Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?

[Roch]

Dont forget those words, "Sheila's gone Crazy, she has got a gun" that to me is someone that's lost it, not someone just making their mind up.  If we take Jeremy's word, would Neville have got Jeremy out of bed at that time in a morning knowing full well his son had, had such a long hard day at the farm,if Sheila wasn't going crazy?

 

One log states 'your sister has gone crazy' the other log states 'daughter gone berserk'.  If Sheila's presentation had seemed vacant during the evening before, then she may have withdrawn in to her own distorted thinking.  Perhaps Sheila wasn't in a rage when she shot the twins.  If a withdrawn, listless or vacant person begins shooting their own children - I think most people would see that as 'crazy' or 'berserk'.  How else would Nevill rationalise the horror of what was taking place?  However, I could be wrong regarding Sheila's presentation - which may have been more akin to the manner in which Mr Emani had described.  This would also give the impression of 'crazy' or 'berserk'.

I honestly believe that had someone been alive in the house, word would have filtered throughout that someone was alive and a positive and encouraging word would have been passed on to Jeremy, all Jeremy mentions is the dog whining until the police sorted things out, that's in his statement 7th Aug with everything fresh in his mind.

It would depend on what the police actually knew.  If they knew there had been shots fired and casualties, then out of kindness and concern, they may have chosen not to say anything to Jeremy Bamber. 

[Caroline]

Dont forget those words, "Sheila's gone Crazy, she has got a gun" that to me is someone that's lost it, not someone just making their mind up.  If we take Jeremy's word, would Neville have got Jeremy out of bed at that time in a morning knowing full well his son had, had such a long hard day at the farm,if Sheila wasn't going crazy? 

I honestly believe that had someone been alive in the house, word would have filtered throughout that someone was alive and a positive and encouraging word would have been passed on to Jeremy, all Jeremy mentions is the dog whining until the police sorted things out, that's in his statement 7th Aug with everything fresh in his mind.

Agree 100%

[lookout]

Neville WOULD have alerted Jeremy. Because of the unimaginable situation within the farmhouse,he obviously felt powerless to do anything and through the call to Jeremy he would have hoped that he,Jeremy,would have in turn rang the police before it had been too late.
Regardless of the time of night/morning,you wouldn't allow a member of the family,especially your son to sleep through " just because he'd had a long,hard day previously " . Dear me,whatever next ?

[guest7363]

Neville WOULD have alerted Jeremy. Because of the unimaginable situation within the farmhouse,he obviously felt powerless to do anything and through the call to Jeremy he would have hoped that he,Jeremy,would have in turn rang the police before it had been too late.
Regardless of the time of night/morning,you wouldn't allow a member of the family,especially your son to sleep through " just because he'd had a long,hard day previously " . Dear me,whatever next ?

My How Neville got it wrong then, because Bamber decided to treat it as a non emergency.

[guest7363]

Neville WOULD have alerted Jeremy. Because of the unimaginable situation within the farmhouse,he obviously felt powerless to do anything and through the call to Jeremy he would have hoped that he,Jeremy,would have in turn rang the police before it had been too late.
Regardless of the time of night/morning,you wouldn't allow a member of the family,especially your son to sleep through " just because he'd had a long,hard day previously " . Dear me,whatever next ?

Again I don't think you read things through, no one is suggesting Neville shouldn't phone Bamber after a hard day.

[Adam]

Neville WOULD have alerted Jeremy. Because of the unimaginable situation within the farmhouse,he obviously felt powerless to do anything and through the call to Jeremy he would have hoped that he,Jeremy,would have in turn rang the police before it had been too late.
Regardless of the time of night/morning,you wouldn't allow a member of the family,especially your son to sleep through " just because he'd had a long,hard day previously " . Dear me,whatever next ?

There is no possibility he would have contacted Bamber. He and every other person would have woken their wife and Sheila's mother. Who was in the same house.  Thread created today.

[Adam]

Why Neville would have asked June for assistance:

June was at WHF.

June was an adult.

June was able bodied and just as strong as Sheila.

An awake June is safer than an asleep June.

An awake June makes Neville safer.

An awake June makes the twins safer.

June had as much chance of claming Sheila down as Bamber would have.

Asking June for assistance means Neville would not have to go downstairs and spend several minutes waiting for Bamber to answer the phone.

Asking June for assistance means Neville would not have to spend several minutes asking the police for assistance.

June would be likely to wake anyway after hearing all the noise. Although in this case she surprisingly remained asleep and was shot with her head on the pillow.

An awake June could have protected the twins.

June was Sheila's mother. She would want to assist her daughter if she was in distress.

Neville did not need Bamber for physical assistance. He was twice as big as Sheila and June was as big as Sheila.

Asking June for assistance means he is not going to put his son in danger.

WHF was as much June's house, as Neville's. As June was Sheila's mother she had a right to know what was happening and decide to attempt to assist.

June was Neville's first option. If that failed he could then decide to ring up other people.

June may refuse to assist (which is unlikely). However June can at least protect herself and be ready for any attack. Rather than be defenceless.

There is no reason not to ask June for assistance.

[guest2181]

I don't understand the significance of the arrival of police at 3.48.  They didn't knock at farmhouse or get very close to it.  Since their presence outside was not conspicuous, how would it have curtailed any potential activity by Sheila in the farmhouse?

