Found---handwritten suicide notes. Sheila's ?

[Steve_uk]

Science can rule people out

Just like Jeremy is ruled about by reasons mentioned above. The same applies to the police they are ruled out because Sheila's wounds are contact wounds and the ammunition used matches the rifle on her body and not the police weapons.

This leaves just one person left and that is herself.

It is what it always has appeared to be, but many people badly wanted it to be another story and for the last 31 years they have succeeded. 

David do you really think:

1) Nevill telephoned his son in the middle of the night to say there was an emergency at the Farm which necessitated his son's diplomatic skills?

2) The Police on duty at Chelmsford deliberately concealed a telephone call from Nevill, which would confirm their boss's initial supposition that Sheila was the killer?

3) Jeremy loved his parents, was blissfully happy with his status at the Farm and had the patience to wait another twenty years for his inheritance, half of which would be shared with a sister he despised?

4) Sheila in the state she was in writing the letters(thanks to Adam for this point) was truly capable of loading a magazine, firing a gun, reloading a magazine, not missing with any of the bullets and all the other paraphernalia involving firearms which I cannot begin to think about?

5) That the gasman on the Monday who witnessed a typical placid domestic scene and Sheila after skipping along with her sons on the Farm perimeter on the Tuesday really had malice in her heart towards them?

6) That Julie, James Richards, Susan Battersby and Liz Rimington ,all of whose anecdotes condemn Jeremy from the words of his own mouth all lied because they had some secret vendetta against this nondescript Walter Mittty-like character who thought then and still thinks to this day that he did everyone a favour by destroying five lives in three generations of one family?

[sami]

David do you really think:

1) Nevill telephoned his son in the middle of the night to say there was an emergency at the Farm which necessitated his son's diplomatic skills?

2) The Police on duty at Chelmsford deliberately concealed a telephone call from Nevill, which would confirm their boss's initial supposition that Sheila was the killer?

3) Jeremy loved his parents, was blissfully happy with his status at the Farm and had the patience to wait another twenty years for his inheritance, half of which would be shared with a sister he despised?

4) Sheila in the state she was in writing the letters(thanks to Adam for this point) was truly capable of loading a magazine, firing a gun, reloading a magazine, not missing with any of the bullets and all the other paraphernalia involving firearms which I cannot begin to think about?

5) That the gasman on the Monday who witnessed a typical placid domestic scene and Sheila after skipping along with her sons on the Farm perimeter on the Tuesday really had malice in her heart towards them?

6) That Julie, James Richards, Susan Battersby and Liz Rimington ,all of whose anecdotes condemn Jeremy from the words of his own mouth all lied because they had some secret vendetta against this nondescript Walter Mittty-like character who thought then and still thinks to this day that he did everyone a favour by destroying five lives in three generations of one family?

good points excellent post steve

[David1819]

David do you really think:

1) Nevill telephoned his son in the middle of the night to say there was an emergency at the Farm which necessitated his son's diplomatic skills?

2) The Police on duty at Chelmsford deliberately concealed a telephone call from Nevill, which would confirm their boss's initial supposition that Sheila was the killer?

3) Jeremy loved his parents, was blissfully happy with his status at the Farm and had the patience to wait another twenty years for his inheritance, half of which would be shared with a sister he despised?

4) Sheila in the state she was in writing the letters(thanks to Adam for this point) was truly capable of loading a magazine, firing a gun, reloading a magazine, not missing with any of the bullets and all the other paraphernalia involving firearms which I cannot begin to think about?

5) That the gasman on the Monday who witnessed a typical placid domestic scene and Sheila after skipping along with her sons on the Farm perimeter on the Tuesday really had malice in her heart towards them?

6) That Julie, James Richards, Susan Battersby and Liz Rimington ,all of whose anecdotes condemn Jeremy from the words of his own mouth all lied because they had some secret vendetta against this nondescript Walter Mittty-like character who thought then and still thinks to this day that he did everyone a favour by destroying five lives in three generations of one family?

All points you make except number two have to be true. as for number two I have already explained the possibilities

The idea of Neville ringing the police is not outrageous. Its either version A or version B

Version  A - If Neville didn't call the police, it would mean they accidently wrote down the logs to make it appear Neville rang them.

Version B - If Neville did ring the police, It would mean the operators received a call from a "Jeremy Bamber" and a "Mr Bamber", In the mist of confusion believed "Mr Bamber" and "Jeremy Bamber" were the same caller when in fact "Mr Bamber" was Neville Bamber. Since both callers would describe the same situation and in short time intervals it would be possible mistake for the operators to make, specially at that time of night.


Simple 

[David1819]

David do you really think:

1) Nevill telephoned his son in the middle of the night to say there was an emergency at the Farm which necessitated his son's diplomatic skills?

2) The Police on duty at Chelmsford deliberately concealed a telephone call from Nevill, which would confirm their boss's initial supposition that Sheila was the killer?

3) Jeremy loved his parents, was blissfully happy with his status at the Farm and had the patience to wait another twenty years for his inheritance, half of which would be shared with a sister he despised?

