The rifle at the upstairs window Conundrum - The Bamber Alibi, revisted...

[lemonhead]

It is true that WPC Jeapes account is somewhat confusing as to the exact window to which she is referring to when she makes mention of seeing 'the' rifle. One clue which stands out is that she was at the 'corner' of the farmhouse, which she has described as 'White / Red'. She appears to be confused by which side was 'White side', and which was 'Red side'. But she does mention that she was standing at the corner of that part of the building which is cladded in grey brick. So, based on that information, she could have had a view of ' the main bedroom window', on 'Red side', and a view of the 'box room window' on 'White side', from 'that' vantage point. If she was referring to a rifle at the 'box room window' any such rifle would have had to be resting against the 'left hand side' of the 'box room Window', as viewed from her vantage point at the corner of 'White / Red', whereas, from the same vantage point, she could only have seen such a rifle on the 'right hand side' of the 'main bedroom window'...

I don't find WPS Jeapes' statement confusing at all.  The containment site near the kitchen was not very far from the corner of the house.  That corner touches the red/white sides. So she called it the red/white in firearms terms.  There were 2 containment sites near the red/white corner.  We know which one she was at because of she said she was near the kitchen and described a single first floor window clad in grey.

The raid team treated the kitchen side as the front of the house for their operation so she called it the front.  By stating she watched the raid team break in that ends any ability to claim she was at the actual front of the house and confused the front door as being the kitchen door.

It is only confusing if one sets out to try to confuse things in an effort to distort.

[Caroline]

I don't find WPS Jeapes' statement confusing at all.  The containment site near the kitchen was not very far from the corner of the house.  That corner touches the red/white sides. So she called it the red/white in firearms terms.  There were 2 containment sites near the red/white corner.  We know which one she was at because of she said she was near the kitchen and described a single first floor window clad in grey.

The raid team treated the kitchen side as the front of the house for their operation so she called it the front.  By stating she watched the raid team break in that ends any ability to claim she was at the actual front of the house and confused the front door as being the kitchen door.

It is only confusing if one sets out to try to confuse things in an effort to distort.

I agree, Jeapes simply said she thought she saw what could be a rifle - hardly surprising when she was under  the impression that 'someone had gone crazy' with one. The totally unrelated picture of the rifle in the bedroom, is just that 'unrelated'. If there was anything suspicious about the picture, I don't think EP would be stupid enough to first of all take the picture and secondly, include it in the CS pictures.

[Jane]

I agree, Jeapes simply said she thought she saw what could be a rifle - hardly surprising when she was under  the impression that 'someone had gone crazy' with one. The totally unrelated picture of the rifle in the bedroom, is just that 'unrelated'. If there was anything suspicious about the picture, I don't think EP would be stupid enough to first of all take the picture and secondly, include it in the CS pictures.

I wonder if, buried deep within the bowls of Police HQ, there's a secret "gallery" where are displayed all those incriminating photos that Mike tell us exist. Mayhap rookies, once past a certain level of training and having sworn to uphold the OSA, are allowed to gaze in awe and wonder at what levels of corruption they, too, may be able to attain.

[sami]

i doubt if ep have got any info that proves jb is innocent.even in the police we get whistle blowers so if anything was there it might have come out by now.

[lemonhead]

The fact that 'the rifle' is photographed at 23, leaning against the main bedroom window, before 'it' was later removed and planted onto Sheila's body, and only then was 'it' photographed with Sheila's body, as per the photographs, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, is more than a simple coincidence. The chief feature, as far as I can tell, is not really 'which' window Jeapes actually saw the rifle leaning against, but rather that 'the rifle in photograph No. 23, was without doubt or question, photographed, there at the ' main bedroom window, before 'it' was photographed, upon Sheila's body, in sequential order'...

That is ' a fact'...

The sequence with which those '9 key photographs' were taken, 'confirms' this to be an absolute truth...

I have already posted up the photographic records which support this matter, and nobody can alter the 'fact' that 'the rifle' was photographed resting near to the main bedroom window, 'before' somebody took 'it' from there and decided to position 'it' on Sheila's body and to photograph it there. This is the true explanation about 'movement of the gun' from the bedroom window onto the body. What this means, is that the sequence of 8 consecutive photographs, these being photograph numbers, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, 'do not' show the true position of Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, with the rifle in her possession, as could have been found by firearms officers, as per their witness statement versions which set the positions of the bodies at the time of discovery as having been one body downstairs, the other four bodies being found upstairs, of which they claim Sheila's had been one of the four bodies found upstairs. Of course, by a reliance upon the police radio message log account, two bodies were found in the kitchen, and only three bodies found upstairs. By reliance on this account, Sheila's body had to have been the reference to a dead female, who had apparently committed suicide, downstairs in the kitchen, the same room where Ralph Bamber was murdered ('the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found upon entry to the kitchen'). With Sheila being reported as having been found dead downstairs in the kitchen, how then had the rifle at whichever upstairs window been used to shoot her downstairs in the kitchen?

