Trial Transcript of Professor Bernard KNIGHT (Bamber trial)...

[mike tesko]

Once SOCO took control of the crime scene at around 10.00hrs, PC David Bird photographed the bodies insitu at that stage, in keeping with a ratio of one body downstairs, and the bodies of the other four victims upstairs. This created a paradox, between the contents of police message log contents (07.37hrs to 08.10hrs), and PC Birds photographs (taken after 10.00hrs, where in the former, two bodies were found downstairs, three BODIES, upstairs, whereas, in the latter, photographic evidence taken after 10am, had only a single body downstairs, and all the other four BODIES UPSTAIRS...

[mike tesko]

What concerns me, is the involved circumstances of how this transition came about...

[mike tesko]

Sandwiched between these two conflicting scenarios, are many unexplained events, which I shall be hoping to identify and exploit. One such event involves the arrival and observation of Sheila's body insitu by DS 'Stan' Jones. He arrived at the scene, went into the main bedroom and described the body of Sheila, as looking as though she was just a sleep, the colour of her skin he described as being a bluish hue. After leaving the scene, and arriving at Jeremy's cottage, he told Ann Eaton and everybody else present that Sheila body had been found on the bed along with June Bamber, side by side. He told them that a rifle had been laid on the bed between both BODIES, and that on Sheila's chest was a bible. He also led AE to believe that Sheila had only been shot once...

How could DS Jones have known about such detail unless he had witnessed this all for himself whilst he was present inside the bedroom?

Funnily enough, when he took Julie Mugfords witness statement between 8th and 9th September 1985, she mentions exactly that which DS Jones himself had told AE on the morning of the shootings, that Sheila's body had been found on the bed. DS Jones paraphrased the answers to questions he put to Julie Mugford, in such a way that he presented an explanation for how Sheila's body had ended up on the bed in keeping with him seeing her body there, before he left the scene to attend Jeremy's cottage where he relayed what he had observed to Ann Eaton and the others. For example, he wrote the explanation that Mathew had made Sheila lay down on the bed and shoot herself with the rifle under the chin. Of course, by the time DS Jones was filling in gaps in the evidence, the mistake that he and Mugfords were both making was that together they were only dealing with how the circumstances of one of the two shots had been inflicted. Ironically, Jones was trying to paraphrase an explanation for Sheila's body being found on the bed laid out with one shot in her neck. Jones knew that Sheila's body had been on the bed, because he had seen it there before going along to Jeremy's cottage and blabbing to AE that he had seen Sheila's body on the bed with when a solitary bullet wound in her neck. AE knows what DS Stan Jones told her. The police surgeon, Dr Craig only mentioned Sheila had a solitary wound in her neck, and that when he saw Sheila's body it was on the far side of the bed. Similarly, PI 'Bob' Miller also confirmed her body was on the far side of the bed, and that she had what appeared to be a solitary bullet wound on her neck. Julie Mugfords had gone to the hospital mortuary to identify the bodies of the victims, and noticed only one bullet wound on Sheila's neck. Upon returning back to Jeremy's cottage, Mugfords pur her index finger beneath her chin when asked by AE about how Sheila had died, Mugfords used her finger once, as if to indicate that she had been shot only once. At the opening of the inquest, held on the 14th August 1985, PI 'Bob' Miller, told Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompson, that police were satisfied that Sheila had killed the other four victims, and that she had then gone on to take her own life, by way of a solitary shot beneath the chin...

