Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: snow66! on March 06, 2022, 10:11:PM
-
Hello everyone,hope your well.I would like togive my opinion on the death of sheila,in particular the angle of the two shots.The official police scenario.or one of them at least,has Sheila RUSHING to the box room door to get to the twins,after she sees what has happened to June.Once JB re-enters the bedroom,he shoots June and Sheils freezes.JB forces Sheila down beside the bed and shoots her in the neck.Thats the official scenario.So lets take it from there.What position was sheilas body in when the non fatal shot was fired.I have determined that if Sheila was lying flat on the floor,the rifle was about 80 degrees in relation,or even vertical if Sheilas head was tilted back.That surprised me.How could JB hold Sheila dwwn with the rifle straight up and down?With his foot i would imagine.Any footprints found on her chest? Still we are told she was frozen stiff,so no need.What if JB forced her to sit up with her body folded at 90 degrees,well the rifle would obviously be nearer horizontal.That is Sheilas upper body rotated by 90 degrees,give or take if her head is tilted forward or back.Hope you are following.Ok the question is why did JB shoot her at this angle if she was frozen stiff? Why didnt he lay her flat shove the rifle under her chin,and point it up into her head.The angle of the rifle was off by almost 90 degrees for this to happen when the shot was fired.This shot was of the uttmost importace if his plan was to succeed,this was THE shot he HAD to get right.Why was he off by so much,the second went straight into her brain.Even if Sheila WAS struggling[no chipped nails mind] he knew the rifle had to be almost parrallel with Sheilas body for the shot to go up into her brain.Even if Sheila did try and push away the gun as he fired,it would be the barrel,not the stock of the rifle,which could change the angle of the shot.The first shot just dosent make sense to me if JB is guilty.Did he think one shot to the throat would be enough after shooting everyone else several times in the skull.A bullet used for shooting VERMIN.So let us see what would have happened if Sheila commited suictde.In my opinion Sheila HAD to be seated upright for the non fatal shot with her head slightly tucked in,probably with her knees up.It would be almost impossible lying on her back,as the rifle would be almost vertical,going by the angle of the wound.Check it out.Even sitting stock of the rifle would be 18-24 inches off the floor.So Sheila fires the first shot,and must have slipped down,possibly involuntarily through muscle spasms.As her body slips down,the weight of her body holds her night dress in place causing it to ruck up.Anyway Sheila had to be fairly flat to fire the fatal shot,we know by the angle.Otherwise the rifle would have to be down through the floor boards.Check out the angle of the shots.Sheile almost certainly had to be sitting[or possibly lying on her side]for the non fatal shot,and had to be lying down for the fatal one.If JB shot Sheila,why on earth did he misjudge the non fatal wound by so much.Also worth mentioning,both shots were fired from Sheilas right side,not straight on as it were.Does this suggest the rifle was angled over to Sheilas right hand? Do other suicides show the weapon angled to the dominant hand? Why would JB fire both shots at a slight angle,instead of straight on,running parallel to Sheilas body,looking from above as it were.Awkward standing?Anyway hope you understand all this.Check out the angles of the two shots,with the illustrations in the crime scene photos for your self,and see what YOU conclude.You will need a protractor to measure the angles.Hope you understand all this,maybe Dave can help with some of his animated illustrations.Well i hope this has been of interest to you,all the best.Bye for now.
-
In case i didnt make it clear,the non fatal shot was at roughly 80 degrees ,meaning the bullet would enter the neck and simply exit at the back of the neck,had it gone straight thruough.It wasnt headed anywhere near the brain.The fatal shot was about 25 degrees off the body ,and went straight up into the brain at a slight angle.
-
Going by my measurements of the angles anyway.
-
Why would JB fire the first shot at that angle.What on earth could he have been thinking about?
-
And think about this,if Sheila was sitting when she fired the first shot,she had to slip down pretty quick or else the blood would have run right down the front of her dress.If not someone would have had to pull her down almost immediatelly.
-
It should have been very simple for JB to aim the first shot into sheilas brain,looking down the barrel.Sheila on the other hand would have had difficulty judging the correct angle,as well as stretching to reach the trigger,but once she was flat on her back ,the second shot would automatically go up into her brain.Make sense?
-
Hello everyone,hope your well.I would like togive my opinion on the death of sheila,in particular the angle of the two shots.The official police scenario.or one of them at least,has Sheila RUSHING to the box room door to get to the twins,after she sees what has happened to June.Once JB re-enters the bedroom,he shoots June and Sheils freezes.JB forces Sheila down beside the bed and shoots her in the neck.Thats the official scenario.So lets take it from there.What position was sheilas body in when the non fatal shot was fired.I have determined that if Sheila was lying flat on the floor,the rifle was about 80 degrees in relation,or even vertical if Sheilas head was tilted back.That surprised me.How could JB hold Sheila dwwn with the rifle straight up and down?With his foot i would imagine.Any footprints found on her chest? Still we are told she was frozen stiff,so no need.What if JB forced her to sit up with her body folded at 90 degrees,well the rifle would obviously be nearer horizontal.That is Sheilas upper body rotated by 90 degrees,give or take if her head is tilted forward or back.Hope you are following.Ok the question is why did JB shoot her at this angle if she was frozen stiff? Why didnt he lay her flat shove the rifle under her chin,and point it up into her head.The angle of the rifle was off by almost 90 degrees for this to happen when the shot was fired.This shot was of the uttmost importace if his plan was to succeed,this was THE shot he HAD to get right.Why was he off by so much,the second went straight into her brain.Even if Sheila WAS struggling[no chipped nails mind] he knew the rifle had to be almost parrallel with Sheilas body for the shot to go up into her brain.Even if Sheila did try and push away the gun as he fired,it would be the barrel,not the stock of the rifle,which could change the angle of the shot.The first shot just dosent make sense to me if JB is guilty.Did he think one shot to the throat would be enough after shooting everyone else several times in the skull.A bullet used for shooting VERMIN.So let us see what would have happened if Sheila commited suictde.In my opinion Sheila HAD to be seated upright for the non fatal shot with her head slightly tucked in,probably with her knees up.It would be almost impossible lying on her back,as the rifle would be almost vertical,going by the angle of the wound.Check it out.Even sitting stock of the rifle would be 18-24 inches off the floor.So Sheila fires the first shot,and must have slipped down,possibly involuntarily through muscle spasms.As her body slips down,the weight of her body holds her night dress in place causing it to ruck up.Anyway Sheila had to be fairly flat to fire the fatal shot,we know by the angle.Otherwise the rifle would have to be down through the floor boards.Check out the angle of the shots.Sheile almost certainly had to be sitting[or possibly lying on her side]for the non fatal shot,and had to be lying down for the fatal one.If JB shot Sheila,why on earth did he misjudge the non fatal wound by so much.Also worth mentioning,both shots were fired from Sheilas right side,not straight on as it were.Does this suggest the rifle was angled over to Sheilas right hand? Do other suicides show the weapon angled to the dominant hand? Why would JB fire both shots at a slight angle,instead of straight on,running parallel to Sheilas body,looking from above as it were.Awkward standing?Anyway hope you understand all this.Check out the angles of the two shots,with the illustrations in the crime scene photos for your self,and see what YOU conclude.You will need a protractor to measure the angles.Hope you understand all this,maybe Dave can help with some of his animated illustrations.Well i hope this has been of interest to you,all the best.Bye for now.
There is no 'official scenario'.
147. The precise sequence of the killings was unclear. June Bamber was shot whilst still lying in bed but had managed to get up and walk a few steps before she collapsed and died by the main bedroom door. Nevill Bamber was also shot in the bedroom but was able to get downstairs into the kitchen where there was a violent struggle before he was overwhelmed and then shot a number of times in the head. The children had been shot in their beds as they slept.
148. Sheila Caffell, probably in a sedated state from her medication, was also shot in the bedroom.
-
There is no 'official scenario'.
147. The precise sequence of the killings was unclear. June Bamber was shot whilst still lying in bed but had managed to get up and walk a few steps before she collapsed and died by the main bedroom door. Nevill Bamber was also shot in the bedroom but was able to get downstairs into the kitchen where there was a violent struggle before he was overwhelmed and then shot a number of times in the head. The children had been shot in their beds as they slept.
148. Sheila Caffell, probably in a sedated state from her medication, was also shot in the bedroom.
Hiya Cutie,how are you today.Yes,i often think that is the problem with this case.No scenario was needed at trial to convict JB.The scenario i quoted ,is from CALS book page 415.Anyway,i am not asking about the scenario,the main question is why did JB Shoot Sheila through the neck with the first shot ,instead of up into the brain.Even if Sheila was struggling,he simply couldnt have been that far off.Next you will be saying the rifle went off by mistake,before he was in position.
-
Sedated with what ? A reduction in her anti-psychotic injection ( by half ) which was days short of her next dose ? No other medication had been taken so the remains of what was in her system would have counteracted with the cannabis she'd smoked on the previous weekend-----which had remained in her blood stream. So, she wasn't sedated !
-
Look at it this way for a moment.JB knew the rifle was low velocity,and that a bullet in the neck was not guaranteed,by any means to kill Sheila.However by all accounts Sheilas knowledge and interest in guns was very limited,and probably like you or me Cutie,she would have thought a shot from a gun to the neck WUOLD have killed her.Just think about it for a minute,dont you think there is a ring of truth in the fact that Sheila fired a non fatal shot.But for JB to be stupid enough and careless enough,with his knowledge of the rifle? Think about it Cutie.
-
The first shot into Sheila was very damaging & would have knocked her out -
'The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately'.
----------
There is no evidence Sheila stood up after the first shot. However she was still breathing.
Bamber had to make a decision there & then on a second shot.
-
Sedated with what ? A reduction in her anti-psychotic injection ( by half ) which was days short of her next dose ? No other medication had been taken so the remains of what was in her system would have counteracted with the cannabis she'd smoked on the previous weekend-----which had remained in her blood stream. So, she wasn't sedated !
But to get around this,they have Sheila scared stiff and FROZEN.That is their scenario Lookout.But that is my point,if she was frozen,why did JB mess up the first shot.They cant have it all ways.Can the hard core guilters explain all this?
-
The first shot into Sheila was very damaging & would have knocked her out -
'The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately'.
----------
There is no evidence Sheila stood up after the first shot. However she was still breathing.
Bamber had to make a decision there & then on a second shot.
An early podcast claimed that the first shot was the fatal shot. It's hard to conceive that this was an erroneous claim. The reason I say this is because prior to that claim, the CT has always ran with the official version regarding the order of shots.
-
Hiya Cutie,how are you today.Yes,i often think that is the problem with this case.No scenario was needed at trial to convict JB.The scenario i quoted ,is from CALS book page 415.Anyway,i am not asking about the scenario,the main question is why did JB Shoot Sheila through the neck with the first shot ,instead of up into the brain.Even if Sheila was struggling,he simply couldnt have been that far off.Next you will be saying the rifle went off by mistake,before he was in position.
The two shots were very close together. Both instantly or eventual fatal shots.
Bamber got his angles slightly wrong with the first shot. Although it was still a fatal shot.
-
Sedated with what ? A reduction in her anti-psychotic injection ( by half ) which was days short of her next dose ? No other medication had been taken so the remains of what was in her system would have counteracted with the cannabis she'd smoked on the previous weekend-----which had remained in her blood stream. So, she wasn't sedated !
Sheila was on Haloperidol & in a non responsive state.
As confirmed by the last two alive witnesses to see/hear her alive - Bamber & the house keeper.
-
The first shot into Sheila was very damaging & would have knocked her out -
'The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately'.
----------
There is no evidence Sheila stood up after the first shot. However she was still breathing.
Bamber had to make a decision there & then on a second shot.
