The killlers

[Caroline]

But did he know at the time he did not have to explain the two shots? Why did the phone call from NB omit him from this explanation? 

Why would he think he would have to explain the two shots? He had just distanced himself from the crime - with the phone call - I can't explain it in any clearer terms!

[Patti]

Why would he think he would have to explain the two shots? He had just distanced himself from the crime - with the phone call - I can't explain it in any clearer terms!

Why wouldn't he? Why at that point would he feel he had to introduce a phone call to distance himself from the murders? A phone call which is so disputed, that its difficult to establish if it existed or not?

I'm not being argumentative, but I find it difficult to except that there was no worry/concern by the man who is supposed to be the killer of the victim that he is supposed to have framed, ie Sheila, that the police would question the two the shots without prior knowledge that two shots were acceptable as being a suicide in 1985...

Had he made regular visits to a library or had bought books on crime, I would be able to imagine that he did have an idea about passing off two shots as being suicide...but as this was not the case, I find it hard to believe. 

[Caroline]

Why wouldn't he? Why at that point would he feel he had to introduce a phone call to distance himself from the murders? A phone call which is so disputed, that its difficult to establish if it existed or not?

I'm not being argumentative, but I find it difficult to except that there was no worry/concern by the man who is supposed to be the killer of the victim that he is supposed to have framed, ie Sheila, that the police would question the two the shots without prior knowledge that two shots were acceptable as being a suicide in 1985...

Had he made regular visits to a library or had bought books on crime, I would be able to imagine that he did have an idea about passing off two shots as being suicide...but as this was not the case, I find it hard to believe. 

Because it was part of his plan - 'Step 1 - give myself an alibi' - Once he had that sorted, he didn't need to explain anything else. Plus, psychopaths don't have the same concerns that you and I do.


By the way, I didn't think you were being argumentative - it's just a discussion.

[Patti]

Because it was part of his plan - 'Step 1 - give myself an alibi' - Once he had that sorted, he didn't need to explain anything else. Plus, psychopaths don't have the same concerns that you and I do.


By the way, I didn't think you were being argumentative - it's just a discussion.

But what was his plan to explain two shots? OK, he could have invented a plan where he could have introduced a telephone call, but did he know that a call could not be traced?

He said to Jones " well, you must know, trace the call"

Did he, or could he have known a call could not be traced and if he did know a call could not be traced then why invent one?

Why on earth would he need an alibi? All he had to do was wait......

[Caroline]

But what was his plan to explain two shots? OK, he could have invented a plan where he could have introduced a telephone call, but did he know that a call could not be traced?

He said to Jones " well, you must know, trace the call"

Did he, or could he have known a call could not be traced and if he did know a call could not be traced then why invent one?

Why on earth would he need an alibi? All he had to do was wait......

He didn't have a plan to explain two shots - that was obviously something he didn't plan for.

I don't think it was a state secret that calls couldn't be traced? I would imagine it would take limited research to find this out - even in 1985, especially if it mattered to your plan.

He needed an alibi because that's what he decided. If he didn't have one then he would be the obvious next suspect if they didn't believe the 4 murders 1 suicide.

[scipio_usmc]

  Some people accept it Alias. Had Jeremy committed the murders, I agree that once the need for a second shot arose, then he would surely have felt that it would not be possible to pass off Sheila's murder as suicide. It is argued that because two shot suicides are viable and do indeed happen then Jeremy would have felt no need to change the plan. Even if Jeremy had been aware of this, which I think unlikely, he could not be confident that Sheila's death would easily be accepted as such.

Your claims are totally illogical.  You and Alias are presenting the contradictory claim that 2 shots being fired proves it wasn't suicide and yet claim she did fire 2 shots to commit suicide.  you can't have it both ways.

IF the first shot killed her and then the second shot was fired someone MIGHT be scared at that point because if police can prove the second shot was fired after she was already dead then the jig is up.  But it is not always possible to prove.

