Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on December 26, 2021, 09:03:PM
-
2.00am:
Leave cottage & cycle to WHF.
2.15am:
Enter WHF and fire the 26 bullets.
2.30am:
Stage scene.
3.00am:
Ring WHF. Cycle back to cottage.
3.15am
Change. Clean up. Dispose or put clothes into washing machine.
3.25:
Ring Julie.
3.26/36:
Ring Chelmsford Police.
-
No one will see him cycling to/from WHF at 2am & 2.45am.
Everyone should be in a deep sleep from 2.15am - 2.30am. Nevill waking while June was being shot.
-
I fear your timescales fall down when you mention a bicycle. Jeremy might as well have put a notice on the front door of Bourtree Cottage announcing he was about to commit mass murder.
-
I fear your timescales fall down when you mention a bicycle. Jeremy might as well have put a notice on the front door of Bourtree Cottage announcing he was about to commit mass murder.
Well the prosecution case was he cycled to/from WHF.
The prosecution was successful.
-
Well the prosecution case was he cycled to/from WHF.
The prosecution was successful.
Did the prosecution hinge on this? It would have made far more sense for him to go by foot.
Incidentally, I've just been re-reading Ainsley's submission to the DPP, and to my surprise (I must have forgotten), he has Jeremy cycling along public roads!
-
The time Julie rang may have been at 3am.
Certainly before he phoned the police as he is saying he phoned them at 3.36am.
-
Did the prosecution hinge on this? It would have made far more sense for him to go by foot.
Incidentally, I've just been re-reading Ainsley's submission to the DPP, and to my surprise (I must have forgotten), he has Jeremy cycling along public roads!
What do you think of the reason given why June's bike was brought to his cottage, just before the massacre -
So Julie could cycle to the station when going home.
-
Did the prosecution hinge on this? It would have made far more sense for him to go by foot.
Incidentally, I've just been re-reading Ainsley's submission to the DPP, and to my surprise (I must have forgotten), he has Jeremy cycling along public roads!
Arguably, he COULD have, sans lights. He wouldn't have needed to go for many yards, on the main road, before taking a right turn and doing a detour cross country, using farm tracks.
-
Wasn't there a statement from someone who saw a man on a bicycle at that hour?
-
Wasn't there a statement from someone who saw a man on a bicycle at that hour?
No, it was an old tramp----who, might I add, was stopped by police and questioned but we heard nothing more about it even though he came from the direction of WHF ?
-
No, it was an old tramp----who, might I add, was stopped by police and questioned but we heard nothing more about it even though he came from the direction of WHF ?
I can promise you it wasn't Jimmy Bell :))
-
No, it was an old tramp----who, might I add, was stopped by police and questioned but we heard nothing more about it even though he came from the direction of WHF ?
I wonder if someone could bring this statement up? A tramp out in the wee hours on a sultry night might just be the type of person who had seen something.
-
I can promise you it wasn't Jimmy Bell :))
I don't know who it was Jane as it appeared to have been " passed off " but I think there were inquiries if I remember rightly.
-
Wasn't there a statement from someone who saw a man on a bicycle at that hour?
That would be big news.
-
I don't know who it was Jane as it appeared to have been " passed off " but I think there were inquiries if I remember rightly.
I don't think the person's -the hunched man?- identity was ever discovered.
-
No, it was an old tramp----who, might I add, was stopped by police and questioned but we heard nothing more about it even though he came from the direction of WHF ?
The old tramp myth.
Anyone who could have seen something , it could only have been Bamber they saw. He was the only one outside of WHF.
-
What do you think of the reason given why June's bike was brought to his cottage, just before the massacre -
So Julie could cycle to the station when going home.
Question open to everyone. QC did not reply.
-
Freddie Emami was also arrested and taken to Epping police station for questioning on the 8th of August 1985, then taken to Witham to be interviewed. An Irish chap was with him whose name was Norman.
Someone must have given EP the nod about Freddie ?
-
The above was an extract from DC Barlow's COLP notes.
-
How do any of us know that there wasn't a late-night caller ? We don't do we ? Or who Sheila might have rang that night ? Nor do we know that. So like EP, most went for the easiest option provided that they could all build up a case against Jeremy to which they nit-picked their way through. Absolutely shocking.
-
How do any of us know that there wasn't a late-night caller ? We don't do we ? Or who Sheila might have rang that night ? Nor do we know that. So like EP, most went for the easiest option provided that they could all build up a case against Jeremy to which they nit-picked their way through. Absolutely shocking.
All cases are decided on facts, evidence and witnesses.
Not knowing whether there was a late night phone call would not be discussed.
Besides which, no one has come forward to say they rang WHF or were rang. So we do know.
-
Question open to everyone. QC did not reply.
Do you believe June, that she was going to use the bike to "see nature"? I don't. I think she was planning on knocking-off local post offices. Think about it. All she needed was a gun. Plenty of those about. She's now got a bike. I think she was going to disguise herself as Julie.
It's the quiet, church-going ones you need to watch.
-
All cases are decided on facts, evidence and witnesses.
Not knowing whether there was a late night phone call would not be discussed.
Besides which, no one has come forward to say they rang WHF or were rang. So we do know.
And where are these " facts, evidence and witnesses ?"
-
Do you believe June, that she was going to use the bike to "see nature"? I don't. I think she was planning on knocking-off local post offices. Think about it. All she needed was a gun. Plenty of those about. She's now got a bike. I think she was going to disguise herself as Julie.
It's the quiet, church-going ones you need to watch.
Annie get your gun style ?
-
Arguably, he COULD have, sans lights. He wouldn't have needed to go for many yards, on the main road, before taking a right turn and doing a detour cross country, using farm tracks.
Ainsley has him cycling along Maldon Road about a mile to the farm track that leads to Brook House Farm. That's still two miles in all that he cycled out on a public road on his way to and from a mass murder. Those two miles must have felt like 20. In addition, if Ainsley is right, this means Jeremy has cycled over rough farm and field tracks, again at night. You suggest he may have done this without lights.
Then there's the problem of how to get in and out of the environs of the cottage and Goldhanger without being seen. That's risky enough if just going on foot. The bike had a squeak when shown to Barbara Wilson a week or two before, but we'll err on the side of the prosecution and assume this had been sorted out. We'll also give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt and say that, on the public road, Jeremy could have worn dark clothing and a balaclava under a hood, and on seeing a car, he could have put his head down and taken other simple precautions. The only risk he then takes is that someone later reports seeing a cyclist out in the middle of the night. Even if that happened, the witness would not be able to positively identify Jeremy.
Or would they? The fact is that even when someone is disguised, you can still identify them. Somebody may have recognised the bike or Jeremy's clothing. Not that such an identification would be reliable or assist the prosecution much, but here we are considering not the legal case, but the risk calculations that Jeremy might take. You would need only one driver, other road user, farmer or neighbour - anyone - to see him, and potentially, suspicion then falls on Jeremy and he faces questions and inquiries. People who plan things like this tend to do so with minimising risk in mind. A bicycle complicates things. It means noise. It can slow him down. It forces him to run into vehicles and maybe pedestrians who will all see him, albeit he may be disguised. What if a puncture or mechanical fault develops? Surely it's simpler and less risky to go by foot?
-
So he goes on foot. The main point is that it's possible. https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
-
Ainsley has him cycling along Maldon Road about a mile to the farm track that leads to Brook House Farm. That's still two miles in all that he cycled out on a public road on his way to and from a mass murder. Those two miles must have felt like 20. In addition, if Ainsley is right, this means Jeremy has cycled over rough farm and field tracks, again at night. You suggest he may have done this without lights.
