Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Jan on January 23, 2020, 07:16:PM
-
From those of you here who are sure jeremy is guilty I would be interested to hear about motive . Although I understand this is hypothetical it is important as it is taken into account in murder cases .
We can not deny as the murderer he planned meticulously. It was a very detailed and long planned crime and he must have covered all eventualities so he can’t be accused of being stupid .he managed very nearly to allegedly get away with one of the worst crime ever .
So was his motive money and or hate ?
Or was he a psychopath
If the first was his motive why would he risk sharing his plan with Julie . In his plan what did he think would prevent her telling anyone ? Because obviously he must have planned for that eventuality? He planned to destroy forensic evidence so it’s obvious he must have planned to keep her quiet?
Why would you risk losing the one thing you wanted most , to be rich and free by telling another ?
Or do you believe she was actually his partner in crime and in line for a share of the proceeds ? Hence he thought she would never tell ?
Or did he have no motive and in fact was just totally mad and did not care about being caught ?
-
if he was guilty then the motive would cleary be money
-
But if caught he'd KNOW he'd relinquish what he set out for so this is why he had no part in it.
-
Motive was money, hatred and resentment.
Was another inheritance killer who thought he could get away with it.
-
From those of you here who are sure jeremy is guilty I would be interested to hear about motive . Although I understand this is hypothetical it is important as it is taken into account in murder cases .
We can not deny as the murderer he planned meticulously. It was a very detailed and long planned crime and he must have covered all eventualities so he can’t be accused of being stupid .he managed very nearly to allegedly get away with one of the worst crime ever .
So was his motive money and or hate ?
Or was he a psychopath
If the first was his motive why would he risk sharing his plan with Julie . In his plan what did he think would prevent her telling anyone ? Because obviously he must have planned for that eventuality? He planned to destroy forensic evidence so it’s obvious he must have planned to keep her quiet?
Why would you risk losing the one thing you wanted most , to be rich and free by telling another ?
Or do you believe she was actually his partner in crime and in line for a share of the proceeds ? Hence he thought she would never tell ?
Or did he have no motive and in fact was just totally mad and did not care about being caught ?
A psychopath driven by money and hate.
He didn't tell Julie the truth, he told her a story that could be disproven but he's not the only person to have involved someone else. Ian Bradey and Myra Hindley killed their last victim in front of her brother in law which is how they were caught.
I'm not a psychopath and wouldn't plan to kill my family.
-
He’s not a psychopath
Fact
-
don’t think he would have told julie anything and as he did i don’t think he would have dumped her. that’s the big red herring for me. why would he dump her know that she could and probably would tell police. but having said all that i find it difficult to understand how julie would be capable of sending jb to prison for the rest of uk his life and i think she didn’t realise the implications of what she was doing.
-
He’s not a psychopath
Fact
I don't agree
FACT!
-
don’t think he would have told julie anything and as he did i don’t think he would have dumped her. that’s the big red herring for me. why would he dump her know that she could and probably would tell police. but having said all that i find it difficult to understand how julie would be capable of sending jb to prison for the rest of uk his life and i think she didn’t realise the implications of what she was doing.
So he would have stayed with her forever?
-
I don't agree
FACT!
Your not an expert and your not in any position to judge
Fact
-
well at least until she was in so deep she didn’t have a choice
-
Motive was money, hatred and resentment.
Was another inheritance killer who thought he could get away with it.
So why risk the end goal by telling Julie ?
Or do you think she was actually a partner in crime ?
-
A psychopath driven by money and hate.
He didn't tell Julie the truth, he told her a story that could be disproven but he's not the only person to have involved someone else. Ian Bradey and Myra Hindley killed their last victim in front of her brother in law which is how they were caught.
I'm not a psychopath and wouldn't plan to kill my family.
But medically he is not a psychopath is he ? He passed all the tests ?
Why tell Julie anything at all ?
-
A psychopath driven by money and hate.
He didn't tell Julie the truth, he told her a story that could be disproven but he's not the only person to have involved someone else. Ian Bradey and Myra Hindley killed their last victim in front of her brother in law which is how they were caught.
I'm not a psychopath and wouldn't plan to kill my family.
Yes but there end game was the thrill not financial gain . Why do it to be rich and then risk it ?
-
He did not do it because he was stupid , because he must have been very clever to direct the whole police operation as he did for a start
-
Your not an expert and your not in any position to judge
Fact
I can judge if I like and I believe he's a psychopath.
FACT
-
But medically he is not a psychopath is he ? He passed all the tests ?
Why tell Julie anything at all ?
He passed an outdated test that isn't infallible.
I'm not sure why people keep asking why he told Julie - that's a motive only he knows.
-
He passed an outdated test that isn't infallible.
I'm not sure why people keep asking why he told Julie - that's a motive only he knows.
Motive is what they look for in a prosecution, and this is a discussion group . So why not ask the question?
If you think he is guilty you would surely ask the question ?
If you don’t want to discuss that’s your prerogative .
-
I can judge if I like and I believe he's a psychopath.
FACT
Yes it’s a fact you can believe what you want .
Do you believe the medical expert reports that were made about sheila in the court or are they outdated as well ?
-
:)
Yes it’s a fact you can believe what you want .
Do you believe the medical expert reports that were made about sheila in the court or are they outdated as well ?
:) :) :)
-
He’s not a psychopath
Fact
Unless a more recent alternative assessment has been carried out , I would think Egan's stands:
https://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
-
Yes it’s a fact you can believe what you want .
Do you believe the medical expert reports that were made about sheila in the court or are they outdated as well ?
In what respect?
-
Thank you
-
The motive itself is clearly money and/or resentment of some kind. However, having a motive doesn't necessarily mean that someone will do something about it.
I think the term "psychopath" is rather meaningless. What is it really? An absence of empathy? A lack of ability to give a toss? That doesn't make someone a murderer.
Jeremy said that his relationship with Julie was breaking down before the murders. I'm not sure about that because he seemed to see her quite a lot. However, if he was getting fed up with her I'm not sure he'd tell her his plans.
-
Your not an expert and your not in any position to judge
Fact
Idiot!!! Neither are you. FACT!!!
-
The motive itself is clearly money and/or resentment of some kind. However, having a motive doesn't necessarily mean that someone will do something about it.
I think the term "psychopath" is rather meaningless. What is it really? An absence of empathy? A lack of ability to give a toss? That doesn't make someone a murderer.
Jeremy said that his relationship with Julie was breaking down before the murders. I'm not sure about that because he seemed to see her quite a lot. However, if he was getting fed up with her I'm not sure he'd tell her his plans.
