The rifle in the window.

[mike tesko]

Being around guns doesn't mean enough proficiency to kill 4 people and commit suicide.

He didn't have to lie. There was some truth in what he said. How much was truth? How much was stretched?

The police had no other frame of reference other than that given them by Jeremy. The had no comparisons.

She did not kill the other four victims proficiently, Neville Bamber had to be shot 7 times, June Bamber had to be shot 7 times! She shot one of her son's (Daniel) 5 times in the head, and her other son (Nicholas) 3 times in the headv- how can this be described as being a proficient way to kill four people?

What your suggesting beggars belief, and in no way can be true!

These four victims died as a result of 'overkill', not because anybody was proficient in using a gun!

As for the police having no their frame of reference, their might be an element of truth in this, because it's not every day that such a huge catelogs of errors are made during the same operation, and some of the most experienced senior officers in the force are there when these mistakes are made! It's little wonder they I stated the cover up on such a huge scale when the reputations and futures of these big wigs was being out on the link Jeremy Bamber did not shoot his sister with a cop gun in the kitchen, a cop did - there exists an officers report confirming this shooting incident in the kitchen upon entry there by the cop who shot her (reference 1612)! Find the report, read it's contents, and then you'll see that Sheila was alive and unwounded by the time cops set off to enter the farmhouse! Also, cops only set off to enter the farmhouse after Sheila was coaxed into presenting the anshuzt rifle she had been using at a first floor box room window! Her placing that rifle there was the green light for the firearm officers to go in and bring the seige to an end!

[Jane]

She did not kill the other four victims proficiently, Neville Bamber had to be shot 7 times, June Bamber had to be shot 7 times! She shot one of her son's (Daniel) 5 times in the head, and her other son (Nicholas) 3 times in the headv- how can this be described as being a proficient way to kill four people?

What your suggesting beggars belief, and in no way can be true!

These four victims died as a result of 'overkill', not because anybody was proficient in using a gun!

As for the police having no their frame of reference, their might be an element of truth in this, because it's not every day that such a huge catelogs of errors are made during the same operation, and some of the most experienced senior officers in the force are there when these mistakes are made! It's little wonder they I stated the cover up on such a huge scale when the reputations and futures of these big wigs was being out on the link Jeremy Bamber did not shoot his sister with a cop gun in the kitchen, a cop did - there exists an officers report confirming this shooting incident in the kitchen upon entry there by the cop who shot her (reference 1612)! Find the report, read it's contents, and then you'll see that Sheila was alive and unwounded by the time cops set off to enter the farmhouse! Also, cops only set off to enter the farmhouse after Sheila was coaxed into presenting the anshuzt rifle she had been using at a first floor box room window! Her placing that rifle there was the green light for the firearm officers to go in and bring the seige to an end!

So Jeremy was clever enough to know that someone with no experience of guns/shooting would never manage a clean kill 4 times.

[mike tesko]

If you'd said it was rubbish for any other reason, I MIGHT have accepted it. I know dyslexic people who have degrees. Dyslexic means neither dumb nor thick. I means word blind. Jeremy didn't have to write down anything for the police OTHER than the diagram of the house and that didn't suggest dyslexia. He didn't have to use 'mind skills' -just as well as you imply he didn't have any- he was as fluent with words as I imagine you are.

No, he wasn't, although he is now as a result of all the educational training he has received whilst being incarcerated during the past 32 years! He was a thick bastard in the mid to late 1980's like many of us who arrived at HMP Full Sutton when it first opened! Many of us in there during the first two years after it opened were thick as planks, most could not read and write, hence why many resorted to violence in the crimes they committed! Don-t try to educate me about what Bamber, others and myself were like back then in the mid to late 1980's, we were all regarded as incorrigible criminals who could never be rehabilitated! But do you know what many of us got educated there, the staff treated us with respect, almost everybody ended up taking university courses! We learnt how to think, how to talk, how to read, how to write, and now we are all different, at least I'd like to think we are! There is no wayJeremy Bamber could have controlled the minds of the police at the scene, or there afterwards, the cops themselves were and are responsible for all the wrong doings they themselves got up to in his prosecution! Today, Jeremy is very well educated, he has great skills in communication, he thinks logically, He can write well, he is not afraid to speak out when an injustice occurs or has occurred!