Then there's the problem of how to get in and out of the environs of the cottage and Goldhanger without being seen. That's risky enough if just going on foot. The bike had a squeak when shown to Barbara Wilson a week or two before, but we'll err on the side of the prosecution and assume this had been sorted out. We'll also give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt and say that, on the public road, Jeremy could have worn dark clothing and a balaclava under a hood, and on seeing a car, he could have put his head down and taken other simple precautions. The only risk he then takes is that someone later reports seeing a cyclist out in the middle of the night. Even if that happened, the witness would not be able to positively identify Jeremy.
Or would they? The fact is that even when someone is disguised, you can still identify them. Somebody may have recognised the bike or Jeremy's clothing. Not that such an identification would be reliable or assist the prosecution much, but here we are considering not the legal case, but the risk calculations that Jeremy might take. You would need only one driver, other road user, farmer or neighbour - anyone - to see him, and potentially, suspicion then falls on Jeremy and he faces questions and inquiries. People who plan things like this tend to do so with minimising risk in mind. A bicycle complicates things. It means noise. It can slow him down. It forces him to run into vehicles and maybe pedestrians who will all see him, albeit he may be disguised. What if a puncture or mechanical fault develops? Surely it's simpler and less risky to go by foot?
Mmm. Thus far, little has been said of how JB may have felt whilst en route to the mission which would see his fortunes change. Having never done such, I'm hazarding a guess that anticipation might have come higher on the list than, say, fear. I say this because whilst we, here, and now, concern ourselves on his behalf, I feel certain he'd have believed that he'd worked out everything to the finest detail. Surely, he wouldn't have been foolhardy enough to take the risk had he not? I truly don't believe he anticipated anything going wrong, and that he was equipped to cope. Although everything you put forward is valid.
-
So he goes on foot. The main point is that it's possible. https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
Both foot and bicycle were possible, either or both ways. The issue is plausibility. The risks involved in one are much greater than the other, though the risks are still great in either case, and there are further issues when we bring the timings and phone calls into it.
-
We have to go by the evidence & Julie's WS. Together with the extremely weak reason Bamber said he took June's bike.
The prosecution believe he cycled. Several possible routes for him.
-
Both foot and bicycle were possible, either or both ways. The issue is plausibility. The risks involved in one are much greater than the other, though the risks are still great in either case, and there are further issues when we bring the timings and phone calls into it.
..yes and they are damning to Jeremy Bamber.
-
One of Trudies vlogs had her go to one of the cycle routes.
The footpath was so accessible to walk/cycle on, it even had a bench on!
-
One of Trudies vlogs had her go to one of the cycle routes.
The footpath was so accessible to walk/cycle on, it even had a bench on!
Trudy's absence or removal speaks volumes. She's realized he's guilty and like Julie was strung along.
-
..yes and they are damning to Jeremy Bamber.
I disagree, having looked at them in detail. In order for the prosecution case to work, Jeremy must have gone to and from the scene using a quick method, such as a bicycle or car. We can rule out a car. The bicycle method is just about possible but fraught with risk and danger that diminishes its plausibility.
By the way, given your posts on this particular topic, can we assume you are therefore discounting Caroline's theory fully? We already have the evidence of Len Foakes, which blows Caroline's theory out of the water and leaves us only with the sinking hulk: the suggestion that Jeremy committed the murders much earlier than believed. I assume you accept it can't be the case that Jeremy was cycling out to the farmhouse at 10 or thereabouts in the evening?
-
I disagree, having looked at them in detail. In order for the prosecution case to work, Jeremy must have gone to and from the scene using a quick method, such as a bicycle or car. We can rule out a car. The bicycle method is just about possible but fraught with risk and danger that diminishes its plausibility.
By the way, given your posts on this particular topic, can we assume you are therefore discounting Caroline's theory fully? We already have the evidence of Len Foakes, which blows Caroline's theory out of the water and leaves us only with the sinking hulk: the suggestion that Jeremy committed the murders much earlier than believed. I assume you accept it can't be the case that Jeremy was cycling out to the farmhouse at 10 or thereabouts in the evening?
What risk & danger?
Anyway, it was a risk he was willing to take.
-
I disagree, having looked at them in detail. In order for the prosecution case to work, Jeremy must have gone to and from the scene using a quick method, such as a bicycle or car. We can rule out a car. The bicycle method is just about possible but fraught with risk and danger that diminishes its plausibility.
By the way, given your posts on this particular topic, can we assume you are therefore discounting Caroline's theory fully? We already have the evidence of Len Foakes, which blows Caroline's theory out of the water and leaves us only with the sinking hulk: the suggestion that Jeremy committed the murders much earlier than believed. I assume you accept it can't be the case that Jeremy was cycling out to the farmhouse at 10 or thereabouts in the evening?
I don't recall Caroline ever mentioning the bicycle. But don't let truth get in the way of your theoretical posts.
-
Bamber had to spend 15 minutes cycling to/from WHF.
Along cycle/foot paths in an area he lived/worked in most of his life.
Who will see him at 2am, Worzel Gummidge?
-
I don't recall Caroline ever mentioning the bicycle. But don't let truth get in the way of your theoretical posts.
No, because she was wrong! She has him taking the last trailer back, because she wasn't aware of Len Foakes' evidence. That leaves us with only a residual aspect of Caroline's theory, which is the suggestion he committed the murders earlier than believed. The point is that if he walked or drove or cycled, the problem is the same if he sets out early: he is highly-likely to be seen by someone and he arrives at a house where people may still be awake and up and about. You replied to this previously by suggesting he may have arranged to stay the night, but I gave detailed circumstantial reasons why this was unlikely. Nevertheless, if that is what you think, then it is incumbent on you to explain how he got there 'early' if your position is to stand up.
-
I disagree, having looked at them in detail. In order for the prosecution case to work, Jeremy must have gone to and from the scene using a quick method, such as a bicycle or car. We can rule out a car. The bicycle method is just about possible but fraught with risk and danger that diminishes its plausibility.
By the way, given your posts on this particular topic, can we assume you are therefore discounting Caroline's theory fully? We already have the evidence of Len Foakes, which blows Caroline's theory out of the water and leaves us only with the sinking hulk: the suggestion that Jeremy committed the murders much earlier than believed. I assume you accept it can't be the case that Jeremy was cycling out to the farmhouse at 10 or thereabouts in the evening?
On what basis can this be ruled out?
Bamber's witness statement is quite clear about what tasks his father needed to complete before the end of the working day and how long these would take.
The expert evidence:
38. At 8.10 a.m., Dr Craig attended the scene to formally certify the deaths. In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night.The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand. In answer to the judge the witness made it clear this was not an opinion the jury should rely upon as a true indication that the injuries had been self-inflicted.
-
On what basis can this be ruled out?
Bamber's witness statement is quite clear about what tasks his father needed to complete before the end of the working day and how long these would take.
The expert evidence:
38. At 8.10 a.m., Dr Craig attended the scene to formally certify the deaths. In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night.The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand. In answer to the judge the witness made it clear this was not an opinion the jury should rely upon as a true indication that the injuries had been self-inflicted.
With respect, I think you need to read the other thread.
-
Bamber had to spend 15 minutes cycling to/from WHF.
Along cycle/foot paths in an area he lived/worked in most of his life.
Who will see him at 2am, Worzel Gummidge?
Could you cycle the distance after completing 17hrs field work, harvesting ?
-
Can you explain why he rings Julie then waits 15 minutes or so before ringing Police:
3.15:
Ring Julie.
3.26/36:
Ring Chelmsford Police.
There is no need to delay in this scenario? and can you explain why he does not simply dial 999? why does he make himself look suspicious?
-
No, because she was wrong! She has him taking the last trailer back, because she wasn't aware of Len Foakes' evidence. That leaves us with only a residual aspect of Caroline's theory, which is the suggestion he committed the murders earlier than believed. The point is that if he walked or drove or cycled, the problem is the same if he sets out early: he is highly-likely to be seen by someone and he arrives at a house where people may still be awake and up and about. You replied to this previously by suggesting he may have arranged to stay the night, but I gave detailed circumstantial reasons why this was unlikely. Nevertheless, if that is what you think, then it is incumbent on you to explain how he got there 'early' if your position is to stand up.