He may well have had motive (arguably). However, his plan was atrocious in terms of its execution; its chances of success; and the risk of it being discovered. It is not the plan of a devious person. It's an extreme gamble.
-
He may well have had motive (arguably). However, his plan was atrocious in terms of its execution; its chances of success; and the risk of it being discovered. It is not the plan of a devious person. It's an extreme gamble.
All murder is a gamble - that's why people get caught.
-
He may well have had motive (arguably). However, his plan was atrocious in terms of its execution; its chances of success; and the risk of it being discovered. It is not the plan of a devious person. It's an extreme gamble.
Yes, I agree with that. His plan sucked, and it's amazing that it worked as well as it did.
-
He may well have had motive (arguably). However, his plan was atrocious in terms of its execution; its chances of success; and the risk of it being discovered. It is not the plan of a devious person. It's an extreme gamble.
All killers take a gamble and the best planning in the world doesn’t guarantee success Roch, it had the police fooled and still has lots more undecided, so he didn’t do bad. Staging a scene to make it look like someone else, you have to be close to that person.
-
All killers take a gamble and the best planning in the world doesn’t guarantee success Roch, it had the police fooled and still has lots more undecided, so he didn’t do bad. Staging a scene to make it look like someone else, you have to be close to that person.
How did he evade injury?
-
How did he evade injury?
He was on the other side of a rifle.
-
Yes, I agree with that. His plan sucked, and it's amazing that it worked as well as it did.
Well somehow he seemed to avoid totally a forensic trail so that’s quite an achievement.
-
How did he evade injury?
Ha Ha Roch I’m not going down that road again mate, we’ve had many a argument about Sheila’s marks 👍. Let’s be friends 🙈
-
Well somehow he seemed to avoid totally a forensic trail so that’s quite an achievement.
As did Sheila.
-
He was on the other side of a rifle.
Is that it? It took multiple shots to put all three adults down. All three adults have fight injuries. But Bamber has none. Who were they fighting with? It cant have been Jeremy - he's unmarked.
What would have happened if somebody landed a punch or gouge on him? Game over. Go to jail. Do not collect inheritance.
The whole prosecution case is absurd.
-
Obviously, nobody can know what the plan actually was, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't to stop and reload the magazine twice. He had 11 bullets max, and the plan must have been to kill them all with that number of bullets, which was unrealistic unless he really targeted the right places. The rifle wasn't that powerful, it was designed to kill small animals, not humans.
-
As did Sheila.
Did she though ?
She would not exactly had clothes to destroy or hide her exit would she .
-
Is that it? It took multiple shots to put all three adults down. All three adults have fight injuries. But Bamber has none. Who were they fighting with? It cant have been Jeremy - he's unmarked.
What would have happened if somebody landed a punch or gouge on him? Game over. Go to jail. Do not collect inheritance.
The whole prosecution case is absurd.
See, if every potential crim went sown that road, no crimes would ever be committed. They ALL believe they have a master plan. They don't think like you.
-
Obviously, nobody can know what the plan actually was, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't to stop and reload the magazine twice. He had 11 bullets max, and the plan must have been to kill them all with that number of bullets, which was unrealistic unless he really targeted the right places. The rifle wasn't that powerful, it was designed to kill small animals, not humans.
But apparently he balanced that against a shotgun that would make more noise , poisonings and arson .
I honestly think if he is guilty Julie was part of the plan and was going to gain financially .
IMO.
-
But apparently he balanced that against a shotgun that would make more noise , poisonings and arson .
I honestly think if he is guilty Julie was part of the plan and was going to gain financially .
IMO.
I would agree with part of that actually.
-
I would agree with part of that actually.
Or think it's a possibility.
-
Well it makes sense . Then she wanted to don him in as she realised she was not going to make any money but she has to think of a crazy story so not to implicate herself .
Unfortunately though either way that makes her a liar .
-
So why risk the end goal by telling Julie ?
Or do you think she was actually a partner in crime ?
He told Julie because she was his girlfriend.
-
He told Julie because she was his girlfriend.
oh so you think this womanising allegedly bi-sexual preditor intended to stay with her forever and trusted her 100%
so he told her thinking he was safe and then started chatting up another woman
interesting .
shame because if he had had paid her some money she probably would not have dobbed him in.
you do seem to have a very varied opinion of his personality traits
-
oh so you think this womanising allegedly bi-sexual preditor intended to stay with her forever and trusted her 100%
so he told her thinking he was safe and then started chatting up another woman
interesting .
shame because if he had had paid her some money she probably would not have dobbed him in.
you do seem to have a very varied opinion of his personality traits
He did pay her and she still dobbed him 😂
-
He did pay her and she still dobbed him 😂
what the small sum for the holiday ? Not much in the scheme of things was it?
-
He was on the other side of a rifle.
Same would apply to Sheila ?
-
what the small sum for the holiday ? Not much in the scheme of things was it?
Given she was a student having to work to fund her degree, plus we're going back to the 1980s, I imagine it to have been a considerable sum.
-
Given she was a student having to work to fund her degree, plus we're going back to the 1980s, I imagine it to have been a considerable sum.
He gave her more than that Jane 👍
-
It doesn't matter what motive Bamber had or didn't have. It should come down to the fundamental legal principle of UK criminal Law that one is considered innocent till proven guilty.
I think Bamber is guilty but I can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt and going by this website and all the evidence, neither can anyone else. The legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution. Their would seem to be reasonable doubt and if I were on the Jury I think I would've said I don't think the prosecution have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.
-
It doesn't matter what motive Bamber had or didn't have. It should come down to the fundamental legal principle of UK criminal Law that one is considered innocent till proven guilty.
I think Bamber is guilty but I can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt and going by this website and all the evidence, neither can anyone else. The legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution. Their would seem to be reasonable doubt and if I were on the Jury I think I would've said I don't think the prosecution have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.
There is one alive suspect with several motives, an opportunity and no alibi.
There are over 60 pieces of forensic evidence from the Court of Appeal that show it was not Sheila. There is too much circumstantial evidence to list.
There is an excellent witness - Julie Mugford. Who wouldn't dare perjure herself so seriously because she was 'jilted'.
Not sure what else can be supplied.
-
There is one alive suspect with several motives, an opportunity and no alibi.
There are over 60 pieces of forensic evidence from the Court of Appeal that show it was not Sheila. There is too much circumstantial evidence to list.
There is an excellent witness - Julie Mugford. Who wouldn't dare perjure herself so seriously because she was 'jilted'.
Not sure what else can be supplied.
That's not very much. Ms Mugford evidence doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bamber committed the crimes. He might have been planning the murders but Sheila beat him to it. He might've been expressing frustration or even hatred or he might not have said anything of the kind to Ms Mugford...No the prosecution needed more than that in my view.