How can she possibly have committed 'suicide' downstairs in the kitchen before 7.45am, with use of 'the rifle which from 7.15am, onward, had been resting against a window upstairs' in another part of the farmhouse?

That 'first' shot, bullet PV/20, was 'badly fragmented' and had broken into at least 15 pieces when part of it was Xrayed, and then recovered from her body during autopsy, performed by pathologist, Peter Venezis, on 7th August 1985. However, by the 20th September a 'different' bullet had been introduced, a bullet described by the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, as ' a whole bullet', which Fletcher was able to state 'had' been fired through the rifle at the time Sheila was shot across the neck. But, as far as I know, bullets don't grow whole again, once they have been shattered into at least 15 separate pieces. Therefore, I say, and it is the absolute truth, there is 'no need' for me to make anything up, there is clearly a huge suspicion that Essex police and its ballistics expert, and the pathologist, have all been involved 'in a joint enterprise' with a view to presenting 'a whole bullet', when the original PV/20 had been a badly fragmented one, and that this was done so that it could be argued that the very same rifle had fired both the shots (bullets PV/20 and PV/19) which wounded and killed Sheila Caffell - but it was all a lie...

This will probably be a loveless endeavour but I will try anyway.

In the above long-winded post you repeatedly state you have proof that the photo of the rifle used in the killings taken near the window was taken prior to the rifle ever being on Sheila's body. In order for this to be true it would require the rifle to have been near the window when the raid team entered, when the police brass entered and when the crime scene police entered.  All three classes of police say the rifle was on her body.

The only proof you ultimately offer to try to disprove their claims is the log that records 2 bodies were found in the kitchen. You insist the log account must be true.  The problem is that the log account doesn't have to be true it could be an error.   According to the eyewitnesses the person keeping the log misunderstood and was in error.  An assertion by a non-witness keeping a log is hearsay.  Hearsay cannot disprove a claim of a witness let alone multiple witnesses.  That hearsay doesn't even assert the second body in the kitchen was Sheila.  You just say it was Sheila because that helps your allegations more than saying it was June. 

You also say it is a fact the photo of the rifle near the window was taken prior to the photos of the rifle on Sheila's body. Just because you say it is a fact doesn't make it so. There are only 3 ways to prove it to be a fact.  The actors taking the photos would have to state that they took the photo of the gun near the window before the photos of the gun on her body.  But the photographer and crime scene police all say the photos of the rifle on her body were taken first.

The second way to prove it would be if the camera left time stamps on the photos but the camera in question did not. 

The final way to prove it would be if the photos had been taken on the same roll of film and the negatives were all still attached so one could observe the sequence in which the photos on that particular roll were taken.  The testimony is that they were taken on different film rolls and that the film roll with the gun near the window was taken last.  The negatives tolls were not kept intact so there is no way to disprove their claims. 

At the end of the day you simply level allegations you can't prove that the police lied about the order in which the photos were taken.  It is not a particularly useful allegation because even if police had done the senseless act of taking photos of the hallway and entire scene before taking photos of the bodies this would not establish the gun had not originally been on Sheila's body when the raid team, police brass and crime scene police entered.

Police could have had removed the gun from her body, took photos of the house, then placed the gun back on her body to take the photos of her body in order to depict where it had been when the police initially found her.  But this is not what police say happened.  The actors all say the rifle never left her body until after they took the photos of it on her and there is no evidence available that proves otherwise.

This whole line of attack seems like a giant waste of time and energy that could better be devoted elsewhere if one wants to try to help Jeremy.

[sami]

This will probably be a loveless endeavour but I will try anyway.

In the above long-winded post you repeatedly state you have proof that the photo of the rifle used in the killings taken near the window was taken prior to the rifle ever being on Sheila's body. In order for this to be true it would require the rifle to have been near the window when the raid team entered, when the police brass entered and when the crime scene police entered.  All three classes of police say the rifle was on her body.