Was it you yourself who suggested he hid somewhere for several hours, possibly in the White House Farm grounds, the rifle by his side? It's certainly a possibility. Or he tells Nevill there's some urgent business at home but he will be coming back to sleep at the Farm due to an early start the next day.
-
Can you explain why he rings Julie then waits 15 minutes or so before ringing Police:
3.15:
Ring Julie.
3.26/36:
Ring Chelmsford Police.
There is no need to delay in this scenario? and can you explain why he does not simply dial 999? why does he make himself look suspicious?
He doesn't want any forensic trail left, such as the taping of the telephone conversation between himself and police. Remember he insisted on the cremation of his parents, which would have been expressly against his mother's wishes.
-
Could you cycle the distance after completing 17hrs field work, harvesting ?
Yes.
-
Yes.
After massacring 5 people ?
-
With respect, I think you need to read the other thread.
Which other thread?
-
He doesn't want any forensic trail left, such as the taping of the telephone conversation between himself and police. Remember he insisted on the cremation of his parents, which would have been expressly against his mother's wishes.
Ok so he does not want a recorded 999 call that's the first time I have read that anywhere, why does he not phone Julie directly before or after ringing the Police, her first WS did say 3.30?
-
Could you cycle the distance after completing 17hrs field work, harvesting ?
Where do you get 17 hours from?
-
Where do you get 17 hours from?
From when JB began the rape harvesting early morning until around 9pm when he had a sandwich at WHF.
-
Which other thread?
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5565.135.html
-
From when JB began the rape harvesting early morning until around 9pm when he had a sandwich at WHF.
For the life of me I can't see him getting up around 3.30, but he had a lovely new all singing, all dancing tractor to sit in when he got there. Imagine how boring that would be, even for someone who loved farming!!!
-
Ok so he does not want a recorded 999 call that's the first time I have read that anywhere, why does he not phone Julie directly before or after ringing the Police, her first WS did say 3.30?
He claimed he couldn't remember the order of the calls. He changed his story twice. He couldn't remember because there was no call from his father at all: after murdering five and returning to Bourtree Cottage to clean up he then initiated the telephone calls. On Monday 9 September 1985 under interrogation he eventually reverted to his original statement that he first telephoned Chelmsford Police, then Julie.
-
Ok so he does not want a recorded 999 call that's the first time I have read that anywhere, why does he not phone Julie directly before or after ringing the Police, her first WS did say 3.30?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
-
I'm not sure I understand the question.
Sorry Steve, I was asking Adam for his reasoning for saying in his post that JB called Julie at 3.15 then waited until 3.26/3.36 to phone the Police. Although Julie in her first WS said JB called a 3.30
Why did Adam state the times he quoted in his post and what did JB gain by waiting if he did delay?
I was hoping Adam would elaborate.
-
Sorry Steve, I was asking Adam for his reasoning for saying in his post that JB called Julie at 3.15 then waited until 3.26/3.36 to phone the Police. Although Julie in her first WS said JB called a 3.30
Why did Adam state the times he quoted in his post and what did JB gain by waiting if he did delay?
I was hoping Adam would elaborate.
There was a delay when Jeremy returned home after commiting five murders because he had to clean himself up and change his clothes. He knew he wouldn't be forensically examined by police that first morning but he had reckoned on Ann Eaton's meddling as he saw it, which is why he tried several attempts to get her onside in the preceding months.
As far as the call at Julie's end at Caterham Road was concerned it was the middle of the night and there was a suspicion that Julie and her flatmates had been smoking cannabis the previous evening and were unaware of the exact time. I think they settled on 3:15 am after a discussion with Susan Battersby and Douglas Dale.
-
He knew he wouldn't be forensically examined by police..
He can't know this Steve. Nor could he know in advance that he wouldn't receive a single injury while carrying out the killings. He also can't know in advance that Julie will stay quiet, if he allows their relationship to end.
-
He can't know this Steve. Nor could he know in advance that he wouldn't receive a single injury while carrying out the killings. He also can't know in advance that Julie will stay quiet, if he allows their relationship to end.
I'm inclined to agree, Roch. We label him with much, but I don't believe mind-reader can be added to ther list. As in life, there are times when we simply have to trust to luck. I think, by the time he and Julie were no longer 'an item' he was confident that she wouldn't spill the beans. Hadn't he offered to set her up in a wine bar? Perhaps he thought it would be sweetener enough?
-
He can't know this Steve. Nor could he know in advance that he wouldn't receive a single injury while carrying out the killings. He also can't know in advance that Julie will stay quiet, if he allows their relationship to end.
He's primed police with his story. Upon entry they find a schizophrenic young woman with a rifle across her body and a rifle on the floor. He's hardly going to be arrested on the spot.
-
He's primed police with his story. Upon entry they find a schizophrenic young woman with a rifle across her body and a rifle on the floor. He's hardly going to be arrested on the spot.
You've put the rifle in two places. Was that a Freudian slip based upon the disagreement behind the scenes?
-
There was a delay when Jeremy returned home after commiting five murders because he had to clean himself up and change his clothes. He knew he wouldn't be forensically examined by police that first morning but he had reckoned on Ann Eaton's meddling as he saw it, which is why he tried several attempts to get her onside in the preceding months.
As far as the call at Julie's end at Caterham Road was concerned it was the middle of the night and there was a suspicion that Julie and her flatmates had been smoking cannabis the previous evening and were unaware of the exact time. I think they settled on 3:15 am after a discussion with Susan Battersby and Douglas Dale.
Steve, there was a gun dog present with one of the officers and the animal would certainly have sniffed out gun residue on JB, even from underneath fingernails but the dog wasn't interested in him so no matter what clothes were worn or how many showers JB had, there'd have been a trace somewhere on his person to pick up on---but there wasn't, because he hadn't been involved.
-
You've put the rifle in two places. Was that a Freudian slip based upon the disagreement behind the scenes?
Sorry bible.
-
Steve, there was a gun dog present with one of the officers and the animal would certainly have sniffed out gun residue on JB, even from underneath fingernails but the dog wasn't interested in him so no matter what clothes were worn or how many showers JB had, there'd have been a trace somewhere on his person to pick up on---but there wasn't, because he hadn't been involved.
I'm not sure it was a sniffer dog as such.
-
Trudy's absence or removal speaks volumes. She's realized he's guilty and like Julie was strung along.
Yes.
-
Can you explain why he rings Julie then waits 15 minutes or so before ringing Police:
3.15:
Ring Julie.
3.26/36:
Ring Chelmsford Police.
There is no need to delay in this scenario? and can you explain why he does not simply dial 999? why does he make himself look suspicious?
I said earlier he may have rang Julie at 3am. There are a lot of conflicting times from when he rang Julie. Even Bamber kept flip flopping over whether it was before or after the police.
He may have rang Julie then had a gap before ringing Chelmsford Police because he still had cleaning up to do. Or wanted to compose himself. Or wanted some food. It was going to be a long day.
-
Can you explain why he rings Julie then waits 15 minutes or so before ringing Police:
3.15:
Ring Julie.
3.26/36:
Ring Chelmsford Police.
There is no need to delay in this scenario? and can you explain why he does not simply dial 999? why does he make himself look suspicious?
You would have to ask Bamber why he phoned Chelmsford Police. Although he did eventually give a reason.
Suspect he thought a police car despatched from Chelmsford is more likely to pick him up.
-
He can't know this Steve. Nor could he know in advance that he wouldn't receive a single injury while carrying out the killings. He also can't know in advance that Julie will stay quiet, if he allows their relationship to end.
He was prepared to take the risks.
It is what criminals do.