The problem was, and the problem is, that Sheila had been shot twice, not once. More significantly, the first shot inflicted was not immediately fatal, and there is no medical or scientific evidence to remotely suggest that she had in fact died as a result of that first shot. How then after Craig, Miller, and DS Jones had only seen one bullet wound inflicted in her neck, had the weapon which had fired the second fatal shot been fired? The second shot which killed Sheila had to have been inflicted, after Craig, Miller, and DS Jones had observed Sheila's body on the bed. Additionally, a month later when DS Jones was coercing Julie Mugfords to provide an explanation for how Sheila's body had ended up on the bed with only one shot to her neck, she comes out with a story about Mathew getting Sheila to lay on the bed and shoot herself on the bed whilst laying flat. Problem is though, that the angle of the first shot was across the neck, whereas, it had been the second shot when the rifle was resting parallel with Sheila's body, this exposes the collusion between DS Jones, and Julie Mugfords, to make up an explanation for why by as late as 9am, Sheila's body ended up on the bed, with a solitary bullet wound in her neck...

[mike tesko]

There is no way that anybody got Sheila to lay down on the bed and shoot herself once under the chin, with the rifle parrallel to her body at the time the fatal shot was fired under the chin, without another shot having already been inflicted beforehand. ?.

[maggie]

There is no way that anybody got Sheila to lay down on the bed and shoot herself once under the chin, with the rifle parrallel to her body at the time the fatal shot was fired under the chin, without another shot having already been inflicted beforehand. ?.

Totally agree.

[scipio_usmc]

There is no way that anybody got Sheila to lay down on the bed and shoot herself once under the chin, with the rifle parrallel to her body at the time the fatal shot was fired under the chin, without another shot having already been inflicted beforehand. ?.

1) There is nothing to suggest she was lying on the bed when shot and then moved by Jeremy to the floor.

2) There is no way anyone got her to shoot herself period but especially to shoot herself after the first shot was fired.  Quite obviously someone else shot her. The defense expert was a pretty horrible witness, they should have found someone else.

He had previously written an article saying that it was unlikely for women to shoot themselves and that women who are shot should be presumed murdered until there is evidence to establish otherwise.  Why use someone who has written such?  It is downright stupid.

Not only did this allow the prosecution to get such an assessment in it enabled challenging him to declare what evidence would overcome this presumption and the expert was unable to come up with anything to overcome it.  They knew this would come up.  I would not have called this man as a witness. There had to be someone else I could find without such baggage. 

He conceded that she likely passed out after the first shot.  That suggests she would not have been able to fire the second shot. Even without his baggage this is a problem for the defense but with the baggage it is worse because evidence she would have passed out and not have been able to fire the second shot most certainly fails to overcome the presumption of murder.

3) The defense witness said 30 minutes definitely would be too long a passage of time between shots.  He said the shots could have happened 5 seconds apart or 10-20 minutes but no more because she would have died in about 20 minutes from the first wound.  This was solely based on bleeding out from the wound.  He didn't disagree with Vanezis' assessment that the time was shorter because the amount of blood flow would have been several minutes, he simply said he had no way to assess such.  This totally blows your allegation, that police fired the second shot into Sheila after Dr Craig declared her dead, out of the water. The defense expert said she would have been dead after 20 minutes from the first shot so even if she was shot at 7:30 as you contend that means the second shot would be by 7:50. When you post evidence like this you need to take it into account when making up allegations.

4) He demonstrated a lack of knowledge that it is in fact possible to tell the difference between cuts and burns etc inflicted pre and post mortem.  It takes a lot of training and skill to have such skill but it does exist.  He was totally unaware that there are differences. This suggests he was old school and not up on modern trends. Vanezis wasn't able to assess whether the burns were done pre or post mortem. Even today it takes a lot of care and skill to assess such.

 

[Jane]

Do you think you may have chosen the wrong word when you said you "..... hoped to exploit"? A dictionary definition has it as meaning "To make use of a situation in a way which could be considered unfair or underhand"!!

[scipio_usmc]

The issue of Sheila's position when shot is quite significant.

Knight says she was shot seated the first time then lying down for the second shot.

Vanezis said she was shot seated for both shots then was lying down.

She could not have fallen flat immediately after the first shot.  She had to be propped against something because instead of falling flat she stayed upright and bled down her shoulder.  So she was lying against something.

Then she had a concussion or otherwise passed out for some time.