Hi Adam good to talk to you again.Now you know that isnt quite true,Vanezis said she may have been able to get up and walk about for a short period of time.So there was nothing stopping her slipping down and immediatelly pulling the trigger again.
-
Hi Adam good to talk to you again.Now you know that isnt quite true,Vanezis said she may have been able to get up and walk about for a short period of time.So there was nothing stopping her slipping down and immediatelly pulling the trigger again.
He also said there was no evidence this happened.
Someone as physically weak as Sheila would have been knocked out by the first shot.
In the police interviews, Bamber did not challenge the police when they told him Sheila could not have shot herself a second time. He knew that, he was there!
-
The two shots were very close together. Both instantly or eventual fatal shots.
Bamber got his angles slightly wrong with the first shot. Although it was still a fatal shot.
So are you saying JB intentionally fired the first shot straight into her neck Adam,thinking this would kill her.?One bullet from a gun for shooting VERMIN.Come on Adam,be fair.And he was off by almost NINETY degrees to get a brain shot,not SLIGHTLY off.
-
So are you saying JB intentionally fired the first shot straight into her neck Adam,thinking this would kill her.?One bullet from a gun for shooting VERMIN.Come on Adam,be fair.And he was off by almost NINETY degrees to get a brain shot,not SLIGHTLY off.
He wanted to kill Sheila with his first shot. It was a fatal shot. But not instantly.
Bamber had to make a decision whether to fire a second shot.
Having shot everyone else 8, 7, 5 & 3 times, suspect he believed a second shot was a better option than the risk of Sheila remaining alive.
-
An early podcast claimed that the first shot was the fatal shot. It's hard to conceive that this was an erroneous claim. The reason I say this is because prior to that claim, the CT has always ran with the official version regarding the order of shots.
Hi Roch.So is this going with the non fatal shot being fired when the rifle was removed by the TFG.Even if this happened,it dosent realy make a difference as regards who the killer was.Does it?
-
He wanted to kill Sheila with his first shot. It was a fatal shot. But not instantly.
Bamber had to make a decision whether to fire a second shot.
Having shot everyone else 8, 7, 5 & 3 times, suspect he believed a second shot was a better option than the risk of Sheila remaining alive.
So why didnt he put the first shot up in to her brain Adam.That is the main question of this topic.
-
Hi Roch.So is this going with the non fatal shot being fired when the rifle was removed by the TFG.Even if this happened,it dosent realy make a difference as regards who the killer was.Does it?
Well if it is not an erroneous claim by the narrator (due to some miscommunication between the narrator and the CT), then the only inference can be that a police officer from one of the teams (not necessarily TFG) fired the second shot post mortem.
-
He also said there was no evidence this happened.
Someone as physically weak as Sheila would have been knocked out by the first shot.
In the police interviews, Bamber did not challenge the police when they told him Sheila could not have shot herself a second time. He knew that, he was there!
I did not say she DID get up and walk around,Vanezis simply said it was a possibility.I said she must have shot herself sitting up,then slipped down befofe inflicting the second shot.Also,you are making things up now Adam,there is no evidence the first shot knocked her out,that is only your opinion.And why did the police and Vanezis believe for a month that Sheila COULD have shot herself twice,and even at trial said two bullet suicides were by no means unheard of.No you are simply getting desperate here Adam.
-
Well if it is not an erroneous claim by the narrator (due to some miscommunication between the narrator and the CT), then the only inference can be that a police officer from one of the teams (not necessarily TFG) fired the second shot post mortem.
So who are they saying fired the second shot,and for what reason Roch.I am not quite grasping this.
-
So who are they saying fired the second shot,and for what reason Roch.I am not quite grasping this.
At a guess I would say they are going with an accidental discharge - but I could have this wrong. It could be the truth is closer to some other theory.
-
I did not say she DID get up and walk around,Vanezis simply said it was a possibility.I said she must have shot herself sitting up,then slipped down befofe inflicting the second shot.Also,you are making things up now Adam,there is no evidence the first shot knocked her out,that is only your opinion.And why did the police and Vanezis believe for a month that Sheila COULD have shot herself twice,and even at trial said two bullet suicides were by no means unheard of.No you are simply getting desperate here Adam.
The first shot was extremly damaging and would have been eventually fatal. It knocked Sheila out as she did not stand or sit up. However she was still breathing.
Bamber did not know if Sheila would contine breathing for another 6 minutes or 6 hours.
-
The other possibility is Bamber decided beforehand to shoot Sheila twice. So did so in quick succession.
Everyone else had needed 3-8 shots, so there should be no surprise Sheila needed two shots to kill herself.
-
If originally going for an 11 shot massacre, Sheila would have had to have received one shot.
However once things escalated, he felt 2 shots was not a major problem.
Either way, he had investigated the best location. Both shots would have caused instant or protracted death.
-
If originally going for an 11 shot massacre, Sheila would have had to have received one shot.
However once things escalated, he felt 2 shots was not a major problem.
Either way, he had investigated the best location. Both shots would have caused instant or protracted death.
With all due respect Adam ,this is nonsense.Even if you completely sever the jugular vain,it takes a minute to bleed to death.About the only other way for instant death to occur would be to put a bullet in the brain stem.But to manage to aim and fire a shot into it from the front of the throat would have been a hundred to one.Now you are changing your mind and saying JB planned to shoot two shots in rapid succession.But there was a vast difference in the angle of the two shots,so the rifle was moved considerably between them.No to be quite honest nothing you have said rings true Adam,and i think you know it.
-
At a guess I would say they are going with an accidental discharge - but I could have this wrong. It could be the truth is closer to some other theory.
But whos Roch. Bubo,Bambergate,Mike?
-
If originally going for an 11 shot massacre, Sheila would have had to have received one shot.
However once things escalated, he felt 2 shots was not a major problem.
Either way, he had investigated the best location. Both shots would have caused instant or protracted death.
You say instant or protracted death Adam,yet the experts say NON FATAL.
-
But whos Roch. Bubo,Bambergate,Mike?
Not sure Snow - but on another note this Sunday will be the first anniversary of the latest CCRC submissions. I hope we see a substantial statement from the legal team / CT, rather than yet another podcast.
-
Instant death=bullet to the brain. Non instant death=anywhere in the neck.
-
Not sure Snow - but on another note this Sunday will be the first anniversary of the latest CCRC submissions. I hope we see a substantial statement from the legal team / CT, rather than yet another podcast.
Yes that would be good Roch,and it may put an end to any need for further arguing here.
-
Yes that would be good Roch,and it may put an end to any need for further arguing here.
Well I was thinking more of a kind of update. Not spilling all the beans per se.
-
You say instant or protracted death Adam,yet the experts say NON FATAL.
Snow66! with all due respect, this is nonsense.
-
Both shots by Bamber were very well placed -
'The higher of the two wounds would have killed her almost instantaneously.
The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately'.
-
With all due respect Adam ,this is nonsense.Even if you completely sever the jugular vain,it takes a minute to bleed to death.About the only other way for instant death to occur would be to put a bullet in the brain stem.But to manage to aim and fire a shot into it from the front of the throat would have been a hundred to one.Now you are changing your mind and saying JB planned to shoot two shots in rapid succession.But there was a vast difference in the angle of the two shots,so the rifle was moved considerably between them.No to be quite honest nothing you have said rings true Adam,and i think you know it.
Read my post properly.
After unexpectedly having to shoot Nevill 8 times & everyone else 15 times, he may have decided shooting Sheila twice would not be an issue. So shot her twice in quick succession.
Pre massacre, if going for an 11 shot massacre, he could only shoot Sheila once.
-
Strictly speaking, an 11 shot massacre does not stop Sheila being shot twice, if so chosen.
Two shots would just mean there were less bullets available to kill the other 4 people.
However if the original plan was an 11 shot massacre, the plan would have been one shot for Sheila.
-
Both shots by Bamber were very well placed -
'The higher of the two wounds would have killed her almost instantaneously.
The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately'.
But why didnt he put the first bullet in the brain Adam,that would have been job done,end of story.And what pray was he aiming at with the other shot,that would have killed her.
-
Read my post properly.
After unexpectedly having to shoot Nevill 8 times & everyone else 15 times, he may have decided shooting Sheila twice would not be an issue. So shot her twice in quick succession.
Pre massacre, if going for an 11 shot massacre, he could only shoot Sheila once.
Why wouldnt shooting Sheila twice be an issue,it was supposed to look like suicide.
-
Strictly speaking, an 11 shot massacre does not stop Sheila being shot twice, if so chosen.
Two shots would just mean there were less bullets available to kill the other 4 people.
However if the original plan was an 11 shot massacre, the plan would have been one shot for Sheila.
So why not put that ONE shot up in to her brain Adam.
-
Snow66! with all due respect, this is nonsense.
No it isnt Adam ,you said BOTH shots would have caused instant death.
-
No it isnt Adam ,you said BOTH shots would have caused instant death.
ONE of the two shots would have caused instant death -there is now allegedly some debate about which shot that was- if it had been the first shot, she'd have already been dead so this discussion is futile. However, one of the two shots was said to have been "mortal" meaning she would have died from it eventually -no one has yet ventured a guess as to how long that may have been- as opposed to immediately. But if she was already dead, it's academic.
-
Well I was thinking more of a kind of update. Not spilling all the beans per se.
Yes it would be nice to get an update even Roch.
-
Both shots by Bamber were very well placed -
'The higher of the two wounds would have killed her almost instantaneously.
The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately'.
What do you mean very well placed Adam,what was he aiming for with the first shot?
-
ONE of the two shots would have caused instant death -there is now allegedly some debate about which shot that was- if it had been the first shot, she'd have already been dead so this discussion is futile. However, one of the two shots was said to have been "mortal" meaning she would have died from it eventually -no one has yet ventured a guess as to how long that may have been- as opposed to immediately. But if she was already dead, it's academic.
Hi Jane,hope your well today.Well if the second shot was the non fatal one,it was inflicted with the rifle in a vertical position,so it could hardly have been aaaccidental.So who fired the second shot Jane?
-
Hi Jane,hope your well today.Well if the second shot was the non fatal one,it was inflicted with the rifle in a vertical position,so it could hardly have been aaaccidental.So who fired the second shot Jane?
Bamber. He's been in jail for it since 1986.
-
No it isnt Adam ,you said BOTH shots would have caused instant death.
Where did I say that?
The COA said both shots would be fatal. One instantly. The other taking longer.
-
Seems Snow66!'s question is why one of Bamber's shots was instantly fatal, while the other shot would have taken longer to be fatal.
The answer to that is
down to where Bamber placed the rifle for each shot.
-
Hi Jane,hope your well today.Well if the second shot was the non fatal one,it was inflicted with the rifle in a vertical position,so it could hardly have been aaaccidental.So who fired the second shot Jane?
Same person who fired the first and has been convicted.
-
Same person who fired the first and has been convicted.
But why did he fire a second shot,if the first was instantly fatal.I am getting lost here Jane.
-
But why did he fire a second shot,if the first was instantly fatal.I am getting lost here Jane.
As I've never killed anyone -and only ever been tempted from a very safe distance!- I can only provide supposition. It's possible that he'd have been high on adrenalin -and maybe other chemicals- and as Sheila was his last kill (in order to make the suicide 'order' correct) he'd become a bit sloppy? OR, he suddenly realized that only she stood between him and the lifestyle he intended for himself and he momentarily lost concentration. Whatever his mind set, I think it can be guaranteed that TWO shots weren't part of his grand plan. Having -by whatever means- got her into a suitable position, maybe he wasn't in the right position? Maybe she moved at the last minute? He couldn't have been certain that she was dead. Now what? Did he leave her to bleed to death slowly, and still be alive by the time the police got there? Worse, supposing she'd been saved to tell the story? He had no choice, despite that "two-shot suicides" aren't textbook. He couldn't risk her surviving.