-
Steve, there was a gun dog present with one of the officers and the animal would certainly have sniffed out gun residue on JB, even from underneath fingernails but the dog wasn't interested in him so no matter what clothes were worn or how many showers JB had, there'd have been a trace somewhere on his person to pick up on---but there wasn't, because he hadn't been involved.
A gun dog?
Is that in case the police didn't see the rifle laying across Sheila?
-
I'm not sure it was a sniffer dog as such.
I'd read somewhere that it was.
-
He was prepared to take the risks.
It is what criminals do.
The way he carried on he knew he was going to get caught, it was not a risk it was a certainty!
-
The way he carried on he knew he was going to get caught, it was not a risk it was a certainty!
Yes he did make mistakes. Before, during & afterwards.
It's what criminals do. Espescially inexperienced ones.
-
Yes he did make mistakes. Before, during & afterwards.
It's what criminals do. Espescially inexperienced ones.
No criminals only commit crimes if they think they will get away with it.
-
No criminals only commit crimes if they think they will get away with it.
You may be missing Adam's point. It may be inevitable that novice criminals make mistakes, but I'll bet they go into it believing it will go like clockwork.
-
You may be missing Adam's point. It may be inevitable that novice criminals make mistakes, but I'll bet they go into it believing it will go like clockwork.
I don't think I am missing Adam's point Jane, sure criminals make mistakes, but they don't take undue risks.
-
I don't think I am missing Adam's point Jane, sure criminals make mistakes, but they don't take undue risks.
I have no argument with that, Rob, but what might look like a breeze to one, could look like an undue risk for another. I suspect, when we contemplate the risk we know that JB was taking, we may be measuring it against our own parameters, ie I wouldn't have risked walking along the sea-wall because it narrows in places.
-
I have no argument with that, Rob, but what might look like a breeze to one, could look like an undue risk for another. I suspect, when we contemplate the risk we know that JB was taking, we may be measuring it against our own parameters, ie I wouldn't have risked walking along the sea-wall because it narrows in places.
Let's not forget the Dunning-Kruger effect. I believe one of the cases cited in their research was of a bank robber who had read that lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, so he applied the juice to his face, waved at the security camera and when he was soon arrested, he refused to believe that they could tell it was him!
-
Let's not forget the Dunning-Kruger effect. I believe one of the cases cited in their research was of a bank robber who had read that lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, so he applied the juice to his face, waved at the security camera and when he was soon arrested, he refused to believe that they could tell it was him!
Belief in oneself, and one's own capabilities, is, of course, paramount. JB had such in spades. I have that pompous remark "That is for you to establish" ringing in my ears.
-
Let's not forget the Dunning-Kruger effect. I believe one of the cases cited in their research was of a bank robber who had read that lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, so he applied the juice to his face, waved at the security camera and when he was soon arrested, he refused to believe that they could tell it was him!
It's just that he did the hard bit, carried out the crime convinced the Police at least initially that it was suicide. Then he gives himself away by being incredibly stupid!
Also I don't think you can compare robbing a bank to committing five murders where there are only two possible suspects.
-
It's just that he did the hard bit, carried out the crime convinced the Police at least initially that it was suicide. Then he gives himself away by being incredibly stupid!
Also I don't think you can compare robbing a bank to committing five murders where there are only two possible suspects.
No his hand was forced.
-
It's just that he did the hard bit, carried out the crime convinced the Police at least initially that it was suicide. Then he gives himself away by being incredibly stupid!
Also I don't think you can compare robbing a bank to committing five murders where there are only two possible suspects.
What are you referring to?
-
It's just that he did the hard bit, carried out the crime convinced the Police at least initially that it was suicide. Then he gives himself away by being incredibly stupid!
Also I don't think you can compare robbing a bank to committing five murders where there are only two possible suspects.
But it's only your opinion -which you have every right to- that he'd been "incredibly stupid". JB may have believed he'd been incredibly clever.
-
But it's only your opinion -which you have every right to- that he'd been "incredibly stupid". JB may have believed he'd been incredibly clever.
Yes I agree Jane it's my opinion, putting the silencer in the cupboard was stupid beyond belief but that's my opinion. You may say well why not? Adam says it's not part of the crime scene? oh well.
-
Yes I agree Jane it's my opinion, putting the silencer in the cupboard was stupid beyond belief but that's my opinion. You may say well why not? Adam says it's not part of the crime scene? oh well.
I'm simply going by the circumstances, Rob. From his first moment of contact with police, JB had implied that -according to his father- his mentally ill and, thrown in for good measure, potentially suicidal sister had managed to get hold of a loaded gun. He spent a couple of hours outside with them, reinforcing this. Hardly surprising then, finding Sheila dead, with a gun draped across her, that they accepted what JB had said. Not only that, Taff Jones, he who must never be challenged, was equally convinced by JB's story. Who were they to gainsay it?
The above, in my opinion, is exactly why a 'finger tip' search wasn't made. It wasn't considered necessary. What suicide was going to use a silencer to shoot a family, then remove and HIDE it before taking their own life? Why would they even bother putting it away? Imagining a potential suicide's frustration when the realize that they can't finish the job with a silencer attached, wouldn't they be more likely to detach and toss it aside?
With the clarity of hindsight, I agree with you that it was a stupid thing to do, but I think we have to allow JB a moment of wobble here. SO close is he -indeed, just one shot away, perhaps- from attaining his goal, when it looks possible that he could fall at the last fence. What are his options? He could take it with him and throw it in the river, but how long would be before it was missed? At least if he placed it back in its box, it wouldn't arouse suspicion.
Adam isn't wrong in his claim that it wasn't part of the crime scene...................according to some, it was never part of murders, either.
-
I'm simply going by the circumstances, Rob. From his first moment of contact with police, JB had implied that -according to his father- his mentally ill and, thrown in for good measure, potentially suicidal sister had managed to get hold of a loaded gun. He spent a couple of hours outside with them, reinforcing this. Hardly surprising then, finding Sheila dead, with a gun draped across her, that they accepted what JB had said. Not only that, Taff Jones, he who must never be challenged, was equally convinced by JB's story. Who were they to gainsay it?
The above, in my opinion, is exactly why a 'finger tip' search wasn't made. It wasn't considered necessary. What suicide was going to use a silencer to shoot a family, then remove and HIDE it before taking their own life? Why would they even bother putting it away? Imagining a potential suicide's frustration when the realize that they can't finish the job with a silencer attached, wouldn't they be more likely to detach and toss it aside?
With the clarity of hindsight, I agree with you that it was a stupid thing to do, but I think we have to allow JB a moment of wobble here. SO close is he -indeed, just one shot away, perhaps- from attaining his goal, when it looks possible that he could fall at the last fence. What are his options? He could take it with him and throw it in the river, but how long would be before it was missed? At least if he placed it back in its box, it wouldn't arouse suspicion.
Adam isn't wrong in his claim that it wasn't part of the crime scene...................according to some, it was never part of murders, either.
Totally WRONG as usual. Trying to mislead any new posters with a completely wrong narrative. Jeremy told the police about Sheila’s mental health problems which ANYONE else in Jeremy’s position would have done.
Are you incapable of telling the truth.
On being told his family were all dead Jeremy blamed the police (which would also fit with seeing movement in the farmhouse)
I suppose you are now going to MAKE UP another bizarre reason Jeremy blamed the police.
You questioned yesterday WHO is still interested in the case
The answer is plenty of people
Do not try to disrupt this forum with lies and mistruths. It’s an absolute disgrace
-
I'm simply going by the circumstances, Rob. From his first moment of contact with police, JB had implied that -according to his father- his mentally ill and, thrown in for good measure, potentially suicidal sister had managed to get hold of a loaded gun. He spent a couple of hours outside with them, reinforcing this. Hardly surprising then, finding Sheila dead, with a gun draped across her, that they accepted what JB had said. Not only that, Taff Jones, he who must never be challenged, was equally convinced by JB's story. Who were they to gainsay it?
