Reason to believe cops shot Sheila, and how her blood ended up inside Silencer!

[lookout]

Sheila HAD been known for "kicking off" in the times prior to her being on medication. Is there evidence that she was phoning Nevill "at all hours for someone to talk to" after discharging herself from hospital in March 1985?

Many " earlier " posts,circa 2011/13, mention the phone-calls between Sheila and her father-----Tyler for instance who was a well-versed,well-informed member had mentioned it among many other things to jog the memory,so her information was reliable to my mind.

[Jane]

Many " earlier " posts,circa 2011/13, mention the phone-calls between Sheila and her father-----Tyler for instance who was a well-versed,well-informed member had mentioned it among many other things to jog the memory,so her information was reliable to my mind.

Indeed they do, and not for a moment would I suggest that Tyler wasn't "well-versed, well informed" BUT  did ANY of her posts say that these calls occurred AFTER she came out of St Andrew's in March 1985, or are you just assuming that they did? Even reliable information can be misinterpreted.

[David1819]

You're right, I don't have any evidence because I am an individual writing on a forum and not pretending to be the worlds greatest detective. The evidence is already there, gathered by others. I do however have an opinion, an opinion just like you but you're deluded enough to think your opinion is evidence - it's not - it's your OPINION. You're deluded enough to try and rid the forum of people who don't rate you - Scipio being one of them. Did you actually answer my question about which mod gave you IP info?

Mike's drawings are better because they actually show something, yours are just you trying to look as though you have some kind of professional ability but you actually got the idea from Mike and Myster - copying again! 

[lookout]

Indeed they do, and not for a moment would I suggest that Tyler wasn't "well-versed, well informed" BUT  did ANY of her posts say that these calls occurred AFTER she came out of St Andrew's in March 1985, or are you just assuming that they did? Even reliable information can be misinterpreted.

In the thread dated 2013," Truth of the night before ",tyler had written a post about the phone-calls between Sheila and her father occurring,and being that it seemed to have been a recognised thing,nobody disputed it. I would have said it had been the same year of the tragedies during when Sheila had been discharged from the hospital,since her condition had deteriorated.

[buddy]

The silencer should never have been used as evidence. It had been handled by too many people .
Strange that "Sheila's" blood was recovered from the baffle number five, but nothing on 1 2 3 4 6.
Two fingerprints found on rifle one Jeremy, expected one from Sheila, expected.
It is so obvious that the rifle had been wiped by the police, because of multiple handling by EP.
Sheila was not in the kitchen. Nevill was mistaken for a female.
Cops had it right the first time murder/suicide.

[David1819]

The silencer should never have been used as evidence. It had been handled by too many people .
Strange that "Sheila's" blood was recovered from the baffle number five, but nothing on 1 2 3 4 6.
Two fingerprints found on rifle one Jeremy, expected one from Sheila, expected.
It is so obvious that the rifle had been wiped by the police, because of multiple handling by EP.
Sheila was not in the kitchen. Nevill was mistaken for a female.
Cops had it right the first time murder/suicide.

"The early common law position in relation to the admissibility of evidence highlighted the relevance of the evidence rather than how it was obtained. In R v Leatham (1861)[1 ] we find the statement of Crompton J., "It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible". Whilst this view was not wholeheartedly supported by the judiciary, over a hundred years on; in R v Sang [1980][2 ],it was stated that there was "no discretion to refuse to admit relevant admissible evidence on the ground that it was obtained by improper or unfair means. The court is not concerned with how it was obtained". "

[buddy]

"The early common law position in relation to the admissibility of evidence highlighted the relevance of the evidence rather than how it was obtained. In R v Leatham (1861)[1 ] we find the statement of Crompton J., "It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible". Whilst this view was not wholeheartedly supported by the judiciary, over a hundred years on; in R v Sang [1980][2 ],it was stated that there was "no discretion to refuse to admit relevant admissible evidence on the ground that it was obtained by improper or unfair means. The court is not concerned with how it was obtained". "

Yes, but this was not improper, or unfair. It was contaminated.

[David1819]

It did happen, Sheila couldn't have shot herself twice with the use of the same gun, her body couldn't be downstairs between 7.35am and 8.10am, supposedly dead in kitchen after only being shot once by a rifle resting against a first floor box room window, and also be with Sheila's body on the main bedroom floor at one and the same time later on, if Jeremy was the killer! Jeremy Bamber was not the killer of his sister he couldn't have shot her twice and staged her death scene sporting two bullet holes in her neck after 8.10am, since by that stage there were only three bodies upstairs! As soon as Sheila arrived upstairs that total changed to four! At the same time where there had been two bodies in the kitchen upon entry, after 8.10am, there was then only one body!

If Sheila was seen downstairs she was unharmed and mistaken for dead. Or it was an error in communication. I believe its the latter.

[Jane]

In the thread dated 2013," Truth of the night before ",tyler had written a post about the phone-calls between Sheila and her father occurring,and being that it seemed to have been a recognised thing,nobody disputed it. I would have said it had been the same year of the tragedies during when Sheila had been discharged from the hospital,since her condition had deteriorated.

Absolutely. Jeremy spoke, in a WS, of these "all night calls" to Nevill, but it was prior to her first admission to hospital, in 1983. He makes no mention of such occurrences after her 1985 release. Although I'm sure you'd like to believe they were still happening, there doesn't appear to be any evidence of it.

[David1819]

Yes, but this was not improper, or unfair. It was contaminated.

The problem is the defence strategy.

[lookout]

What else was there in which to convict ?
Convoluted tales/lies from JM ?
Contaminated silencer ?

[buddy]

The silencer was picked up by an officer who was pissed [much to PE disgust] put in a kitchen roll holder. not a evidence bag, a hair disappeared which I doubt, and sent to the lab days later.
It is telling that PE admitted that he tried to dismantle the silencer. Why. PE repaired guns but couldn't do it. Perhaps he DID manage to do it.

[buddy]

The problem is the defence strategy.

Yes I agree, his defence was crap.

[buddy]

Jeremy Bamber was guilty of being a big headed spoilt brat, but nothing more.

[susan]

Jeremy Bamber was guilty of being a big headed spoilt brat, but nothing more.

Hello Buddy I agree with you on all those points I also think he was immature and did not live in the real world.