I suppose we can say that there is no evidence of anybody being alive in the house from 3:48 onwards. The time is only significant in being the earliest point in which people were near the scene and capable of observing the house.

The phone line to the house was also opened and monitored at some point (about 6ish I think?), without anything being heard that indicated living occupants.

[Jane]

I suppose we can say that there is no evidence of anybody being alive in the house from 3:48 onwards. The time is only significant in being the earliest point in which people were near the scene and capable of observing the house.

The phone line to the house was also opened and monitored at some point (about 6ish I think?), without anything being heard that indicated living occupants.

I believe it's been suggested that, via the open line, signs of life were detected by a Linda but that the information has been ferreted away.

[guest2181]

I believe it's been suggested that, via the open line, signs of life were detected by a Linda but that the information has been ferreted away.

A lot of strange things have been suggested or invented.

[David1819]

A lot of strange things have been suggested or invented.

Indeed. Hitman doing five murders for the price of none, Cycling in the middle of the night wearing a scuba suit. To name a few 

[Roch]

I suppose we can say that there is no evidence of anybody being alive in the house from 3:48 onwards. The time is only significant in being the earliest point in which people were near the scene and capable of observing the house.

The phone line to the house was also opened and monitored at some point (about 6ish I think?), without anything being heard that indicated living occupants.

I understand your stance Hartley.  We could also say that that the 'firearms team being in conversation with a person from inside the farm' is unlikely to refer to Jeremy Bamber.  It precedes another entry that concerns a lack of response to a challenge to persons inside the farm.  I think this alone confirms that the 'conversation' entry refers whatever was going on between firearms team and the actual farmhouse, as opposed to Jeremy Bamber.  The defence have never had a chance to bring in to a courtroom, a police communications expert to explore these matters (or other indicators worth questioning) - because the entry did not become known until approx two years after Jeremy Bamber's 2nd appeal. 

I know there are other 'physiological' concerns regarding whether Sheila died later than the other victims - but I am not really conversant with them.  Although I am aware of the two Italian professors' report that was rejected by the CCRC - again I believe the photos they worked from did not become available until after the 2002 appeal. What if they had come to light prior to the 2002 appeal - would we be having the same discussion now? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps if negatives had been released to the defence far earlier, arguments could have been explored earlier.  This has always been my stance - that you cannot withhold evidence and simultaneously argue that a convicted person has been given a fair appeal. 

I'd like to think there would be more info about the phone-line situation - but if there was anything that had been recently discovered, I think we would have heard about it by now.

[guest2181]

I understand your stance Hartley.  We could also say that that the 'firearms team being in conversation with a person from inside the farm' is unlikely to refer to Jeremy Bamber.  It precedes another entry that concerns a lack of response to a challenge to persons inside the farm.  I think this alone confirms that the 'conversation' entry refers whatever was going on between firearms team and the actual farmhouse, as opposed to Jeremy Bamber.  The defence have never had a chance to bring in to a courtroom, a police communications expert to explore these matters (or other indicators worth questioning) - because the entry did not become known until approx two years after Jeremy Bamber's 2nd appeal. 

I know there are other 'physiological' concerns regarding whether Sheila died later than the other victims - but I am not really conversant with them.  Although I am aware of the two Italian professors' report that was rejected by the CCRC - again I believe the photos they worked from did not become available until after the 2002 appeal. What if they had come to light prior to the 2002 appeal - would we be having the same discussion now? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps if negatives had been released to the defence far earlier, arguments could have been explored earlier.  This has always been my stance - that you cannot withhold evidence and simultaneously argue that a convicted person has been given a fair appeal. 

I'd like to think there would be more info about the phone-line situation - but if there was anything that had been recently discovered, I think we would have heard about it by now.

I'm not really forming a stance or an argument here.

Plus I'd been pretty fair in the way I'd worded my post.

It is simply a fact, that there is no evidence available to us which indicates that anybody in the house was alive at any time whilst police were at the scene.

I understand some people's desire for that not to be the case, as the implications are obvious.

[Jane]

I'm not really forming a stance or an argument here.

Plus I'd been pretty fair in the way I'd worded my post.

It is simply a fact, that there is no evidence available to us which indicates that anybody in the house was alive at any time whilst police were at the scene.

I understand some people's desire for that not to be the case, as the implications are obvious.

It's possible that we're being drowned in, what can only be, speculative lists. We are then told that 'everyone agrees that....' and said point then, along with manipulated 'facts', becomes an accepted mantra. Has this case become rewritten/speculated beyond recognition?

[guest2181]

It's possible that we're being drowned in, what can only be, speculative lists. We are then told that 'everyone agrees that....' and said point then, along with manipulated 'facts', becomes an accepted mantra. Has this case become rewritten/speculated beyond recognition?

Maybe, I think some people want to believe that something is true, therefore they set their proof or logic threshold extremely low.

Even when claims have been shown up to be fictitious, others repeat them again and again as if they are gospel.

An example of this is the claim that logs were withheld, despite the fact that Bonnetts log has a court sticker and it appears in a list of court exhibits, and West was handed his log whilst giving evidence in court.