-
Bamber. He's been in jail for it since 1986.
Ok Adam,i will ask you as well as Jane,if the first shot was instantly fatal,why on earth did JB inflict a second shot.?
-
Ok Adam,i will ask you as well as Jane,if the first shot was instantly fatal,why on earth did JB inflict a second shot.?
How do you know the first shot killed Sheila instantly?
-
How do you know the first shot killed Sheila instantly?
You and Jane changed it to that Adam,not me.Please read my original post and see what i am asking.Although i am sure you already know.You realy do like twisting things around.But unless you answer my questions,there is little chance of changing my mind to guilt Adam.You simply leave me with more doubt.
-
You and Jane changed it to that Adam,not me.Please read my original post and see what i am asking.Although i am sure you already know.You realy do like twisting things around.But unless you answer my questions,there is little chance of changing my mind to guilt Adam.You simply leave me with more doubt.
Ok you have decided Bamber's first shot killed her instantly.
How did Nevill wake? The 5 maybe's -
Maybe Sheila shot the twins first.
Maybe Sheila screamed.
Maybe Crispy heard.
Maybe Crispy barked.
Maybe Nevill woke when Crispy barked.
-
As I've never killed anyone -and only ever been tempted from a very safe distance!- I can only provide supposition. It's possible that he'd have been high on adrenalin -and maybe other chemicals- and as Sheila was his last kill (in order to make the suicide 'order' correct) he'd become a bit sloppy? OR, he suddenly realized that only she stood between him and the lifestyle he intended for himself and he momentarily lost concentration. Whatever his mind set, I think it can be guaranteed that TWO shots weren't part of his grand plan. Having -by whatever means- got her into a suitable position, maybe he wasn't in the right position? Maybe she moved at the last minute? He couldn't have been certain that she was dead. Now what? Did he leave her to bleed to death slowly, and still be alive by the time the police got there? Worse, supposing she'd been saved to tell the story? He had no choice, despite that "two-shot suicides" aren't textbook. He couldn't risk her surviving.
I think i have covered most of this Jane.If she pushed the rifle at the last minute,it would be the barrel.To change the angle of the shot she would have to reach out and move the stock end.However,changing the angle of the rifle would not have prevented her being shot,she had to push the barrel away from her throat to achieve this,and obviously she didnt.So i dont think it is logical to think she altered the angle of the shot in any way.Thats how i see it anyway.
-
Ok you have decided Bamber's first shot killed her instantly.
How did Nevill wake? The 5 maybe's -
Maybe Sheila shot the twins first.
Maybe Sheila screamed.
Maybe Crispy heard.
Maybe Crispy barked.
Maybe Nevill woke when Crispy barked.
I beg your pardon Adam,what on earth does this mean? Have you had some sort of a turn.Calm down and breathe deep.I cant understand this list of jibberish in relation to what the thread is about.
-
I think i have covered most of this Jane.If she pushed the rifle at the last minute,it would be the barrel.To change the angle of the shot she would have to reach out and move the stock end.However,changing the angle of the rifle would not have prevented her being shot,she had to push the barrel away from her throat to achieve this,and obviously she didnt.So i dont think it is logical to think she altered the angle of the shot in any way.Thats how i see it anyway.
Had the first shot been immediately fatal, she'd no longer have been capable -or worried- about placing the rifle for a second shot, would she? If it hadn't been immediately fatal, how, with damaged vertebra, would she have managed to lift her arms to reposition it, then stretch one arm out to push the trigger again, whilst keeping the rifle aligned in a better for killing position? Whilst you appear to be applying some sort of logic, here, I doubt Sheila would have been capable.
-
It was impossible for Sheila to shoot herself twice -
Snow66! says the first shot killed her instantly. This points to Bamber shooting Sheila twice in quick succession.
If the first shot didn't kill her instantly, Sheila was knocked out, barely alive & would have died from the first shot. So not able to fire the second shot.
-
Mike & the CT believe Sheila did not & could not have shot herself twice. Both saying the police shot Sheila.
Bamber did not dispute the impossibility of Sheila shooting herself twice in his police interviews.
-
Had the first shot been immediately fatal, she'd no longer have been capable -or worried- about placing the rifle for a second shot, would she? If it hadn't been immediately fatal, how, with damaged vertebra, would she have managed to lift her arms to reposition it, then stretch one arm out to push the trigger again, whilst keeping the rifle aligned in a better for killing position? Whilst you appear to be applying some sort of logic, here, I doubt Sheila would have been capable.
Ok,i will try and answer as best i can Jane.Obviously if the first shot was fatal,i have no idea why she was shot again.Any scenario i have attempted has the non fatal shot occurring first.Makes no sense to me that Sheila was shot again unless it was accidental.Thats all i can say about that.Now,if the second shot was the fatal one,i explained once Sheila had slipped down,lying on her back,she was automatically in the correct position to place the gun under her chin and pull the trigger,sending the bullet up to her brain.That is where the bullet HAD to go when she was lying on her back with the rifle under her chin.As for the damaged vertebra causing paraysis of her arms,why was this not pointed out by Vanezis from day one.I was not aware of this Jane,is it an accepted fact?l
-
It was impossible for Sheila to shoot herself twice -
Snow66! says the first shot killed her instantly. This points to Bamber shooting Sheila twice in quick succession.
If the first shot didn't kill her instantly, Sheila was knocked out, barely alive & would have died from the first shot. So not able to fire the second shot.
Adam,you know full well i NEVER suggested the first shot killed Sheila instantly.YOU AND JANE said this.You think if you keep telling lies and twisting what i say,you will get me muddled and confused.But it will not work,i will simply keep correcting you.Have fun Adam.
-
Adam,you know full well i NEVER suggested the first shot killed Sheila instantly.YOU AND JANE said this.You think if you keep telling lies and twisting what i say,you will get me muddled and confused.But it will not work,i will simply keep correcting you.Have fun Adam.
Hang on! That claim wasn't mine. I thought I'd made it clear that it had been "alleged".
-
But why did he fire a second shot,if the first was instantly fatal.I am getting lost here Jane.
Here is Snow66!'s suggestion he never said he made.
-
Hang on! That claim wasn't mine. I thought I'd made it clear that it had been "alleged".
Well the point is Jane,yuo and Adam both mentioned the possibility of the fatal shot happening first,then suddenly Adam states as FACT,that I had decided the fatal shot was fired first.He really does twist the things you say.So please reprimand Adam,he is a scoundrelous rogue Jane.
-
Adam,you know full well i NEVER suggested the first shot killed Sheila instantly.YOU AND JANE said this.You think if you keep telling lies and twisting what i say,you will get me muddled and confused.But it will not work,i will simply keep correcting you.Have fun Adam.
I think it's you having fun with Adam Snow go easy on him!
As you correctly point out, the angle of the two shots do not make any sense, especially if JB was the shooter. I expect Adam will try to say its easier to hit a bunny at 50yds that fire from a inch or two away?
-
Here is Snow66!'s suggestion he never said he made.
I made that statement because Jane suggested the fatal shot may have happened first.You know that Adam.Thats what i mean by twisting my words.
-
Actually a fatal shot may have been made first. If Bamber had decided to shoot Sheila twice in quick succession. This was a possibility after using 3, 5, 7 & 8 bullets on the other four victims.
If he still wanted to use one bullet on Sheila, the first bullet was the one that did not kill her instantly.
-
Actually a fatal shot may have been made first. If Bamber had decided to shoot Sheila twice in quick succession. This was a possibility after using 3, 5, 7 & 8 bullets on the other four victims.
If he still wanted to use one bullet on Sheila, the first bullet was the one that did not kill her instantly.
Snow's question Adam is why did the angle of the shot change from approx 80 degrees to almost in line with her body?
-
Snow's question Adam is why did the angle of the shot change from approx 80 degrees to almost in line with her body?
Did it?
I have no idea.
-
Did it?
I have no idea.
Well now you know perhaps you can answer? don't forget she was a lamb to the slaughter and he was a crack shot.
-
I think it's you having fun with Adam Snow go easy on him!
As you correctly point out, the angle of the two shots do not make any sense, especially if JB was the shooter. I expect Adam will try to say its easier to hit a bunny at 50yds that fire from a inch or two away?
Hi Rob,hope your well.Fact is Adam dishes it out,so he will just have to take it as well.As for the two shots to Sheila,its a very simple question i am asking.Why did JB mess up the first non fatal shot.Dosent make ANY sense to me,if he forced her down as the police say,all he had to do was lay the gun on top of her and place it under her chin.The bullet would then automatically go up into her brain,job done.But no we are supposed to believe he sat her up and shot her in the neck front on in a position that would have been awkward to control Sheila or the gun.And we are supposed to believe JB thought this would be a fatal shot.Dosent ring true to me Rob,especially after checking the angle that the two shots were fired at.
-
Hi Rob,hope your well.Fact is Adam dishes it out,so he will just have to take it as well.As for the two shots to Sheila,its a very simple question i am asking.Why did JB mess up the first non fatal shot.Dosent make ANY sense to me,if he forced her down as the police say,all he had to do was lay the gun on top of her and place it under her chin.The bullet would then automatically go up into her brain,job done.But no we are supposed to believe he sat her up and shot her in the neck front on in a position that would have been awkward to control Sheila or the gun.And we are supposed to believe JB thought this would be a fatal shot.Dosent ring true to me Rob,especially after checking the angle that the two shots were fired at.
Both shots were fatal.
One instantly. The other not instantly.
-
Snow's question Adam is why did the angle of the shot change from approx 80 degrees to almost in line with her body?
Exactly Rob,non fatal shot at 80 degrees.Fatal shot about 25 degrees.
-
Hi Rob,hope your well.Fact is Adam dishes it out,so he will just have to take it as well.As for the two shots to Sheila,its a very simple question i am asking.Why did JB mess up the first non fatal shot.Dosent make ANY sense to me,if he forced her down as the police say,all he had to do was lay the gun on top of her and place it under her chin.The bullet would then automatically go up into her brain,job done.But no we are supposed to believe he sat her up and shot her in the neck front on in a position that would have been awkward to control Sheila or the gun.And we are supposed to believe JB thought this would be a fatal shot.Dosent ring true to me Rob,especially after checking the angle that the two shots were fired at.
The shot to Sheila has always been a mystery to me Snow it's why I became interested in the case when watching the WHF series.
No one would shoot someone in the neck if they were trying to make it look like suicide, there are rare multiple shot suicides around 4% but not to my knowledge involving someone shooting them self in the neck first?
-
Both shots were fatal.
One instantly. The other not instantly.
Yes Adam,agreed.But why not put the first bullet in the brain,and save the need for a second SUSPICIOUS shot.Thats all that is being asked.WHAT prevented him from doing this ,if Sheila was frozen stiff?
-
The shot to Sheila has always been a mystery to me Snow it's why I became interested in the case when watching the WHF series.
No one would shoot someone in the neck if they were trying to make it look like suicide, there are rare multiple shot suicides around 4% but not to my knowledge involving someone shooting them self in the neck first?
Interesting.
-
Interesting.
Yes so don't twist it Adam, my point is a killer trying to make it look like suicide would not aim for someones neck.
-
Yes Adam,agreed.But why not put the first bullet in the brain,and save the need for a second SUSPICIOUS shot.Thats all that is being asked.WHAT prevented him from doing this ,if Sheila was frozen stiff?
The first shot was very accurate & damaging. It was a fatal shot but not instantly.
Bamber decided to fire a second shot at some point before exiting WHF.
All this was stated in 1986.
