How many people think Sheila was the shooter

[lookout]

Well it's pretty obvious that you're not going to bother looking for sources unless they're to discount what I've said. If it was in your favour to do so you would,which shows just how one-sided and biased you all are. It's no longer a forum for debate,it's a case of survival of the fittest and when there's half a dozen against one it's no longer a debate.

[Caroline]

Post no.21.

Dated when?

[Steve_uk]

I don't take Jeremy as a reliable source on anything. The twins would have told Colin if mummy had hurt them.

[guest154]

I don't take Jeremy as a reliable source on anything. The twins would have told Colin if mummy had hurt them.

Yeah, I agree on both points.
It's in Jeremy's best interest to say such.

[Caroline]

I don't take Jeremy as a reliable source on anything. The twins would have told Colin if mummy had hurt them.

And he would certainly have seen the evidence of it.

[Jane]

Well it's pretty obvious that you're not going to bother looking for sources unless they're to discount what I've said. If it was in your favour to do so you would,which shows just how one-sided and biased you all are. It's no longer a forum for debate,it's a case of survival of the fittest and when there's half a dozen against one it's no longer a debate.

C'mon Lookout, be fair. It isn't up to anyone but the poster to provide FULL information to others about where they get their information. Life might be much easier for you if you searched first to make certain of what is said. It would stop you giving out information which may not be 100% correct. There's no point in debating what isn't true.

[Jane]

I don't take Jeremy as a reliable source on anything. The twins would have told Colin if mummy had hurt them.

Steve, I believe Colin too, made that very point.

[Caroline]

Well it's pretty obvious that you're not going to bother looking for sources unless they're to discount what I've said. If it was in your favour to do so you would,which shows just how one-sided and biased you all are. It's no longer a forum for debate,it's a case of survival of the fittest and when there's half a dozen against one it's no longer a debate.

You are responsible for what you post and if you can't back it up (especially when it is sensitive material), then just don't post it. You said you weren't going to believe anything that wasn't on an official document and yet you're posting stuff with nothing to back it up.

[lookout]

 I'm now quoting from a post of 2011. ( Spot the mistakes )

" Quote: The re-submitted swab did have a different identifying mark,but only partially. There were 3 copies of the same submittal form for the lab. DS Davidson testified that it was a mistake on his part to write down 2 identical numbers ( DHL/33 ) and then somehow write down the incorrect number ( DHL/44 ) on the 3rd form.
He also wrote down the wrong time that the swabs had been taken ( 11am rather than 3.15pm ) another mistake on the same form.

DS Lovell.the police liason officer at the lab.,whose job it is to check the submitted paperwork with samples, also stated he made a mistake when he didn't notice that there were two different indentifying marks on the paperwork.

That's already 4 mistakes ( DS Davidson 2, DS Lovell 1 and whoever packaged swab with guns,1 ) on a solitary and pretty crucial evidence in a quintuple shooting. Unquote ".


Particles of lead,barium and antimony fused together are unlikely to remain on a shooter for long.

[Caroline]

I'm now quoting from a post of 2011. ( Spot the mistakes )

" Quote: The re-submitted swab did have a different identifying mark,but only partially. There were 3 copies of the same submittal form for the lab. DS Davidson testified that it was a mistake on his part to write down 2 identical numbers ( DHL/33 ) and then somehow write down the incorrect number ( DHL/44 ) on the 3rd form.
He also wrote down the wrong time that the swabs had been taken ( 11am rather than 3.15pm ) another mistake on the same form.

DS Lovell.the police liason officer at the lab.,whose job it is to check the submitted paperwork with samples, also stated he made a mistake when he didn't notice that there were two different indentifying marks on the paperwork.

That's already 4 mistakes ( DS Davidson 2, DS Lovell 1 and whoever packaged swab with guns,1 ) on a solitary and pretty crucial evidence in a quintuple shooting. Unquote ".


Particles of lead,barium and antimony fused together are unlikely to remain on a shooter for long.

You might find this thread interesting;

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,154.msg326.html#msg326

[lookout]

I notice no swabs were taken from June who also had heavy sooty deposits on her hands. If neither had handled the guns in any way where did the soot come from ?

[Caroline]

I notice no swabs were taken from June who also had heavy sooty deposits on her hands. If neither had handled the guns in any way where did the soot come from ?

Where did you get that from Lookout, the autopsy report mentions nothing about soot, just blood.

[Jane]

I notice no swabs were taken from June who also had heavy sooty deposits on her hands. If neither had handled the guns in any way where did the soot come from ?

I don't recall reading in the autopsy report that June had "heavy sooty deposits on her hands", Lookout.

[lookout]

I'll look for reference about the visit of Sheila to Colin's mother,Mrs Brencher ? where Sheila had broken down because of the fact that she no longer had full control over the twins. The info. is in Mrs. B's wit-stat.

Colin hadn't wanted to leave his family at WHF. It was purely because of the thought of them all being supervised rather than Sheila have them on her own in London. Something had to have been radically wrong for Colin to have had 95% of the care of the boys.

[Jane]

I'll look for reference about the visit of Sheila to Colin's mother,Mrs Brencher ? where Sheila had broken down because of the fact that she no longer had full control over the twins. The info. is in Mrs. B's wit-stat.

Colin hadn't wanted to leave his family at WHF. It was purely because of the thought of them all being supervised rather than Sheila have them on her own in London. Something had to have been radically wrong for Colin to have had 95% of the care of the boys.

I'm sure Sheila was distraught that she wasn't believed capable of caring for her children on her own. It would have been yet another blow to her fragile self esteem and MAYBE affirmation that everything June had said of her was correct. It's doubtful that Sheila would EVER manage without SOMEONE'S support, which is partly why Colin had 95% of their care...................AND the fact that she'd only just come out of hospital following a breakdown.