The above, in my opinion, is exactly why a 'finger tip' search wasn't made. It wasn't considered necessary. What suicide was going to use a silencer to shoot a family, then remove and HIDE it before taking their own life? Why would they even bother putting it away? Imagining a potential suicide's frustration when the realize that they can't finish the job with a silencer attached, wouldn't they be more likely to detach and toss it aside?
With the clarity of hindsight, I agree with you that it was a stupid thing to do, but I think we have to allow JB a moment of wobble here. SO close is he -indeed, just one shot away, perhaps- from attaining his goal, when it looks possible that he could fall at the last fence. What are his options? He could take it with him and throw it in the river, but how long would be before it was missed? At least if he placed it back in its box, it wouldn't arouse suspicion.
Adam isn't wrong in his claim that it wasn't part of the crime scene...................according to some, it was never part of murders, either.
The Police are not easily fooled Jane, I know they totally messed up this case, but someone who has just shot five people would have given their gilt away long before the police had even entered the house.
I still don't think a silencer was even used that night, if it was JB it would just be a hinderance at close quarters and if it was Sheila she would have just grabbed the gun and used it as it was.
-
The Police are not easily fooled Jane, I know they totally messed up this case, but someone who has just shot five people would have given their gilt away long before the police had even entered the house.
I still don't think a silencer was even used that night, if it was JB it would just be a hinderance at close quarters and if it was Sheila she would have just grabbed the gun and used it as it was.
So you think Sheila, having shot the family, would have taken the silencer off, and put it back in its box -at the back of a cupboard!- before shooting herself? Would not her "'guilt'" have been made obvious by the fact that she was wearing -indeed, almost clutching!- the weapon she'd used?
-
That silencer had been replaced by someone else, knowing that the onus of the tragedy would fall on JB.
-
That silencer had been replaced by someone else, knowing that the onus of the tragedy would fall on JB.
"Replaced" suggests it had been somewhere other. Is that what you mean, OR do you mean it had actually never moved from where it was found?
-
"Replaced" suggests it had been somewhere other. Is that what you mean, OR do you mean it had actually never moved from where it was found?
Yes Jane, I firmly believe that it had been elsewhere within the vicinity of the kitchen, butlers pantry before being put away. It's an easy enough conclusion to come to really, though I'd have used the word----planted.
-
Yes Jane, I firmly believe that it had been elsewhere within the vicinity of the kitchen, butlers pantry before being put away. It's an easy enough conclusion to come to really, though I'd have used the word----planted.
I guess it comes down to interpretation. I'd have been more inclined to call it "planted" had it been more easily 'discovered'. To me, its location in the place it was found suggests it was either hidden deliberately or never used.
-
I guess it comes down to interpretation. I'd have been more inclined to call it "planted" had it been more easily 'discovered'. To me, its location in the place it was found suggests it was either hidden deliberately or never used.
It wasn't hidden enough not to have been found, if you understand what I mean. A very amateurish way of wanting to pin a crime on someone. It was made to look as though it had been used.
-
JB might have been everything that people have said about him but he certainly wasn't the type to shoot himself in the foot nor s**t on his own doorstep to put it crudely. Least of all murder 5 people and leave his " calling card " in the cupboard for all to see. A child of 7 would have worked that out.
-
The Police are not easily fooled Jane, I know they totally messed up this case, but someone who has just shot five people would have given their gilt away long before the police had even entered the house.
I still don't think a silencer was even used that night, if it was JB it would just be a hinderance at close quarters and if it was Sheila she would have just grabbed the gun and used it as it was.
I agree this would have been far more likely had Sheila been the killer. I think Jeremy was worried that Anthony Pargeter would realize a silencer was missing, given that they had both been shooting together outside the previous weekend.
-
Bamber used the silencer. It was intially a silent massacre attempt at 2am.
After the massacre he put the silencer back where it was always kept - in it's box at the back of the gun cupboard.
There is no issue.
-
Bamber used the silencer. It was intially a silent massacre attempt at 2am.
After the massacre he put the silencer back where it was always kept - in it's box at the back of the gun cupboard.
There is no issue.
Yes I agree with this.
-
So you think Sheila, having shot the family, would have taken the silencer off, and put it back in its box -at the back of a cupboard!- before shooting herself? Would not her "'guilt'" have been made obvious by the fact that she was wearing -indeed, almost clutching!- the weapon she'd used?
That could not happen as it was Sheila's blood in the silencer.
-
Totally WRONG as usual. Trying to mislead any new posters with a completely wrong narrative. Jeremy told the police about Sheila’s mental health problems which ANYONE else in Jeremy’s position would have done.
Are you incapable of telling the truth.
On being told his family were all dead Jeremy blamed the police (which would also fit with seeing movement in the farmhouse)
I suppose you are now going to MAKE UP another bizarre reason Jeremy blamed the police.
You questioned yesterday WHO is still interested in the case
The answer is plenty of people
Do not try to disrupt this forum with lies and mistruths. It’s an absolute disgrace
And you have the temerity to accuse me of attacking you! If the above doesn't constitute such, I don't know what is!
When will you realize that it's you, above anyone else, who causes disruption on this Forum, Jackie? It is a disgrace, and not only to this Forum.
You ask "Are you incapable of telling the truth?" Do you mean do I tell the sort of lies you've told and continue to tell about poor Julie, borne from a hatred of her bordering on the insane? But you call it truth. I call it twisted.
So let's look at what JB told police, bearing in mind it was he who is alleged to have said that it's always best to tell as much of the truth as possible. Sheila, according to him, had used/fired every gun in the house. Sheila, according to him, had previously attempted suicide. Sheila, according to him was about to go back into hospital.
So he blamed police for having shot his family. Strange, having spent hours convincing them that Sheila was more than capable of such, don't you think? Still, he wouldn't have wanted suspicion falling on him.
By the way, I still believe the guilty/innocent ratio, if taken now, would be little different from that of the jury's.
-
Totally WRONG as usual. Trying to mislead any new posters with a completely wrong narrative. Jeremy told the police about Sheila’s mental health problems which ANYONE else in Jeremy’s position would have done.
Are you incapable of telling the truth.
On being told his family were all dead Jeremy blamed the police (which would also fit with seeing movement in the farmhouse)
I suppose you are now going to MAKE UP another bizarre reason Jeremy blamed the police.
You questioned yesterday WHO is still interested in the case
The answer is plenty of people
Do not try to disrupt this forum with lies and mistruths. It’s an absolute disgrace
Yes but there was no need to say (lie) that she had recently engaged in target practice.
-
And you have the temerity to accuse me of attacking you! If the above doesn't constitute such, I don't know what is!
When will you realize that it's you, above anyone else, who causes disruption on this Forum, Jackie? It is a disgrace, and not only to this Forum.
You ask "Are you incapable of telling the truth?" Do you mean do I tell the sort of lies you've told and continue to tell about poor Julie, borne from a hatred of her bordering on the insane? But you call it truth. I call it twisted.
So let's look at what JB told police, bearing in mind it was he who is alleged to have said that it's always best to tell as much of the truth as possible. Sheila, according to him, had used/fired every gun in the house. Sheila, according to him, had previously attempted suicide. Sheila, according to him was about to go back into hospital.
So he blamed police for having shot his family. Strange, having spent hours convincing them that Sheila was more than capable of such, don't you think? Still, he wouldn't have wanted suspicion falling on him.
By the way, I still believe the guilty/innocent ratio, if taken now, would be little different from that of the jury's.
So once again you are trying to mislead the forum
Are you actually stating he didn’t blame the police???
I continue to pull your posts apart like I had to prove Colin made out he was getting back with Sheila and point out to you why cheque book journalism is not allowed anymore for obvious reasons
You seem unable to grasp the truth. You have got serious problems. Maybe seek therapy rather than flood this forum with lies
-
So once again you are trying to mislead the forum
Are you actually stating he didn’t blame the police???