The only proof you ultimately offer to try to disprove their claims is the log that records 2 bodies were found in the kitchen. You insist the log account must be true.  The problem is that the log account doesn't have to be true it could be an error.   According to the eyewitnesses the person keeping the log misunderstood and was in error.  An assertion by a non-witness keeping a log is hearsay.  Hearsay cannot disprove a claim of a witness let alone multiple witnesses.  That hearsay doesn't even assert the second body in the kitchen was Sheila.  You just say it was Sheila because that helps your allegations more than saying it was June. 

You also say it is a fact the photo of the rifle near the window was taken prior to the photos of the rifle on Sheila's body. Just because you say it is a fact doesn't make it so. There are only 3 ways to prove it to be a fact.  The actors taking the photos would have to state that they took the photo of the gun near the window before the photos of the gun on her body.  But the photographer and crime scene police all say the photos of the rifle on her body were taken first.

The second way to prove it would be if the camera left time stamps on the photos but the camera in question did not. 

The final way to prove it would be if the photos had been taken on the same roll of film and the negatives were all still attached so one could observe the sequence in which the photos on that particular roll were taken.  The testimony is that they were taken on different film rolls and that the film roll with the gun near the window was taken last.  The negatives tolls were not kept intact so there is no way to disprove their claims. 

At the end of the day you simply level allegations you can't prove that the police lied about the order in which the photos were taken.  It is not a particularly useful allegation because even if police had done the senseless act of taking photos of the hallway and entire scene before taking photos of the bodies this would not establish the gun had not originally been on Sheila's body when the raid team, police brass and crime scene police entered.

Police could have had removed the gun from her body, took photos of the house, then placed the gun back on her body to take the photos of her body in order to depict where it had been when the police initially found her.  But this is not what police say happened.  The actors all say the rifle never left her body until after they took the photos of it on her and there is no evidence available that proves otherwise.

This whole line of attack seems like a giant waste of time and energy that could better be devoted elsewhere if one wants to try to help Jeremy.

i totally agree lemonhead.

[Jane]

This will probably be a loveless endeavour but I will try anyway.

In the above long-winded post you repeatedly state you have proof that the photo of the rifle used in the killings taken near the window was taken prior to the rifle ever being on Sheila's body. In order for this to be true it would require the rifle to have been near the window when the raid team entered, when the police brass entered and when the crime scene police entered.  All three classes of police say the rifle was on her body.

The only proof you ultimately offer to try to disprove their claims is the log that records 2 bodies were found in the kitchen. You insist the log account must be true.  The problem is that the log account doesn't have to be true it could be an error.   According to the eyewitnesses the person keeping the log misunderstood and was in error.  An assertion by a non-witness keeping a log is hearsay.  Hearsay cannot disprove a claim of a witness let alone multiple witnesses.  That hearsay doesn't even assert the second body in the kitchen was Sheila.  You just say it was Sheila because that helps your allegations more than saying it was June. 

You also say it is a fact the photo of the rifle near the window was taken prior to the photos of the rifle on Sheila's body. Just because you say it is a fact doesn't make it so. There are only 3 ways to prove it to be a fact.  The actors taking the photos would have to state that they took the photo of the gun near the window before the photos of the gun on her body.  But the photographer and crime scene police all say the photos of the rifle on her body were taken first.

The second way to prove it would be if the camera left time stamps on the photos but the camera in question did not. 

The final way to prove it would be if the photos had been taken on the same roll of film and the negatives were all still attached so one could observe the sequence in which the photos on that particular roll were taken.  The testimony is that they were taken on different film rolls and that the film roll with the gun near the window was taken last.  The negatives tolls were not kept intact so there is no way to disprove their claims. 

At the end of the day you simply level allegations you can't prove that the police lied about the order in which the photos were taken.  It is not a particularly useful allegation because even if police had done the senseless act of taking photos of the hallway and entire scene before taking photos of the bodies this would not establish the gun had not originally been on Sheila's body when the raid team, police brass and crime scene police entered.

Police could have had removed the gun from her body, took photos of the house, then placed the gun back on her body to take the photos of her body in order to depict where it had been when the police initially found her.  But this is not what police say happened.  The actors all say the rifle never left her body until after they took the photos of it on her and there is no evidence available that proves otherwise.

This whole line of attack seems like a giant waste of time and energy that could better be devoted elsewhere if one wants to try to help Jeremy.

Eloquently said, Lemonhead.

[lookout]

I don't find WPS Jeapes' statement confusing at all.  The containment site near the kitchen was not very far from the corner of the house.  That corner touches the red/white sides. So she called it the red/white in firearms terms.  There were 2 containment sites near the red/white corner.  We know which one she was at because of she said she was near the kitchen and described a single first floor window clad in grey.