Then according to Knight she was lying down flat and shot again. Why would she decide to move her body from what she was propped against so she could lie down flat?

Worse yet the only way to drip blood on the Bible would be if after shooting herself while still upright she looked at the Bible.  Lying down holding the Bible above her to read it would not enable blood to drip on it. So the defense is stuck arguing while seated she opened the Bible then accidentally closed it and reopened it to the same page then put it in blood. Then she decided to move her body flat to lie down for some reason and shot herself while lying down. Would she have the strength to move herself flat and why would she do so?  It takes some effort to move away from something you are leaning against to lie flat.

The killer would have 2 potential reasons to move the victim flat: 1) to make the shot into the head easier; 2) to place the gun across her body.  Obviously if she was left seated against something then the gun would not be able to sit on her body.

Placing the Bible by her head was a big mistake because if she had been reading it prior to lying down then it would have been put down near her waist.  She could not have been reading it while lying down so it should not have been placed near her head.  To make matters worse he put it in a pool of blood that formed after she was killed so that even moreso revealed the Bible was staged.  The prosecution picked up on this too late they used it in the 2002 Appeal but not at trial.  The COA said too bad for you that you failed to appreciate the significance at trial you can't use it now. In a retrial it could be used though and still matters when evaluating things from our perspective.

Is Vanezis right that the time between the shots was only a matter of seconds or was it several minutes?  This is an interesting question because either:

1) Jeremy panicked when he saw her still breathing and fired again after several seconds

or

2) Jeremy decided to put her out of her misery than the leave her there suffering to bleed out and fired again several seconds later

or

3) decided to leave her suffering to let her bleed out but after several minutes got impatient and shot her again. He certainly couldn't put the loaded gun on her till she was dead or she could shoot him.

Personally I doubt he waited long, I think he either panicked or decided to put her out of her misery or to kill her before she could move and ruin things. Indeed the moderator was still attached when he fired the fatal shot so it is not possible that he shot her then removed the moderator and went and put it away and came back and found her still alive so shot her again.  Ironically had he done so he would have been better off because the fatal shot being fired with the moderator attached really screwed him.

 

[scipio_usmc]

Do you think you may have chosen the wrong word when you said you "..... hoped to exploit"? A dictionary definition has it as meaning "To make use of a situation in a way which could be considered unfair or underhand"!!

Exploit means to take advantage of an opportunity.  Taking advantage of an opportunity can be totally legitimate. Obviously taking advantage to cheat or steal is bad but it is often used in other contexts.  It is frequently used in military texts.  It is fair for one side or another to exploit the situation so long as misrepresentations are not being made.

[Jane]

Exploit means to take advantage of an opportunity.  Taking advantage of an opportunity can be totally legitimate. Obviously taking advantage to cheat or steal is bad but it is often used in other contexts.  It is frequently used in military texts.  It is fair for one side or another to exploit the situation so long as misrepresentations are not being made.

I wasn't aware that I'd said otherwise. My wording was "A dictionary definition" NOT "THE dictionary definition."

[mike tesko]

1) There is nothing to suggest she was lying on the bed when shot and then moved by Jeremy to the floor.

2) There is no way anyone got her to shoot herself period but especially to shoot herself after the first shot was fired.  Quite obviously someone else shot her. Which is what I have always been maintaining...The defense expert was a pretty horrible witness, they should have found someone else.

He had previously written an article saying that it was unlikely for women to shoot themselves and that women who are shot should be presumed murdered until there is evidence to establish otherwise.  Why use someone who has written such?  It is downright stupid.

Not only did this allow the prosecution to get such an assessment in it enabled challenging him to declare what evidence would overcome this presumption and the expert was unable to come up with anything to overcome it.  They knew this would come up.  I would not have called this man as a witness. There had to be someone else I could find without such baggage. 