I continue to pull your posts apart like I had to prove Colin made out he was getting back with Sheila and point out to you why cheque book journalism is not allowed anymore for obvious reasons
You seem unable to grasp the truth. You have got serious problems. Maybe seek therapy rather than flood this forum with lies
Once gain you attack me, Jackie. That lack of control problem which Roch spoke of is clearly getting the better of you. May I suggest a change of psychiatrist for you, along with an adjustment of medication.
-
So once again you are trying to mislead the forum
Are you actually stating he didn’t blame the police???
I continue to pull your posts apart like I had to prove Colin made out he was getting back with Sheila and point out to you why cheque book journalism is not allowed anymore for obvious reasons
You seem unable to grasp the truth. You have got serious problems. Maybe seek therapy rather than flood this forum with lies
He said there was a possibility, that's all.
-
Once gain you attack me, Jackie. That lack of control problem which Roch spoke of is clearly getting the better of you. May I suggest a change of psychiatrist for you, along with an adjustment of medication.
Caught out again by lies. How embarrassing for you
Waiting for your response that Jeremy blamed the police for killing his family
The truth hurts
-
He said there was a possibility, that's all.
And from his descriptions of their last hours together, along with Sheila's friends' reports of her during her last fortnight, and her general lack of care for herself, she wasn't exactly acting like a woman about to reconcile with the love of her life. Whatever Colin may have said were his thoughts of what MAY have been, they occurred AFTER her death. Sheila was never privy to them.
-
Caught out again by lies. How embarrassing for you
Waiting for your response that Jeremy blamed the police for killing his family
The truth hurts
Where did I say he didn't? It's on record. Perhaps you should attend adult literacy classes? What are all these lies you keep talking about, other than your own?
As for the truth hurting? It's something you'll never have to concern yourself with as you wouldn't know what truth means if it slapped you in the face. But I have to hand it to you. You do an excellent job of disrupting discussion with your drivel.
-
And from his descriptions of their last hours together, along with Sheila's friends' reports of her during her last fortnight, and her general lack of care for herself, she wasn't exactly acting like a woman about to reconcile with the love of her life. Whatever Colin may have said were his thoughts of what MAY have been, they occurred AFTER her death. Sheila was never privy to them.
I wish the Jeremy supporters would understand the fragile nature of Sheila towards the end of her life: uncertain, unconfident, puffing nervously on cigars and avoiding eye contact, forgetful in personal hygiene matters including body odour and the timing of her period, unable to drive, dependant on her mother's food parcels, unable without supreme effort to walk properly due to medicinal side-effects.
She was a sitting duck for Jeremy and he knew it.
-
I wish the Jeremy supporters would understand the fragile nature of Sheila towards the end of her life: uncertain, unconfident, puffing nervously on cigars and avoiding eye contact, forgetful in personal hygiene matters including body odour and the timing of her period, unable to drive, dependant on her mother's food parcels, unable without supreme effort to walk properly due to medicinal side-effects.
She was a sitting duck for Jeremy and he knew it.
It certainly doesn't take enormous empathy and compassion to pick up on any of that, Steve. Sadly, for some supporters, they choose either to ignore it or fake it. Any they MAY have is reserved for JB.
-
I wish the Jeremy supporters would understand the fragile nature of Sheila towards the end of her life: uncertain, unconfident, puffing nervously on cigars and avoiding eye contact, forgetful in personal hygiene matters including body odour and the timing of her period, unable to drive, dependant on her mother's food parcels, unable without supreme effort to walk properly due to medicinal side-effects.
She was a sitting duck for Jeremy and he knew it.
She was also a ticking time bomb ready to go off, considering what she had to contend with during the short years of her life. End of the tether it's called.
-
She was also a ticking time bomb ready to go off, considering what she had to contend with during the short years of her life. End of the tether it's called.
With her inability to care for herself, I'm more inclined to see her as a slowly deflating balloon.
-
She was also a ticking time bomb ready to go off, considering what she had to contend with during the short years of her life. End of the tether it's called.
I think she realized her mistakes with Colin had driven him away and I doubt she would have repeated them. She knew she needed help in the very early days of their relationship and it was to Colin that she turned. Even when they divorced and she dated other men they didn't compare favourably with him, and her last months were filled with regrets, the only shining light when she was well being Nicholas and Daniel, who kept her going rather than the other way round.
-
With her inability to care for herself, I'm more inclined to see her as a slowly deflating balloon.
Until such remarks as her mother had said about her being an unfit mother. Sheila herself wouldn't have known or realised this at the time.
-
Until such remarks as her mother had said about her being an unfit mother. Sheila herself wouldn't have known or realised this at the time.
Was that remark made in anyone's hearing that can confirm it?
-
Was that remark made in anyone's hearing that can confirm it?
I first saw it in Claire Powell's book.
-
Jane, "With her inability to care for herself, I'm more inclined to see her as a slowly deflating balloon."
Jane some of your comments here make me smile, deflating balloon"!
She was poor Sheila.
-
I first saw it in Claire Powell's book.
Then I think it may be fair to think the words came from CP's pen, as opposed to June's mouth.
-
Then I think it may be fair to think the words came from CP's pen, as opposed to June's mouth.
It would have originated from June to have been repeated in the book. If you are to believe CAL's book speaking about Sheila's debts, the same came from CP's written years before, so being that fact was correct in the eyes of many tells me that there are the odd hints of truth in some books.
-
Bamber used the silencer. It was intially a silent massacre attempt at 2am.
After the massacre he put the silencer back where it was always kept - in it's box at the back of the gun cupboard.
There is no issue.
What is the strongest evidence a silencer was used Adam? because I have not seen any evidence that proves one was used but maybe I have missed it?
If I was using a gun with a silencer I would assume it would be obvious to the Police so the last thing I would do would be to hide the silencer away.
-
It would have originated from June to have been repeated in the book. If you are to believe CAL's book speaking about Sheila's debts, the same came from CP's written years before, so being that fact was correct in the eyes of many tells me that there are the odd hints of truth in some books.
I'm sorry, Lookout, but I really cannot accept the validity of words attributed to anyone long dead, and who was unknown to the author. I can't recall exactly what CAL said, but as it has never been proven that Sheila had debts, I'd be VERY surprised to go back and read that she claimed such as fact, unlike CP, whose book was written more as a novel.
-
What is the strongest evidence a silencer was used Adam? because I have not seen any evidence that proves one was used but maybe I have missed it?
If I was using a gun with a silencer I would assume it would be obvious to the Police so the last thing I would do would be to hide the silencer away.
It had Sheila's blood inside. The Jeremy supporters are always keen to stress the relatives had little contact with the family when it suits, yet expect them to guess her blood group.
-
I'm sorry, Lookout, but I really cannot accept the validity of words attributed to anyone long dead, and who was unknown to the author. I can't recall exactly what CAL said, but as it has never been proven that Sheila had debts, I'd be VERY surprised to go back and read that she claimed such as fact, unlike CP, whose book was written more as a novel.
Even JB in his statement mentioned debts which were accruing with Sheila, which was why she was seeking work and ended up in a seedy nightclub.
-
Even JB in his statement mentioned debts which were accruing with Sheila, which was why she was seeking work and ended up in a seedy nightclub.
None of which has ever been proven. Strange that no one jumped on that bandwagon claiming she owed them, and then there was Freddy, SAID to have been her dealer. I believe him to have said that he lent her money.
-
Even JB in his statement mentioned debts which were accruing with Sheila, which was why she was seeking work and ended up in a seedy nightclub.
It must be true then.
Not more money going have to be spent by Nevill & June bailing Sheila out.
-
Yes I agree with this.
It is strange how supporters get so excited by -
Bamber using a silencer in a silent massacre attack.
Bamber putting the silencer back in it's usual place afterwards.
