Sheila not fighting back. Why ?

[lookout]

Sheila not fighting back. Why ?


But Sheila DID fight back,for all she was worth, using that suppressed anger that she'd hung on to for years,coupled with her illness it gave her the strength of ten men. Two pensioners against a strong girl were no match for someone whose anger had turned to madness.

[David1819]

Let me just clarify the two topics of "Shelia using the gun" and "Did Jeremy ever shoot rabbits" are rather meaningless and will not conclude anything.

Shelia was a human being perfectly capable of using a gun and its very possible she had used one however.

The only people than could confirm the claims are dead Shelia herself also her parents will most probably have been able to give a good account before their deaths. Then there is Jeremy who is not a reliable witness for obvious reasons. So the only three major witnesses are either dead or totally unreliable. Friends, extended family and acquaintances testimony can be tainted by rumour and gossip.

Same goes for Jeremy shooting rabbits he lived on a farm and farmers shoot pests like rabbits and the end of the day all reliable witnesses to Jeremy's handling of pests are dead his adoptive parents.

none of the above questions are going to solve the question of guilt or innocence. Your all losing track focusing on minor details with no conclusive answers and if there where conclusive answers it still will not solve the bigger picture.

[lookout]

This was also the predicament of the judge in saying that it was either Sheila or Jeremy.

Unfortunately for Jeremy,he had a crap defence.

[Jane]

OK. let me refine it.

.............. He'd have shot them as they lay.......................

[David1819]

42. The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.

I have read the report a while back. A women is perfectly capable of breaking a nose and inflicting bruises with a blunt object.

Loading a gun is not difficult. Providing you know how to chamber it.

Yes indeed and Shelia was more than capable of knowing how to she was by no accounts stupid or mentally challenged. Schizophrenia does not make one stupid either.

[Caroline]

Sheila was probably good at using a gun! Know what? If I wanted to shoot you, I´d find out quickly how to do it!

I agree and I probably could too but, I doubt that in the throws of a psychotic episode someone would have the concentration to work out how to use a gun, when they could just pick up a knife. It would be far more accessible and didn't require any planning or thought.

[David1819]

Unfortunately for Jeremy,he had a crap defence.

Having a crap defence is a good indicator of innocence not just in this case.

If you are innocent and have faith in the justice system many would not bother constructing a good defence. His lawyers once commented that they had to keep reminding him of the seriousness of the situation and that he didn't seem to take it seriously. If he was their that night and committed the crime he could have mentioned allot more in his defence and would have known allot of evidence the prosecution held but his defence team did not.

[nugnug]

i find inocent people are allways under the delusion that they will be found innocent.

so they dont take things seriously.

[Caroline]

Having a crap defence is a good indicator of innocence not just in this case.

If you are innocent and have faith in the justice system many would not bother constructing a good defence. His lawyers once commented that they had to keep reminding him of the seriousness of the situation and that he didn't seem to take it seriously. If he was their that night and committed the crime he could have mentioned allot more in his defence and would have known allot of evidence the prosecution held but his defence team did not.

 Jeremy never dreamed he would be convicted because he thought he was far cleverer than his defence and the prosecution. He wasn't. Although he does seem to know a LOT more now - especially in respect to the silencer. He knows it wasn't used - because he didn't!

[Adam]

Bamber tried to hire the best defence lawyer available. However he was not available.

Sir David Napley was an excellent replacement.

[lookout]

But he didn't,did he ? Therefore it wasn't HIS plan,but someone else's.

[lookout]

Jeremy was intelligent---------but alas not clever.

[Adam]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=SF_fVKKqBcatU-35gsgF&url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Napley&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNH1UhmXwgxwyWB3iFyjEmQkNxWhDw&sig2=SwFkqSkLIzUuxIZuNPx0HA

[David1819]

Jeremy never dreamed he would be convicted because he thought he was far cleverer than his defence and the prosecution. He wasn't. Although he does seem to know a LOT more now - especially in respect to the silencer. He knows it wasn't used - because he didn't!

Are you trying to say he committed the crime but didn't use the silencer?

Yes its very possible, its one way of explaining why he keeps wanting the silencer tested for DNA.

If true it would mean Jeremy committed the perfect mass murder but ironically an imperfect trail and false leads brought Justice.

[nugnug]

Having a crap defence is a good indicator of innocence not just in this case.

If you are innocent and have faith in the justice system many would not bother constructing a good defence. His lawyers once commented that they had to keep reminding him of the seriousness of the situation and that he didn't seem to take it seriously. If he was their that night and committed the crime he could have mentioned allot more in his defence and would have known allot of evidence the prosecution held but his defence team did not.

well yes if you have faith in the justice system and your innocent you asume your going to be found innocent