He conceded that she likely passed out after the first shot. she did... That suggests she would not have been able to fire the second shot. Even without his baggage this is a problem for the defense but with the baggage it is worse because evidence she would have passed out and not have been able to fire the second shot most certainly fails to overcome the presumption of murder.

3) The defense witness said 30 minutes definitely would be too long a passage of time between shots.  He said the shots could have happened 5 seconds apart or 10-20 minutes but no more because she would have died in about 20 minutes from the first wound. With no consideration of any period(s) of unconsciousness, which would make a huge difference.. This was solely based on bleeding out from the wound. Quantity of lost blood was never estimated, or calculated... He didn't disagree with Vanezis' assessment that the time was shorter because the amount of blood flow would have been several minutes, he simply said he had no way to assess such.  This totally blows your allegation, that police fired the second shot into Sheila after Dr Craig declared her dead, out of the water. No, it does not... The defense expert said she would have been dead after 20 minutes from the first shot so even if she was shot at 7:30 as you contend that means the second shot would be by 7:50. When you post evidence like this you need to take it into account when making up allegations. First of all, Knight said it was possible that she could have moved around for half an hour or more. She didn't in fact move around at all for many minutes after Woodcock had shot her downstairs in the kitchen. She collapsed to the kitchen floor unconscious.She was shot prior to 07.37hrs, went to the kitchen floor within moments and did not bleed out, or if she did, she bled very little externally. There was no evidence to show how much blood had been bled internally, so it was speculation trying to estimate how long Sheila could have survived before she died after being shot in the first instance. Her movement after being shot downstairs and collapsing as if dead, can be calculated by how long it took her to regain her senses and make her way up the small spiral staircase in the corner of the kitchen, up to the top landing, then in through the main bedroom door, before she collapsed again, out of either pure exhaustion or because the sudden regain of her consciousness and mobility took its toll. She in fact, collapsed on top of the bed in the main bedroom, and that's where her body was found, in a collapsed state on the bed, after Harris, Gibbons and Montgomery raised the alarm upon entering the farmhouse between 08.10am - 08.15hrs. It was at this point that PI Montgomery took COMMAND of the continuing firearm operation, which had just gone pearshaped. Sheila had not been moving around for any longer than it took her to regain her senses after collapsing into unconsciousness on the kitchen floor after being shot there. It is estimated that it took her about a minute to get from the kitchen downstairs, to the bed in the main bedroom upstairs, before she collapsed on top of the bed. This is what "DID" happen, and by 08.30hrs, police relocated her body on the bed upstairs. She hadn't been running around the farmhouse for 30 minutes, 45 minutes or longer, she had regained consciousness just long enough to enable her to get upstairs to the bed in her parents bedroom. There is no scientific or medical evidence to suggest that what Sheila did could not possibly have happened. It did happen in any event. By 08.44hrs, the police surgeon, Craig, and Bob Miller turned up and pronounced Sheila as dead, her body was still laid out on the bed, she was not bleeding out of the only bullet wound visible on her neck. There was no rifle on her body at this time. Everybody was happy that once Craig pronounced her as being dead on this occasion, that she really was dead...

[Jane]

I'm wondering what she did with her head as she walked upstairs. You speak of that first shot as if it were no more than a graze. Her neck was broken. That shot WOULD have killed her. Venezis said in order to move she would have needed to hold her head up.

[scipio_usmc]

"2) There is no way anyone got her to shoot herself period but especially to shoot herself after the first shot was fired.  Quite obviously someone else shot her."

Which is what I have always been maintaining...

Which harms the defense and explains at least in part why Jeremy wants you to go away.

Your allegation that police shot her and staged her body make no sense.  If they shot her they would admit it they had valid reason to shoot her had she still been alive with a gun as they entered.  You have no evidence to support any of these allegations either.

The only viable defense for Jeremy is to say Sheila killed herself.  An admission she was killed and framed establishes Jeremy framed and killed her as well as the others.