-
It doesn't matter what motive Bamber had or didn't have. It should come down to the fundamental legal principle of UK criminal Law that one is considered innocent till proven guilty.
I think Bamber is guilty but I can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt and going by this website and all the evidence, neither can anyone else. The legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution. Their would seem to be reasonable doubt and if I were on the Jury I think I would've said I don't think the prosecution have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Well said arthur, I agree.
-
That's not very much. Ms Mugford evidence doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bamber committed the crimes. He might have been planning the murders but Sheila beat him to it. He might've been expressing frustration or even hatred or he might not have said anything of the kind to Ms Mugford...No the prosecution needed more than that in my view.
What more would you want than -
One alive suspect.
A mountain of forensic evidence.
A mountain of circumstantial evidence.
A big witness.
Several motives.
An opportunity.
No alibi.
-------------
It has been suggested that a forensic industrial frame department was set up. Not sure why EP would do this. If they did, this could not include the circumstantial evidence, no alibi, one alive suspect, motives & opportunity. These were already in place.
-
That's not very much. Ms Mugford evidence doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bamber committed the crimes. He might have been planning the murders but Sheila beat him to it. He might've been expressing frustration or even hatred or he might not have said anything of the kind to Ms Mugford...No the prosecution needed more than that in my view.
Thank you Arther
-
What more would you want than -
One alive suspect.
A mountain of forensic evidence.
A mountain of circumstantial evidence.
A big witness.
Several motives.
An opportunity.
No alibi.
-------------
It has been suggested that a forensic industrial frame department was set up. Not sure why EP would do this. If they did, this could not include the circumstantial evidence, no alibi, one alive suspect, motives & opportunity. These were already in place.
On the forensic evidence, what is it that places Bamber in WHF at the time of the murders. There is a mountain of suggested forensic evidence, but again, does any of it prove that Bamber was the shooter.
Ms Mugford isn't a witness to the crime, she is a witness to Bamber's alleged statements, threatening to kill his family, but none of her evidence has been corroborated.
Alibi,motive, opportunity all are irrelevent if you haven't enough proof to convict somebody. Circumstantial evidence is subjective to say the least.
Bamber was a suspect, but is it right that he should be found guilty because he had the motive, no alibi and the opportunity and that he fits the profile but yet there is no hard core evidence to prove his guilt.
-
On the forensic evidence, what is it that places Bamber in WHF at the time of the murders. There is a mountain of suggested forensic evidence, but again, does any of it prove that Bamber was the shooter.
Ms Mugford isn't a witness to the crime, she is a witness to Bamber's alleged statements, threatening to kill his family, but none of her evidence has been corroborated.
Alibi,motive, opportunity all are irrelevent if you haven't enough proof to convict somebody. Circumstantial evidence is subjective to say the least.
Bamber was a suspect, but is it right that he should be found guilty because he had the motive, no alibi and the opportunity and that he fits the profile but yet there is no hard core evidence to prove his guilt.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10209.0.html
Reply 8 has evidence that it was not Sheila. From an independent source - Court of Appeal. Obviously if it was not Sheila, it was then Jeremy.
You are correct that Julie did not witness Bamber carry out the massacre.
-
On the forensic evidence, what is it that places Bamber in WHF at the time of the murders. There is a mountain of suggested forensic evidence, but again, does any of it prove that Bamber was the shooter.
Ms Mugford isn't a witness to the crime, she is a witness to Bamber's alleged statements, threatening to kill his family, but none of her evidence has been corroborated.
Alibi,motive, opportunity all are irrelevent if you haven't enough proof to convict somebody. Circumstantial evidence is subjective to say the least.
Bamber was a suspect, but is it right that he should be found guilty because he had the motive, no alibi and the opportunity and that he fits the profile but yet there is no hard core evidence to prove his guilt.
None of us were in the courtroom to look Bamber and other witnesses in the eye. The "that is what you have to establish" remark is the Freudian slip, along with his demeanour previously under police interrogation, seemingly uncaring about the victims and nonchalant about wishing to seek the truth.
-
None of us were in the courtroom to look Bamber and other witnesses in the eye. The "that is what you have to establish" remark is the Freudian slip, along with his demeanour previously under police interrogation, seemingly uncaring about the victims and nonchalant about wishing to seek the truth.
Surely his demeanour after the murders proves nothing and only drives speculation. Any "It was definitely him"..or "he has guilt written all over him" again is pure speculation. Him saying "That is what you have to establish" has to be taken in context and may have been said under duress but in fact that remark is correct in that the prosecution have not "established" who the murderer is.Opinion isn't proof.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10209.0.html
Reply 8 has evidence that it was not Sheila. From an independent source - Court of Appeal. Obviously if it was not Sheila, it was then Jeremy.
You are correct that Julie did not witness Bamber carry out the massacre.
Well all of reply 8 doesn't prove Bamber is guilty.There is obviously plenty of suggested proof but nothing concrete. Inductive reasoning or generalisation based on probability can't be accepted as proof.
Just to clarify. I am only a casual observer of this case and I would like nothing better than a "smoking gun" fact to emerge. But so far it hasn't.
-
Well all of reply 8 doesn't prove Bamber is guilty.There is obviously plenty of suggested proof but nothing concrete. Inductive reasoning or generalisation based on probability can't be accepted as proof.
Just to clarify. I am only a casual observer of this case and I would like nothing better than a "smoking gun" fact to emerge. But so far it hasn't.
Not sure how forensic evidence provided by the Court of Appeal is not concrete. There is also other forensic evidence.
A smoking gun would be CCTV of him entering/exiting WHF on the night. Or the silencer with Sheila's blood in found at his flat. If that is what you require, then as you said, you would not have voted 'guilty'.
-
Not forgetting that it was also RWB's blood group too !
-
Not forgetting that it was also RWB's blood group too !
Do you really think that's plausible though? I'm not convinced that RB would know that he had the same blood group as Sheila. Even if he did, it's quite a leap to imagine how his blood got right inside the silencer.
-
The main things put forward by supporters on the silencer are -
It was not Sheila's blood. It was a mixture of Nevill's and June's. This still badly incriminates Bamber. It means the silencer was used & Sheila then hid it away for no reason. It also means Sheila put the silencer on as Bamber said he left the rifle minus the silencer.
Bamber has said his cousins framed him. But has not elaborated or said whether this was with police assistance.
It has been suggested that Stan Jones fabricated the silencer and got the relatives on board.
-
Regarding the scratches, it is claimed the crime scene photos do not show scratches. This is not correct & it is impossible to determine from the photos.
It is also claimed the floor underneath the scratches did not show any debris. This will be correct as the scratches were too feint to produce debris.