You and Alias keep ignoring that the alternative of not framing Sheila was worse in his eyes.  If staging a burglary would have been a good idea he would have used that instead of planning to frame Sheila. It would have been obvious it was an execution staged as a burglary.  The only person with motive to do that would be Jeremy so it would send police to his doorstep.

He decided to stage it as Sheila murdering them and committing suicide to preempt police fro rushing to his door. No matter what following through with his plan was superior to just walking away and praying they would believe some third party decided to kill them all with a weapon found at WHF repeatedly reloading it to kill everyone including the kids as they slept so could not identify the killer and thus there was no need to kill them.

Once he killed them he had no choice but to carry through his plan to frame her and he felt it was such a great plan that it would not matter that he had to shoot her twice.

     This alongside the fact that he also messed up by using the silencer, which he discovered was too long for Sheila to have committed suicide, so he had to replace it in the gun cupboard after murdering Sheila. Oddly he didn't discover the fact that the silencer was too long until after the second fatal shot. There are two, rather than one, massive blunders in the staged suicide scenario and yet supposedly neither of these blunders made Jeremy change course.
     Anyway after putting the silencer back, which was too long, he coolly invents a phone call and convinces Essex Police and armed units to remain outside for hours with his cunning, or so we are led to believe.
      You are right Alias, this part of the prosecution case sounds so unlikely that it merits scrutiny.

He figured his story about the gun being left out without the moderator attached would be sufficient for police not to ever realize it had been used. He found out it was too long after he moved her body flat and stuck the gun on her body, that is when he realized it was too long for her to pull the trigger.  Staging it a burglary would not work it was clearly an execution so in his mind he had no choice but to
continue in his efforts to frame Sheila.

 

[Caroline]

The alternative to Jeremy being guilty is that he was framed by EP because? Everyone else is lying except Jeremy because?

[scipio_usmc]

Why on earth would he need an alibi? All he had to do was wait......

He needed an alibi because it would be an obvious execution, he was the only one who would benefit from them all dead, and no stranger who carries out an execution anticipates using a weapon from the scene. 

The only way he could throw police off his trial would be if he could frame someone else and the only people he could realistically frame would be his sister or Colin Caffell and his sister made a much easier mark since Colin could have an alibi and being alive would be in a position to dispute his claims including disputing any motive he provided. 

[Caroline]

He needed an alibi because it would be an obvious execution, he was the only one who would benefit from them all dead, and no stranger who carries out an execution anticipates using a weapon from the scene. 

The only way he could throw police off his trial would be if he could frame someone else and the only people he could realistically frame would be his sister or Colin Caffell and his sister made a much easier mark since Colin could have an alibi and being alive would be in a position to dispute his claims including disputing any motive he provided.

I don't understand how people can't see this? I know i though he might be innocent once but the phone call was always a stumbling point!

[Patti]

He didn't have a plan to explain two shots - that was obviously something he didn't plan for.

I don't think it was a state secret that calls couldn't be traced? I would imagine it would take limited research to find this out - even in 1985, especially if it mattered to your plan.

He needed an alibi because that's what he decided. If he didn't have one then he would be the obvious next suspect if they didn't believe the 4 murders 1 suicide.

OK.

He had a plan to murder to murder all his family, I am sure at this point you will agree?

But, lets say this plan went wrong and it was not so easy as he thought it was.

He nips in through the bathroom window, he then picks up the rifle from the settle. Or he picks up the rifle from the bathroom where he had hidden it, along with the magazine and extra bullets.

He then makes his way up to the main bedroom. He fires numerous shots 11 altogether,  7 to his mother and 4 to his father....During this time there must have been some commotion, shouting, screaming etc. Yet the twins did not wake and neither did Sheila.  We know that Sheila was not awake at the time because she would have seen her mother in the doorway and wanted to protect her children, so we can assume at this point she was still fast asleep as were the twins, regardless of the moderator being fitted or not.