-
She was also a ticking time bomb ready to go off, considering what she had to contend with during the short years of her life. End of the tether it's called.
In her nightie & bare footed.
-
What is the strongest evidence a silencer was used Adam? because I have not seen any evidence that proves one was used but maybe I have missed it?
If I was using a gun with a silencer I would assume it would be obvious to the Police so the last thing I would do would be to hide the silencer away.
Sheila's blood and the aga scratches.
-
I wish the Jeremy supporters would understand the fragile nature of Sheila towards the end of her life: uncertain, unconfident, puffing nervously on cigars and avoiding eye contact, forgetful in personal hygiene matters including body odour and the timing of her period, unable to drive, dependant on her mother's food parcels, unable without supreme effort to walk properly due to medicinal side-effects.
She was a sitting duck for Jeremy and he knew it.
Thanks for this Steve but this seems at odds with Sheila skipping down Pages lane the day before? Or have I got this wrong?
-
In her nightie & bare footed.
No---fully dressed.
-
Thanks for this Steve but this seems at odds with Sheila skipping down Pages lane the day before? Or have I got this wrong?
Skipping?
-
Sheila's blood and the aga scratches.
Obviously not evidence founds days latter and may be dubious Adam, from the wounds was what I was referring to.
-
I agree this would have been far more likely had Sheila been the killer. I think Jeremy was worried that Anthony Pargeter would realize a silencer was missing, given that they had both been shooting together outside the previous weekend.
That was Anthony's visit on the 26th. July 1985. The rifle could not easily fit into the gun cupboard with the silencer attached to it. I make the point here: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10382.0.html
The gun cupboard ordinarily had lots of stuff in it: boxes, ammunition, other guns, and what not. The rifle would not be naturally positioned like it is in the photograph. It is a contrived photograph taken by the police to prove a point because Jeremy had averred that he would have taken off the silencer when stowing away the rifle. Surely you can concede that Jeremy at least has a point in this regard?
I am not saying that Anthony Pargeter lied in his statement. I think it is more likely that he has misremembered what he examined on the 26th. July when giving his statement to police in August. It's an easy mistake to make. In any event, to be clear, I am doubtful that Anthony Pargeter ever saw a silencer on that rifle.
I accept this does not answer your point completely. Even if Anthony Pargeter never saw the silencer, Jeremy could still have been concerned that the silencer would be missed. But if Jeremy had the presence of mind to realise that Sheila could not reach the trigger of the silenced rifle (actually, she could with her toe, but that's perhaps beside the point), wouldn't he also have had the presence of mind not to allow family members to have the key to the farmhouse with the silencer still there? Wouldn't he have arranged disposal of the weapons himself?
Furthermore, if Jeremy disposed of the silencer in the gun cupboard while carrying out the crime, why was no blood found on the den carpet or in the gun cupboard, other than on the silencer itself?
This is before we get into the whole question of whether the silencer was used at all. After the 2011/12 CCRC rejection, new expert ballistic evidence was obtained that suggests a silencer was not used in the killings. I also wonder how Fletcher's pull-through test could reveal no blood in the rifle barrel if the silencer was supposedly used to fire contact shots before Sheila was killed? Simple gravity would dictate that there should be blood in the rifle barrel.
-
Obviously not evidence founds days latter and may be dubious Adam, from the wounds was what I was referring to.
Well it was put to the police, DPP, jury & appeal courts.
-
No---fully dressed.
She changed into her nightie afterwards.
-
That was Anthony's visit on the 26th. July 1985. The rifle could not easily fit into the gun cupboard with the silencer attached to it. I make the point here: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10382.0.html
The gun cupboard ordinarily had lots of stuff in it: boxes, ammunition, other guns, and what not. The rifle would not be naturally positioned like it is in the photograph. It is a contrived photograph taken by the police to prove a point because Jeremy had averred that he would have taken off the silencer when stowing away the rifle. Surely you can concede that Jeremy at least has a point in this regard?
I am not saying that Anthony Pargeter lied in his statement. I think it is more likely that he has misremembered what he examined on the 26th. July when giving his statement to police in August. It's an easy mistake to make. In any event, to be clear, I am doubtful that Anthony Pargeter ever saw a silencer on that rifle.
I accept this does not answer your point completely. Even if Anthony Pargeter never saw the silencer, Jeremy could still have been concerned that the silencer would be missed. But if Jeremy had the presence of mind to realise that Sheila could not reach the trigger of the silenced rifle (actually, she could with her toe, but that's perhaps beside the point), wouldn't he also have had the presence of mind not to allow family members to have the key to the farmhouse with the silencer still there? Wouldn't he have arranged disposal of the weapons himself?
Furthermore, if Jeremy disposed of the silencer in the gun cupboard while carrying out the crime, why was no blood found on the den carpet or in the gun cupboard, other than on the silencer itself?
This is before we get into the whole question of whether the silencer was used at all. After the 2011/12 CCRC rejection, new expert ballistic evidence was obtained that suggests a silencer was not used in the killings. I also wonder how Fletcher's pull-through test could reveal no blood in the rifle barrel if the silencer was supposedly used to fire contact shots before Sheila was killed? Simple gravity would dictate that there should be blood in the rifle barrel.
The police gave AE the keys. SJ asked her to do a clear up. Bamber was on a jolly up.
Doubtful Bamber knew about back spatter & doubtful he realised the silencer had scratched the aga.
-
That was Anthony's visit on the 26th. July 1985. The rifle could not easily fit into the gun cupboard with the silencer attached to it. I make the point here: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10382.0.html
The gun cupboard ordinarily had lots of stuff in it: boxes, ammunition, other guns, and what not. The rifle would not be naturally positioned like it is in the photograph. It is a contrived photograph taken by the police to prove a point because Jeremy had averred that he would have taken off the silencer when stowing away the rifle. Surely you can concede that Jeremy at least has a point in this regard?
I am not saying that Anthony Pargeter lied in his statement. I think it is more likely that he has misremembered what he examined on the 26th. July when giving his statement to police in August. It's an easy mistake to make. In any event, to be clear, I am doubtful that Anthony Pargeter ever saw a silencer on that rifle.
I accept this does not answer your point completely. Even if Anthony Pargeter never saw the silencer, Jeremy could still have been concerned that the silencer would be missed. But if Jeremy had the presence of mind to realise that Sheila could not reach the trigger of the silenced rifle (actually, she could with her toe, but that's perhaps beside the point), wouldn't he also have had the presence of mind not to allow family members to have the key to the farmhouse with the silencer still there? Wouldn't he have arranged disposal of the weapons himself?
Furthermore, if Jeremy disposed of the silencer in the gun cupboard while carrying out the crime, why was no blood found on the den carpet or in the gun cupboard, other than on the silencer itself?
This is before we get into the whole question of whether the silencer was used at all. After the 2011/12 CCRC rejection, new expert ballistic evidence was obtained that suggests a silencer was not used in the killings. I also wonder how Fletcher's pull-through test could reveal no blood in the rifle barrel if the silencer was supposedly used to fire contact shots before Sheila was killed? Simple gravity would dictate that there should be blood in the rifle barrel.
What blood? Bamber was not bleeding.
-
That was Anthony's visit on the 26th. July 1985. The rifle could not easily fit into the gun cupboard with the silencer attached to it. I make the point here: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10382.0.html
The gun cupboard ordinarily had lots of stuff in it: boxes, ammunition, other guns, and what not. The rifle would not be naturally positioned like it is in the photograph. It is a contrived photograph taken by the police to prove a point because Jeremy had averred that he would have taken off the silencer when stowing away the rifle. Surely you can concede that Jeremy at least has a point in this regard?
I am not saying that Anthony Pargeter lied in his statement. I think it is more likely that he has misremembered what he examined on the 26th. July when giving his statement to police in August. It's an easy mistake to make. In any event, to be clear, I am doubtful that Anthony Pargeter ever saw a silencer on that rifle.