-
The shot to Sheila has always been a mystery to me Snow it's why I became interested in the case when watching the WHF series.
No one would shoot someone in the neck if they were trying to make it look like suicide, there are rare multiple shot suicides around 4% but not to my knowledge involving someone shooting them self in the neck first?
Watch what you are saying Rob.If Sheila commited suicide,she DID shoot herself in the neck first.Ha ,ha.
-
The first shot was very accurate & damaging. It was a fatal shot but not instantly.
Bamber decided to fire a second shot at some point before exiting WHF.
All this was stated in 1986.
I though it was generally accepted due to the blood staining etc. that the two shots were fired in fairly quick succession?
-
'there are rare multiple shot suicides around 4% but not to my knowledge involving someone shooting them self in the neck first'
----------
It is doubtful Bamber was aware of this. There was no internet in 1986.
However he certainly knew where to aim the rifle to achieve an instant/non instant fatal shot.
-
Watch what you are saying Rob.If Sheila commited suicide,she DID shoot herself in the neck first.Ha ,ha.
Yes but a killer would definitely not Snow, it just shows how hopeless JB's defence was!
-
The first shot was very accurate & damaging. It was a fatal shot but not instantly.
Bamber decided to fire a second shot at some point before exiting WHF.
All this was stated in 1986.
You keep saying the first shot was very acurate Adam,and i keep asking ,in what way? What was he aiming at with the first shot,and when you say he was acurate ,what part of the neck did he manage to hit.Please enlighten us Adam.
-
The COA says the non instantly fatal shot was fired first -
'The lower of the two injuries must have been the first since it had led to haemorrhaging inside the neck and this would not have occurred to the same extent if the other wound, which would have been immediately fatal, had preceded it.'
----------
Bamber fired the instantly fatal second shot shortly after the first. After seeing Sheila was still breathing.
-
'The lower of the two injuries must have been the first since it had led to haemorrhaging inside the neck.'
----------
This suggests there was a gap of probably over 1 minute between the shots. Which gave the neck time to haemorrage.
-
'The lower of the two injuries must have been the first since it had led to haemorrhaging inside the neck.'
----------
This suggests there was a gap of probably over 1 minute between the shots. Which gave the neck time to haemorrage.
Thankyou for that information Adam,although it dosent answer what he was aiming at with the first shot.Anyway,that minute between shots would also be about right for,Sheila to slip down,realize she was still alive ,shove the barrel of the rifle under her chin,and fire the fatal shot.
-
Thankyou for that information Adam,although it dosent answer what he was aiming at with the first shot.Anyway,that minute between shots would also be about right for,Sheila to slip down,realize she was still alive ,shove the barrel of the rifle under her chin,and fire the fatal shot.
He was aiming for an instantly fatal shot.
He had achieved the 'fatal' bit. But it was not instant. He decided to fire again.
-
He was aiming for an instantly fatal shot.
He had achieved the 'fatal' bit. But it was not instant. He decided to fire again.
Ok,i see Adam,there is a part of the neck called --THE INSTANTLY FATAL SHOT AREA--we will leave it at that.Ha,ha
-
He was aiming for an instantly fatal shot.
He had achieved the 'fatal' bit. But it was not instant. He decided to fire again.
There is no guarantee that a shot to the neck with a .22 low velocity rifle would be fatal Adam? Seems a strange choice for someone trying to make it look like suicide?
-
There is no guarantee that a shot to the neck with a .22 low velocity rifle would be fatal Adam? Seems a strange choice for someone trying to make it look like suicide?
Bamber had to shoot Sheila with the same rifle everyone else had been shot with.
Bamber did achieve fatal shots with both bullets. One of them instantly fatal.
-
Suspect Bamber fired one shot into Sheila. Then started finishing things off upstairs - getting the bible, shooting June twice more, shooting the twins more.
Upon checking Sheila, he saw she was still breathing. He then shot her again. Then went downstairs with rifle/silencer to check on Nevill.
-
There is no guarantee that a shot to the neck with a .22 low velocity rifle would be fatal Adam? Seems a strange choice for someone trying to make it look like suicide?
Yes there is a guarantee Rob,if you put a bullet in the--INSTANTLY FATAL SHOT AREA--- unfortunately JB missed it.
-
Suspect Bamber fired one shot into Sheila. Then started finishing things off upstairs - getting the bible, shooting June twice more, shooting the twins more.
Upon checking Sheila, he saw she was still breathing. He then shot her again. Then went downstairs with rifle/silencer to check on Nevill.
Why didnt JB shoot Sheila at the same angle with the second shot Adam?
-
Did it?
I have no idea.
On page 2 of the case related photos in the Archives,about half way down there is a diagram of Sheila.It shows the angle the two bullets entered from the front and from the side.Side on,the non fatal shot is about 80 degrees off the vertical,the fatal wound is about 25.Front on,the non fatal shot is about 10 degrees to the right,the fatal shot about 8.Dont know if you have checked this out before or not Adam.
-
Going by the evidence it shows Bamber shot Sheila once. This was a very accurate & damaging shot which would have eventually been fatal.
Sheila was immobilised and did not stand or sit up. There was haemorrhaging from her neck.
A second shot was fired in a similar location shortly afterwards. This was instantly fatal.
-
Hiya Cutie,how are you today.Yes,i often think that is the problem with this case.No scenario was needed at trial to convict JB.The scenario i quoted ,is from CALS book page 415.Anyway,i am not asking about the scenario,the main question is why did JB Shoot Sheila through the neck with the first shot ,instead of up into the brain.Even if Sheila was struggling,he simply couldnt have been that far off.Next you will be saying the rifle went off by mistake,before he was in position.
I don't have CAL's book to hand but think you're referring to a note from EP in the DPP file? Bottom line is that it wasn't adjudicated on at trial in any sort of detail.
You could ask why JB/SC was unable to inflict an immediately fatal shot so not really sure where you're going with this?
-
On page 2 of the case related photos in the Archives,about half way down there is a diagram of Sheila.It shows the angle the two bullets entered from the front and from the side.Side on,the non fatal shot is about 80 degrees off the vertical,the fatal wound is about 25.Front on,the non fatal shot is about 10 degrees to the right,the fatal shot about 8.Dont know if you have checked this out before or not Adam.
Did a pathologist provide the above information?
-
I don't have CAL's book to hand but think you're referring to a note from EP in the DPP file? Bottom line is that it wasn't adjudicated on at trial in any sort of detail.
You could ask why JB/SC was unable to inflict an immediately fatal shot so not really sure where you're going with this?
Hi Cutie,how are you this morning.Sorry you dont understand what the thread is about.I will try to clarify later totay.Have to go and work for a while.
-
Did a pathologist provide the above information?
No Cutie,this is what i have personally worked out using a protractor.As i explained to Adam,there is a diagram showing the angles of the two shots to Sheila.page 2 of the case related photos,about half way down.Having re-checked the angles,i believe the fatal shot may be nearer 30 degrees than 25.But please measure the angles yourself Cutie,and see if you agree.Hope to speak to you later,bye for now.
-
Going by the evidence it shows Bamber shot Sheila once. This was a very accurate & damaging shot which would have eventually been fatal.
Sheila was immobilised and did not stand or sit up. There was haemorrhaging from her neck.
A second shot was fired in a similar location shortly afterwards. This was instantly fatal.
Goodmorning Adam,hope you are well.Yes the second shot was fired in a similar location,but at a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANGLE,straight up into the brain.The first shot was simplly fired straight into the neck.Check the angles Adam.
-
Not sure what point Snow66! is making. According to him the two shots being at different angles.
Both shots were fatal. Either instantly or over a longer period.
-
Ok,i see Adam,there is a part of the neck called --THE INSTANTLY FATAL SHOT AREA--we will leave it at that.Ha,ha
Indeed there is, Snow. It's called the jugular, which MAY have been his target because she refused to open her mouth. Had he forced it he could have damaged her teeth which would have looked suspicious.
-
Indeed there is, Snow. It's called the jugular, which MAY have been his target because she refused to open her mouth. Had he forced it he could have damaged her teeth which would have looked suspicious.
Hi Jane,hope your well.The carotid arteries,and jugular veins are on the outside of the neck.Both shots were fired nearer the middle of the head at a slight inward angle.So if JB was aiming for the jugular his knowledge of anatomy leaves a lot to be desired.
-
Hi Jane,hope your well.The carotid arteries,and jugular veins are on the outside of the neck.Both shots were fired nearer the middle of the head at a slight inward angle.So if JB was aiming for the jugular his knowledge of anatomy leaves a lot to be desired.
You're probably, with the benefit of hindsight, correct. I doubt he consulted books on anatomy and physiology prior to the shootings. Without any prior knowledge all that was left, if she'd refused to open her mouth, was approximation. I doubt he'd have had anything with him to assist the angle of the shots.
-
Suspect he found out enough to know that underneath the chin was a very effective location.
Even when Sheila was still breathing after the first shot, he chose the same location for the second shot.
-
Suspect he found out enough to know that underneath the chin was a very effective location.
Even when Sheila was still breathing after the first shot, he chose the same location for the second shot.
As the old sayings go; there's more than one way to skin a rabbit, and, if at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again. He only had to "try again" once.
-
Suspect he found out enough to know that underneath the chin was a very effective location.
Even when Sheila was still breathing after the first shot, he chose the same location for the second shot.
Oh Adam,how many times are we going to have to go over this==SAME LOCATION,COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANGLE ,AT LEAST A DIFFERENCE OF 50 DEGREES,ONE SHOT INTO THE NECK,ONE SHOT UP INTO THE BRAIN==Why didnt JB put the first bullet up into the brain,instead of a TOTALY RANDOM shot into the neck? I simply dont think you are understanding what this topic is about.Or dont want to.
-
Oh Adam,how many times are we going to have to go over this==SAME LOCATION,COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANGLE ,AT LEAST A DIFFERENCE OF 50 DEGREES,ONE SHOT INTO THE NECK,ONE SHOT UP INTO THE BRAIN==Why didnt JB put the first bullet up into the brain,instead of a TOTALY RANDOM shot into the neck? I simply dont think you are understanding what this topic is about.Or dont want to.
Not sure where you are trying to go with this.
The shot locations are very close together. If you choose to think the rifle was at different angles for each shot, feel free.
-
Oh Adam,how many times are we going to have to go over this==SAME LOCATION,COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANGLE ,AT LEAST A DIFFERENCE OF 50 DEGREES,ONE SHOT INTO THE NECK,ONE SHOT UP INTO THE BRAIN==Why didnt JB put the first bullet up into the brain,instead of a TOTALY RANDOM shot into the neck? I simply dont think you are understanding what this topic is about.Or dont want to.
It wasn't a totally random shot. The first shot was very well placed & caused severe blood loss, immobilised Sheila & would have killed her.
Bamber's investigating resulted in a successful one shot killing of Sheila. Unfortunately for him, it was not an instant death & he chose to fire a second shot shortly afterwards.
-
Oh Adam,how many times are we going to have to go over this==SAME LOCATION,COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANGLE ,AT LEAST A DIFFERENCE OF 50 DEGREES,ONE SHOT INTO THE NECK,ONE SHOT UP INTO THE BRAIN==Why didnt JB put the first bullet up into the brain,instead of a TOTALY RANDOM shot into the neck? I simply dont think you are understanding what this topic is about.Or dont want to.
In that case, why didn't Sheila? She had a better opportunity than JB. All she had to do was open her mouth and push the trigger. Pushing the gun into her mouth would had shortened the barrel and made firing it much easier. You seem not to understand the difficulty JB would have encountered in executing a clean kill by firing directly into the brain. Sheila MAY have moved the gun. She undoubtedly refused to open her mouth. She MAY have moved her head from side to side.