-
Do you really think that's plausible though? I'm not convinced that RB would know that he had the same blood group as Sheila. Even if he did, it's quite a leap to imagine how his blood got right inside the silencer.
Isn't that the silencer that was taken to bits ? That being the case there's every possible chance of the baffles going back into it in different positions than when they were removed ? RWB had cut his finger somehow so blood would have been transferred. I would have said it was his hard luck that he happened to have had the same blood as Sheila.
-
There were more than just Jeremy who'd wanted to have got their grubby little mitts on that estate !
-
The defence at trial did not suggest any of the supporter suggestions in replies 63 and 64.
-
Regarding the scratches, it is claimed the crime scene photos do not show scratches. This is not correct & it is impossible to determine from the photos.
It is also claimed the floor underneath the scratches did not show any debris. This will be correct as the scratches were too feint to produce debris.
There was half a square inch of paint chipped off the shelf.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.0.html
Page 1 has images of the aga. There was no possibility of any debris falling onto the floor from those scratches.
-
This from the COA -
80.
Having seen what they believed to be red paint on the moderator, members of the deceased's family returned to the farmhouse and examined the red painted mantel shelf above the Aga in the kitchen. On the underside they found what appeared to be recent damage.
On 14 August 1985 the underside of the mantel shelf was examined by one of the scenes of crime officers, DI Cook. He found score marks and took a sample of the paint from the area. The paint sample was compared with the paint recovered from the knurled end of the moderator and each was found to contain the same fifteen layers of paint and varnish.
On 1 October 1985 casts were taken of the marks and impressions found on the underside of the shelf. These were also consistent with having been caused by the moderator and there had been more than one contact between it and the shelf.
-
75.
Traces of blood in the form of smears were found in three places on the outside of the moderator: on the flat surface at the muzzle end, in the knurled end and in the ridge at the gun end of the device.
The blood on the outside of the moderator was confirmed to be of human origin but there were insufficient quantities to permit grouping analysis.
----------
Didn't know there was also human blood on the outside of the moderator.
-
Isn't that the silencer that was taken to bits ? That being the case there's every possible chance of the baffles going back into it in different positions than when they were removed ? RWB had cut his finger somehow so blood would have been transferred. I would have said it was his hard luck that he happened to have had the same blood as Sheila.
I don't recall any of the family admitting that they took the silencer to bits.
If that did happen, I wouldn't say it was RB's hard luck that he had the same blood group as Sheila.
-
75.
Traces of blood in the form of smears were found in three places on the outside of the moderator: on the flat surface at the muzzle end, in the knurled end and in the ridge at the gun end of the device.
The blood on the outside of the moderator was confirmed to be of human origin but there were insufficient quantities to permit grouping analysis.
----------
Didn't know there was also human blood on the outside of the moderator.
You didn't know? How many times have I said that it was absurd that Jeremy would put the silencer away with blood on it?
-
You didn't know? How many times have I said that it was absurd that Jeremy would put the silencer away with blood on it?
Do you believe the relatives or police put Sheila's blood on the outside and inside of the moderator. Along with the aga paint.
Or was it a joint effort?
-
Don't see why Jeremy would clean the moderator. He would not notice small amounts of blood on and in a small dark item in dark rooms.
It may have been a spur of the moment decision to remove the silencer after shooting Sheila. After realising the rifle with moderator was too long. So he would not have had a pre arranged plan with it.
He put it away, almost hidden. Not expecting the police to look at it. They didn't.
-
It could only be the police who started the moderator frame. Then asked the relatives to say they found it.
There is over 60 other pieces of forensic evidence which only the police could have created in an industrial frame. They would have no hesitation fabricating the moderator as well if they thought the relatives would assist.
-
Do you believe the relatives or police put Sheila's blood on the outside and inside of the moderator. Along with the aga paint.
Or was it a joint effort?
Not really, but I also don't get why Jeremy would put the silencer away with blood and paint clearly visible on it. He would at least have cleaned the outside.
-
Not really, but I also don't get why Jeremy would put the silencer away with blood and paint clearly visible on it. He would at least have cleaned the outside.
He made a mistake. One of several.
At first it was not a problem. However the relatives started searching while he was on holiday (another mistake).
-
You don't make a " mistake " when putting away an object coated with blood and paint ::) Unless you're crackers altogether.
-
He made a mistake. One of several.
At first it was not a problem. However the relatives started searching while he was on holiday (another mistake).
A mistake? I don't believe that. He then made a further mistake by letting the relatives have a key to the house?
There's only one reason he would remove the silencer from the scene, and that's that he realised Sheila's blood would be on or in the silencer. It's absurd that he wouldn't have at least cleaned the outside of it before putting it somewhere where anyone could find it.
-
A mistake? I don't believe that. He then made a further mistake by letting the relatives have a key to the house?
There's only one reason he would remove the silencer from the scene, and that's that he realised Sheila's blood would be on or in the silencer. It's absurd that he wouldn't have at least cleaned the outside of it before putting it somewhere where anyone could find it.
You don't believe the blood and paint got on there through Bamber committing the massacre. And you do not believe the police or relatives fabricated the silencer. Alone or together.
Maybe it was WHF fairies.
-
I don't doubt that the silencer had been " used " but not in the sense of its use. My common sense tells me that Sheila had tried to fit it on the rifle while in the kitchen and with already blooded hands cross-threaded it onto the rifle causing it to be unstable. The length and instability of it was then underestimated and it scraped along the fireplace until she removed it and put it back while still in the kitchen. Sheila hadn't cared/worried about her blood being on it had she ?
-
I don't doubt that the silencer had been " used " but not in the sense of its use. My common sense tells me that Sheila had tried to fit it on the rifle while in the kitchen and with already blooded hands cross-threaded it onto the rifle causing it to be unstable. The length and instability of it was then underestimated and it scraped along the fireplace until she removed it and put it back while still in the kitchen. Sheila hadn't cared/worried about her blood being on it had she ?
Yes it is correct that it was 100% Sheila's blood. Nevill and June's blood somehow mixing together is a non starter.
You believe Nevill was in the shower while Sheila put the silencer on & got the rifle & magazine ready. Why do you believe he had a shower so late?
-
You don't believe the blood and paint got on there through Bamber committing the massacre. And you do not believe the police or relatives fabricated the silencer. Alone or together.
Maybe it was WHF fairies.
I'm wondering if the silencer was in the bedroom, and someone else put it in the cupboard.
-
Yes it is correct that it was 100% Sheila's blood. Nevill and June's blood somehow mixing together is a non starter.
You believe Nevill was in the shower while Sheila put the silencer on & got the rifle & magazine ready. Why do you believe he had a shower so late?