We then have June not making for the doorway to get downstairs, but standing up and facing her killer at the bottom of her bed...where she received her final shots.  She landed on the internal door frame and then fell to the floor. Where was NB when this happened? Why did NB not tackle Jeremy in the main bedroom when he had ran out of bullets....His wife had been shot, so why did he run downstairs? Why did Sheila not wake up and help her father? At what point did she wake up? Many questions lay unanswered.....

Night 

[Patti]

He needed an alibi because it would be an obvious execution, he was the only one who would benefit from them all dead, and no stranger who carries out an execution anticipates using a weapon from the scene. 

The only way he could throw police off his trial would be if he could frame someone else and the only people he could realistically frame would be his sister or Colin Caffell and his sister made a much easier mark since Colin could have an alibi and being alive would be in a position to dispute his claims including disputing any motive he provided.

But he could have easily left a door open which would implicate someone else. There was no need for him to have invented a call.....Maybe he was stupid, unintelligent or he did not do it?

[Caroline]

But he could have easily left a door open which would implicate someone else. There was no need for him to have invented a call.....Maybe he was stupid, unintelligent or he did not do it?

He could have done so may other things, like NOT kill his family - but he did what he did AND he's not that stupid because 30 years later, he still manipulates 

[scipio_usmc]

But he could have easily left a door open which would implicate someone else. There was no need for him to have invented a call.....Maybe he was stupid, unintelligent or he did not do it?

How does that implicate someone else?  He killed the boys in bed while they were sleeping.  No one would have a reason to kill the boys as they slept except someone who decided to execute the entire family or someone paid to execute the entire family.  There is only one person who would profit from the whole family being executed- Jeremy.  The only other person to potentially argue could have a motive to kill everyone would be Colin Caffell but if he had an alibi then Jeremy would be totally screwed. A stranger doesn't decide to execute people in a house for the hell of it, enter go searching for a weapon and then kill everyone in their sleep.  Nor does a burglar who is discovered go around killing everyone in the house in their sleep. If they are discovered at most they kill the people who discover them then get the hell out of there they don't reload and go room to room killing everyone.  The notion a third party shot the parents then things proceeded to the kitchen where they knocked Nevill out then reloaded and killed him then instead of leaving reloaded and went back upstairs to see if anyone else was in any of the other rooms is absurd.  They would have gotten out of there.       

Killing 1-2 people and staging it as a killing by a third party is much easier than staging a third party killing of a whole household especially when you are using a gun from that household.   

[Caroline]

How does that implicate someone else?  He killed the boys in bed while they were sleeping.  No one would have a reason to kill the boys as they slept except someone who decided to execute the entire family or someone paid to execute the entire family.  There is only one person who would profit from the whole family being executed- Jeremy.  The only other person to potentially argue could have a motive to kill everyone would be Colin Caffell but if he had an alibi then Jeremy would be totally screwed. A stranger doesn't decide to execute people in a house for the hell of it, enter go searching for a weapon and then kill everyone in their sleep.  Nor does a burglar who is discovered go around killing everyone in the house in their sleep. If they are discovered at most they kill the people who discover them then get the hell out of there they don't reload and go room to room killing everyone.  The notion a third party shot the parents then things proceeded to the kitchen where they knocked Nevill out then reloaded and killed him then instead of leaving reloaded and went back upstairs to see if anyone else was in any of the other rooms is absurd.  They would have gotten out of there.       

Killing 1-2 people and staging it as a killing by a third party is much easier than staging a third party killing of a whole household especially when you are using a gun from that household.

It was Jeremy Bamber!

[guest154]

But he could have easily left a door open which would implicate someone else. There was no need for him to have invented a call.....Maybe he was stupid, unintelligent or he did not do it?

Left the door open to accuse a stranger of breaking in and using one of the WHF guns to slaughter those inside...... Makes no sense, he would of been under suspicion right away and he would have no alibi without the phonecall, he would have been the last one to see the family alive.

I can't see how anyone can believe changing plan after two shots would have made more sense.