-
In that case, why didn't Sheila? She had a better opportunity than JB. All she had to do was open her mouth and push the trigger. Pushing the gun into her mouth would had shortened the barrel and made firing it much easier. You seem not to understand the difficulty JB would have encountered in executing a clean kill by firing directly into the brain. Sheila MAY have moved the gun. She undoubtedly refused to open her mouth. She MAY have moved her head from side to side.
Well Jane ,if she was capable of doing all that,i would call it a STRUGGLE and she must have been fighting for her life.
-
Well Jane ,if she was capable of doing all that,i would call it a STRUGGLE and she must have been fighting for her life.
I don't recall anyone saying she didn't. Maybe that's where all those alleged cuts happened, we're told told she had. Perhaps she was in a fight with JB.
-
Not sure where you are trying to go with this.
The shot locations are very close together. If you choose to think the rifle was at different angles for each shot, feel free.
Adam,i am not choosing to decide the shots were at different angles,the illustration in the Archive clearly shows this as fact.
-
I don't recall anyone saying she didn't. Maybe that's where all those alleged cuts happened, we're told told she had. Perhaps she was in a fight with JB.
Well,if JB had on gloves,as is alleged Jane,how could he cause little cuts?
-
Well,if JB had on gloves,as is alleged Jane,how could he cause little cuts?
Please note my use of the words "allegedly" and "perhaps".
-
Please note my use of the words "allegedly" and "perhaps".
Fair enough Jane.The angle of the two shots are however fact,Adam however,fails to recognise this or the implications of what they may mean.He is either simply being awkward or is not quite as intelligent as i thought.Either way,i have decided to clarify what i am saying about the two shots by posting an answer,as if it were at JBs court case. Adam will be the coucel for the prosecution and i will be councel for the defence.As well as arguing about the two shots,i will be adding quite a bit of nonsense about the case.Hopefully for comic effect.So you will definatelly need your tongue firmly in your cheek if you decide to read it Jane.You have been warned.Anyway its Adams fault for not properly answering the question.
-
Well Jane ,if she was capable of doing all that,i would call it a STRUGGLE and she must have been fighting for her life.
The guilters want it all ways Snow don't they, if Sheila tried to deflect any part of the rifle against a vastly stronger killer it would be the barrel end not the stock end. You would naturally grab the barrel end to save yourself?
The two shots were very close together, so I think we can say there was no struggle for the rifle which to me points to suicide.
-
As the old sayings go; there's more than one way to skin a rabbit, and, if at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again. He only had to "try again" once.
Come on Jane you can do better than this? the reason for the shots under the chin was due to the length of the rifle, it was about the only way Sheila got manage the shot.
-
The guilters want it all ways Snow don't they, if Sheila tried to deflect any part of the rifle against a vastly stronger killer it would be the barrel end not the stock end. You would naturally grab the barrel end to save yourself?
The two shots were very close together, so I think we can say there was no struggle for the rifle which to me points to suicide.
Hi Rob,yes,i think i have also poined out all that,but to no avail.
-
Come on Jane you can do better than this? the reason for the shots under the chin was due to the length of the rifle, it was about the only way Sheila got manage the shot.
But one shot with the barrel in her mouth, would have lessened the rifle's length, and would have ensured her death with ease. I've noted that NONE of Snow's numerous questions have related to what other methods Sheila might have employed to -allegedly- ease her exit. Shooting under one's neck is neither an accepted, nor convenient way of committing suicide -even with a handgun- but the next best thing if the potential suicide/victim refuses to open their mouth.
Whilst Snow is busy working out logistics and angles, he seems to have forgotten that there was a woman in that room who, despite claims that she committed suicide, seems to have made her death as difficult as possible to accomplish, and a man who, despite her lack of cooperation, was determined she would die. Neither would have been concerned with logistics.
-
But one shot with the barrel in her mouth, would have lessened the rifle's length, and would have ensured her death with ease. I've noted that NONE of Snow's numerous questions have related to what other methods Sheila might have employed to -allegedly- ease her exit. Shooting under one's neck is neither an accepted, nor convenient way of committing suicide -even with a handgun- but the next best thing if the potential suicide/victim refuses to open their mouth.
Whilst Snow is busy working out logistics and angles, he seems to have forgotten that there was a woman in that room who, despite claims that she committed suicide, seems to have made her death as difficult as possible to accomplish, and a man who, despite her lack of cooperation, was determined she would die. Neither would have been concerned with logistics.
Hi Jane,how are you today,its nice and sunny here,Well if i may answer your questions.As for putting thr barrel of the rifle in Sheilas mouth,to be quite honest,until you mentioned this yesterday,the possibility of this never entered my head.I myself have done no research on this method and have no idea how common it is.I agree it would shorten the length of the barrel slightly.As for shooting ones self under the chin not being accepted as a way of commiting suicide,i think i would need some kind of evidence.I dont recall anyones statement mentioning this,nor it being argued at trial.But i will also check this out.As for Sheila refusing to open her mouth,who knows,depends who pulled the trigger dosent it.As for the logistics,i still say JBif guilty,made a seriously stupid and unnecessary mistake ,not firing the first shot into Sheilas brain.Logistics and angles dosent really come into it,his eyes told him where the rifle was pointed,and it simply wasnt pointed up into her head.It was a mile off.Oh well hope thats answered some of your queries Jane.
-
Hi Jane,how are you today,its nice and sunny here,Well if i may answer your questions.As for putting thr barrel of the rifle in Sheilas mouth,to be quite honest,until you mentioned this yesterday,the possibility of this never entered my head.I myself have done no research on this method and have no idea how common it is.I agree it would shorten the length of the barrel slightly.As for shooting ones self under the chin not being accepted as a way of commiting suicide,i think i would need some kind of evidence.I dont recall anyones statement mentioning this,nor it being argued at trial.But i will also check this out.As for Sheila refusing to open her mouth,who knows,depends who pulled the trigger dosent it.As for the logistics,i still say JBif guilty,made a seriously stupid and unnecessary mistake ,not firing the first shot into Sheilas brain.Logistics and angles dosent really come into it,his eyes told him where the rifle was pointed,and it simply wasnt pointed up into her head.It was a mile off.Oh well hope thats answered some of your queries Jane.
Are you actually saying you require statistical evidence of suicide by shooting into the mouth as opposed to neck, and are you actually going to claim that, if you can't/don't find it, such doesn't occur? When it comes down to what individuals do, stats really aren't relevant. Too many variables involved. JB only had control of the rifle. He didn't have control of Sheila's head or mouth. So WHAT if he made a mistake? I don't think anyone here would question it. As I said previously, a double shot suicide is not classic text book. I'm not sure what it is you're attempting to prove here. Have you ever said?
-
Are you actually saying you require statistical evidence of suicide by shooting into the mouth as opposed to neck, and are you actually going to claim that, if you can't/don't find it, such doesn't occur? When it comes down to what individuals do, stats really aren't relevant. Too many variables involved. JB only had control of the rifle. He didn't have control of Sheila's head or mouth. So WHAT if he made a mistake? I don't think anyone here would question it. As I said previously, a double shot suicide is not classic text book. I'm not sure what it is you're attempting to prove here. Have you ever said?
Hi Jane,what i am basically saying is,this is the one shot he simply could not afford to make a mistake with.He had planned it out for god knows how long.To shoot her in the neck instead of up into the brain makes no sense.And if there was that much of a struggle to cause the mistake,it goes against what the prosecution and pro guilt people have argued up untill now.
-
Hi Jane,what i am basically saying is,this is the one shot he simply could not afford to make a mistake with.He had planned it out for god knows how long.To shoot her in the neck instead of up into the brain makes no sense.And if there was that much of a struggle to cause the mistake,it goes against what the prosecution and pro guilt people have argued up untill now.
I'm certain you don't need to be told that people make the biggest mistakes whilst undertaking those tasks they simply can't afford to get wrong. We KNOW he made a mistake. Mistakes happen. What was he going to do about it? It was done. Actually, he did exactly what you want to claim an already mortally injured Sheila did. Shoot again.
-
I seem to be getting some criticism for quoting the angles that the shots were fired into the victims.But for me this is critical evidence.Let me give an example.Take Nevil,shots 3 and 4 were fired into the top of his head.Now the only way it was possible for JB or SSheila to inflict the wounds,was if Nevill was sitting down or bent over at the time.Otherwise,if Nevill was standind up,JB or Sheila would need to be up a ladder to inflict the shots.Surely this is easy to grasp.So therefore we can easily determine roughly what position each of the victims were in when each shot was fired. Agreed?
-
I'm certain you don't need to be told that people make the biggest mistakes whilst undertaking those tasks they simply can't afford to get wrong. We KNOW he made a mistake. Mistakes happen. What was he going to do about it? It was done. Actually, he did exactly what you want to claim an already mortally injured Sheila did. Shoot again.
Well we dont really know if HE made the mistake, or if it was Sheila,Do we Jane.
-
Well we dont really know if HE made the mistake, or if it was Sheila,Do we Jane.
Had you read my last post, you'll see that I've allowed for both on the grounds that as none of us was there, we don't know and are unlikely to ever know. All we can do is regurgitate every supposition which has been made previously.
-
Had you read my last post, you'll see that I've allowed for both on the grounds that as none of us was there, we don't know and are unlikely to ever know. All we can do is regurgitate every supposition which has been made previously.
Very true Jane,and each of us come to the most logical conclusion,as we see it.
-
No Cutie,this is what i have personally worked out using a protractor.As i explained to Adam,there is a diagram showing the angles of the two shots to Sheila.page 2 of the case related photos,about half way down.Having re-checked the angles,i believe the fatal shot may be nearer 30 degrees than 25.But please measure the angles yourself Cutie,and see if you agree.Hope to speak to you later,bye for now.
As far as I'm aware the HO pathologist only put approx angles on wounds 5 and 6 to Mr Bamber. If the angles hold the sort of importance you seem to think they do it begs the question why the HO and defence pathologists overlooked? The defence pathologist pointed out Sheila's wounds were the only wounds that were inflicted upwards.
How do you believe the angles might be able to assist the defence/prosecution in furthering the case with CCRC/CoA?
-
As far as I'm aware the HO pathologist only put approx angles on wounds 5 and 6 to Mr Bamber. If the angles hold the sort of importance you seem to think they do it begs the question why the HO and defence pathologists overlooked? The defence pathologist pointed out Sheila's wounds were the only wounds that were inflicted upwards.
How do you believe the angles might be able to assist the defence/prosecution in furthering the case with CCRC/CoA?
Hi Cutie,nice to hear from you,hope your well.You have taken a while to think things through i see.Quite right,good idea.Now,if you have been following what i have been saying,the approximate angles of the shots determine to a great extent,if the victims were sitting,standing or lying dowm.For example ,the shot to Junes knee must have been done while she was lying down.because the shot went in below the knee and exited further up the leg.If she was standing up,the rifle was far too long for a bullet to enter under the knee.Clear? Same with Sheila,the angle of the two shots determine to a great degree ,if she was sitting or lying down at the time.And obviously Sheilas two shots were upwards,she was trying to commit suicide,or someone was attempting for her,so no surprise there.Now whether it makes any difference to guilt or innocence the angle the shots were fired at,i have no idea.But the approx angles are there in the Archives for all to study,so why not Cutie? But really the only shot i am interested in at the moment ,is the first shot to Sheila,and why,if guilty,JB made such a poor job of such an important shot.Adam says it wasnt a mistake,and he hit the target,but wont explain what he was aiming at.Jane says Sheila may have struggled and ruined the shot[controversal though,no chipped nails] or that JB simply took his eye off the ball thinking he was so close to a fortune.So after all your thinking,whats your opinion on Sheilas two shots Cutie.What happened?