It's not a non-starter. There is a high chance that June's DNA was in the silencer - as was established many years later.
-
I'm wondering if the silencer was in the bedroom, and someone else put it in the cupboard.
This is what I'd read years ago and mentioned it not long ago. I'd read that it was an officer who'd found it near/under the bed and took it downstairs.
-
None of them have been altogether truthful simply because when it had been announced that it was a murder suicide, it was a " case closed " and so began the movements of items/ bodies until it was decided a month later that things had taken a twist which turned to murder. So what we NEED to see are documents relating to the murder/suicide----it's as simple as that.
-
I'm wondering if the silencer was in the bedroom, and someone else put it in the cupboard.
Mike might have some information on that.
-
A mistake? I don't believe that. He then made a further mistake by letting the relatives have a key to the house?
There's only one reason he would remove the silencer from the scene, and that's that he realised Sheila's blood would be on or in the silencer. It's absurd that he wouldn't have at least cleaned the outside of it before putting it somewhere where anyone could find it.
There could've been a second reason for removing the silencer and that is with the silencer fitted, it was very difficult or impossible for Sheila to reach the trigger and fire it at the trajectory of the entry wounds.
-
In her mental state Sheila would have been cack-handed in her handling of the rifle anyway and to perhaps have attempted to have fitted the silencer which needed screwing onto the rifle she gave up and either put it down somewhere in the farmhouse or inadvertently put it back in the cupboard---we don't know as she wasn't in a normal state of mind.
We've all put things down or away somewhere and forgotten where we put them, but without thinking, Sheila could easily have put a bloodied silencer back in the cupboard without thought that it could/would implicate someone else. Under those circumstances our minds would have worked differently--Jeremy's included.
-
First post, can i ask ,on this forum, what is roughly the divide of members between Jeremy Bamber being guilty or not guilty .I was drawn to this case a long time ago. Try as i might i always come down on the innocent side, theres the odd doubt and niggle but through what i have learnt over the years i can't say guilty for sure.I won't say anymore for now as im sure i havnt anything to add that hasnt been said umpteen times before.Great forum though,i have already learnt plenty from browsing, thanks for having me onboard.
-
Don't see why Jeremy would clean the moderator. He would not notice small amounts of blood on and in a small dark item in dark rooms.
It may have been a spur of the moment decision to remove the silencer after shooting Sheila. After realising the rifle with moderator was too long. So he would not have had a pre arranged plan with it.
He put it away, almost hidden. Not expecting the police to look at it. They didn't.
On the issue of the trajectory of the shots. I mean how did JB carry out the murder of Sheila. Would he have had to kneel down in front of her and put the weapon up under her chin then shoot her...then as she was down, shoot her a second time.
Or did he order her to lie down. Would she have ran..maybe towards the children. Would she be calm enough just to obey his orders,She may well have been to petrified and did exactly as he ordered her to do.
It's a bit perplexing this aspect. Obviously he had to shoot her in a way that would be consistent with her turning the gun on herself. She wasn't knocked out first I don't think, so how was the first shot dispatched. The second shot and the placing of the bible and any note wouldn't be to difficult, just the first shot needs explaining.
-
First post, can i ask ,on this forum, what is roughly the divide of members between Jeremy Bamber being guilty or not guilty .I was drawn to this case a long time ago. Try as i might i always come down on the innocent side, theres the odd doubt and niggle but through what i have learnt over the years i can't say guilty for sure.I won't say anymore for now as im sure i havnt anything to add that hasnt been said umpteen times before.Great forum though,i have already learnt plenty from browsing, thanks for having me onboard.
I'm a newbie as well mush. I'm a bit on the fence..leaning towards guilty. But I'm open to persuasion, one way or the other.
-
First post, can i ask ,on this forum, what is roughly the divide of members between Jeremy Bamber being guilty or not guilty .I was drawn to this case a long time ago. Try as i might i always come down on the innocent side, theres the odd doubt and niggle but through what i have learnt over the years i can't say guilty for sure.I won't say anymore for now as im sure i havnt anything to add that hasnt been said umpteen times before.Great forum though,i have already learnt plenty from browsing, thanks for having me onboard.
Brilliant to see new members
-
First post, can i ask ,on this forum, what is roughly the divide of members between Jeremy Bamber being guilty or not guilty .I was drawn to this case a long time ago. Try as i might i always come down on the innocent side, theres the odd doubt and niggle but through what i have learnt over the years i can't say guilty for sure.I won't say anymore for now as im sure i havnt anything to add that hasnt been said umpteen times before.Great forum though,i have already learnt plenty from browsing, thanks for having me onboard.
I think the divide between guilty and not guilty here has varied over the years. We have quite a few members who have posted a lot in the past but rarely if ever post now. Overall I would say it is currently about a 50/50 split.
Welcome to the forum.
-
There could've been a second reason for removing the silencer and that is with the silencer fitted, it was very difficult or impossible for Sheila to reach the trigger and fire it at the trajectory of the entry wounds.
That would be the only reason for the silencer to be removed from the rifle. However, the only reason for Jeremy to put it in the cupboard was that he feared there would be blood on it. That's why I find it hard to believe that he did that without cleaning it and then let virtually anyone roam around the house wherever they liked.
-
On the issue of the trajectory of the shots. I mean how did JB carry out the murder of Sheila. Would he have had to kneel down in front of her and put the weapon up under her chin then shoot her...then as she was down, shoot her a second time.
Or did he order her to lie down. Would she have ran..maybe towards the children. Would she be calm enough just to obey his orders,She may well have been to petrified and did exactly as he ordered her to do.
It's a bit perplexing this aspect. Obviously he had to shoot her in a way that would be consistent with her turning the gun on herself. She wasn't knocked out first I don't think, so how was the first shot dispatched. The second shot and the placing of the bible and any note wouldn't be to difficult, just the first shot needs explaining.
I agree with that. Jeremy would have had to get the gun against her neck with no struggle.
-
That would be the only reason for the silencer to be removed from the rifle. However, the only reason for Jeremy to put it in the cupboard was that he feared there would be blood on it. That's why I find it hard to believe that he did that without cleaning it and then let virtually anyone roam around the house wherever they liked.
You need to make a decision on how Sheila's blood & the aga paint got onto and inside the silencer. David and Lookout have opinions they have stuck to.
David saying the relatives used Sheila's wet period blood in a bucket.
Lookout saying Sheila's blood fell onto/into the silencer mid massacre as Sheila tried to insert it onto the rifle. Not sure why Sheila would want to insert the silencer onto the rifle mid massacre.
Lookout has not given an explanation of how the aga paint got onto the silencer.