[Jane]

No, he wasn't, although he is now as a result of all the educational training he has received whilst being incarcerated during the past 32 years! He was a thick bastard in the mid to late 1980's like many of us who arrived at HMP Full Sutton when it first opened! Many of us in there during the first two years after it opened were thick as planks, most could not read and write, hence why many resorted to violence in the crimes they committed! Don-t try to educate me about what Bamber, others and myself were like back then in the mid to late 1980's, we were all regarded as incorrigible criminals who could never be rehabilitated! But do you know what many of us got educated there, the staff treated us with respect, almost everybody ended up taking university courses! We learnt how to think, how to talk, how to read, how to write, and now we are all different, at least I'd like to think we are! There is no wayJeremy Bamber could have controlled the minds of the police at the scene, or there afterwards, the cops themselves were and are responsible for all the wrong doings they themselves got up to in his prosecution! Today, Jeremy is very well educated, he has great skills in communication, he thinks logically, He can write well, he is not afraid to speak out when an injustice occurs or has occurred!

I might have believed that had the moron you present him as being back then hadn't managed to get himself out to OZ, not once, but twice, and seems to have had little problem. There don't seem to be any stories of how he was conned or scammed during these jaunts. Despite how you present him, Jeremy had no problems with talking the talk or walking the walk. There appears to be no evidence forthcoming, from his teachers and/or fellow students, that he was in any way having difficulties with his written work. I do appreciate, though, that he'd probably have found himself entirely out of his depth in prison. He probably was bright enough to leave it to those who knew the ropes before he put his head above the parapet.

[lookout]

He certainly knows now not to take people at face value.

[Jane]

He certainly knows now not to take people at face value.

Perhaps it's because he knows that he can't be, either.

[lookout]

Perhaps it's because he knows that he can't be, either.

We'll see,eh ?

[Jane]

We'll see,eh ?

We've all been waiting 30+ years. I guess another 30 and many of us will be gone. Jeremy will be in his 80's.

[Jan]

So Jeremy was clever enough to know that someone with no experience of guns/shooting would never manage a clean kill 4 times.

But stupid enough to put the silencer away with blood on it?

And stupid enough to tell his girlfriend ?,

And stupid enough not to act "correctly " after the funeral.


So is he clever or stupid?

[Jane]

But stupid enough to put the silencer away with blood on it?

And stupid enough to tell his girlfriend ?,

And stupid enough not to act "correctly " after the funeral.


So is he clever or stupid?

But you have the luxury of hindsight.

He MAY have thought he'd removed all traces of blood from it.

Was it stupid to tell Julie, OR did he assume her a willing accomplice? Did he ASK?

By the funeral, I suspect, with the amount of tranquillisers and alcohol he'd allegedly taken, PLUS a feeling that he was home and dry, his guard would have come down.

[Jan]

But you have the luxury of hindsight.

He MAY have thought he'd removed all traces of blood from it.

Was it stupid to tell Julie, OR did he assume her a willing accomplice? Did he ASK?

By the funeral, I suspect, with the amount of tranquillisers and alcohol he'd allegedly taken, PLUS a feeling that he was home and dry, his guard would have come down.

And your points are assumption .

[Jan]

Back to the rifle in the window . Any idea what the object on the wall to the right of the window is ?

And mike is the only one to make any suggestions about why there is a difference on what is on the chair in the photos

[Adam]

Dosadvantages in Julie single handedly tryiing to frame an innocent Bamber:

There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.

She was 20 & had never attempted anything like this.

She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.

Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.

To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?

Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?

There was no financial reward in approaching the police.

It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.

She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.

Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.

She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.

It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.

She may quickly wilt under pressure.  This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?

It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.

It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.

It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.

An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.

It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.

She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.

It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.

She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?

She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.

She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.

Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.

If an unsuccessful police approach  became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.

[Jan]

Back to the rifle in the window . Any idea what the object on the wall to the right of the window is ?

And mike is the only one to make any suggestions about why there is a difference on what is on the chair in the photos

Any ideas on the objective of the thread . .

[Jane]

And your points are assumption .

you asked a question -if and why he may have done certain things- I answered it.