-
Hi Cutie,nice to hear from you,hope your well.You have taken a while to think things through i see.Quite right,good idea.Now,if you have been following what i have been saying,the approximate angles of the shots determine to a great extent,if the victims were sitting,standing or lying dowm.For example ,the shot to Junes knee must have been done while she was lying down.because the shot went in below the knee and exited further up the leg.If she was standing up,the rifle was far too long for a bullet to enter under the knee.Clear? Same with Sheila,the angle of the two shots determine to a great degree ,if she was sitting or lying down at the time.And obviously Sheilas two shots were upwards,she was trying to commit suicide,or someone was attempting for her,so no surprise there.Now whether it makes any difference to guilt or innocence the angle the shots were fired at,i have no idea.But the approx angles are there in the Archives for all to study,so why not Cutie? But really the only shot i am interested in at the moment ,is the first shot to Sheila,and why,if guilty,JB made such a poor job of such an important shot.Adam says it wasnt a mistake,and he hit the target,but wont explain what he was aiming at.Jane says Sheila may have struggled and ruined the shot[controversal though,no chipped nails] or that JB simply took his eye off the ball thinking he was so close to a fortune.So after all your thinking,whats your opinion on Sheilas two shots Cutie.What happened?
As many supporters believe she could have loaded the magazine without damaging her nails, I feel perfectly certain she could have managed to push the barrel aside without damaging them. It's quite possible she'd have used the heel of her hand. IF she'd tried to deflect it, that is!!
-
As many supporters believe she could have loaded the magazine without damaging her nails, I feel perfectly certain she could have managed to push the barrel aside without damaging them. It's quite possible she'd have used the heel of her hand. IF she'd tried to deflect it, that is!!
Yes,point taken Jane,thats all very possible without breaking any nails.
-
But one shot with the barrel in her mouth, would have lessened the rifle's length, and would have ensured her death with ease. I've noted that NONE of Snow's numerous questions have related to what other methods Sheila might have employed to -allegedly- ease her exit. Shooting under one's neck is neither an accepted, nor convenient way of committing suicide -even with a handgun- but the next best thing if the potential suicide/victim refuses to open their mouth.
Whilst Snow is busy working out logistics and angles, he seems to have forgotten that there was a woman in that room who, despite claims that she committed suicide, seems to have made her death as difficult as possible to accomplish, and a man who, despite her lack of cooperation, was determined she would die. Neither would have been concerned with logistics.
JB would have been concerned with logistics as he had to make the crime scene convincing to the police examining the crime scene.
So if JB is the perpetrator at what point does he realise the gun is too long? was he just lucky that he shot SC under the chin? if he had gone for a head shot then realised the gun was too long when placing the rifle he is done for.
-
JB would have been concerned with logistics as he had to make the crime scene convincing to the police examining the crime scene.
So if JB is the perpetrator at what point does he realise the gun is too long? was he just lucky that he shot SC under the chin? if he had gone for a head shot then realised the gun was too long when placing the rifle he is done for.
Well,how about this Rob.I dont know if its regurgitating old posts or not.IF JB planned the massacre months in advance,he knew he was going to blame Sheila,and exactly how she was going to be dispatched.He knew if he used the rifle a head shot was the only option,a fatal shot to the heart could not be inflicted.So lets think about it,are we really expected to believe that his build up to the crime didnt involve a dry run.That is taking the rifle,with and without the moderator attatched,and placing it in his mouth and under his chin.If he could barely pull the trigger with the moderator on,he would have known it would be better to kill everyone else with the silencer on,then when it came to Sheila remove it and leave it beside her,before she was shot.Even if he didnt know about back spatter,common sense would have told him that blood would still get on to the outside of the moderator,if sheila was shot with it attatched.So those who say he put it back in the cupboard because he didnt know about back spatter are talking rubbish.By the time he had killed everyone else,their blood would have been all over the outside of it and he would have known that.And if he cleaned it,why was the silencer that was found in the gun cupboard STICKY,STICKY. Ok.lets say that JB didnt have a dry run,and had no idea the rifle was too long with the moderator attatched.How did he know it was too long after Sheila was shot? Did he lay the rifle on Sheila ,and when he tried to put her hand beside the trigger realize this.How far short of reaching the trigger was she.We now know through the tv programme -crimes that shook Britain-that Andrew Hunter proved the trigger could be pulled with the silencer on.Watch it and see.So from this we know her hand couldnt have been obviously short of the trigger by a great margin,if at all.Yet we are led to believe JB did no dry run to check if he could pull the trigger,and that the thought of doing so never entered his head.But after laying the rifle on Sheila,it was somehow SO OBVIOUS that Sheila could not have reached the trigger,even when she COULD,he panicked and removed the silencer.All he had to do was stretch Sheilas arm to check if she could reach the trigger,and he would have seen it was possible.This has been proven.There is NO WAY he would have removed the silencer when he saw this.But unless her hand was obviously many inches short of the trigger,i dont think it would have occurred to him it was anything to worry about anyway.It seems now the issue with the silencer making the rifle too long for Sheila to use is a bit of a red herring too.As far as i can see,if JB didnt think about the length of the rifle and moderator before hand,even if it was on when Sheila was shot,there was nothing to draw his attention to the fact it had to be removed.I think that has been proven,think it all through.Bye.
-
Hi Cutie,nice to hear from you,hope your well.You have taken a while to think things through i see.Quite right,good idea.Now,if you have been following what i have been saying,the approximate angles of the shots determine to a great extent,if the victims were sitting,standing or lying dowm.For example ,the shot to Junes knee must have been done while she was lying down.because the shot went in below the knee and exited further up the leg.If she was standing up,the rifle was far too long for a bullet to enter under the knee.Clear? Same with Sheila,the angle of the two shots determine to a great degree ,if she was sitting or lying down at the time.And obviously Sheilas two shots were upwards,she was trying to commit suicide,or someone was attempting for her,so no surprise there.Now whether it makes any difference to guilt or innocence the angle the shots were fired at,i have no idea.But the approx angles are there in the Archives for all to study,so why not Cutie? But really the only shot i am interested in at the moment ,is the first shot to Sheila,and why,if guilty,JB made such a poor job of such an important shot.Adam says it wasnt a mistake,and he hit the target,but wont explain what he was aiming at.Jane says Sheila may have struggled and ruined the shot[controversal though,no chipped nails] or that JB simply took his eye off the ball thinking he was so close to a fortune.So after all your thinking,whats your opinion on Sheilas two shots Cutie.What happened?
Your explanation is at odds with the pathologist's trial testimony. He suggested that the knee wound was a defensive wound inflicted when June pulled her leg up to cower away from the rifle.
Sheila's wounds are explained by pathologists for the HO and defence.
-
Thanks Snow, I will never believe that JB put the silencer in the cupboard nobody can be that stupid! It was obviously planted to beef up the evidence against him. Of course even though the silencer was planted he may still be guilty, though I believe thanks to Adam ;) it was four murders and a suicide.
Even if we believe the impossible that JB did in blind panic put the silencer in the cupboard then he would never have allowed all and sundry to have access to the house until he had tidied up a few loose ends.
Unfortunately the guilters expect me to believe the impossible over and over again in this case, everything you look at JB takes the worst possible course of action, sorry but I don't buy it.
-
Thanks Snow, I will never believe that JB put the silencer in the cupboard nobody can be that stupid! It was obviously planted to beef up the evidence against him. Of course even though the silencer was planted he may still be guilty, though I believe thanks to Adam ;) it was four murders and a suicide.
Even if we believe the impossible that JB did in blind panic put the silencer in the cupboard then he would never have allowed all and sundry to have access to the house until he had tidied up a few loose ends.
Unfortunately the guilters expect me to believe the impossible over and over again in this case, everything you look at JB takes the worst possible course of action, sorry but I don't buy it.
Too late. A jury bought it some 36 years ago.
-
Too late. A jury bought it some 36 years ago.
Only just! 10 to 2 remember.
-
Your explanation is at odds with the pathologist's trial testimony. He suggested that the knee wound was a defensive wound inflicted when June pulled her leg up to cower away from the rifle.
Sheila's wounds are explained by pathologists for the HO and defence.
Hi cutie,how are you doing tonight.Funnily enough i was just about to message you with a query.At the moment i am looking at the two other shots of uttmost importance in the case,Nevills two shots to the jaw,no 5 and 6.Where and when he received them determines if he made the phone call first.Now,you said the pathologist said the angles of these shots were only approximations,so can you tell me where you saw this information.I would really like to read it before i can come to a conclusion as to where Nevill was when he recieved them.Can you help me out Cutie? As for the shot to Junes knee.all i said was she could not have been standing up at the time.Surely this IS fact,so can you explain how that is at odds with the pathologists testimony? Hope to hear from you soon Cutes.
-
Thanks Snow, I will never believe that JB put the silencer in the cupboard nobody can be that stupid! It was obviously planted to beef up the evidence against him. Of course even though the silencer was planted he may still be guilty, though I believe thanks to Adam ;) it was four murders and a suicide.
Even if we believe the impossible that JB did in blind panic put the silencer in the cupboard then he would never have allowed all and sundry to have access to the house until he had tidied up a few loose ends.
Unfortunately the guilters expect me to believe the impossible over and over again in this case, everything you look at JB takes the worst possible course of action, sorry but I don't buy it.
Hi Rob,thing is its been proven that Sheila could have shot herself with the silencer attatchd,so there was no need for JB to take it off.
-
Hi Rob,thing is its been proven that Sheila could have shot herself with the silencer attatchd,so there was no need for JB to take it off.
Yes I have seen the video Snow, I don't think there was ever a silencer on the gun that night, though if there was I can understand JB thinking he needed to take it off when he laid the rifle on Sheila.
-
Yes I have seen the video Snow, I don't think there was ever a silencer on the gun that night, though if there was I can understand JB thinking he needed to take it off when he laid the rifle on Sheila.
[/quoteYes,possibly Rob.
-
Hi cutie,how are you doing tonight.Funnily enough i was just about to message you with a query.At the moment i am looking at the two other shots of uttmost importance in the case,Nevills two shots to the jaw,no 5 and 6.Where and when he received them determines if he made the phone call first.Now,you said the pathologist said the angles of these shots were only approximations,so can you tell me where you saw this information.I would really like to read it before i can come to a conclusion as to where Nevill was when he recieved them.Can you help me out Cutie? As for the shot to Junes knee.all i said was she could not have been standing up at the time.Surely this IS fact,so can you explain how that is at odds with the pathologists testimony?Your explanation is at odds with the pathologist's trial testimony. He suggested that the knee wound was a defensive wound inflicted when June pulled her leg up to cower away from the rifle.
Sheila's wounds are explained by pathologists for the HO and defence.
As many supporters believe she could have loaded the magazine without damaging her nails, I feel perfectly certain she could have managed to push the barrel aside without damaging them. It's quite possible she'd have used the heel of her hand. IF she'd tried to deflect it, that is!!
[/b] Hope to hear from you soon Cutes.
You said:
For example ,the shot to Junes knee must have been done while she was lying down.because the shot went in below the knee and exited further up the leg.If she was standing up,the rifle was far too long for a bullet to enter under the knee.
The pathologist provided an alternative explanation in that he suggested Mrs Bamber pulled her leg up in an attempt to defend herself from gunfire.
-
[/b] Hope to hear from you soon Cutes.
You said:
For example ,the shot to Junes knee must have been done while she was lying down.because the shot went in below the knee and exited further up the leg.If she was standing up,the rifle was far too long for a bullet to enter under the knee.
The pathologist provided an alternative explanation in that he suggested Mrs Bamber pulled her leg up in an attempt to defend herself from gunfire.