I've always believed Sheila's blood got onto the silencer from a contact and close range shot in an area with high blood flow. The paint during the kitchen fight.
-
You need to make a decision on how Sheila's blood & the aga paint got onto and inside the silencer. David and Lookout have opinions they have stuck to.
David saying the relatives used Sheila's wet period blood in a bucket.
Lookout saying Sheila's blood fell onto/into the silencer mid massacre as Sheila tried to insert it onto the rifle. Not sure why Sheila would want to insert the silencer onto the rifle mid massacre.
Lookout has not given an explanation of how the aga paint got onto the silencer.
I've always believed Sheila's blood got onto the silencer from a contact and close range shot in an area with high blood flow. The paint during the kitchen fight.
I don't need to make a decision because it has not been proved that Sheila's blood was in or on the silencer. As for the paint, that doesn't rule out Sheila does it?
-
I don't need to make a decision because it has not been proved that Sheila's blood was in or on the silencer. As for the paint, that doesn't rule out Sheila does it?
Well Lookout needs to explain the paint as she does not believe the silencer was fitted to the rifle.
You believe the silencer was on the rifle during Sheila's kitchen fight but it is a mixture of June's & Nevill's blood inside the silencer.
-
Well Lookout needs to explain the paint as she does not believe the silencer was fitted to the rifle.
You believe the silencer was on the rifle during Sheila's kitchen fight but it is a mixture of June's & Nevill's blood inside the silencer.
I think it's a possibility.
-
I think it's a possibility.
Do you believe Sheila put the silencer on. Then put it away?
-
Do you believe Sheila put the silencer on. Then put it away?
It's possible, but it's also possible that she put it on, took it off in the bedroom and someone else put it in the cupboard later.
-
It's possible, but it's also possible that she put it on, took it off in the bedroom and someone else put it in the cupboard later.
This theory has not been suggested before. It is good to get new possibilities.
-
It's possible, but it's also possible that she put it on, took it off in the bedroom and someone else put it in the cupboard later.
True Kaldin, there are multiple possibilities to so much of this case.
-
Do you believe Sheila put the silencer on. Then put it away?
She didn't...
-
True Kaldin, there are multiple possibilities to so much of this case.
,
Although, honestly it could have been possible!
-
The actual truth is that there were two sound moderators (silencers) present inside WHF at the time of the shootings!
One belonging to Anthony Pargeters .22 (BRNO) bolt action rifle, and the other belonging to the .22 semi-automatic' Anshuzt rifle' purchased y Neville Bamber in November 1984
-
The actual truth is that there were two sound moderators (silencers) present inside WHF at the time of the shootings!
One belonging to Anthony Pargeters .22 (BRNO) bolt action rifle, and the other belonging to the .22 semi-automatic' Anshuzt rifle' purchased y Neville Bamber in November 1984
Was the AP sound moderator capable of fitting on to the Anshutz rifle?
-
Was the AP sound moderator capable of fitting on to the Anshutz rifle?
Yes.
-
How many empty cartridge cases were found in Neville & June's bedroom and do they equate to the number of entry wounds to Sheila and June. Was any of the blood in that bedroom identified as Nevilles.
In other words has it ever been proved where Neville was shot, in his bedroom or downstairs.
-
How many empty cartridge cases were found in Neville & June's bedroom and do they equate to the number of entry wounds to Sheila and June. Was any of the blood in that bedroom identified as Nevilles.
In other words has it ever been proved where Neville was shot, in his bedroom or downstairs.
Thirteen I think - either in the bedroom or just outside it. June was shot seven times and Sheila twice, so that leaves four cartridges, hence the theory that Nevill was shot four times upstairs.
As far as I know, Nevill's blood was not found upstairs, but I don't think all the blood was tested.
-
Thirteen I think - either in the bedroom or just outside it. June was shot seven times and Sheila twice, so that leaves four cartridges, hence the theory that Nevill was shot four times upstairs.
As far as I know, Nevill's blood was not found upstairs, but I don't think all the blood was tested.
So then is it possible that Sheila comes down, gets the weapon, goes upstairs intending to kill. Wakes her parents, threatening and abusing. Is it then possible that June tells Neville to ring Jeremy or the Police. He then goes down and makes the call to jeremy but after a few seconds on the phones hears the weapon being fired, goes up to find June has been shot and is then shot himself. Staggers downstairs where he is shot again after a struggle.
But does the cartridge evidence rule that out. Yes 13 cartridge shells were found in or just outside June & Nevills bedroom. The .22 Anschutz semi automatic hold a max of ten rounds I think so Sheila shoots June 7 times and Neville 4 times...does she reload after shooting June 6 times and Neville 4 times...has she got the extra shells for the reload on her person...or does she nip downstairs to reload..or was there only 9 shells in the .22 because Jeremy ejected one from the breech after going out to "shoot the rabbits".
So was it 5 into June and 4 into Neville and then the reload...and what was Neville doing during the reload..?
Was there more than one loaded magazine for this .22 weapon available to the shooter or did the magazine have to be reloaded one shell at a time.
Very difficult to work out the sequence of shots fired, taking into account the weapon had to be reloaded after 9 or was it 10 shots...and reloaded a second time as the bullet count was 25 in total I think.
Seems implausible that Sheila could reload if her father still had some mobility..
-
So then is it possible that Sheila comes down, gets the weapon, goes upstairs intending to kill. Wakes her parents, threatening and abusing. Is it then possible that June tells Neville to ring Jeremy or the Police. He then goes down and makes the call to jeremy but after a few seconds on the phones hears the weapon being fired, goes up to find June has been shot and is then shot himself. Staggers downstairs where he is shot again after a struggle.
But does the cartridge evidence rule that out. Yes 13 cartridge shells were found in or just outside June & Nevills bedroom. The .22 Anschutz semi automatic hold a max of ten rounds I think so Sheila shoots June 7 times and Neville 4 times...does she reload after shooting June 6 times and Neville 4 times...has she got the extra shells for the reload on her person...or does she nip downstairs to reload..or was there only 9 shells in the .22 because Jeremy ejected one from the breech after going out to "shoot the rabbits".
So was it 5 into June and 4 into Neville and then the reload...and what was Neville doing during the reload..?
Was there more than one loaded magazine for this .22 weapon available to the shooter or did the magazine have to be reloaded one shell at a time.
Very difficult to work out the sequence of shots fired, taking into account the weapon had to be reloaded after 9 or was it 10 shots...and reloaded a second time as the bullet count was 25 in total I think.
Seems implausible that Sheila could reload if her father still had some mobility..
Well at least that's an attempt at a scenario, however implausible it may be.
-
So then is it possible that Sheila comes down, gets the weapon, goes upstairs intending to kill. Wakes her parents, threatening and abusing. Is it then possible that June tells Neville to ring Jeremy or the Police. He then goes down and makes the call to jeremy but after a few seconds on the phones hears the weapon being fired, goes up to find June has been shot and is then shot himself. Staggers downstairs where he is shot again after a struggle.
But does the cartridge evidence rule that out. Yes 13 cartridge shells were found in or just outside June & Nevills bedroom. The .22 Anschutz semi automatic hold a max of ten rounds I think so Sheila shoots June 7 times and Neville 4 times...does she reload after shooting June 6 times and Neville 4 times...has she got the extra shells for the reload on her person...or does she nip downstairs to reload..or was there only 9 shells in the .22 because Jeremy ejected one from the breech after going out to "shoot the rabbits".
So was it 5 into June and 4 into Neville and then the reload...and what was Neville doing during the reload..?
Was there more than one loaded magazine for this .22 weapon available to the shooter or did the magazine have to be reloaded one shell at a time.
Very difficult to work out the sequence of shots fired, taking into account the weapon had to be reloaded after 9 or was it 10 shots...and reloaded a second time as the bullet count was 25 in total I think.
Seems implausible that Sheila could reload if her father still had some mobility..
IMO, if Nevill did ring Jeremy, Sheila was not upstairs at the point - I don't think Nevill would have left June alone with Sheila wielding a rifle. She could, however, have been downstairs with the gun and then went upstairs and started shooting June whilst Nevill was on the phone - hence Nevill suddenly rushing off upstairs.
June was shot seven times in total, but not all at the same time. The killer came back later to shoot her again. She was shot several times initially, but she was able to get out of bed and walk around the bed. Nevill could have then come up the stairs and been shot four times either as he came up the stairs or when he got to the bedroom.
The magazine took ten bullets and there could be one in the breach - making eleven. However, I think there were maybe nine bullets in the magazine, which accounts for June being shot five times initially, and Nevill four times initially.
If Sheila did it, I think that she went downstairs because she ran out of bullets. Nevill went after her but he was very injured so couldn't do much. He was hit with the gun and then possibly collapsed in the chair. There was then time to reload the rifle and shoot him again with another four bullets.
-
IMO, if Nevill did ring Jeremy, Sheila was not upstairs at the point - I don't think Nevill would have left June alone with Sheila wielding a rifle. She could, however, have been downstairs with the gun and then went upstairs and started shooting June whilst Nevill was on the phone - hence Nevill suddenly rushing off upstairs.
June was shot seven times in total, but not all at the same time. The killer came back later to shoot her again. She was shot several times initially, but she was able to get out of bed and walk around the bed. Nevill could have then come up the stairs and been shot four times either as he came up the stairs or when he got to the bedroom.
The magazine took ten bullets and there could be one in the breach - making eleven. However, I think there were maybe nine bullets in the magazine, which accounts for June being shot five times initially, and Nevill four times initially.
If Sheila did it, I think that she went downstairs because she ran out of bullets. Nevill went after her but he was very injured so couldn't do much. He was hit with the gun and then possibly collapsed in the chair. There was then time to reload the rifle and shoot him again with another four bullets.
On the phone call..."Sheila has gone crazy with a gun..." Obviously Neville is out of bed and downstairs.But it looks like June was shot just as she was about to get out of bed...so Sheila goes into room and fires a number of times at June...does Neville then jump out of bed, in a state of shock and horror, and think..."I better go down and ring Jeremy and tell him what is happening"...did he push past Sheila on his way out of the room...to go down to the phone. Why didn't he attempt to overpower Sheila...or did she shoot him 4 times in the bedroom...and then he staggered downstairs all shot up and rang Jeremy...but correct me if I'm wrong weren't the shells for the .22 by the phone...so did Sheila say...' pass me those shells Dad..I have to shoot you another 4 times'
It certainly can't be said that Sheila is totally ruled out as the shooter.We can hypothesise over where Neville was shot and whether he had the strength to overcome Sheila or at what stage was he supposed to have made the phone call, but given the crime scene and the available evidence it is not a 'jeremy did it' open and shut case. Although it does look a bit stage managed. But if it was stage managed, in order to frame Sheila, surely Jeremy would've gone to the trouble of bloodying up Sheila and making it look like she has been in a struggle or some kind of violent altercation.
After all if it was Jeremy he obviously knew Neville was downstairs in the kitchen battered and bruised so it follows that he would have to give some consideration to Sheila's condition.It doesn't add up that he would leave her in almost pristine condition save for the two shots. Then again he might've been spooked by a noise outside or he might've realised he better get on with the phone call and get back to the cottage to start the second phase of the plan.And just didn't give enough thought to making Sheila look like the killer.
There is no easy explanation one way or the other.
-
On the phone call..."Sheila has gone crazy with a gun..." Obviously Neville is out of bed and downstairs.But it looks like June was shot just as she was about to get out of bed...so Sheila goes into room and fires a number of times at June...does Neville then jump out of bed, in a state of shock and horror, and think..."I better go down and ring Jeremy and tell him what is happening"...did he push past Sheila on his way out of the room...to go down to the phone. Why didn't he attempt to overpower Sheila...or did she shoot him 4 times in the bedroom...and then he staggered downstairs all shot up and rang Jeremy...but correct me if I'm wrong weren't the shells for the .22 by the phone...so did Sheila say...' pass me those shells Dad..I have to shoot you another 4 times'
It certainly can't be said that Sheila is totally ruled out as the shooter.We can hypothesise over where Neville was shot and whether he had the strength to overcome Sheila or at what stage was he supposed to have made the phone call, but given the crime scene and the available evidence it is not a 'jeremy did it' open and shut case. Although it does look a bit stage managed. But if it was stage managed, in order to frame Sheila, surely Jeremy would've gone to the trouble of bloodying up Sheila and making it look like she has been in a struggle or some kind of violent altercation.
After all if it was Jeremy he obviously knew Neville was downstairs in the kitchen battered and bruised so it follows that he would have to give some consideration to Sheila's condition.It doesn't add up that he would leave her in almost pristine condition save for the two shots. Then again he might've been spooked by a noise outside or he might've realised he better get on with the phone call and get back to the cottage to start the second phase of the plan.And just didn't give enough thought to making Sheila look like the killer.
There is no easy explanation one way or the other.
I find this so hard to believe. Jeremy by this stage was leading a separate social life, he had been snooping around the safe, Nevill had told Barbara that "the shooting season's coming up..accidents do happen", the siblings didn't get on..
In my opinion if shooting had commenced and Nevill had been in reach of a telephone he would have used it to call the police.
-
In my opinion if shooting had commenced and Nevill had been in reach of a telephone he would have used it to call the police.
Not for his own I wouldn't have thought, Steve. Especially a daughter who'd " gone beserk ", Nevill would naturally have thought that he'd have dealt with it himself or even with the help of his son.
Had it been Jeremy on the other end of the rifle then I feel sure a wallop would have been forthcoming from his father, risking what he did when in the Air Force.
-
In my opinion if shooting had commenced and Nevill had been in reach of a telephone he would have used it to call the police.
Not for his own I wouldn't have thought, Steve. Especially a daughter who'd " gone beserk ", Nevill would naturally have thought that he'd have dealt with it himself or even with the help of his son.
Had it been Jeremy on the other end of the rifle then I feel sure a wallop would have been forthcoming from his father, risking what he did when in the Air Force.
So lets put Jeremy behind the .22. He's in...he's got the loaded weapon checked. His first target has to be Neville...makes his way up the stairs, silently, readying himself, he knows Neville is strong and will need much more than one shot. Opens door thinking 'get Dad first..but June has been woken and he has no choice but to shoot her first..maybe twice..then Neville is moving and is about to react..so Jeremy pumps 1...2..3 shots at him..a 4th..then backs off...Neville thrashes about not knowing whats really happened..Jeremy backs off downstairs..Neville staggers after him..a terrible scene is acted out..Neville is shot a futher 4 times and is beaten and battered. Jeremy reloads and then commits further atrocities. 5 people are dead. Sheila is stage managed. The silencer is taken off and a botched cleaning job is done and it's put away in the cupboard without enough care.
He fails go back upstairs to make the framing of Sheila more believable. He then sets up the bogus telephone call...maybe he even rings the police station and impersonates Neville, then sets up the call back to his cottage. Maybe cleans himself in case he leaves any trace when he gets out the window and races back to his cottage. Can't change anythink now..to late, police could be here within 20 minutes or so. He gets on his bike in a state of some confusion, not sure if he's set it up well enough.
Is that more or less what happened. Seems more plausible than Sheila being able to do all that, looking as if she has just got out of bed.
-
So lets put Jeremy behind the .22. He's in...he's got the loaded weapon checked. His first target has to be Neville...makes his way up the stairs, silently, readying himself, he knows Neville is strong and will need much more than one shot. Opens door thinking 'get Dad first..but June has been woken and he has no choice but to shoot her first..maybe twice..then Neville is moving and is about to react..so Jeremy pumps 1...2..3 shots at him..a 4th..then backs off...Neville thrashes about not knowing whats really happened..Jeremy backs off downstairs..Neville staggers after him..a terrible scene is acted out..Neville is shot a futher 4 times and is beaten and battered. Jeremy reloads and then commits further atrocities. 5 people are dead. Sheila is stage managed. The silencer is taken off and a botched cleaning job is done and it's put away in the cupboard without enough care.
He fails go back upstairs to make the framing of Sheila more believable. He then sets up the bogus telephone call...maybe he even rings the police station and impersonates Neville, then sets up the call back to his cottage. Maybe cleans himself in case he leaves any trace when he gets out the window and races back to his cottage. Can't change anythink now..to late, police could be here within 20 minutes or so. He gets on his bike in a state of some confusion, not sure if he's set it up well enough.
Is that more or less what happened. Seems more plausible than Sheila being able to do all that, looking as if she has just got out of bed.
Nevill was the greatest threat but the twins probably had to be dispatched first, to prevent them from running around the murder scene. I doubt Jeremy wants the police's arrival too soon, just time enough for him to make his getaway, and the purported telephone call from Nevill to police has been discounted in many quarters.
-
Nevill was the greatest threat but the twins probably had to be dispatched first, to prevent them from running around the murder scene. I doubt Jeremy wants the police's arrival too soon, just time enough for him to make his getaway, and the purported telephone call from Nevill to police has been discounted in many quarters.
May be..but he would need to disable Neville first, the twins can't hurt him, so I think he would target Neville first. You would think trying to kill 5 people in one house would be very difficult. Surely the commotion would've disturbed Sheila and in turn the twins. Maybe Sheila went to the aid of June as Jeremy was beating and shooting Neville downstairs, then Jeremy goes up half mad to turn the gun on Sheila and again on June.
Obviously the main issue is who was the shooter. Possibly Sheila's frail physique and seemingly clean nightdress, fingernails etc make her the unlikely killer. Been said before but could anyone really believe Sheila could kill 4 people which included beating a 6'4" strong fit and able 61 year old man, and walk away in more or less perfect condition.Could claim if she had shot him 4 times he would've been considerably weakened, which in turn would enable further shooting and the subsequent beatings possible.
-
May be..but he would need to disable Neville first, the twins can't hurt him, so I think he would target Neville first. You would think trying to kill 5 people in one house would be very difficult. Surely the commotion would've disturbed Sheila and in turn the twins. Maybe Sheila went to the aid of June as Jeremy was beating and shooting Neville downstairs, then Jeremy goes up half mad to turn the gun on Sheila and again on June.
Obviously the main issue is who was the shooter. Possibly Sheila's frail physique and seemingly clean nightdress, fingernails etc make her the unlikely killer. Been said before but could anyone really believe Sheila could kill 4 people which included beating a 6'4" strong fit and able 61 year old man, and walk away in more or less perfect condition.Could claim if she had shot him 4 times he would've been considerably weakened, which in turn would enable further shooting and the subsequent beatings possible.
The twins can't hurt him but they are a distraction, a mere trifle in him gaining 100% of the inheritance. Sheila is just worn out after the two weekend parties, the journey down to Essex, the responsibility of looking after the twins and meeting June's cronies. The crimes were committed by a competent shooter, and we know who fits the bill in that regard.
-
The twins if they did wake, would have ran straight to their mothers bedroom. The last thing Bamber would want is the twins & Sheila awake in one room together. Espescially if going for an 11 shot massacre.
One shot into each twin before entering the main bedroom seems likely. As said by Julie.
Nevill, June & Sheila would not hear the 2 shots into the twins. Espescially with a silencer attached.
He would then have 9 bullets left, 8 for Nevill/June, 1 for Sheila.
Things did not go to plan & plan B was put into place - the overkill of a 'gone crazy' Sheila.
-
May 7th 2020----I notice that treatment for mental health is still working ::) after a young 29 year old mother of one stabbed an elderly gentleman to death and was also charged with attempted murder of 3 more people, after her release from treatment. The incident happened in a supermarket in Wales recently.
A random and vicious attack. Why didn't someone attempt to take the weapon from this pretty, slightly-built young woman, I ask myself ? Far easier to remove a knife than a rifle I'd have thought.