do so and she had hand eye-coordination problems so would not have landed all rounds she fired.  She would not have gone to the closet to get the moderator to install and would not have used 20 rounds from the kitchen but ran to the closet to get 5 more when there were still 30 left. The bullets in the kitchen were clearly staged there by Jeremy. She would not have had any reason to use gloves but if she were the killer she would have and the gloves would have been found by police and her clothes would have been covere din blood/GSR.  Sh would have had no reaosn to wash and change before killing herself but if she had done the unlikely then her blouse, nightdress or whatever she wore on her upper body that was stained with blood and GSR would have been found.  The fact no such clothing or gloves were at WHF means she cna't have killed anyone.  Nor could she have killed herself because after she was dead the killer removed the moderator and put it away in the closet, moved her blody flat and opened and closed the bible in a pool of her wet blood that formed after she died.

That is why Sheila can't have done it not because she didn't have a history of violence.

Since you can't dent my actual argument which is multifaceted you create a simple strawman that I never argued.

Since she can't have done it who did?  That is where all the evidence against Jeremy comes in from him pretending he got a phone call from Nevill, his alleged reactions to that call which made no sense, to removing the scope in anticipation fo the murders, to staging the bullets in the kitchen, to hiding the phone to all his documented lies aimed at framing Sheila to, his various lies to police and changing story to telling Julie of his plans beforehand and admitting he was repsonsible after.

The evidence against Jeremy is overwhelming.  So overwhlming that for you to have even a remote chance of pretending he is innocent you have to ignore all the actual arguments and evidence presented and create simple strawmen.     

That is the bit I was referring to as BS. I just wonder if it is irelevant whether someone has a history of violence or not why did you ever bring the subject up in the first place? It was you who first suggested that Sheila couldn't have done it because she didn't have a history of violence and then almost immediately that Jeremy did it because it doesn't matter if a person has a history of violence anyway. To me that is  BS argument.

[grahameb]

I have nugs and Maggie on ignore - you're right that it gives you a good break, I wish it would removed the posts completely though instead of you having to still scroll past it.

I don't have anyone on ignore. It's a useless facility anyway, because I just found myself clicking on reveal post just to see what those I put on ignore said.

[grahameb]

Sheila would not have had to load a full magazine at any time.
Backspatter occurs from close contact shots where the blood is drawn into the weapon by the vacuum.
How come she didn't have GSR on her nightdress when the rifle was laying on top of her?
Coordination problems may have been an invention by AE. Did she know Sheila that well? How often did she see her? It may have been when she was stoned on some other drug or receiving the full dose of Halperol.
Reason does not come into the equation talking about people having psychotic episodes.
She could have been naked at the time of the murders.
Where did you get the information about the garments in the buckets only having menstrual blood on them?
Freddie was very fearful that Sheila would become violent. Who do you think gouged Neville's arm?
Please be concise if you answer... or is verbal diarrhea your MO to wear people down.

I agree with you on the magazine bit. Someone who was in a hurry would find it very difficult anyway to load the magazine fully each time. That would apply to Jeremy as well. Although thinking about it, even if she half loaded the magazing she would still have to take it off the gun each time?

Concerning backspatter and contact shots. Of course they only "assumed" it was backspatter and they never examined the silencer in that way as scipio insists they did. In fact there is no evidence that they tested the silencer except for blood and blood grouping.
But according to Vanesis none of the shots on anybody were contact shots.