The raid team treated the kitchen side as the front of the house for their operation so she called it the front.  By stating she watched the raid team break in that ends any ability to claim she was at the actual front of the house and confused the front door as being the kitchen door.

It is only confusing if one sets out to try to confuse things in an effort to distort.

Same old,eh,Scipio ? The accusing sticks out like a sore thumb.

[mike tesko]

I don't find WPS Jeapes' statement confusing at all.  but the COLP investigators did, so that puts your interpretation at odds with them...The containment site near the kitchen was not very far from the corner of the house. Jeapes could see along both sides, and the main bedroom window was in the grey brick part of the farmhouse. She saw the barrel of the rifle through the scope on her own weapon. The most interesting feature in all of this, is that when Jeapes saw the barrel of the rifle, she did not see a silencer fitted to the end of it. It doesn't really matter which upstairs window it was seen at, only the fact that it 'was' seen, and that there was no silencer attached, either there and then, or later when police moved it to the body of Sheila on the bedroom floor...  That corner touches the red/white sides. Exactly, as do both windows in question, but as I say if you want the window in question to be 'the box room window',  it actually benefits Bambers claim of innocent more greatly, than if say the rifle seen by Jeapes was against the 'main bedroom window'... [color] So she called it the red/white in firearms terms. yes, and it doesn't matter whether she saw the rifle at one window, as opposed to any other window, the key point is that she did not report seeing a silencer fitted to the end of that rifles barrel...  There were 2 containment sites near the red/white corner. still doesn't alter the fact that Jeapes saw a rifle barrel minus a silencer when she saw it.. We know which one she was at because of she said she was near the kitchen and described a single first floor window clad in grey. yes, she saw tthe rifles barrel, but as you know she did not see a silencer...

The raid team treated the kitchen side as the front of the house for their operation no, they did not, they knew which was the front of the farmhouse and which was the rear... so she called it the front.  it was not her job to call it the front, senior command officers decided which was which...By stating she watched the raid team break in that ends any ability to claim she was at the actual front of the house and confused the front door as being the kitchen door. it does not. Since if she was at the corner of White red, she could have seen both the front door and the rear door from the same vantage point, it would simply have been a case of looking right to see the front door on red side, and simply a matter of turning her head left to see in the direction of the rear door.

It is only confusing if one sets out to try to confuse things which was why Essex police failed to disclose her witness statement which makes mention of the rifle in question being lent against the window...in an effort to distort. the only people distorting anything were Essex police, I mean by bringing 'that' rifle from whichever window and planting it on Sheila's body so that they could try to sweep her death under the carpet by describing it as 'a suicide'...

[mike tesko]

This will probably be a loveless endeavour but I will try anyway.
US, New Jersey...

I thought you were banned?
In the above long-winded post you repeatedly state you have proof that the photo of the rifle used in the killings taken near the window was taken prior to the rifle ever being on Sheila's body. Yes, it is In order for this to be true it would require the rifle to have been near the window when the raid team entered, when the police brass entered and when the crime scene police entered.  All three classes of police say the rifle was on her body.

The only proof you ultimately offer to try to disprove their claims is the log that records 2 bodies were found in the kitchen. You insist the log account must be true.  The problem is that the log account doesn't have to be true it could be an error.   According to the eyewitnesses the person keeping the log misunderstood and was in error.  An assertion by a non-witness keeping a log is hearsay.  Hearsay cannot disprove a claim of a witness let alone multiple witnesses.  That hearsay doesn't even assert the second body in the kitchen was Sheila.  You just say it was Sheila because that helps your allegations more than saying it was June. 

You also say it is a fact the photo of the rifle near the window was taken prior to the photos of the rifle on Sheila's body. Just because you say it is a fact doesn't make it so. There are only 3 ways to prove it to be a fact.  The actors taking the photos would have to state that they took the photo of the gun near the window before the photos of the gun on her body.  But the photographer and crime scene police all say the photos of the rifle on her body were taken first.

The second way to prove it would be if the camera left time stamps on the photos but the camera in question did not. 

The final way to prove it would be if the photos had been taken on the same roll of film and the negatives were all still attached so one could observe the sequence in which the photos on that particular roll were taken.  The testimony is that they were taken on different film rolls and that the film roll with the gun near the window was taken last.  The negatives tolls were not kept intact so there is no way to disprove their claims. 

At the end of the day you simply level allegations you can't prove that the police lied about the order in which the photos were taken.  It is not a particularly useful allegation because even if police had done the senseless act of taking photos of the hallway and entire scene before taking photos of the bodies this would not establish the gun had not originally been on Sheila's body when the raid team, police brass and crime scene police entered.