4) Sheila in the state she was in writing the letters(thanks to Adam for this point) was truly capable of loading a magazine, firing a gun, reloading a magazine, not missing with any of the bullets and all the other paraphernalia involving firearms which I cannot begin to think about?

5) That the gasman on the Monday who witnessed a typical placid domestic scene and Sheila after skipping along with her sons on the Farm perimeter on the Tuesday really had malice in her heart towards them?

6) That Julie, James Richards, Susan Battersby and Liz Rimington ,all of whose anecdotes condemn Jeremy from the words of his own mouth all lied because they had some secret vendetta against this nondescript Walter Mittty-like character who thought then and still thinks to this day that he did everyone a favour by destroying five lives in three generations of one family?

no3 does not need to be true either.

no6 has been proven even without evidence of JBs innocence

[Steve_uk]

no3 does not need to be true either.

no6 has been proven even without evidence of JBs innocence

It hasn't at all. All you have "proved" is that some of Julie's testimony was duplicated elsewhere, except that where it didn't match what was in the papers you've castigated her for that as well. You and your supporters just cannot bring yourselves to comprehend the kind of man we are dealing with here, which is why Jeremy was smiling to the female jurors almost thirty years ago as he stood in the dock with an air of overweening self-confidence at having committed the perfect crime, whilst Nevill, June, Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel lay silently in their graves waiting for somebody to speak up for them.

[David1819]

It hasn't at all. All you have "proved" is that some of Julie's testimony was duplicated elsewhere, except that where it didn't match what was in the papers you've castigated her for that as well. You and your supporters just cannot bring yourselves to comprehend the kind of man we are dealing with here, which is why Jeremy was smiling to the female jurors almost thirty years ago as he stood in the dock with an air of overweening self-confidence at having committed the perfect crime, whilst Nevill, June, Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel lay silently in their graves waiting for somebody to speak up for them.

I find it odd that you refuse to challenge the forensics that exonerate the man. Then bring up minor extracts that have not only already been deemed unreliable but that in the end they prove little or nothing at all. Then you put forward a version of events that contradicts the forensics evidence you give no answer for. Then in the final bid to convince me you make an appeal to emotion. (A Logical Fallacy)

[Steve_uk]

I find it odd that you refuse to challenge the forensics that exonerate the man. Then bring up minor extracts that have not only already been deemed unreliable but that in the end they prove little or nothing at all. Then you put forward a version of events that contradicts the forensics evidence you give no answer for. Then in the final bid to convince me you make an appeal to emotion. (A Logical Fallacy)

But there is no forensic evidence which exonerates Jeremy. I don't recall any forensic evidence discussed in the 2002 appeal which had any credibility whatsoever. Far more to the point is the remoteness of Sheila ever having fired a gun and the pathetic story Jeremy spun that first morning at Goldhanger, which I advise you to reread and count the tissue of lies as you go along.

[David1819]

But there is no forensic evidence which exonerates Jeremy. I don't recall any forensic evidence discussed in the 2002 appeal which had any credibility whatsoever. Far more to the point is the remoteness of Sheila ever having fired a gun and the pathetic story Jeremy spun that first morning at Goldhanger, which I advise you to reread and count the tissue of lies as you go along.

How about you read what I posted earlier today

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7866.msg374113.html#msg374113

And read it carefully and thoroughly


To be honest Steve I would much rather Jeremy be guilty, as he spent 30 years in Jail and him being innocent only compounds the tragedy, however following the evidence impartially I find his guilt is actually impossible.

You have put too much emotional investment in the idea of Sheila being a victim, So I find debating the facts with you rather difficult and rather pointless TBH. 

[Steve_uk]

How about you read what I posted earlier today

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7866.msg374113.html#msg374113

And read it carefully and thoroughly


To be honest Steve I would much rather Jeremy be guilty, as he spent 30 years in Jail and him being innocent only compounds the tragedy, however following the evidence impartially I find his guilt is actually impossible.

You have put too much emotional investment in the idea of Sheila being a victim, So I find debating the facts with you rather difficult and rather pointless TBH. 

I am not going to tit for tat with you as I am not on my first year's teaching practice. I see from an article here that livor mortis can be delayed by up to sixteen hours:

Lividity is a dark purple discoloration of the skin resulting from the gravitational pooling of blood in the veins and capillary beds of the dependent parts of the corpse. Synonyms include livor mortis, hypostasis, postmortem lividity, and, in the older literature, postmortem suggillations. Lividity is present in all corpses, although it may be inconspicuous in some. The med-icolegal importance of lividity lies in its color, as an indicator of cause of death, and in its distribution, as an indicator of body position. The development of livor is too variable to serve as a useful indicator ofthe postmortem interval, but the tradition of evaluating it remains entrenched in forensic practice.

Most authorities agree that lividity attains its maximum intensity, on average, at around 12 h postmortem, but there is some variation in descriptions of when it first appears, and when it is well developed, i.e. confluent. Hypostasis begins to form immediately after death, but it may not be visible for some time. Ordinarily its earliest appearance, as dull red patches, is 20-30 min after death, but this may be delayed for up to 2, or rarely 3 h. The patches of livor then deepen, increase in intensity, and become confluent within 14 h postmortem, to reach a maximum extent and intensity within about 6-10 h, but sometimes as early as 3 h or as late as 16 h. Faint lividity may appear shortly before death in individuals with terminal circulatory failure. Conversely, the development of lividity may be delayed in persons with chronic anemia or massive terminal hemorrhage.