"The defense witness said 30 minutes definitely would be too long a passage of time between shots.  He said the shots could have happened 5 seconds apart or 10-20 minutes but no more because she would have died in about 20 minutes from the first wound."

With no consideration of any period(s) of unconsciousness, which would make a huge difference.

Unconsciousness would not inhibit bleeding out.  Whether she was conscious or not he assessed a wound of that nature would result in death within 20 minutes.  His testimony is she would have died within 20 minutes of suffering from the first wound.  That means the fatal wound was fired in less than 20 minutes from the firing of the first wound.  Vanezis said it was even sooner but you have your pick of Vanezis matter of seconds or his claim or within 20 minutes.  Neither of them offer any support for you claim of the second shot being hours later.  Ignoring the evidence makes you claims worthless to Jeremy.

First of all, Knight said it was possible that she could have moved around for half an hour or more. She didn't in fact move around at all for many minutes after Woodcock had shot her downstairs in the kitchen. She collapsed to the kitchen floor unconscious.She was shot prior to 07.37hrs, went to the kitchen floor within moments and did not bleed out, or if she did, she bled very little externally. There was no evidence to show how much blood had been bled internally, so it was speculation trying to estimate how long Sheila could have survived before she died after being shot in the first instance. Her movement after being shot downstairs and collapsing as if dead, can be calculated by how long it took her to regain her senses and make her way up the small spiral staircase in the corner of the kitchen, up to the top landing, then in through the main bedroom door, before she collapsed again, out of either pure exhaustion or because the sudden regain of her consciousness and mobility took its toll. She in fact, collapsed on top of the bed in the main bedroom, and that's where her body was found, in a collapsed state on the bed, after Harris, Gibbons and Montgomery raised the alarm upon entering the farmhouse between 08.10am - 08.15hrs. It was at this point that PI Montgomery took COMMAND of the continuing firearm operation, which had just gone pearshaped. Sheila had not been moving around for any longer than it took her to regain her senses after collapsing into unconsciousness on the kitchen floor after being shot there. It is estimated that it took her about a minute to get from the kitchen downstairs, to the bed in the main bedroom upstairs, before she collapsed on top of the bed. This is what "DID" happen, and by 08.30hrs, police relocated her body on the bed upstairs. She hadn't been running around the farmhouse for 30 minutes, 45 minutes or longer, she had regained consciousness just long enough to enable her to get upstairs to the bed in her parents bedroom. There is no scientific or medical evidence to suggest that what Sheila did could not possibly have happened. It did happen in any event. By 08.44hrs, the police surgeon, Craig, and Bob Miller turned up and pronounced Sheila as dead, her body was still laid out on the bed, she was not bleeding out of the only bullet wound visible on her neck. There was no rifle on her body at this time. Everybody was happy that once Craig pronounced her as being dead on this occasion, that she really was dead...

He admitted she would have died within 20 minutes of the first shot thus the gap between shots had to have been fired in a shorter period than this.

If she stood up and moved around as you contend she would have bled down the front of her gown and would have trialed blood. She didn't ever stand up. Your wild claims allegations are not only totally made up without any evidence to base the claims on worse the evidence contradicts your allegations.  They are thus totally worthless to Jeremy.

Your allegations not only offer no aid to Jeremy they hurt Jeremy by conceding Sheila was killed by someone else which proves his guilt because he is the only one who would have killed her and framed her.

[scipio_usmc]

I'm wondering what she did with her head as she walked upstairs. You speak of that first shot as if it were no more than a graze. Her neck was broken. That shot WOULD have killed her. Venezis said in order to move she would have needed to hold her head up.

She was standing on a magic flying carpet when she was shot. Eventually it decided to take her upstairs and this carpet collected all the dripping blood thus preventing any from being found in the kitchen or there from being a blood trail leading from the kitchen to the bedroom. It dumped her on the bed then flew out the slightly open bedroom window to look for a new master....



 

[susan]

Hahaha Scipio what a story teller you are at times