Police could have had removed the gun from her body, took photos of the house, then placed the gun back on her body to take the photos of her body in order to depict where it had been when the police initially found her.  But this is not what police say happened.  The actors all say the rifle never left her body until after they took the photos of it on her and there is no evidence available that proves otherwise.

This whole line of attack seems like a giant waste of time and energy that could better be devoted elsewhere if one wants to try to help Jeremy.

[lemonhead]

Nothing comes up when I try to quote your post but I will address your points to the extent I can.

It doesn't really matter whether the COLP investigators were confused or not.  An objective reading is quite clear irrespective of whether a minority fail to understand it.

Please post the portion of the COLP Report that concludes WPS Jeapes wrote in her statement that she saw a rifle in the bedroom window.  What you will find if that the defence made such allegations not that COLP found such to be true.

If you go to Reply 1 of this topic you will see a number of photographs posted.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.0.html

There is a photo with the name whf9.jpg and in this photo you will see a small barn shed facing the kitchen side at the right hand corner. To the left of this barn shed is where WPS Jeapes was positioned.  She could not see the front of the house from this position.  She could only see the kitchen side of the house.  She saw the raid team enter because the kitchen door is clearly visible from this position.  Since the bedroom window was sealed off instead of two grey clad first floor windows there is only one.  Thus identifying a first floor window as grey clad isolates a single window, the boxroom window.

The police position in the front left corner of the house provides neither sight of the kitchen door nor of the boxroom window.  It only provides sight of the front of the house.  Police in that position stated could not see the raid team entering they only heard the breaking down of the door.  These police fail to list WPS Jeapes as being with them in this location.  All three first floor windows in the front of the house are clad in grey so trying to isolate a single window by referring to it as grey clad is a useless endeavour.  Taking everything as a whole there is no question that WPS Jeapes was claiming to be at the White side of the house looking at the boxroom window.

[Steve_uk]

Nothing comes up when I try to quote your post but I will address your points to the extent I can.

It doesn't really matter whether the COLP investigators were confused or not.  An objective reading is quite clear irrespective of whether a minority fail to understand it.

Please post the portion of the COLP Report that concludes WPS Jeapes wrote in her statement that she saw a rifle in the bedroom window.  What you will find if that the defence made such allegations not that COLP found such to be true.

If you go to Reply 1 of this topic you will see a number of photographs posted.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.0.html

There is a photo with the name whf9.jpg and in this photo you will see a small barn shed facing the kitchen side at the right hand corner. To the left of this barn shed is where WPS Jeapes was positioned.  She could not see the front of the house from this position.  She could only see the kitchen side of the house.  She saw the raid team enter because the kitchen door is clearly visible from this position.  Since the bedroom window was sealed off instead of two grey clad first floor windows there is only one.  Thus identifying a first floor window as grey clad isolates a single window, the boxroom window.

The police position in the front left corner of the house provides neither sight of the kitchen door nor of the boxroom window.  It only provides sight of the front of the house.  Police in that position stated could not see the raid team entering they only heard the breaking down of the door.  These police fail to list WPS Jeapes as being with them in this location.  All three first floor windows in the front of the house are clad in grey so trying to isolate a single window by referring to it as grey clad is a useless endeavour.  Taking everything as a whole there is no question that WPS Jeapes was claiming to be at the White side of the house looking at the boxroom window.

They never did identify the blood spots on the kitchen floor by the blue and white chequered worktop. I wonder what Sheila's handbag was doing in that area? Why did the table not crash in the struggle?

Some of those family photographs are heartbreaking..

[David1819]

They never did identify the blood spots on the kitchen floor by the blue and white chequered worktop. I wonder what Sheila's handbag was doing in that area? Why did the table not crash in the struggle?

I have wondered the same thing and mentioned this before, The location of the alleged struggle/beating is absent of any blood spatter, all you have is blood pooling under were Neville's head is resting

[lemonhead]

They never did identify the blood spots on the kitchen floor by the blue and white chequered worktop. I wonder what Sheila's handbag was doing in that area? Why did the table not crash in the struggle?

Some of those family photographs are heartbreaking..

Are you are referencing a myth?  No case documents indicate the police located blood on the floor near the worktop that contained the telephone.     

[mike tesko]

The rifle at the window whichever window that may be, could not have been on the body at the same time it was seen at the window in question. In order for the raid team member witness statements to be true when they first entered the farmhouse 'that' rifle was by then on Sheila's body, somebody still inside alive had to pick up the rifle, use it and it end up on Sheila's body after 7.15am, that person could not be Jeremy Bamber...