Author Topic: The main prosecution forensic case  (Read 37654 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #405 on: February 28, 2015, 05:25:PM »
 I'll ask him in this letter I started 2 weeks ago. Anything else anyone wants to ask ?

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #406 on: February 28, 2015, 05:33:PM »
BT checked the line and 4.30am since the phone was off the hook they could hear what was happening all they heard was a dog barking.

If Bamber was the culprit one could easily claim he approached the dog and as the dog was familiar with him as a family member the dog would not have raised any alarm
Which phone was off the hook?  We know the kitchen phone was off the hook when the raid team entered in the morning but we don't know if the police used it and left it off or if the police used the office phone and didn't touch the kitchen phone :-\

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #407 on: February 28, 2015, 05:33:PM »
I'll ask him in this letter I started 2 weeks ago. Anything else anyone wants to ask ?
Thanks lookout would be interested in the answer.  :)

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #408 on: February 28, 2015, 05:34:PM »
I agree, I also cannot see how anyone can be certain Crispy wouldn't have barked his head off if anyone climbed through the window in the middle of the night.
Does anyone know where crispy used to sleep? If he slept in the bedroom with June and Nevill he may not have wakened, he was an old dog so his senses may not have been too good.  I tend to think he was more likely to have slept in the kitchen near the Aga but have never seen a dog's bed in any of the photos??

Dogs want to be near their masters, he likely slept on the bed or at least in the master bedroom.  This is especially the case with a lone dog which sees the people as his pack.  Only when dogs are caged and the cages are some other location than a bedroom will they sleep away from their masters.  I have little doubt Crispy was in the master bedroom and until Jeremy went in the bedroom and woke up everyone he would not have known he was even in the house.   

As for the other dogs they were in outbuildings so would not even have any reason to bark.

Loud noises like gunshots usually scare dogs so they go hide. 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #409 on: February 28, 2015, 05:35:PM »
BT checked the line and 4.30am since the phone was off the hook they could hear what was happening all they heard was a dog barking.

If Bamber was the culprit one could easily claim he approached the dog and as the dog was familiar with him as a family member the dog would not have raised any alarm

I think it would have once the shooting started. My point is that there was noise in the house, and that noise was likely to wake up Sheila. What had Jeremy expected upon entering the house and opened fire? Did he think he could easily control three grown ups in different rooms?

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #410 on: February 28, 2015, 05:35:PM »
I'll ask him in this letter I started 2 weeks ago. Anything else anyone wants to ask ?

Thanks Lookout!

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #411 on: February 28, 2015, 05:38:PM »
Adam unless trained to the gun most dogs are terrified of gun shots and thunder and would tend to hide other than bark.  Maybe Sheila let him in through the door and if that happened Crispy would not have made a noise.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #412 on: February 28, 2015, 05:39:PM »
Dogs want to be near their masters, he likely slept on the bed or at least in the master bedroom.  This is especially the case with a lone dog which sees the people as his pack.  Only when dogs are caged and the cages are some other location than a bedroom will they sleep away from their masters.  I have little doubt Crispy was in the master bedroom and until Jeremy went in the bedroom and woke up everyone he would not have known he was even in the house.   

As for the other dogs they were in outbuildings so would not even have any reason to bark.

Loud noises like gunshots usually scare dogs so they go hide.
I know scipio, will be interesting to hear from Jeremy on this occasion, then we will know the facts and not have to make assumptions. 

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #413 on: February 28, 2015, 05:39:PM »
And a dog yapping round his ankles putting him off--------------I don't think so.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #414 on: February 28, 2015, 05:54:PM »
Adam unless trained to the gun most dogs are terrified of gun shots and thunder and would tend to hide other than bark.  Maybe Sheila let him in through the door and if that happened Crispy would not have made a noise.

Crispy was exposed to Jeremy more than Sheila so would be even less likely to bark around Jeremy than Sheila.  In any event a sleeping dog, like a sleeping person is less alert and by the time it woke up would have recognized the killer and had no reason to bark.  It knew Sheila and the boys were staying there, they had been there for days so had even less to be surprised and bark.  Some dogs bark when they want something like to be let outside or want food. The barking is to get our attention.  Being stuck a long time with June's dead body likely resulted in it barking to get attention of Nevill to come get him. He didn't know Nevill was dead and couldn't. 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17251
    • 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: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #415 on: February 28, 2015, 05:56:PM »
be all acounts crispy and jeremy dident get on.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #416 on: February 28, 2015, 06:05:PM »
Crispy was exposed to Jeremy more than Sheila so would be even less likely to bark around Jeremy than Sheila.  In any event a sleeping dog, like a sleeping person is less alert and by the time it woke up would have recognized the killer and had no reason to bark.  It knew Sheila and the boys were staying there, they had been there for days so had even less to be surprised and bark.  Some dogs bark when they want something like to be let outside or want food. The barking is to get our attention.  Being stuck a long time with June's dead body likely resulted in it barking to get attention of Nevill to come get him. He didn't know Nevill was dead and couldn't.






A dog will react to an " excitable " situation,such as Sheila bounding around shouting and screaming,as it thinks it's fun chasing around the place,though quickly turning to nervous barks,but would still have been jumping around in as much a frenzy as Sheila would have been.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #417 on: February 28, 2015, 06:08:PM »
be all acounts crispy and jeremy dident get on.

lol

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #418 on: February 28, 2015, 06:11:PM »
be all acounts crispy and jeremy dident get on.





All the more reason that Jeremy would have shot it. If he can allegedly shoot 5 humans why not a dog ?

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #419 on: February 28, 2015, 06:11:PM »
be all acounts crispy and jeremy dident get on.

That doesn't mean it will bark at him.  If it didn't like Jeremy then in the event Jeremy tries to touch it then it might growl or bite him. Some dogs are just scared and run away if you try to touch them others try to bite.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry