Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackieD on September 27, 2021, 11:33:AM
-
In the documentary yesterday Malcolm Fletcher made it look almost impossible for Sheila to reload the gun. What were your thoughts on that part of the documentary?
-
Sheila's father wouldn't have had the same problem. How do we know that he hadn't loaded it then Sheila grabbed it by bashing him with the other rifle breaking its butt ?
-
In the documentary yesterday Malcolm Fletcher made it look almost impossible for Sheila to reload the gun. What were your thoughts on that part of the documentary?
I have not seen it yet. When I have I will respond.
-
I wonder if the CT have shot themselves in the foot by withdrawing cooperation. I'm sure their motives for doing so will have been genuine. However, if the likes of Fletcher, Ainsley and Lee are having their two-penneth, what's the point in letting them go unchallenged. Two of those names are dodgy people and the third is a police/authorities worshipper. In theory the CT could have used the programme to remonstrate regarding anything they felt was awry. In practice, maybe not.
-
'almost impossible for Sheila to reload the gun.'
----------
Interesting. And there was no evidence she did.
-
I wonder if the CT have shot themselves in the foot by withdrawing cooperation. I'm sure their motives for doing so will have been genuine. However, if the likes of Fletcher, Ainsley and Lee are having their two-penneth, what's the point in letting them go unchallenged. Two of those names are dodgy people and the third is a police/authorities worshipper. In theory the CT could have used the programme to remonstrate regarding anything they felt was awry. In practice, maybe not.
More reputable Bamber supporters were given airtime.
-
I wonder if the CT have shot themselves in the foot by withdrawing cooperation. I'm sure their motives for doing so will have been genuine. However, if the likes of Fletcher, Ainsley and Lee are having their two-penneth, what's the point in letting them go unchallenged. Two of those names are dodgy people and the third is a police/authorities worshipper. In theory the CT could have used the programme to remonstrate regarding anything they felt was awry. In practice, maybe not.
That’s exactly what I thought. There was so much to challenge in the programme.
It would be great to have a programme challenging all the misleading points
Mark came across well. He could do that.
I bet the relatives are furious after the programme focused on the summing up
Ngb has said that from the beginning
-
I watched the first episode with an open mind, and without giving away any clues regarding what I made of its content, I would just like to mention a couple of issues, Which contradict, either witness statement, or court testimony versions of the alleged circumstances - involving the farm secretary [Barbsra Wilson],,
-
I watched all four episodes now, perhaps I am reading too much into this but Brews annoys me.
In three interviews I have seen first he says Myall saw the reflection in the window, then in the second latter interview it was JB and then in this series it appears to be him who saw it?
He mentions it all these years latter but does not mention it in his statement. Also he claims that he called up the armed police before seeing the reflection which is a lie, the armed police were called in after they ran back to the car.
-
Also he (Bews) claims that he called up the armed police before seeing the reflection which is a lie, the armed police were called in after they ran back to the car.
Interestingly, the FSU were told to go to the Armoury to collect their weapons several minutes before Bews, JB and Myall set off to take a look at the farmhouse. It suggests that inspector Scollan at HQ was aware of the need for armed police independently of Bews report. It is my view that someone, perhaps Nevill, managed to call 999 sometime before 4 am. In any event, Scollan started the process of deploying armed officers before Bews reported back at 04:09.
-
Interestingly, the FSU were told to go to the Armoury to collect their weapons several minutes before Bews, JB and Myall set off to take a look at the farmhouse. It suggests that inspector Scollan at HQ was aware of the need for armed police independently of Bews report. It is my view that someone, perhaps Nevill, managed to call 999 sometime before 4 am. In any event, Scollan started the process of deploying armed officers before Bews reported back at 04:09.
Thanks this is interesting I was not aware of this, if the armed police were deployed before Bews called in then there had to have been a 999 or a second call?
-
Thanks this is interesting I was not aware of this, if the armed police were deployed before Bews called in then there had to have been a 999 or a second call?
I will send you the information that I have via PM. We need to bear in mind that PC West and Malcolm Bonnet would presumably both have tried the WHF phone number between 03:30 and 04:00, maybe one of them got through, or someone dialed out from WHF. My memory is a bit hazy on the precise timings now, but I will access the relevant documents and send it to you.
-
I will send you the information that I have via PM. We need to bear in mind that PC West and Malcolm Bonnet would presumably both have tried the WHF phone number between 03:30 and 04:00, maybe one of them got through, or someone dialed out from WHF. My memory is a bit hazy on the precise timings now, but I will access the relevant documents and send it to you.
Thanks sounds very interesting!
-
I will send you the information that I have via PM. We need to bear in mind that PC West and Malcolm Bonnet would presumably both have tried the WHF phone number between 03:30 and 04:00, maybe one of them got through, or someone dialed out from WHF. My memory is a bit hazy on the precise timings now, but I will access the relevant documents and send it to you.
Any chance you could copy me in on that PM please, Bill?
The only reservation I have about this is that it is surely possible that HQ or Witham had the FSU on stand-by and that is what your evidence shows. I assume this was considered necessary because, in a small county force like Essex, the FSU would not be on 24-hour stand-by in the same manner as, say, the fire brigade. It would then be down to the response officers (Bews, Myall, Saxby) to call in to confirm they would be required.
-
ngb1066 based on any knowledge you might have about Bamber's 03/21 submission do you believe it will be referred? Thanks.
ETA - Maybe this gives an outline
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-ccrc-submission
-
ngb1066 based on any knowledge you might have about Bamber's 03/21 submission do you believe it will be referred? Thanks.
ETA - Maybe this gives an outline
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-ccrc-submission
The problem is that I no longer have any inside track on the content of the new submissions and the evidence supporting them. The link to the website outlining the grounds advanced sets out the grounds and states that there is new and powerful evidence in support of each of them. If that is true a referral could well be made. However the evidence will need to be strong and new. If it is simply a restatement of points made before by reference only to evidence already relied upon it will not have any chance of a referral. I simply do not know any more about this than anyone else here. My gut feeling is pessimistic overall, but I accept we may all be surprised.
-
The problem is that I no longer have any inside track on the content of the new submissions and the evidence supporting them. The link to the website outlining the grounds advanced sets out the grounds and states that there is new and powerful evidence in support of each of them. If that is true a referral could well be made. However the evidence will need to be strong and new. If it is simply a restatement of points made before by reference only to evidence already relied upon it will not have any chance of a referral. I simply do not know any more about this than anyone else here. My gut feeling is pessimistic overall, but I accept we may all be surprised.
Thank you.
-
ngb, did you know anything about the now notorious 'informatives'?
-
Special Branch and interpol were carrying out an investigation at and around whitehouse farm, by use of small plane fitted with photographic equipment. from the content of some police documents I have seen, it appears that large parcels of drugs were being flown and dropped on land close to the 'Bambers' farmhouse, and that a high profile drug dealor from Holland, was understood to be behind this activity. The intelligence services learned that this druglord was planning to purchase an expensive property near to where the drugs were being dumped, and of course, close to whitehouse farm where around the time of these surveilances that were being carried out were occurring, three generations of the 'Bamber' family were executed within hours. It is also documented, that calls were made to holland from the farmhouse, a week or so prior to the time of the 5 deaths. Police beleived that 'Jeremy Bamber' and the 'druglord' knew eachother and that they had first come to know one another as a reslt of 'Jeremys' frequent visits to Amsterdam - police have the druglords name, address, and telephone no.
The intelligence services were operating in and around the farmhouse at the time of the shootings. According to a police record, unnamed occupants of police vehicle [`CA05'] was despatched to the incident at 3.35 am during the early morning of 7th August 1985, yet, by reference to the other narrative, the occupants of call sign 'CA07' and its occupants were deployed at that time allegedly containing 'PS Bews', 'PC Myall' and 'PS Saxby'..
'Jeremys' call to Chelmsford police is recorded and timed at 3.36am a minute or two after the unknown occupants of call sign 'CA35' and the police vehicle [`CA07'] carrying, 'Bews', 'Myall' and 'Saxby' to the incident. To complicate matters even more, it is well documented that 'PC Myall' must have arrived at the scene a head of 'Bews' and 'Saxby'. This is because he was present at the farmhouse at least 3 or 4 minutes prior to 'CA07' and its two occupants actually pulled up at the scene. Evidence proving this, is contained in a police document entitled 'Major Incident Register'. The damning evidence proving that "PC Myall' was already at the scene before 'Bews' and 'Saxby' arrived [3.48am] is confirmed by reference to the very first entry [001] in that register which clearly states, that at 3.45am 'PC Myall' had seen an 'Unidentifiable male walking away from the grounds of what turned out to be a murder scene'. [the identity of this person is unknown]. One thing that we can all be certain about, is that the 'unidentified male' that 'PC Myall' observed 'leaving the scene' at 3.45am, could not have been reference to 'Jeremy Bamber' due to the fact that he did not arrive at the farmhouse that night until 3.52am [ 3 or 4 minutes after the occupants of 'CA07' [ 'Bews' and 'Saxby'] had arrived there. It should also be pointed out, that enroute to the ongoing incident at the farmhouse, that the occupants of 'CA07' had passed and overtaken 'Jeremy' in his astra motor vehicle on the 'Tollesbury Road', and that from that point and them arriving at the scene, that 'Jeremy' had pulled up in his vehicle alongside them. This confirms that the 'unidentified male' person that was seen 'leaving the grounds of the farmhouse' by 'PC Myall' at 3.45am. Since, 'Jeremy' could 'not have been in two different places', at 'the same time'..
-
According to a newspaper article, about an hour after police first arrived at the famhouse [ `3.45am' or '3.48am', or 'earlier'] `a scruffy looking hunched up man was seen walking away from the farmhouse'.The identity of this man is 'unknown' , or 'not disclosed'..
This prompts me to suspect that 'PC Myall' was already at the scene one hour or so, before he saw an 'unidentified male' walking away from the farmhouse at 3.45am. If not, then two different unidentified male persons were both individually observed walking away from the murder scene wihin an hour of eachother...
It is something of a puzzle, beleiving that 'PC Myall' must not have arrived at the scene in police vehicle 'CA07' along with 'PS Bews' and 'PS Saxby' at 3.48am, because he wouldn't have been able to have seen the 'unidentified male' prson walking away from the house at 3.45am..
So, I think we can be certain, that 'PC Myall' was already at the farmhouse long before 'Bews' and 'Saxby' arrived there at 3.48am..
-
The sighting of a person seen moving around through the upstairs main bedroom window, alluded to by 'PC Myall', PS Bews' and 'Jeremy Bamber' which occurred at about 4.00am, during a recce of the farmhouse by those concerned, is a remarkable sighting, which 'PS Bews' has tried to fob off any suggestion that it was a living person, moving around but that in fact, he says 'it was a trick of light'. Well, first thing that comes to mind, is what 'Bews' has already said, regarding who saw the movement beyond the bedroom window first and drew the attention of the other two members of the group to it?
'PC Bews' has given a total of three different versions as to who saw the movement first, was it 'PC Myall', was it 'himself' or was it 'Jeremy'? He has shot himself in the foot be declaring that everyody saw the movement beyond the bedroom window first, then that person alerted the other two regarding it. So, thats that covered...
I beleive that there was already an intelligence led operation ongoing at the location in and around whf long before 'Jeremy made the call to Chelmsford police station control room. This operation, included' Special Branch', MI5', 'Customs and excise', 'Interpol', 'the drug squad'" and 'Essex' and 'Metropolitan based poice officers', including 'trained firearm officers'...
-
So, I think we can be certain, that 'PC Myall' was already at the farmhouse long before 'Bews' and 'Saxby' arrived there at 3.48am..
In point of fact, 'PC Myall saw two unidentifiable persons at the scene, for example one leaving the grounds at 3.45am, and the other whom he could not identify whether that person be male or female, was the sighting of movement beyond the upstairs bedroom window. I am rather inclined to believe that the purpose of the recce around the farmhouse was 'PC Myalls' attempt to show 'PS Bews' the area he had very recently observed an unidentifiable male walking away from the farmhouse (3.45am), and that he had also been observing a person moving around inside the farmhouse potentially carrying a rifle or a shotgun - hence why, a request had already been made for a firearms team to be deployed before the recce of the farmhouse was underway. I think 'PC Myall' made the request, or one of the other unnamed persons at the scene all along did so...
-
In point of fact, 'PC Myall saw two unidentifiable persons at the scene, for example one leaving the grounds at 3.45am, and the other whom he could not identify whether that person be male or female, was the sighting of movement beyond the upstairs bedroom window. I am rather inclined to believe that the purpose of the recce around the farmhouse was 'PC Myalls' attempt to show 'PS Bews' the area he had very recently observed an unidentifiable male walking away from the farmhouse (3.45am), and that he had also been observing a person moving around inside the farmhouse potentially carrying a rifle or a shotgun - hence why, a request had already been made for a firearms team to be deployed before the recce of the farmhouse was underway. I think 'PC Myall' made the request, or one of the other unnamed persons at the scene all along did so...
The other officer, who I beleive arrived at the scene along with 'PC Myall' prior to 3.45am, were the occupants of police vehicle 'CA05', and that other officer was 'DC Henderson'...
-
I think that 'PC Myall' took 'PS Bews' on a recce around the farm accompanied by 'Jeremy' in order to confirm that a colleague had entered the farmhouse shortly after the unidentified male person had been seen leaving the premises at 3.45am. Failing this, the movement observed beyond the main bedroom window by 'Myall', 'Bews', and 'Jeremy' was confirmation that at least one of the three adult victims was still alive and moving about in the upstairs main bedroom, unaware that 'DC Henderson' had entered the farmhouse unnoticed...
-
Insofar as, the police radio message log entry timed at 5.25am, to the effect that firearm officers were engaged in conversation with a person from inside the farmhouse, this person was 'DC Henderson'. At 5.55am, he used a telephone within the farmhouse to talk to police colleagues back at police headquarters. Within 10 minutes of doing this, he was able to confirm that there were injured, and dead bodies inside the farmhouse. He was responsible for requesting ambulances, for the dead, dying or wounded...
-
The sudden appearence of a rifle resting against the inside box room window at about 7.15am, as was witnessed by 'WPC Jeapes' and 'another firearm officer' was placed there by 'DC Henderson' and not by 'Sheila Caffell' as an indication that it was safe to enter the farmhouse and try to bring the seige to a conclusion. 'Sheila' was downstairs at that moment in the kitchen, hence why 'PC Collins' identified a dead female at that time as viewed from outside the kitchen window, looking inward...
-
The sudden appearence of a rifle resting against the inside box room window at about 7.15am, as was witnessed by 'WPC Jeapes' and 'another firearm officer' was placed there by 'DC Henderson' and not by 'Sheila Caffell' as an indication that it was safe to enter the farmhouse and try to bring the seige to a conclusion. 'Sheila' was downstairs at that moment in the kitchen, hence why 'PC Collins' identified a dead female at that time as viewed from outside the kitchen window, looking inward...
From the vantage point outside the kitchen window, 'PC Collins' could only see the body of what appesred to him, to be 'the body of one dead female' [SheilaCaffell'] this was because of 'the acute angle' which restricted any chance of seeing `Neville Bambers' body that was sat perched on a wooden chair [slumped forward against the rear of the wooden chair that 'Sheila' was sat upon],behind a second wooden chair in which 'Sheilas' body was closest to the kitchen window, through which 'PC Collins' and a colleague observed. The position of 'Sheilas' body prevented anyone being able to see 'Neville Bambers' body behind hers [his body being closest to the kitchen side of an internal door that firearm officers would later with some dificulty 'force an entry' from 'the passageway beyond' , to get 'into the kitchen' ..
-
Insofar as, the police radio message log entry timed at 5.25am, to the effect that firearm officers were engaged in conversation with a person from inside the farmhouse, this person was 'DC Henderson'. At 5.55am, he used a telephone within the farmhouse to talk to police colleagues back at police headquarters. Within 10 minutes of doing this, he was able to confirm that there were injured, and dead bodies inside the farmhouse. He was responsible for requesting ambulances, for the dead, dying or wounded...
Can you explain how Henderson effected entry to the premises.
-
It was 'DC Henderson' [I believe] who raised the alarm at 5.55am via use of one of the three telephones in working order at the farmhouse. At 6.09am, the telephone in its 'open line state' was then patched through directly to the control room (or the communications room) at Chelmsford police headquarters, by involvement of the opeator'. It was being recorded on tape, and a police officer sat monitoring it for two hours until at about 8.09am, senior officers at the scene ordered the eavesdrop to be aborted. Almost simultaneously, the firearm operation ongoing inside whf came to the first of two conclusions. This was that by around 8.10am, the raid team had reported the discovery of five deceased bodies [two bodies in the kitchen upon entry, and 'a further three bodies found upstairs' in two bedrooms] - this is/was reference up until that stage, that 'the bodies of 'Neville' and 'Sheila' were both found to be present in the kitchen downstairs', and that 'June Bambers' body was found upstairs in the main bedroom where she and her husband, 'Neville Bamber' normally always, slept. The 'two other victims' who had reportedly been found deceased upstairs could only have been reference to 'the bodies' of the twin boys, 'Daniel' and 'Nicholas Caffell'- 'five dead in total' ..
-
Can you explain how Henderson effected entry to the premises.
Yes, he simply 'entered the insecure downstairs window' , that 'he' and 'PC Myall' had observed 'the unidentified male' - 'leave the premises' at around 3.45am [locking the catch/latch behind him so as 'to minimise the possible return' of 'the unidentified escapee' ]
-
One thing that any suspecting member of the forum, or visitors, or for that matter, any ordinary member of the public should be aware of, is that every police vehicle, be it being used in an official capacity, or undercover or covertly, has its own seperate log. The date, time, driver and passenger details must be kept up to date, at peril of disciplinary action, or worse...
So, what now needs to be done, is to get access or disclosure to the vehicle logs of all the police vehicles that are documented as attending the incident at the farmhouse. In particular, the vehicle logs of police vehicles bearing call signs 'CA05' and 'CA07', covering the 6th - 7th August 1985...
-
There are also registers, which record the date of issue of police notebook/pocketbooks, when they were issued to a particular police officer, against the recorded date, and the signatures of both 'the issuing officer' , and the 'name of the police officer' that particular book is, or was being 'issued it' too. Also to be borne in mind, is that each note/pocket book has its own unique serial number. Save to say, that despite it being made clear, that any serving police officer may only be in possession of a single note/pocket book at any one given time, that many officers have two, three or more of these, at tgeir disposal, which they put details they hope to use when they are deliberately framing a person, or other. I mention this, because in the instant case, evidence pertaining to the involvement and interreaction of 'DS Jones' in this case throughout August / September 1985, his handwritten notes have been re-written in a duplicate police note/pocket book. It seems somewhat obvious to me, that the reason for this is, that he has tried to conceal for the fact that he did return to the farmhouse, to recover a silencer ['SBJ/1'] which 'Jeremy' had told him about at his cottage, a silencer which belonged to the family who owned the .22 semi-automatic 'Anshuzt' rifle [' the Bambers'], however, what is not yet fully understood as of now, is whether or not that the silencer he collected from the scene that morning, was either the one 'Jeremy' mentioned (consisting of 14 internalysed metal baffle plates? , or if the silencer in question consisted of 17 internalysed metal baffle plates?
-
In the documentary yesterday Malcolm Fletcher made it look almost impossible for Sheila to reload the gun. What were your thoughts on that part of the documentary?
I believe it's the last one or two bullets that are hard to insert? my guess is Sheila would have only loaded seven or eight bullets which would be easy.
-
'almost impossible for Sheila to reload the gun.'
----------
Interesting. And there was no evidence she did.
There was evidence Adam, Sheila's hand swabs indicated a similar copper content to two testers who had loaded 18 bullets. I can't find any evidence of JB wearing flippers though I which you would give up on this?
I guess you would say the basket on the bike is proof?
-
There was evidence Adam, Sheila's hand swabs indicated a similar copper content to two testers who had loaded 18 bullets. I can't find any evidence of JB wearing flippers though I which you would give up on this?
I guess you would say the basket on the bike is proof?
Why do you keep mentioning flippers? It makes you look stupid on a serious subject.
-
50.
Following removal of the bags at the mortuary, Sheila Caffell's hands and forehead were swabbed.
Extremely low traces of lead were detected when the swabs were examined.
Such levels being consistent with the levels found from the handling of every day things around the house.
These results were compared to hand swabs taken from volunteers at the laboratory who were required to load the magazine with eighteen rounds of ammunition.
Significantly higher traces of lead were found than those recorded on the hands of Mrs Caffell.
The scientist Mr Elliott gave evidence that if Sheila Caffell had loaded eighteen cartridges into a magazine he would have expected the hand swabs to have revealed appreciably higher deposits of lead.
51.
Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained.
When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood.
The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found.
The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle twenty-five times.
-
Why do you keep mentioning flippers? It makes you look stupid on a serious subject.
Don't reply to a post saying there is no evidence when you know very well there is.
-
47.
The firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted that her feet and hands were "perfectly clean". Her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers.
All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition.
48. The act of loading the magazine of an automatic weapon (carried out at least twice in this case) would be expected to leave visible traces of the lubricant and the materials from the bullets on the hands.
-
216.
At trial, Mr Rivlin QC, who appeared for the appellant at trial, sought to counteract this evidence in two ways.
First in cross-examination of the scientist, he drew his attention to traces of other elements in the test results from the swabs, iron and copper, and queried whether these were significant.
The scientist said that they were no more than might have been obtained from the atmosphere.
He did not think the copper could have come from the bullets unless they had been scratched.
-
I believe it's the last one or two bullets that are hard to insert? my guess is Sheila would have only loaded seven or eight bullets which would be easy.
Must have been wearing rigger gloves then or something similar given her nails and varnish were immaculate.
-
This is from a post David made showing there is evidence Sheila may have loaded bullets into a magazine so don't post misleading information you make yourself look silly Adam:
How can Sheila get copper on her left hand?
And why does both her left, right and control hand swabs show similar levels of copper that was found on the left, right and control hand swabs of the lab testees after loading 18 bullets into the rifle magazine?
The logical answer is she reloaded the magazine like the lab staff did.
B.R. Elliott, Cross-examined.
Q. Brass is softer than steel?
A: Brass is softer yes, but steel is appreciably harder.
Q: The constituents are what?
A: Copper and Zinc.
Q: I would like to continue, if I may, with this demonstration which has been given to us by the graphs you have produced, in relation to copper. If you look please, forgive me, I would like you to go back to the blank control swab. That copper there, is a copper element there which is virtually undetectable isn't it?
A: There is a hint of copper.
Q: A hint of it, but virtually undetectable. Now I would like you to go over the page to Sheila's left hand swab, taking the graph over the top.
A: Copper is there in a Larger quantity, but again very small.
Q: You agree that copper is there in a larger quantity but you say a very small amount. Copper is undoubtedly detectable, isn't it?
A: Yes, the copper is present on that hand swab.
Q: Go over the page to the right hand swab please. There is a little, in fact no more than the control swab?
A: That is correct yes.
Q: Would you now go over the page to the left hand of the female member of lab staff who was handling 18 of these cartridges and look at the copper there.
A: Yes.
Q: There is copper?
A: Yes there is.
Q: And it is a matter of comment, but if one goes back to Sheila's left hand swab it is about the same as Sheila's isn't it?
A: Yes.
Q: And if you go over to the right hand swab of the female member of the lab staff. Again we see copper there, but it is hardly any more than the copper that appears on the control swab.
A: Yes again a very small level.
Q: Just like Sheila's right hand I won't say exactly the same but it is similar isn't it?
A: Probably a little more but a low level.
Q: Thank you. Would you please now go over to the male member of the lab staff and look at copper.
A: Copper is certainly present there again in a small quantity.
Q: I see, and the right hand swab?
A: Again present in a small quantity.
Q: Slightly smaller quantity isn't it?
A: Slightly smaller than the left hand, Yes.
Q: Led is the softer you say, or lead particles are the softer?
A: Of the three metals we discussed so far.
Q: And much easier to smear off because of that?
A: To smear on and to smear off.
Q: To smear on and to smear off?
A: Yes.
Q: If one's hands are sticky? We saw what happened yesterday when Mr. Fletcher was in the witness box. If one's hands are sticky and perspiring and if one had reason to wipe them you would expect lead which has accumulated to be smeared off, wouldn't you?
A: Yes some of it would be smeared off, yes.
Q: As regards cartridges. When a cartridge is loaded into the magazine are you aware of this fact that the cartridge is liable to get scratched?
A: I know it can do yes.
Q: In those circumstances there may be particles of brass scratched off the cartridge.
A: Yes that is possible, yes.
Q: And it is right. isn't it. that a fine scratched off particles might show on your graph?
A: Yes that is correct.
-
This is from a post David made showing there is evidence Sheila may have loaded bullets into a magazine so don't post misleading information you make yourself look silly Adam:
How can Sheila get copper on her left hand?
And why does both her left, right and control hand swabs show similar levels of copper that was found on the left, right and control hand swabs of the lab testees after loading 18 bullets into the rifle magazine?
The logical answer is she reloaded the magazine like the lab staff did.
B.R. Elliott, Cross-examined.
Q. Brass is softer than steel?
A: Brass is softer yes, but steel is appreciably harder.
Q: The constituents are what?
A: Copper and Zinc.
Q: I would like to continue, if I may, with this demonstration which has been given to us by the graphs you have produced, in relation to copper. If you look please, forgive me, I would like you to go back to the blank control swab. That copper there, is a copper element there which is virtually undetectable isn't it?
A: There is a hint of copper.
Q: A hint of it, but virtually undetectable. Now I would like you to go over the page to Sheila's left hand swab, taking the graph over the top.
A: Copper is there in a Larger quantity, but again very small.
Q: You agree that copper is there in a larger quantity but you say a very small amount. Copper is undoubtedly detectable, isn't it?
A: Yes, the copper is present on that hand swab.
Q: Go over the page to the right hand swab please. There is a little, in fact no more than the control swab?
A: That is correct yes.
Q: Would you now go over the page to the left hand of the female member of lab staff who was handling 18 of these cartridges and look at the copper there.
A: Yes.
Q: There is copper?
A: Yes there is.
Q: And it is a matter of comment, but if one goes back to Sheila's left hand swab it is about the same as Sheila's isn't it?
A: Yes.
Q: And if you go over to the right hand swab of the female member of the lab staff. Again we see copper there, but it is hardly any more than the copper that appears on the control swab.
A: Yes again a very small level.
Q: Just like Sheila's right hand I won't say exactly the same but it is similar isn't it?
A: Probably a little more but a low level.
Q: Thank you. Would you please now go over to the male member of the lab staff and look at copper.
A: Copper is certainly present there again in a small quantity.
Q: I see, and the right hand swab?
A: Again present in a small quantity.
Q: Slightly smaller quantity isn't it?
A: Slightly smaller than the left hand, Yes.
Q: Led is the softer you say, or lead particles are the softer?
A: Of the three metals we discussed so far.
Q: And much easier to smear off because of that?
A: To smear on and to smear off.
Q: To smear on and to smear off?
A: Yes.
Q: If one's hands are sticky? We saw what happened yesterday when Mr. Fletcher was in the witness box. If one's hands are sticky and perspiring and if one had reason to wipe them you would expect lead which has accumulated to be smeared off, wouldn't you?
A: Yes some of it would be smeared off, yes.
Q: As regards cartridges. When a cartridge is loaded into the magazine are you aware of this fact that the cartridge is liable to get scratched?
A: I know it can do yes.
Q: In those circumstances there may be particles of brass scratched off the cartridge.
A: Yes that is possible, yes.
Q: And it is right. isn't it. that a fine scratched off particles might show on your graph?
A: Yes that is correct.
My last post said that. The COA stated the copper theory had been dismissed.
Unfortunately there is also the GSR, lead, lubricant, finger nails, powder, dust & blood evidence.
-
Not sure why the defence brought up copper. I suppose they couldn't dispute submitted evidence.
As the COA said, Sheila had no more copper on her than to be expected from the atmosphere.
-
Not sure why Rob disputes evidence which is 36 years old.
Even the CT only dispute one piece - the silencer. That is only because the relatives handed it in.
-
'' Sheila'didn't need to reload any gun with additional rounds of ammunition, because before the shootings began all the weapons available to her were already preloaded with either a full compliment of bullets, and a . 22 air rifle pellet:-
. 22 semi-automatic [anshuzt] Rifle 10 live rounds
. 22 [Brno] bolt action rifle 10 live rounds
. 22 [Bsa] air rifle 1 pellet
Other shots to victims were almost certainly inflicted on victims by the firearm officers ammunition, once they entered the farmhouse! As far as I am concerned there would not have been any trace evidence upon hand swabs taken from 'Sheila' to prove that she must have reloaded one gun on at least two occasions, if only one weapon was used as claimed by the prosecutions case. At least one of the three weapons I have listed above, had a silencer attached
-
Not sure why Rob disputes evidence which is 36 years old.
Even the CT only dispute one piece - the silencer. That is only because the relatives handed it in.
1st silencer handed in by police--7th August.
2nd silencer handed in by relatives---10th August.
-
1st silencer handed in by police--7th August.
2nd silencer handed in by relatives---10th August.
You are doing the right thing. Focusing on the silencer.
The CT just focus on one piece of evidence - the silencer. I assume because the family handed it in.
-
You are doing the right thing. Focusing on the silencer.
The CT just focus on one piece of evidence - the silencer. I assume because the family handed it in.
2 Silencers !
-
2 Silencers !
;D
-
Three silencers at the heart of 'this corrupt act of deception' -
(1) - 'SBJ/1' item no. 22
(2) - 'DB/1', lab'item no. 23
(3) - 'DRB/1', lab' item no. 23/22 [formally referred to as exhibit references, 'AE/1' and 'CAE/1']
-
1st silencer handed in by police--7th August.
2nd silencer handed in by relatives---10th August.
Where's the evidence of a silencer found on 7th August?
Why would Mr Bamber snr have wasted money on purchasing a second silencer for the .22 rifle? Futhermore the gun shop confirmed a .22 rifle, silencer, telescopic sights and ammunition was purchased. Nothing about 2 silencers.
-
Three silencers at the heart of 'this corrupt act of deception' -
(1) - 'SBJ/1' item no. 22
(2) - 'DB/1', lab'item no. 23
(3) - 'DRB/1', lab' item no. 23/22 [formally referred to as exhibit references, 'AE/1' and 'CAE/1']
Here is 'a comprehensive list of all the people who knew the truth' [and 'know the truth' ] about 'the plot' or 'plan to convict', 'Jeremy Bamber' of these 'five murders' , by 'falsely claiming that there was' and 'is' evidence, of 'blood group evidence' , and 'red paint particle evidence', 'inside' and 'on the outer case/metal end cap of one silencer' , when if the truth be 'known/exposed', there 'were/are', 'three different silencers' which were 'recovered' , 'found' or 'seized' , on 'three separate occasions' , each of which had 'different exhibit references' , and 'different item' , or 'lab' item reference numbers' - there can be 'no escape' for any of 'those/these', 'lousy [low life] criminals' . They must be `arrested`, `interviewed`, and `charged`, and 'If' /'when convicted' [even if those involved have to be convicted posthumously] , every single one of them should be sentenced 'to spend the rest of their natural lives' in prison', without 'any prospect of parole' , or 'release back into society'..
'DCS Ainsley'
'DI Miller'
'PC Whiddon'
'DCI Jones'
'ACC Simpson'
'DI Cook'
'DC Hammersley'
'DS Davidson'
'PC Bird'
'PI Montgomery'
'PS Adams'
'PC Collins'
'Police Surgeon, Dr Craig'
'David Boutflour'
'Robert Boutflour'
'Ann Eaton'
''Peter Eaton'
'DS Eastwood'
'DS Davison'
'DC Oakley'
'DC Oakey'
'Anthony Pargeter'
'Malcomb Fletcher'
''Mr Justice Drake'
'Douglas Hurd'
'Members of the CCRC'
'Members of the Royal Court of justice'
Ect, ect, ect...
-
Where's the evidence of a silencer found on 7th August?
Try reading the Silencer Saga thread for starters.
-
Try reading the Silencer Saga thread for starters.
Why don't you recap for the uninitiated..
-
Try reading the Silencer Saga thread for starters.
Bamber was asked to complete another statement on 8th August to clarify aspects of the rifle, silencer etc.
On 8th September Bamber was interviewed by DCI Jones and asked questions about the silencer. DCI Jones always believed the case was murder/suicide. He makes no mention of a second silencer nor does Bamber.
Where is the evidence for a second silencer? And even if there was a second silencer how does this overcome the case against Bamber?
-
Here is 'a comprehensive list of all the people who knew the truth' [and 'know the truth' ] about 'the plot' or 'plan to convict', 'Jeremy Bamber' of these 'five murders' , by 'falsely claiming that there was' and 'is' evidence, of 'blood group evidence' , and 'red paint particle evidence', 'inside' and 'on the outer case/metal end cap of one silencer' , when if the truth be 'known/exposed', there 'were/are', 'three different silencers' which were 'recovered' , 'found' or 'seized' , on 'three separate occasions' , each of which had 'different exhibit references' , and 'different item' , or 'lab' item reference numbers' - there can be 'no escape' for any of 'those/these', 'lousy [low life] criminals' . They must be `arrested`, `interviewed`, and `charged`, and 'If' /'when convicted' [even if those involved have to be convicted posthumously] , every single one of them should be sentenced 'to spend the rest of their natural lives' in prison', without 'any prospect of parole' , or 'release back into society'..
'DCS Ainsley'
'DI Miller'
'PC Whiddon'
'DCI Jones'
'ACC Simpson'
'DI Cook'
'DC Hammersley'
'DS Davidson'
'PC Bird'
'PI Montgomery'
'PS Adams'
'PC Collins'
'Police Surgeon, Dr Craig'
'David Boutflour'
'Robert Boutflour'
'Ann Eaton'
''Peter Eaton'
'DS Eastwood'
'DS Davison'
'DC Oakley'
'DC Oakey'
'Anthony Pargeter'
'Malcomb Fletcher'
''Mr Justice Drake'
'Douglas Hurd'
'Members of the CCRC'
'Members of the Royal Court of justice'
Ect, ect, ect...
How on earth would such a diverse group of people conspire and why?
-
How on earth would such a diverse group of people conspire and why?
Why not ? It's been done before, hasn't it ? Concealment for starters.
-
In the thread 'private communications between Mike Tesko and David Shaw', Shaw lists which officers were passively aware and which were actively involved. As for the likes of Drake, I think he was dodgy.
-
Why don't you recap for the uninitiated..
I do not see why I should spoon feed guilters who are only prepared to regurgitate the Crown case and do not seek to understand the other side of the argument. This is a highly difficult case to unravel. There are a huge number of different facets and aspects.
I have spent 10 years studying what I consider to be the key issues based only (I admit) from information on the internet. To have a deeper understanding of what happened takes hours of reading and self reasoning. Have you read my posts on JM and JB? You did not engage when I posted them.
Which kind of makes my point. Have YOU read the Silencer Saga Thread? Indeed how much of my point of view have you studied. Some people on the left politically tend not to read the Telegraph because it publishes right wing views. Similarly those on the right tend not to read the Guardian.
To fully understand an issue we must take seriously what both sides are saying. This case needs those that wish to understand it to devote a lot of time, something that most do not have in our helter skelter lives.
I do not hold a rock solid view on guilt or innocence. All I can say is that from my analysis it is an MOJ and he was framed. I have yet to see any of my arguments proved incorrect. Watch the Birdie is another thread you might find interesting.
-
Why not ? It's been done before, hasn't it ? Concealment for starters.
I think its utterly absurd to suggest such a diverse group of unconnected individuals were able to conspire to send an innocent Essex farmer to prison on such serious charges.
Not only that people tell others and so the list would grow and grow. People fall out ingest intoxicating substances and end up spilling beans.
Look what happened when Dominic Cummings fell out with Boris Johnson et al and the Sussexes fell out with the royal family.
-
Is someone able to give a brief summary on claims of a second silencer and how it impacts Bamber's case. Thanks.
-
You would do well to study the facts rather than the Psychology of groups of people you do not know. What qualifications do you have in this field in order to make your suggestions?
-
I think its utterly absurd to suggest such a diverse group of unconnected individuals were able to conspire to send an innocent Essex farmer to prison on such serious charges.
Not only that people tell others and so the list would grow and grow. People fall out ingest intoxicating substances and end up spilling beans.
Look what happened when Dominic Cummings fell out with Boris Johnson et al and the Sussexes fell out with the royal family.
They didn't 'all conspire'. Some just carried out their role in a certain way which benefitted the prosecution or failed to carry out their role to a certain extent, by which manner, again the prosecution benefitted. Some police officers were passively aware and some actively involved. There was a narrative which was set by the second investigation. In terms of police, you were either expected to tow the line if you were involved or remain on the sidelines if you had problems with it. Are you able to direct us to any examples of police whistle blowing in the public domain, regarding wrongdoing and malpractice within the police?
-
You would do well to study the facts rather than the Phycology of groups of people you do not know. What qualifications do you have in this field in order to make your suggestions?
Common sense in terms of disputing the fact that such a large and unconnected group of people would have the wherewithal to conspire in such a way.
-
Is someone able to give a brief summary on claims of a second silencer and how it impacts Bamber's case. Thanks.
Do the hard yards of studying. Giving potted views only leads to questions from the lazy being posed that would be answered by reading the full version of an argument. Why should you be indulged? Why should those on the innocent side devote time to answering follow up questions when the answers have already been set out in detail.
-
If someone can brief me on the second silencer I will show that I'm not totally convinced of Bamber's guilt by posting something that may have been overlooked which supports the defence. It may well have been posted before but I haven't seen it.
-
Then post it. I am sure you will find others who are willing to examine it and tell you if it has been considered before and give you their views. Innocence supporters always engage I have found. Try reading the Silencer Saga thread for starters.
-
I think its utterly absurd to suggest such a diverse group of unconnected individuals were able to conspire to send an innocent Essex farmer to prison on such serious charges.
Not only that people tell others and so the list would grow and grow. People fall out ingest intoxicating substances and end up spilling beans.
Look what happened when Dominic Cummings fell out with Boris Johnson et al and the Sussexes fell out with the royal family.
Don't be so naive. Look how many officers knew that monster Couzens was rotten but did nothing about it, even back in 2015. There are people wworking for and within the law who are rotten to the core !!
-
How on earth would such a diverse group of people conspire and why?
I believe that they all contributed in the framing of 'Jeremy Bamber' , either, 'directly', or 'indirectly', or perhaps ' passively' or 'unknowingly'. Those who are still alive, need to be 'arrested' and 'interviewed', and 'where appropriate' either 'Charged wth conspuring to pervert the course of justice', and or 'not'. I have many examples in my own battle with the South Yorkshire police, the local CPS, and the judiciary from the bottom to the top, and my fair share of witnesses who for one reason or another, 'talk bullshit' [`inventing deliberate and false lies'] , but they say things because 'it helps the police/prosecutions case, and in many instances, 'themselves', either 'financially', or 'because of favour' [ although responsible for 'being responsible' , or 'deeply involved in the commisioning of this' , or 'that' crime, they would 'not be prosecuted'...
'Unfortunately' , such is the nature of human beings, that (1) - if there is only one persons account in 'any set of circumstances', that is 'accepted' , or 'treated' , as 'the actual truth'. However, 'the more witness accounts', 'the more versions of the truth', 'come into play'...
The 'psychology', and the 'intelectual ability' of 'any witness, account' is 'not the same in every instance' , for example, 'most witnesses' are 'intellectually educated' to 'one level' or 'another'...
-
I believe that they all contributed in the framing of 'Jeremy Bamber' , either, 'directly', or 'indirectly', or perhaps ' passively' or 'unknowingly'. Those who are still alive, need to be 'arrested' and 'interviewed', and 'where appropriate' either 'Charged wth conspuring to pervert the course of justice', and or 'not'. I have many examples in my own battle with the South Yorkshire police, the local CPS, and the judiciary from the bottom to the top, and my fair share of witnesses who for one reason or another, 'talk bullshit' [`inventing deliberate and false lies'] , but they say things because 'it helps the police/prosecutions case, and in many instances, 'themselves', either 'financially', or 'because of favour' [ although responsible for 'being responsible' , or 'deeply involved in the commisioning of this' , or 'that' crime, they would 'not be prosecuted'...
'Unfortunately' , such is the nature of human beings, that (1) - if there is only one persons account in 'any set of circumstances', that is 'accepted' , or 'treated' , as 'the actual truth'. However, 'the more witness accounts', 'the more versions of the truth', 'come into play'...
The 'psychology', and the 'intelectual ability' of 'any witness, account' is 'not the same in every instance' , for example, 'most witnesses' are 'intellectually educated' to 'one level' or 'another'...
Julie was not in your list Mike.
-
I believe that they all contributed in the framing of 'Jeremy Bamber' , either, 'directly', or 'indirectly', or perhaps ' passively' or 'unknowingly'. Those who are still alive, need to be 'arrested' and 'interviewed', and 'where appropriate' either 'Charged wth conspuring to pervert the course of justice', and or 'not'. I have many examples in my own battle with the South Yorkshire police, the local CPS, and the judiciary from the bottom to the top, and my fair share of witnesses who for one reason or another, 'talk bullshit' [`inventing deliberate and false lies'] , but they say things because 'it helps the police/prosecutions case, and in many instances, 'themselves', either 'financially', or 'because of favour' [ although responsible for 'being responsible' , or 'deeply involved in the commisioning of this' , or 'that' crime, they would 'not be prosecuted'...
'Unfortunately' , such is the nature of human beings, that (1) - if there is only one persons account in 'any set of circumstances', that is 'accepted' , or 'treated' , as 'the actual truth'. However, 'the more witness accounts', 'the more versions of the truth', 'come into play'...
The 'psychology', and the 'intelectual ability' of 'any witness, account' is 'not the same in every instance' , for example, 'most witnesses' are 'intellectually educated' to 'one level' or 'another'...
With respect I think the operative words in the above are "my own battle with the South Yorkshire police". I appreciate you being honest about your situation but I think you might lack objectivity given as you say your own battle.
I doubt there are many people today who hold the police in high esteem but to suggest the number of people you claim conspired against Bamber is too far fetched for me.
-
Julie was not in your list Mike.
Thank you, for pointing this out to me - it was not a deliberate ploy!
-
Common sense in terms of disputing the fact that such a large and unconnected group of people would have the wherewithal to conspire in such a way.
They are not ALL not connected.
Many were part of a secret society and orders came from ABOVE!
-
Then post it. I am sure you will find others who are willing to examine it and tell you if it has been considered before and give you their views. Innocence supporters always engage I have found. Try reading the Silencer Saga thread for starters.
Sure. Well I am assuming claims of a second silencer involve Mr Bamber's nephew, Anthony Pargeter, and any silencer he may have had for firearms he kept at the farmhouse? As such I familiarised myself with his statements again and noted he observed 2 boxes of ammunition on Mr Bamber's desk in the downstairs office which I think was known as the 'den'.
Bamber said when he took the rifle outside on 6th August he tipped a nearly full box (full being 50) of ammunition onto the kitchen work surface. 25 shots were fired and 29 or 30 remained on the work surface. Therefore however many Bamber found in the nearly full box it seems the murderer didn't use ammunition from this source. For reasons unknown to me this has been used against Bamber. It is claimed ammunition was not left lying around elsewhere and there was no sign the murderer accessed ammunition from that found in the gun cupboard. But it seems a few days before the murders,when Anthony Pargeter and his family visited, ammunition was left on Mr Bamber's desk. Are there any images of Mr Bamber's desk from morning of 7th Aug?
-
They are not ALL not connected.
Many were part of a secret society and orders came from ABOVE!
I am sorry I do not understand your first sentence?
Which secret society? And who gave orders from above?
-
I am sorry I do not understand your first sentence?
Which secret society? And who gave orders from above?
Many of them were/are masons.
-
All I want is a brief summary of the theory involving a second silencer.
I am assuming it revolves around it originating from Anthony Pargeter or one of the other relatives?
-
Many of them were/are masons.
And you think they hatched a plan at a lodge one evening?
-
And you think they hatched a plan at a lodge one evening?
Well it never went exactly to plan.
Jeremy was supposed to die that night also.
He called the police and everything had to change thereafter.
-
Well it never went exactly to plan.
Jeremy was supposed to die that night also.
He called the police and everything had to change thereafter.
Who would want to kill Bamber, along with the rest of the family, and why?
-
Not sure why Rob disputes evidence which is 36 years old.
Even the CT only dispute one piece - the silencer. That is only because the relatives handed it in.
I am not disputing any evidence I look at it all with a open unbiased view, it's you ignoring evidence that does not fit your narrative that I object to.
-
Who would want to kill Bamber, along with the rest of the family, and why?
It’s not that black and white.
I don’t think we will ever know, for sure.
I am of the belief neither Jeremy or Sheila committed this crime.
There is no evidence that Jeremy was there and the evidence doesn’t really point at Sheila either.
The evidence does prove that Jeremy didn’t do it.
-
It’s not that black and white.
I don’t think we will ever know, for sure.
I am of the belief neither Jeremy or Sheila committed this crime.
There is no evidence that Jeremy was there and the evidence doesn’t really point at Sheila either.
The evidence does prove that Jeremy didn’t do it.
I too have wondered whether if there was third party involvement and that there was an attempt to lure JB to the farm so that he to could be killed. However, the planners could not guarantee how he would respond/react. This would then explain the obvious staging of the crime scene which would then make it open to be him who staged it and this would be laid at his door.
I am much more in favour of a serious mistake by the TFG when they entered the property or because they failed to enter when some of the victims were still alive. I tend towards the former.
The actual events of the day especially the delaying of SOCO's access to the crime scene suggest it was EP who staged the crime scene. You might wish to examine the fact that EP destroyed the clothing used in the coverup and which features in my posts which describes a very different narrative from that which was presented and used at trial to convict JB
-
I too have wondered whether if there was third party involvement and that there was an attempt to lure JB to the farm so that he to could be killed. However, the planners could not guarantee how he would respond/react. This would then explain the obvious staging of the crime scene which would then make it open to be him who staged it and this would be laid at his door.
I am much more in favour of a serious mistake by the TFG when they entered the property or because they failed to enter when some of the victims were still alive. I tend towards the former.
The actual events of the day especially the delaying of SOCO's access to the crime scene suggest it was EP who staged the crime scene. You might wish to examine the fact that EP destroyed the clothing used in the coverup and which features in my posts which describes a very different narrative from that which was presented and used at trial to convict JB
Somebody thinking outside the box.
I agree with almost everything you’ve just stated.
Everything fits when one also knows the background and problems within the family.
-
I am not disputing any evidence I look at it all with a open unbiased view, it's you ignoring evidence that does not fit your narrative that I object to.
What evidence am I ignoring?
-
It’s not that black and white.
I don’t think we will ever know, for sure.
I am of the belief neither Jeremy or Sheila committed this crime.
There is no evidence that Jeremy was there and the evidence doesn’t really point at Sheila either.
The evidence does prove that Jeremy didn’t do it.
'the evidence doesn’t really point at Sheila either.'
----------
Agree with that.
Why would Nevill phone Bamber and say 'Sheila has gone crazy' if it was a third party? And how would Nevill have the time?
-
'the evidence doesn’t really point at Sheila either.'
----------
Agree with that.
Why would Nevill phone Bamber and say 'Sheila has gone crazy' if it was a third party? And how would Nevill have the time?
I believe, based on my conversations with Jeremy, and later evidence, though he may disagree, is that this was a professional hit.
All the evidence proves it was neither Jeremy or Sheila and the judge directly mislead the jury by stating it has to be one or the other. If not Sheila, then it was Jeremy. (Mason)
If a gun was held at Nevilles head, or at one of the women and he was told to make that call to Jeremy to lure him in, then that is the call he had to make.
Neville also called the police. He got a sever beating for calling for help.
Jeremy however turned up with the police. That I think was unexpected.
A figure at the window and lights going of and on prove sheila was alive in the house. She even called the cops herself!! Why would she do that if she was the killer with cops outside?
Jeremy was supposed to die and all the estate goes to RB (mason).
RB was an unsavoury figure and he was about to lose everything.
The family caught wind of his ‘dark side’ and the thought of of a life behind bars, along with other seedy characters, resulted in no choice but to have the family killed.
RB I don’t think organised it. He mentioned it to one or some of his gang members (masons) and a plan was hatched with or without RB’s knowledge.
That plan failed as Jeremy brought in the cops too soon.
Order came directly from above (masons) to destroy all the evidence in the house to eliminate any possibility of there being any evidence left of an intruder.
The lead team (masons) on site were told what to do as the cover up began.
Disturbingly, sheila was still alive. She knew what went on that night and she had to be eliminated too before anybody could question her. This is where the police training on site came in.
A figure was seen crossing a field in the early hours in the direction away from the house.
With the plan not going as smoothly as it was, with JB outside with the cops,!things needed to be done quickly to point the killings at Jeremy. The silencer had to be planted with blood (RB’s blood) and a request for a dna from RB was also refused by the judge (mason).
This work I believe was carried out by RB himself. The planting of a silencer with blood inside it and a silencer with chipped paintwork on it, taken from around the aga. RB had to do this for the safety of the gang (masons) and his own family.
I have no idea whether he told his immediate family of his actions, perverting the course of duty.
The family were sniffing and stealing within days giving RB the opportunity to plant the silencer.
Job done!
And with a Masonic defender and prosecutor it came to pass that the Masonic judge deliberately mislead the jury when summing up.
Follow
Th money!! I do not believe or ever have that either of these two innocent souls committed any murders.
-
Personally I think claims of a hitman, mason involvement and long lists of individuals who conspired against Bamber are too far fetched. Excluding the latter it was agreed at trial the murderer was either Bamber or Sheila Caffell. Bamber's claim of a phone call from Mr Bamber saying 'Sheila has gone crazy with a gun' really put paid to any other scenario.
[`Opinion of MT']
There was 'an operaration' underway, in the area of whf, on the evening of 6th August 1985. 'Aerial photographs' were filmed of 'the farmhouse' and 'surrounding fields' , and 'a pond' [a drug (aerial) dump site] . How coincidental that 'Special Branch' and other security services were conducting 'an intelligence led operation' , involving one of 'Jeremy Bambers contacts' who was living and operating from' Amsterdam', Holland' [a suspected international drug lord]? Also, what is widely not known, is that 'Jeremy Bamber' and 'his family' were the subject of a surveilance, which had been issued to coincide with the visit of 'Sheila Caffell' and 'her children' to her 'foster parents farmhouse' at 'whf'. Moreover, there exist official surveilance records confirming the 'Special Branch' officers had 'Jeremy Bamber' under an intense surveilance operaration, from as early as the 4th August 1985 [which was due to expire some 28 days later. In point of fact, 'Jeremy Bamber' was monitored and tracked back to his cottage, at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, Essex, on the evening prior to when the shooting incidents unfolded during the early hours of 7th August 1985. He was followed and tracked leaving whf and returning to his cottage at about 10.00pm on the evening before the shootings took place. 'Special Branch officers' know that 'Jeremy Bamber' did not return to tge family farmhouse that same evening, and that he left his cottage to go to tge farmhouse, as he was instructed to do so, by 'PC West'..
-
Personally I think claims of a hitman, mason involvement and long lists of individuals who conspired against Bamber are too far fetched. Excluding the latter it was agreed at trial the murderer was either Bamber or Sheila Caffell. Bamber's claim of a phone call from Mr Bamber saying 'Sheila has gone crazy with a gun' really put paid to any other scenario.
Bamber did say in his police interviews Nevill may have said 'she' (not Sheila) on the phone.
This was after the police said Sheila could not have shot herself twice.
He did not say who 'she' could be.
He also suggested the second shot could be due to reflex's or by Crispy.
Sheila would have been breathing but unconcious after the very damaging first shot. So not able to fire a second shot.
-
I believe, based on my conversations with Jeremy, and later evidence, though he may disagree, is that this was a professional hit.
All the evidence proves it was neither Jeremy or Sheila and the judge directly mislead the jury by stating it has to be one or the other. If not Sheila, then it was Jeremy. (Mason)
If a gun was held at Nevilles head, or at one of the women and he was told to make that call to Jeremy to lure him in, then that is the call he had to make.
Neville also called the police. He got a sever beating for calling for help.
Jeremy however turned up with the police. That I think was unexpected.
A figure at the window and lights going of and on prove sheila was alive in the house. She even called the cops herself!! Why would she do that if she was the killer with cops outside?
Jeremy was supposed to die and all the estate goes to RB (mason).
RB was an unsavoury figure and he was about to lose everything.
The family caught wind of his ‘dark side’ and the thought of of a life behind bars, along with other seedy characters, resulted in no choice but to have the family killed.
RB I don’t think organised it. He mentioned it to one or some of his gang members (masons) and a plan was hatched with or without RB’s knowledge.
That plan failed as Jeremy brought in the cops too soon.
Order came directly from above (masons) to destroy all the evidence in the house to eliminate any possibility of there being any evidence left of an intruder.
The lead team (masons) on site were told what to do as the cover up began.
Disturbingly, sheila was still alive. She knew what went on that night and she had to be eliminated too before anybody could question her. This is where the police training on site came in.
A figure was seen crossing a field in the early hours in the direction away from the house.
With the plan not going as smoothly as it was, with JB outside with the cops,!things needed to be done quickly to point the killings at Jeremy. The silencer had to be planted with blood (RB’s blood) and a request for a dna from RB was also refused by the judge (mason).
This work I believe was carried out by RB himself. The planting of a silencer with blood inside it and a silencer with chipped paintwork on it, taken from around the aga. RB had to do this for the safety of the gang (masons) and his own family.
I have no idea whether he told his immediate family of his actions, perverting the course of duty.
The family were sniffing and stealing within days giving RB the opportunity to plant the silencer.
Job done!
And with a Masonic defender and prosecutor it came to pass that the Masonic judge deliberately mislead the jury when summing up.
Follow
Th money!! I do not believe or ever have that either of these two innocent souls committed any murders.
'All the evidence proves it was neither Jeremy or Sheila'
----------
Agree there is no evidence Sheila fired a weapon or fought Nevill. Which shows it was Bamber.
What incriminating evidence would Bamber leave at the crime scene?
-
What we also know is that it wasn't until 9.30am at the scene that `Jeremy Bamber' was told by 'DS Jones' that all five members of his family were dead, inside the farmhouse. In response, 'Jeremy' commented that he beleived the men with the guns who had very recently entered the farmhouse had shot and killed everyone. 'DS Jones' replied to the effect that those men [not in uniform] were police officers, and surely that he did not beleive that narrative?
What is relevant here, is that 'Jeremy' did not see the six man raid team who went to enter the farmhouse at 7.30am, but that at 9.00am he did see and witness six men armed with guns go into the farmhouse, and that 'Jeremy' did think that this group of men, were not police officers, because they were all dressed in casual wear or suits [these were the six man team who were summoned to the scene in order to assist senior offcers to perform and carry out a training exercise referred to in police documentation as ' informatives'...
-
What we also know is that it wasn't until 9.30am at the scene that `Jeremy Bamber' was told by 'DS Jones' that all five members of his family were dead, inside the farmhouse. In response, 'Jeremy' commented that he beleived the men with the guns who had very recently entered the farmhouse had shot and killed everyone. 'DS Jones' replied to the effect that those men [not in uniform] were polie officers, and surely that he did not beleive that narrative?
What is relevant here, is that 'Jeremy' did not see the six man raid team who went to enter the farmhouse at 7.30am, but that at 9.00am he did see and witness six men armed with guns go into the farmhouse, and that 'Jeremy' did think that this group of men, were not police officers, because they were all dressed in casual wear or suits [these were the six man team who were summoned to the scene in order to assist senior offcers to perform and carry out a training exercise referred to in police documentation as ' informatives'...
Very interesting!!
-
Personally I think claims of a hitman, mason involvement and long lists of individuals who conspired against Bamber are too far fetched. Excluding the latter it was agreed at trial the murderer was either Bamber or Sheila Caffell. Bamber's claim of a phone call from Mr Bamber saying 'Sheila has gone crazy with a gun' really put paid to any other scenario.
[`Opinion of MT']
There was 'an operaration' underway, in the area of whf, on the evening of 6th August 1985. 'Aerial photographs' were filmed of 'the farmhouse' and 'surrounding fields' , and 'a pond' [a drug (aerial) dump site] . How coincidental that 'Special Branch' and other security services were conducting 'an intelligence led operation' , involving one of 'Jeremy Bambers contacts' who was living and operating from' Amsterdam', Holland' [a suspected international drug lord]? Also, what is widely not known, is that 'Jeremy Bamber' and 'his family' were the subject of a surveilance, which had been issued to coincide with the visit of 'Sheila Caffell' and 'her children' to her 'foster parents farmhouse' at 'whf'. Moreover, there exist official surveilance records confirming the 'Special Branch' officers had 'Jeremy Bamber' under an intense surveilance operaration, from as early as the 4th August 1985 [which was due to expire some 28 days later. In point of fact, 'Jeremy Bamber' was monitored and tracked back to his cottage, at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, Essex, on the evening prior to when the shooting incidents unfolded during the early hours of 7th August 1985. He was followed and tracked leaving whf and returning to his cottage at about 10.00pm on the evening before the shootings took place. 'Special Branch officers' know that 'Jeremy Bamber' did not return to tge family farmhouse that same evening, and that he left his cottage to go to tge farmhouse, as he was instructed to do so, by 'PC West'..
Is the quote from Mike?
This again further supports my belief that this was a professional job.
-
'All the evidence proves it was neither Jeremy or Sheila'
----------
Agree there is no evidence Sheila fired a weapon or fought Nevill. Which shows it was Bamber.
What incriminating evidence would Bamber leave at the crime scene?
Yes, I agree Sheila would have been dying already from the first shot and therefore the second shot had to come from an outsider. It wasn’t Jeremy!
In the event the hitman left any incriminating evidence everything had to be burned. Carpets especially to cover footprints. It all had to be destroyed.
-
Yes, I agree Sheila would have been dying already from the first shot and therefore the second shot had to come from an outsider. It wasn’t Jeremy!
In the event the hitman left any incriminating evidence everything had to be burned. Carpets especially to cover footprints. It all had to be destroyed.
Do you believe Bamber hired a hit man?
-
Do you believe Bamber hired a hit man?
No!! Not at all!!
This was a professional hit organised and delivered from the top.
Jeremy had no part in this whatsoever!!
-
No!! Not at all!!
This was a professional hit organised and delivered from the top.
Jeremy had no part in this whatsoever!!
How did Nevill have time to ring Bamber?
-
Is the quote from Mike?
This again further supports my belief that this was a professional job.
Is there a source for this?
-
No!! Not at all!!
This was a professional hit organised and delivered from the top.
Jeremy had no part in this whatsoever!!
Then how on earth do you explain Nevills call to Jeremy implicating Sheila?
-
Brett Collins believes it was a hitman as he'll swear to this day that JB wouldn't and couldn't have carried out such a murder.
Even EP initially refused to confirm in a newspaper that the family had been murdered by a hitman hired by drug-traffickers. At that time an inquest had been opened but it was adjourned until police had completed their investigations. This was reported in the Essex Chronicle on the 13th of September 1985.
The police had been looking into criminal and drug-related offences. Why didn't EP follow this ?
-
Then how on earth do you explain Nevills call to Jeremy implicating Sheila?
If someone has a gun to your head, or another member of your household, you’d make that call!
-
If someone has a gun to your head, or another member of your household, you’d make that call!
What is your view on Mike's theory that it was a hit man team?
-
In the year before the WHF murders Essex police had made a huge haul of cannabis/ cocaine during their Operation Bishop investigation. Essex was awash with drugs in the 80's which seemingly were shipped/ landed by helicopter from Lebanon.
-
If someone has a gun to your head, or another member of your household, you’d make that call!
lol
-
The drugs had been bought from a Lebanese gunman near Tripoli. 5 men were convicted and jailed in 1985. Drug smuggling was the major source of income for Middle Eastern militia and guerrilla organisations in the 1980's.
-
If someone has a gun to your head, or another member of your household, you’d make that call!
This is a interesting theory but I am finding it hard to take seriously to be honest. Nevil would have been ordered to use a different phrase to what he actually did when phoning JB. Something that would not have caused JB to call the police but just to get in the car and come over?
Why would a drugs related professional hit worry about covering their tracks and make it look like four murders and a suicide?
Why did the boys have to die?
-
This is a interesting theory but I am finding it hard to take seriously to be honest. Nevil would have been ordered to use a different phrase to what he actually did when phoning JB. Something that would not have caused JB to call the police but just to get in the car and come over?
Why would a drugs related professional hit worry about covering their tracks and make it look like four murders and a suicide?
Why did the boys have to die?
I would agree.
I'm of the view he was told to call Jeremy and tell him to come over as his sister has gone crazy.
I think he took this opportunity to call for help by adding ‘she’s got a gun!!’
He took one hell of a beating for that as it would have allerted Jeremy to possibly call the police, which he did.
-
You do have to ask yourself would anyone who was mentally balanced murder children.
It has never been proven that JB is mentally unbalanced in all the years he's been locked up. He's never given anyone cause for concern, which is why it had once been suggested reducing his category offering him the privilege of going outside within the prison grounds----but we all know what happened there, don't we ?
-
You do have to ask yourself would anyone who was mentally balanced murder children.
It has never been proven that JB is mentally unbalanced in all the years he's been locked up. He's never given anyone cause for concern, which is why it had once been suggested reducing his category offering him the privilege of going outside within the prison grounds----but we all know what happened there, don't we ?
It gives credence to that part in Julie's statement where she said he had been practising on rats to gird his loins.
-
It gives credence to that part in Julie's statement where she said he had been practising on rats to gird his loins.
I haven't heard that said anywhere, least of all by EP ?
-
I haven't heard that said anywhere, least of all by EP ?
I have learned to ignore " what Julie said ".
-
I haven't heard that said anywhere, least of all by EP ?
Apparently the rats had consumed cannabis, which slowed them down.
-
Apparently the rats had consumed cannabis, which slowed them down.
Oh dear.
-
Hi all
Given the current discussion I was wondering whether it was possible to reopen the inquest that was never concluded? I have always assumed that the trial verdict wiped out the fact that a verdict was not pronounced at the inquest.