the most likely scenario as i see it

[lookout]

Mike, how do believe Sheila committed the massacre ?

By shooting them all dead ??

[guest7363]

One thing which is 100% certain is that Jeremy Bamber was not present inside the farmhouse when any members of his family got shot, or killed...

He did not shoot his father or his mother, and he did not shoot or kill the two children...

The cops know with 100% accuracy that Sheila, had an accomplice to help her to overpower, subdue, manipulate, shoot and kill the others. The hunched man seen leaving the grounds of whf at just before 5am walked off in the general direction of Prentice farm. He was spotted by PC Myall, the facts detailing this are basically recorded in a police document which was entitled, ' MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT', and reference to the identity of this 'unknown male person' is the first entry, numbered 001 in that document. We know that this man was seen by PC Myall and quite possibly by PS Bews, originally upon arrival at the scene before Jeremy's astra arrived in pages lane with Jeremy inside it. That police saw this hunched man walking into the driveway of the farmhouse from the location where pages lane and the farm entrance commences. As the cops pulled up opposite the farm cottages in their patrol car, the cops got a very brief glimpse of the hunched man retreating into the driveway of the farmhouse. Minutes later, after Jeremy turned up in his car, and Myall, Bews and Jeremy went into the grounds of the farmhouse, Myall was convinced that figure seen at the upstairs window was the same hunched man they had seen outside some 15 minutes or so earlier. This fact caucaused Myall, Bews and Jeremy, to hurry back to the patrol car (CA07) that was parked up in pages lane, where PS Bews then passed a 'situation report' to the control room making mention of the aforementioned sightings, adding a request for the firearm team to be deployed because of the possibility that the incident could by now have escalated into a siege situation. Once this was done, Bews and Myall returned to the grounds of the farmhouse, leaving Jeremy at the patrol car parked in Pages lane in the company of PS Saxby. Between then, and the arrival of PS Adams and his firearm crew arrived (5am), the only other thing worthy of note, what was seen and reported on, was the fact that Myall saw the hunched man walking out of the grounds of the farmhouse in the general direction of Prentice Farm...

This is all true...

At one stage or other during the later investigation into these shootings, cops have tried relentlessly to identify the hunched man, so that he can be eliminated from police enquiries, or provide them with information about what might have happened, or gone wrong inside the farmhouse before police arrived? At one time, or another, cops suspected the hunched man might have been, Freddie Emani, Mathew McDonald, and one of two local farmers, cops knew had been in dispute with Ralph Neville Bamber in the not too distant past. Additionally, cops turned their attention to a list of Campers who had been renting a field nearby at the time of the shootings...

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4535
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1091.msg33705.html#msg33705
Not once in his statements does Bamber ever mention seeing something as important as, he saw a figure at the window.  Even when he is told all his family are dead does he ever mention WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FIGURE WE SEEN AT THE WINDOW?
Not once at court does Jeremy or his legal team use this evidence at trial.  This is one of the most important things to show someone was alive in the house while Jeremy was outside. 

[Stephanie]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4535
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1091.msg33705.html#msg33705
Not once in his statements does Bamber ever mention seeing something as important as, he saw a figure at the window.  Even when he is told all his family are dead does he ever mention WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FIGURE WE SEEN AT THE WINDOW?
Not once at court does Jeremy or his legal team use this evidence at trial.  This is one of the most important things to show someone was alive in the house while Jeremy was outside.

And the fact that he has, decades later I might add, now introduced this alleged piece of 'key' evidence, we are expected to make excuses for why he failed to mention this during his trial. And there are still people suggesting that there are no similarities in Bambers case and the SH case? Of course there are but it appears easier for some people to dismiss this crucial fact.

Bambers accounts should remain the same. They haven't! Why is that I wonder 

[guest7363]

And the fact that he has, decades later I might add, now introduced this alleged piece of 'key' evidence, we are expected to make excuses for why he failed to mention this during his trial. And there are still people suggesting that there are no similarities in Bambers case and the SH case? Of course there are but it appears easier for some people to dismiss this crucial fact.

Bambers accounts should remain the same. They haven't! Why is that I wonder 

Why would they have made a decision for armed back up (after 9 mins) if they had seen someone at the window?  That could have been Ralph as far as they know checking to see what the dogs were barking at? The conversation would have been "hang on a minute there is someone at the window", "everything looks ok at this moment lets get their attention". 

[Stephanie]

Why would they have made a decision for armed back up (after 9 mins) if they had seen someone at the window?  That could have been Ralph as far as they know checking to see what the dogs were barking at? The conversation would have been hang on a minute there is someone at the window, everything looks ok at this moment lets get their attention.

Good point Justice. Seems Bambers charm worked a treat.

[nugnug]

i think shiela doing it is probely the most likely scenrio but then agian the most likely scenrio isnt allways the correct one.

[Adam]

By shooting them all dead ??

Thank you Mike.

Do you think Neville rang the police and Jeremy before or after Sheila started shooting ?

If it was before and Sheila had the rifle but was not shooting it,  I wonder what Neville meant by ' gone crazy and got the gun'.

[mike tesko]

I think they were probably killed first, shocking as it is to contemplate that evil visitant creeping into this room to practise whether the rifle was in working order.

If twins were killed first, then first 8 rounds were expended, leaving only two or three other rounds available for immediate use thereafter, providing (a) the ammunition magazine was full, at the outset without an additional round already in the breech, or (b) the ammunition magazine was full, with an additional round in the breech...