Hi Cutie,been out most of the day.Just found your post.Well,you just wont let Junes leg wound alone,you little minx.Well you will have to tell me exactly what the pathologist said.Did he mean she was lying or sitting in bed when she pulled her leg up,bending her knew for protection? Is that what you are saying?If so,why is this at odds with me saying she wasnt standing at the time? Or,are you saying she was standing and pulled her leg up off the floor,and was shot standing on one leg.? I am afraid you are going to have to explain exactly where the pathologist said June was when she received the leg wound,before i can answer further.As i said,i would be more than interested what the pathologist had to say about the two face shots to Nevill.Is it all in the court transcripts Cutie,and where abouts in the Archive can i find it?
-
[/b] Hope to hear from you soon Cutes.
You said:
For example ,the shot to Junes knee must have been done while she was lying down.because the shot went in below the knee and exited further up the leg.If she was standing up,the rifle was far too long for a bullet to enter under the knee.
The pathologist provided an alternative explanation in that he suggested Mrs Bamber pulled her leg up in an attempt to defend herself from gunfire.
Ok Cutie,I have found the testimony by Peter Vanezis of which you are talking about.It is referring to June defending herself.Here it is---THE ONLY REACTION TO THE WEAPON WOULD BE PUTTING THE ARM UP,AND BEING SHOT THROUGH THE ARM,AND POSSIBLY PULLING THE LEG UP AS WELL AT SOME POINT TO COWER AWAY FROM THE WEAPON BUT THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES-----Ok,got it Cutie,but again i will ask,how does this contradict me saying she could not have been standing when she received the leg shot? Surely nothing in that statement indicates June was standing at the time of the leg shot.I think it is you who is pulling MY leg Cutes. Ha ha;
-
Too late. A jury bought it some 36 years ago.
The jury were not given the true facts, hence why they came to the verdict they arrived at!
One more point, for you to consider and contemplate upon - 'Jeremy Bamber' was convicted on a 10/2 majoritary verdict. [OK]; but does it not concern you, that one of the 12 jurors kept falling asleep during important stages of trial evidence that was being given? The trial judge [ Mr Justice Drake] had to reprimand the juror in question]. Let me put this question to you, `do you not agree` that `every defendant is supposed to receive a fair trial` [are `they`, or `them`, 'are' or 'not']? Do you believe in 'the basic principle that' everyone has to be treated' as though 'they', 'them', 'you', 'me' and 'us', or 'we' (for that, or any other matter) are 'innocent', until 'such a time' when 'they', 'them', 'you', 'me', and 'us' or 'we', are 'convicted by the verdict of '12 men' or and 'women', 'good' and 'true'? Now my point is this, 'the juror who fell asleep during trial testimony' [in the 'Bamber` pantomime] could `not possibly have enabled` or `allowed` for 'Jeremy Bamber' to have `received a fair trial`.
Since, 'no - one will ever know', whether or not, 'the juror' who '
slept through importanttestimony' or 'evidence' was 'one of the two jurors' [or 'one of the other 10 jurors' ] who played out 'their role in the accountability' and 'lawfulness', of 'that 10/2, Majoritary verdict'?
'A defendant' (or 'his legal representative') or for `that matter`, even 'a trial judge', has 'no authority' to 'listen to', 'know', or 'hear', 'why' and 'which juror(s)' if any, 'objected to a guilty'/ or 'a not guilty verdict'? How in 'hell', or 'upon God's green earth', can 'anyone arrive' or 'come to a reasonable conclusion', that 'a verdict' by a '10/2 majority' should have been 'accepted', or 'allowed', when 'one of the 12 original members of the jury' [in this/that case] 'fell asleep', and 'slept' through 'any evidence' that 'was' being 'relied upon' by 'prosecution' or 'defense' counsel' to either 'permit' or 'encourage a jury' to 'convict', or 'acquit' a defendant?
-
Hello everyone,hope your well. I would like to give my opinion on the death of sheila, in particular the angle of the two shots.
The official police scenario. or one of them at least, has Sheila RUSHING to the box room door to get to the twins,after she sees what has happened to June.
Once JB re-enters the bedroom,he shoots June and Sheils freezes. JB forces Sheila down beside the bed and shoots her in the neck. Thats the official scenario. So lets take it from there.
What position was sheilas body in when the non fatal shot was fired. I have determined that if Sheila was lying flat on the floor, the rifle was about 80 degrees in relation,or even vertical if Sheilas head was tilted back. That surprised me. How could JB hold Sheila dwwn with the rifle straight up and down? With his foot i would imagine. Any footprints found on her chest? Still we are told she was frozen stiff,so no need.
What if JB forced her to sit up with her body folded at 90 degrees, well the rifle would obviously be nearer horizontal. That is Sheilas upper body rotated by 90 degrees,give or take if her head is tilted forward or back. Hope you are following. Ok the question is why did JB shoot her at this angle if she was frozen stiff? Why didnt he lay her flat shove the rifle under her chin,and point it up into her head.
The angle of the rifle was off by almost 90 degrees for this to happen when the shot was fired.This shot was of the uttmost importace if his plan was to succeed,this was THE shot he HAD to get right.Why was he off by so much,the second went straight into her brain.Even if Sheila WAS struggling[no chipped nails mind] he knew the rifle had to be almost parrallel with Sheilas body for the shot to go up into her brain. Even if Sheila did try and push away the gun as he fired,it would be the barrel,not the stock of the rifle, which could change the angle of the shot.
The first shot just dosent make sense to me if JB is guilty. Did he think one shot to the throat would be enough after shooting everyone else several times in the skull. A bullet used for shooting VERMIN.
So let us see what would have happened if Sheila commited suictde. In my opinion Sheila HAD to be seated upright for the non fatal shot with her head slightly tucked in, probably with her knees up. It would be almost impossible lying on her back,as the rifle would be almost vertical,going by the angle of the wound. Check it out. Even sitting stock of the rifle would be 18-24 inches off the floor. So Sheila fires the first shot,and must have slipped down, possibly involuntarily through muscle spasms. As her body slips down, the weight of her body holds her night dress in place causing it to ruck up.
Anyway Sheila had to be fairly flat to fire the fatal shot, we know by the angle. Otherwise the rifle would have to be down through the floor boards. Check out the angle of the shots. Sheile almost certainly had to be sitting[or possibly lying on her side]for the non fatal shot, and had to be lying down for the fatal one. If JB shot Sheila, why on earth did he misjudge the non fatal wound by so much.
Also worth mentioning, both shots were fired from Sheilas right side, not straight on as it were. Does this suggest the rifle was angled over to Sheilas right hand? Do other suicides show the weapon angled to the dominant hand? Why would JB fire both shots at a slight angle, instead of straight on, running parallel to Sheilas body, looking from above as it were.Awkward standing?
Anyway hope you understand all this. Check out the angles of the two shots,with the illustrations in the crime scene photos for your self,and see what YOU conclude.You will need a protractor to measure the angles. Hope you understand all this, maybe Dave can help with some of his animated illustrations. Well i hope this has been of interest to you,all the best. Bye for now.
Is there any possibility you could break your posts up into paragraphs, as I have done above? I don't mind long posts, but if you post without paragraphs it makes it very difficult to read, which is a shame.
Dr. Vanezis believed that the first shot to Sheila was when she was sitting up slightly. It is entirely possible that Jeremy first shot her while forcing her on the floor - assuming he is guilty. You mention Sheila being 'frozen'. I assume this is metaphorical but I'm not sure what you mean exactly. To position Sheila, she had to be moved, which means she had to move, which means she wasn't frozen in any sense. If you mean what Ainsley said in the DPP Report, that she 'froze', well this was the Essex Police explanation for how Jeremy managed to manhandle Sheila, but if you think about it for five seconds, it doesn't make any sense unless we're saying that Sheila was already in the main bedroom and Jeremy quickly pinned her on the floor (perhaps shooting her too early in the process, hence Dr. Vanezis' evidence).
If you have not done so already, one thing I recommend you do is look at the analysis of the evidence of Martyn Ismail and Dr. Peter Vanezis in the 2002 appeal judgment. I think the judges' analysis was mistaken and they were wrong to accept Mr Ismail's evidence, but it's still important to read it.
-
Is there any possibility you could break your posts up into paragraphs, as I have done above? I don't mind long posts, but if you post without paragraphs it makes it very difficult to read, which is a shame.
Dr. Vanezis believed that the first shot to Sheila was when she was sitting up slightly. It is entirely possible that Jeremy first shot her while forcing her on the floor - assuming he is guilty. You mention Sheila being 'frozen'. I assume this is metaphorical but I'm not sure what you mean exactly. To position Sheila, she had to be moved, which means she had to move, which means she wasn't frozen in any sense. If you mean what Ainsley said in the DPP Report, that she 'froze', well this was the Essex Police explanation for how Jeremy managed to manhandle Sheila, but if you think about it for five seconds, it doesn't make any sense unless we're saying that Sheila was already in the main bedroom and Jeremy quickly pinned her on the floor (perhaps shooting her too early in the process, hence Dr. Vanezis' evidence).
If you have not done so already, one thing I recommend you do is look at the analysis of the evidence of Martyn Ismail and Dr. Peter Vanezis in the 2002 appeal judgment. I think the judges' analysis was mistaken and they were wrong to accept Mr Ismail's evidence, but it's still important to read it.
Hi Gascoigne,hope your well.I will study what you have said and give you a reply sometime tomorrow.As for breaking the post up into peragraphs,i have been asked this before.I will try my best to learn how to do this.Cheers for now and goodnight.
-
I don't believe Sheila froze. She was just easy to control.
Physically weak & uncordinated, half asleep, not knowing what was going on and under the influence of the sedative effects of Haloperidol.
The last two people to see/hear her alive - Bamber/housekeeper both commented on how docile she was. After observing Sheila, Bamber rang Julie to tell her 'tonights the night'.
The evidence shows Sheila put up no/minimal resistance. Which allowed Bamber's first shot to be a fatal one. Although not instantaneous.
-
I don't believe Sheila froze. She was just easy to control.
Physically weak & uncordinated, half asleep, not knowing what was going on and under the influence of the sedative effects of Haloperidol.
The last two people to see/hear her alive - Bamber/housekeeper both commented on how docile she was. After observing Sheila, Bamber rang Julie to tell her 'tonights the night'.
The evidence shows Sheila put up no/minimal resistance. Which allowed Bamber's first shot to be a fatal one. Although not instantaneous.
You've overlooked how Aunty Pam also recalled she was unresponsive during the telephone call and didn't say goodnight as she normally would.
-
Is there any possibility you could break your posts up into paragraphs, as I have done above? I don't mind long posts, but if you post without paragraphs it makes it very difficult to read, which is a shame.
Dr. Vanezis believed that the first shot to Sheila was when she was sitting up slightly. It is entirely possible that Jeremy first shot her while forcing her on the floor - assuming he is guilty. You mention Sheila being 'frozen'. I assume this is metaphorical but I'm not sure what you mean exactly. To position Sheila, she had to be moved, which means she had to move, which means she wasn't frozen in any sense. If you mean what Ainsley said in the DPP Report, that she 'froze', well this was the Essex Police explanation for how Jeremy managed to manhandle Sheila, but if you think about it for five seconds, it doesn't make any sense unless we're saying that Sheila was already in the main bedroom and Jeremy quickly pinned her on the floor (perhaps shooting her too early in the process, hence Dr. Vanezis' evidence).
If you have not done so already, one thing I recommend you do is look at the analysis of the evidence of Martyn Ismail and Dr. Peter Vanezis in the 2002 appeal judgment. I think the judges' analysis was mistaken and they were wrong to accept Mr Ismail's evidence, but it's still important to read it.