I accept this does not answer your point completely. Even if Anthony Pargeter never saw the silencer, Jeremy could still have been concerned that the silencer would be missed. But if Jeremy had the presence of mind to realise that Sheila could not reach the trigger of the silenced rifle (actually, she could with her toe, but that's perhaps beside the point), wouldn't he also have had the presence of mind not to allow family members to have the key to the farmhouse with the silencer still there? Wouldn't he have arranged disposal of the weapons himself?
Furthermore, if Jeremy disposed of the silencer in the gun cupboard while carrying out the crime, why was no blood found on the den carpet or in the gun cupboard, other than on the silencer itself?
This is before we get into the whole question of whether the silencer was used at all. After the 2011/12 CCRC rejection, new expert ballistic evidence was obtained that suggests a silencer was not used in the killings. I also wonder how Fletcher's pull-through test could reveal no blood in the rifle barrel if the silencer was supposedly used to fire contact shots before Sheila was killed? Simple gravity would dictate that there should be blood in the rifle barrel.
The evidence shows it was.
What tests?
-
The police gave AE the keys. SJ asked her to do a clear up. Bamber was on a jolly up.
Doubtful Bamber knew about back spatter & doubtful he realised the silencer had scratched the aga.
And doubtful Bamber thought the relatives were suspicious or would be given access. AE had been supporting Bamber.
-
I agree this would have been far more likely had Sheila been the killer. I think Jeremy was worried that Anthony Pargeter would realize a silencer was missing, given that they had both been shooting together outside the previous weekend.
But all JB had to do was leave the silencer beside Sheila Steve? I am not suggesting he take it with him away from the crime scene, where it may have been noticed that it was missing?
-
Well it was put to the police, DPP, jury & appeal courts.
If you know of no evidence just say so Adam, no need to be silly.
-
The police gave AE the keys. SJ asked her to do a clear up. Bamber was on a jolly up.
Doubtful Bamber knew about back spatter & doubtful he realised the silencer had scratched the aga.
Would you go on a jolly up Adam if you have left loose ends in the cupboard that would put you away for the rest of your life? Please be honest when you reply this time for once!
-
But all JB had to do was leave the silencer beside Sheila Steve? I am not suggesting he take it with him away from the crime scene, where it may have been noticed that it was missing?
That is you view.
He probably took it off downstairs prior to burning Nevill's back. So just put it back in it's usual place.
As said he would not know about back spatter or that the silencer had scratched the aga.
He certainly would not be expecting the relatives to be suspiscious & given access to WHF.
All straight forward.
-
If you know of no evidence just say so Adam, no need to be silly.
The judge said Sheila's blood and the aga scratches means the silencer was used during the massacre.
-
Would you go on a jolly up Adam if you have left loose ends in the cupboard that would put you away for the rest of your life? Please be honest when you reply this time for once!
Interestingly I believe Bamber went on his first jolly up after the police had finished with the crime scene.
Bamber was not aware of -
Back spatter.
Aga paint.
Suspicious relatives.
The police wanted to give relatives access to WHF.
-
The judge said Sheila's blood and the aga scratches means the silencer was used during the massacre.
So no evidence other than the silencer and the scratches on the aga thanks, so many shots fired at very close range and no independent evidence showing a silencer was used?
-
What blood
I didn't say Jeremy was bleeding.
-
Interestingly I believe Bamber went on his first jolly up after the police had finished with the crime scene.
Bamber was not aware of -
Back spatter.
Aga paint.
Suspicious relatives.
The police wanted to give relatives access to WHF.
JB would have made sure he was the first person to go back in the house and tidied up any loose ends.
-
So no evidence other than the silencer and the scratches on the aga thanks, so many shots fired at very close range and no independent evidence showing a silencer was used?
Some gun enthusiasts in Ewen Smith's Birmingham office noticed a silencer mark on one of the photographs.
-
JB would have made sure he was the first person to go back in the house and tidied up any loose ends.
He did but left it too late.
-
JB would have made sure he was the first person to go back in the house and tidied up any loose ends.
He had done that. It was called staging the scene.
-
So no evidence other than the silencer and the scratches on the aga thanks, so many shots fired at very close range and no independent evidence showing a silencer was used?
Apart from Sheila's blood and the aga scratches.
-
Some gun enthusiasts in Ewen Smith's Birmingham office noticed a silencer mark on one of the photographs.
I have read this Steve, has anyone else spotted this?
-
He had done that. It was called staging the scene.
Everything in the space of half an hour.
-
I didn't say Jeremy was bleeding.
So what blood would be in the gun cupboard and office den?
-
I have read this Steve, has anyone else spotted this?
It seems to have died a death along with Andrew Hunter's involvement and his book draft.
-
Totally WRONG as usual. Trying to mislead any new posters with a completely wrong narrative. Jeremy told the police about Sheila’s mental health problems which ANYONE else in Jeremy’s position would have done.
Are you incapable of telling the truth.
On being told his family were all dead Jeremy blamed the police (which would also fit with seeing movement in the farmhouse)
I suppose you are now going to MAKE UP another bizarre reason Jeremy blamed the police.
You questioned yesterday WHO is still interested in the case
The answer is plenty of people
Do not try to disrupt this forum with lies and mistruths. It’s an absolute disgrace
Sorry I missed this bit Jackie. Please can you tell me where I can find JB's claim that the police were to blame for shooting his family, and to whom he said it.
-
View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)
BAMBER, Accuses police of 'Shootings members of his family' upon entry to House
« on: July 12, 2021, 07:29:AM »
Quote
'The men dressed in suits' in possession of guns when they went to force an entry into the farmhouse, have shot members of my family and 'killed them'.. ('Jeremy' to 'DS Jones' at the scene), insight...
'Jeremy' said the above to 'DS Jones' after 'Jones' informed him, that all members of his family inside the farmhouse, were 'all dead'...
I enquired of 'Jeremy', why he had made such a comment to 'DS Jones', and 'he' told me because, the police and himself knew that there was somebody alive inside the farmhouse and moving around, from as early as 4.02am when a silhouetted figure was seen moving around in the upstairs main bedroom, and at various times during the seize, that lights inside rooms of the farmhouse, were turned on and off, and the state of the at one time open telephone line to and from the house, had mysteriously become engaged at 6.09am..
-
View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)
BAMBER, Accuses police of 'Shootings members of his family' upon entry to House
« on: July 12, 2021, 07:29:AM »
Quote
'The men dressed in suits' in possession of guns when they went to force an entry into the farmhouse, have shot members of my family and 'killed them'.. ('Jeremy' to 'DS Jones' at the scene), insight...
'Jeremy' said the above to 'DS Jones' after 'Jones' informed him, that all members of his family inside the farmhouse, were 'all dead'...
I enquired of 'Jeremy', why he had made such a comment to 'DS Jones', and 'he' told me because, the police and himself knew that there was somebody alive inside the farmhouse and moving around, from as early as 4.02am when a silhouetted figure was seen moving around in the upstairs main bedroom, and at various times during the seize, that lights inside rooms of the farmhouse, were turned on and off, and the state of the at one time open telephone line to and from the house, had mysteriously become engaged at 6.09am..
Thanks, Jackie, but much of it appears to be in the third person, ie, someone is claiming that it was said by JB, "I enquired of JB why he'd said.........". It doesn't appear to be part of a witness statement. I can't believe it wouldn't be, given how vehemently JB protested his innocence.
-
Thanks, Jackie, but much of it appears to be in the third person, ie, someone is claiming that it was said by JB, "I enquired of JB why he'd said.........". It doesn't appear to be part of a witness statement. I can't believe it wouldn't be, given how vehemently JB protested his innocence.
There is only one person I can think of that misuses apostrophes in such a cringe worthy fashion...
-
There is only one person I can think of that misuses apostrophes in such a cringe worthy fashion...
...Indeed :))