[mike tesko]

If twins were killed first, then first 8 rounds were expended, leaving only two or three other rounds available for immediate use thereafter, providing (a) the ammunition magazine was full, at the outset without an additional round already in the breech, or (b) the ammunition magazine was full, with an additional round in the breech...

I take the view, having had the benefit of reading all of Jeremy's witness statements, and interview notes, and having regard to what police at the scene say Jeremy told them about how he loaded the rifle, and disengaged the ammunition magazine, and removal of the bullet in the breech, as well as having had the benefit of personally discussing this issue with Jeremy on multiple occasions face to face, questioned him through the format of letter writing, and spoken conversation during telephone calls,  that there was 7 rounds inside the ammunition magazine when Jeremy disengaged it, plus the round he took from the breech and added to the magazine. He then placed the rifle, together with its disengaged magazine on a wooden settle  next to the kitchen door in the back hallway...

I am satisfied that the person responsible for using the rifle with the reattached ammunition magazine fired those 8 rounds in one sequence...

I know with 100% certainty, that Jeremy Bamber was not present inside the farmhouse when any of the shootings began, were being undertaken, or concluded. I am also sure, that nobody reloaded that rifle with any further bullets. I believe that Sheila had an accomplice, or as many as two accomplice's, who helped her dispose of her parents and her two children. I also know that when police entered the farmhouse, that Sheila was still very much alive..

[guest7363]

Makes you wonder why, when Bamber was just outside in one of the farm buildings with PC DERMOTT at just after 5.00am, he never mentioned seeing a figure at the window,  this figure not holding a rifle and staring into the garden. All he said to him was (well after telling him that Sheila was a paranoid Shcizophrenic) it made him feel terrible seeing all these police with guns and he couldn't help knowing what they would find in the house?  Makes you wonder if he knew?   Then he blamed the police for killing his family.

[mike tesko]

And the fact that he has, decades later I might add, now introduced this alleged piece of 'key' evidence, we are expected to make excuses for why he failed to mention this during his trial. And there are still people suggesting that there are no similarities in Bambers case and the SH case? Of course there are but it appears easier for some people to dismiss this crucial fact.

Bambers accounts should remain the same. They haven't! Why is that I wonder 

Let's put things into a proper petspective. A defendant cannot say whatever he wants to say during his own trial. He can only answer questions that are put to him by defence counsel, prosecution counsel, or the trial judge. When you are on trial you cannot say whatever you have got on your mind, or in your mind, so that puts that idea to bed. Just to correct everybody, it has always been Jeremy's case that they saw someone at the bedroom window. It is not accurate to say that he failed to mention this sighting in any of his witness statements. Since, in the hand written version of his witness statement Jeremy did make mention of the aforementioned sighting, it was not repeated in the typed version. In other words, the cops, and CPS edited that part out. Something they do on a regular basis. So people should not jump the gun declaring they know everything, when they don't...

[guest7363]

Let's put things into a proper petspective. A defendant cannot say whatever he wants to say during his own trial. He can only answer questions that are put to him by defence counsel, prosecution counsel, or the trial judge. When you are on trial you cannot say whatever you have got on your mind, or in your mind, so that puts that idea to bed. Just to correct everybody, it has always been Jeremy's case that they saw someone at the bedroom window. It is not accurate to say that he failed to mention this sighting in any of his witness statements. Since, in the hand written version of his witness statement Jeremy did make mention of the aforementioned sighting, it was not repeated in the typed version. In other words, the cops, and CPS edited that part out. Something they do on a regular basis. So people should not jump the gun declaring they know everything, when they don't...

Pretty sure they talk to each other at break time?

If you leave out important information it could affect your ‘credibility’ (whether the court believes that you are a truthful person). The court needs to know the whole story.

[David1819]

Pretty sure they talk to each other at break time?

If you leave out important information it could affect your ‘credibility’ (whether the court believes that you are a truthful person). The court needs to know the whole story.

In hindsight Jeremy's defence could have done things very differently. One observation I find interesting is that Jeremy takes the advice of his defence council to instruct his QC to agree that the silencer was attached during the killings at some point. Had Jeremy committed the crime with the silencer and put it away I cannot imagine why on earth he would make that decision. 

[mike tesko]

Pretty sure they talk to each other at break time?

If you leave out important information it could affect your ‘credibility’ (whether the court believes that you are a truthful person). The court needs to know the whole story.

You know, not everything is clear cut when your in the 'shoes of a defendant'. Sometimes, the person representing your interests in court will advise you that the 'best way forward', or your best chance of getting found 'not guilty', is by doing this, ignoring that. In Jeremy's case, his counsel, and those representing him advised him that the best way forward was to accept that the silencer was fitted at some stage in the proceedings, but 'not when Sheila was shot and killed'...

It's very easy for 'anyone here' to say with the 'benefit of hindsight', that he shouldn't have done this, or that, but in the 'cold light of day', Jeremy acted on the advice given to him, and it did not work...

[mike tesko]

You know, not everything is clear cut when your in the 'shoes of a defendant'. Sometimes, the person representing your interests in court will advise you that the 'best way forward', or your best chance of getting found 'not guilty', is by doing this, ignoring that. In Jeremy's case, his counsel, and those representing him advised him that the best way forward was to accept that the silencer was fitted at some stage in the proceedings, but 'not when Sheila was shot and killed'...

It's very easy for 'anyone here' to say with the 'benefit of hindsight', that he shouldn't have done this, or that, but in the 'cold light of day', Jeremy acted on the advice given to him, and it did not work...

From the benefit of my experience in matters like this, just because 'it went wrong' does not necessarily mean that Jeremy Bamber 'had killed anyone'...