[lookout]

Livor as well as rigor can also be accelerated due to a person's activity prior to death. Such as Sheila running around,up and down stairs as adrenaline increases which has a reaction in the blood,so even if a timescale had been given to her death,it could have been later than the approximation.

[Caroline]

I am not going to tit for tat with you as I am not on my first year's teaching practice. I see from an article here that livor mortis can be delayed by up to sixteen hours:

Lividity is a dark purple discoloration of the skin resulting from the gravitational pooling of blood in the veins and capillary beds of the dependent parts of the corpse. Synonyms include livor mortis, hypostasis, postmortem lividity, and, in the older literature, postmortem suggillations. Lividity is present in all corpses, although it may be inconspicuous in some. The med-icolegal importance of lividity lies in its color, as an indicator of cause of death, and in its distribution, as an indicator of body position. The development of livor is too variable to serve as a useful indicator ofthe postmortem interval, but the tradition of evaluating it remains entrenched in forensic practice.

Most authorities agree that lividity attains its maximum intensity, on average, at around 12 h postmortem, but there is some variation in descriptions of when it first appears, and when it is well developed, i.e. confluent. Hypostasis begins to form immediately after death, but it may not be visible for some time. Ordinarily its earliest appearance, as dull red patches, is 20-30 min after death, but this may be delayed for up to 2, or rarely 3 h. The patches of livor then deepen, increase in intensity, and become confluent within 14 h postmortem, to reach a maximum extent and intensity within about 6-10 h, but sometimes as early as 3 h or as late as 16 h. Faint lividity may appear shortly before death in individuals with terminal circulatory failure. Conversely, the development of lividity may be delayed in persons with chronic anemia or massive terminal hemorrhage.

Excellent post Steve

[lookout]

Steve has always written excellent posts.

[David1819]

I am not going to tit for tat with you as I am not on my first year's teaching practice. I see from an article here that livor mortis can be delayed by up to sixteen hours:

Lividity is a dark purple discoloration of the skin resulting from the gravitational pooling of blood in the veins and capillary beds of the dependent parts of the corpse. Synonyms include livor mortis, hypostasis, postmortem lividity, and, in the older literature, postmortem suggillations. Lividity is present in all corpses, although it may be inconspicuous in some. The med-icolegal importance of lividity lies in its color, as an indicator of cause of death, and in its distribution, as an indicator of body position. The development of livor is too variable to serve as a useful indicator ofthe postmortem interval, but the tradition of evaluating it remains entrenched in forensic practice.

Most authorities agree that lividity attains its maximum intensity, on average, at around 12 h postmortem, but there is some variation in descriptions of when it first appears, and when it is well developed, i.e. confluent. Hypostasis begins to form immediately after death, but it may not be visible for some time. Ordinarily its earliest appearance, as dull red patches, is 20-30 min after death, but this may be delayed for up to 2, or rarely 3 h. The patches of livor then deepen, increase in intensity, and become confluent within 14 h postmortem, to reach a maximum extent and intensity within about 6-10 h, but sometimes as early as 3 h or as late as 16 h. Faint lividity may appear shortly before death in individuals with terminal circulatory failure. Conversely, the development of lividity may be delayed in persons with chronic anemia or massive terminal hemorrhage.

You seem to be forgetting that the reasons for it being delayed in rare circumstances do not apply to Shelia. She is not a child she is not elderly nor does she have chronic anemia. Caroline tried using these excuses, then when it became apparent to her that Sheila fits none of the criteria, She now refuses to answer the question. Because if she gives the only valid answer she will have to admit Jeremy is innocent.

[lookout]

Scientifically it's obvious that L&R is quicker in someone who's been more active because of their overall circulation and health of the blood. As in Sheila having been a physically fit person,naturally any sign/s of either would be visible in quite a shorter space of time than that of someone who'd have been bedridden or inactive.
Veins,arteries and capillaries would have been clear of clots/plaque and other debris which tend to hold back the natural flow of blood settling to its lowest point.

It's a bit like " treading on a hosepipe " which interrupts the normal flow of water. The same applies to how blood reacts during free-flow or a medical condition which halts the natural flow so it's bound to take longer at the L&R stage.
I'll stick to the original notes that Sheila had only been dead a couple of hours,if that, before the team broke in

[Jan]

Is it really impossible for us to have understanding  for where each "side " is coming from ?

Is it not obvious that people are posting what they believe? Its so obvious that no one would defend a child killer unless they genuinely felt there had been a miscarriage of justice and on the opposite side posters of course feel that defending him is wrong because they think he is guilty.

Also Our impressions of his personality are just that -I have been speaking to someone who knew him who said that he was a polite well mannered young man and not a womaniser at all .

So try and stick to the facts - of which there are few and far between and have a bit of mutual respect.