There is an adjunct to the flight/fight states. It's FREEZE. A state in which we find ourselves totally incapable of movement. Usually bought about, as with fight/flight, by shock and/or fear.
-
There is an adjunct to the flight/fight states. It's FREEZE. A state in which we find ourselves totally incapable of movement. Usually bought about, as with fight/flight, by shock and/or fear.
I know. I've just explained in my post why, in this case, the theory doesn't hold.
-
You've overlooked how Aunty Pam also recalled she was unresponsive during the telephone call and didn't say goodnight as she normally would.
Sorry I thought that conversation was the housekeeper.
-
Is there any possibility you could break your posts up into paragraphs, as I have done above? I don't mind long posts, but if you post without paragraphs it makes it very difficult to read, which is a shame.
Dr. Vanezis believed that the first shot to Sheila was when she was sitting up slightly. It is entirely possible that Jeremy first shot her while forcing her on the floor - assuming he is guilty. You mention Sheila being 'frozen'. I assume this is metaphorical but I'm not sure what you mean exactly. To position Sheila, she had to be moved, which means she had to move, which means she wasn't frozen in any sense. If you mean what Ainsley said in the DPP Report, that she 'froze', well this was the Essex Police explanation for how Jeremy managed to manhandle Sheila, but if you think about it for five seconds, it doesn't make any sense unless we're saying that Sheila was already in the main bedroom and Jeremy quickly pinned her on the floor (perhaps shooting her too early in the process, hence Dr. Vanezis' evidence).
If you have not done so already, one thing I recommend you do is look at the analysis of the evidence of Martyn Ismail and Dr. Peter Vanezis in the 2002 appeal judgment. I think the judges' analysis was mistaken and they were wrong to accept Mr Ismail's evidence, but it's still important to read it.
Hi Gascoine,hope your well today.Well,i have looked at Carol Ann Lees book again,and you and Cutie are correct in thinking the phrase -Sheila froze-on page 415 comes from the official police scenario sent to the DPP to bring JB to trial.It also says Sheila walked through to the bedroom of her own accord while JB was in the kitchen with nevill.I have been looking through the 2002 appeal,but cant find Martyn Ismails evidence,can you tell me what number in the report his analysis starts Gascoigne?
-
Much has been made of how peaceful Sheila looked in death, the suggestion being that she hadn't witnessed any violence other that that she'd inflicted. I'm just watching something on CBSReality. In 1986 a home help found her elderly client apparently sleeping peacefully. She'd been sexually assaulted and beaten brutally. She can hardly be said to have died peacefully. Her death was initially recorded as natural causes.
-
I am watching sky channel 187 Thats TV. Russ Abbots mad house was on,his see you jimmy act with Dustin Gee is hilarious.Now the Les Dawson show is on.You also get Benny Hill and The Kenny Everett show on this channel.What more could you want.You need a bit of light relief,you cant think about gruesome crimes every minute of the day.
-
I don't believe Sheila froze. She was just easy to control.
Physically weak & uncordinated, half asleep, not knowing what was going on and under the influence of the sedative effects of Haloperidol.
The last two people to see/hear her alive - Bamber/housekeeper both commented on how docile she was. After observing Sheila, Bamber rang Julie to tell her 'tonights the night'.
The evidence shows Sheila put up no/minimal resistance. Which allowed Bamber's first shot to be a fatal one. Although not instantaneous.
Hi Adam,hope you are enjoying your Satarday night.I thought i would remind you exactly what Vanezis said about the non fatal wound,termed the lower one. Q-What about the lower one? A=The lower one is a different matter,because the lower one has injured soft tissue and fractured bone,but has not actually immediately damaged any of the vital organs,such as the brain or spinal chord,and so,although by means of haemorrhage and secondary effects from this wound,in my view it would PROBABLY,IF LEFT NEGLECTED,have been fatal.It was not as immediately damaging as the upper wound. Q-So what you are saying is,if someone had received just that wound,and nothing had been done to staunch the blood or otherwise reduce its effects,that could EVENTUALLY be fatal? A-It COULD be fatal,either fairly quickly from,POSSIBLY,an embolism through the brain,or much more SLOWLY through haemorrhage,but in any event,IF LEFT NEGLECTED,it would certainlly have caused a great deal of morbidity,if not fatal outcome. So,at no time did Vanezis say the wound was definately a fatal one,even suggesting Sheila may have survived without immediate treatment,as long as a brain embolism did not occur.Therefore his testimony about the outcome of the first shot is totally inconclusive.One can only conclude it MAY have been fatal if no other wound was inflicted.
-
I am watching sky channel 187 Thats TV. Russ Abbots mad house was on,his see you jimmy act with Dustin Gee is hilarious.Now the Les Dawson show is on.You also get Benny Hill and The Kenny Everett show on this channel.What more could you want.You need a bit of light relief,you cant think about gruesome crimes every minute of the day.
Not my bag. I prefer real life. It's not all about "gruesome crime". In this particular case, a brutally murdered victim, like Sheila, being said to look as if she'd died peacefully.
-
Not my bag. I prefer real life. It's not all about "gruesome crime". In this particular case, a brutally murdered victim, like Sheila, being said to look as if she'd died peacefully.
Jane, I can't help thinking that Sheila did indeed die in peace as her " job " was done and her boys " would be joining her ". Sheila hadn't died a brutal death such as her parents had done.
-
Not my bag. I prefer real life. It's not all about "gruesome crime". In this particular case, a brutally murdered victim, like Sheila, being said to look as if she'd died peacefully.
Hi Jane,hope your enjoying the day of rest.Dont you like any comedy programmes Jane? How about Max Wall doing his silly walks,or George Carl trying to play the mouth organ while his microphone keeps slipping down.Absolutely hilarious.Please check them out,if you have never seen their acts before,i guarentee they will have you in stitches.
-
Hi Jane,hope your enjoying the day of rest.Dont you like any comedy programmes Jane? How about Max Wall doing his silly walks,or George Carl trying to play the mouth organ while his microphone keeps slipping down.Absolutely hilarious.Please check them out,if you have never seen their acts before,i guarentee they will have you in stitches.
Snow, I don't find contrived humour funny. Memories of poor Frank Spencer in "Some Mothers......" being ridiculed for being intellectually lacking, still makes me nauseous, as does pathetic Timothy in "Sorry" being bullied and infantalized by his overbearing mother. However, real life humour? THAT I do find hilarious.
-
Snow, I don't find contrived humour funny. Memories of poor Frank Spencer in "Some Mothers......" being ridiculed for being intellectually lacking, still makes me nauseous, as does pathetic Timothy in "Sorry" being bullied and infantalized by his overbearing mother. However, real life humour? THAT I do find hilarious.
Hi Jane,i thought everyone liked Some mothers do ave em ,the stunts alone made the show memorable.As for Sorry ,i rarely watched that,it was by no means a classic.What do you mean by real life comedy Jane,something like Billy Connollys observations or actual footage like youve been framed.Or maybe jusy observing others your self ?
-
Hi Jane,i thought everyone liked Some mothers do ave em ,the stunts alone made the show memorable.As for Sorry ,i rarely watched that,it was by no means a classic.What do you mean by real life comedy Jane,something like Billy Connollys observations or actual footage like youve been framed.Or maybe jusy observing others your self ?
I find Billy Connelly hilarious. I love his brilliant observations, as I do others who make no claims of being comedians, ie Pam Eyres. I don't like anything which involves others making fools of the unknowing/unaware. They/we are more than capable of doing that without outside contributions!!! There's little better than people watching, is there?
-
I find Billy Connelly hilarious. I love his brilliant observations, as I do others who make no claims of being comedians, ie Pam Eyres. I don't like anything which involves others making fools of the unknowing/unaware. They/we are more than capable of doing that without outside contributions!!! There's little better than people watching, is there?
Yes i agree Billy Connolly can have the tears rolling down your face at times,have you watched him tell the story of the worker at the ship yards who had a broken arse.? As for Pam Ayres,she is a very clever and amusing poet who makes you smile rather than laugh out loud.But as i say,i like the silly slapstick stuff too.Oh well we are all different Jane.
-
The late Jeanne Robertson made me laugh. Her comedy was real life situations which was hilarious.
-
The late Jeanne Robertson made me laugh. Her comedy was real life situations which was hilarious.
There was a wonderful raconteuse whose name escapes me. She used to tell tongue in cheek stories about her days in boarding school. She was around in the late 50s/60s.
-
There was a wonderful raconteuse whose name escapes me. She used to tell tongue in cheek stories about her days in boarding school. She was around in the late 50s/60s.
Joyce Grenfell?
-
The late Jeanne Robertson made me laugh. Her comedy was real life situations which was hilarious.
Thats a new name to me Lookout,i will have to look her up.
-
Joyce Grenfell?
Spot on, Snow!!
-
There is an adjunct to the flight/fight states. It's FREEZE. A state in which we find ourselves totally incapable of movement. Usually bought about, as with fight/flight, by shock and/or fear.
I agree an animal can either fight / flight or freeze. So an animal who encounters say a Lion which is vastly more powerful and faster may freeze if fighting or fleeing is not a option.
In Sheila's case she may have frozen the minute she caught sight of June, but would she? with her children in the house I think most mothers instinct would have been to flee to their children?
-
I agree an animal can either fight / flight or freeze. So an animal who encounters say a Lion which is vastly more powerful and faster may freeze if fighting or fleeing is not a option.
In Sheila's case she may have frozen the minute she caught sight of June, but would she? with her children in the house I think most mothers instinct would have been to flee to their children?
Hi Rob how are you tonight.This is the official police scenario sent to the DPP in Nov 1985.It can be found on page 415 of Carol Ann Lees book.----- While father and son were fighting in the kitchen,June had managed to force herself up from the bed.The commotion had also woken Sheila,who crossed the landing to her parents bedroom,drowsy and confused.At the sight of her mother bleeding profusely as she steadied herself on the edge of the bed,Sheila rushed to the other side of the room,where the door to the box room was the quickest route to the twins,June staggered round the bed after her,but before she could reach Sheila,Jeremy returned with the gun.Sheila froze,June started towards her son,who fired three more shots into her neck,head,and finally between her eyes.June hit her shoulder against the door as she slumped to the floor.Jeremy then forced Sheila down beside the bed and shot her once in the throat.-----
-
Hi Rob how are you tonight.This is the official police scenario sent to the DPP in Nov 1985.It can be found on page 415 of Carol Ann Lees book.----- While father and son were fighting in the kitchen,June had managed to force herself up from the bed.The commotion had also woken Sheila,who crossed the landing to her parents bedroom,drowsy and confused.At the sight of her mother bleeding profusely as she steadied herself on the edge of the bed,Sheila rushed to the other side of the room,where the door to the box room was the quickest route to the twins,June staggered round the bed after her,but before she could reach Sheila,Jeremy returned with the gun.Sheila froze,June started towards her son,who fired three more shots into her neck,head,and finally between her eyes.June hit her shoulder against the door as she slumped to the floor.Jeremy then forced Sheila down beside the bed and shot her once in the throat.-----
WHERE IS THE BLOOD? I think you should write to CAL and ask her why there is not a pooling of blood around June's head.
-
Hi Rob how are you tonight.This is the official police scenario sent to the DPP in Nov 1985.It can be found on page 415 of Carol Ann Lees book.----- While father and son were fighting in the kitchen,June had managed to force herself up from the bed.The commotion had also woken Sheila,who crossed the landing to her parents bedroom,drowsy and confused.At the sight of her mother bleeding profusely as she steadied herself on the edge of the bed,Sheila rushed to the other side of the room,where the door to the box room was the quickest route to the twins,June staggered round the bed after her,but before she could reach Sheila,Jeremy returned with the gun.Sheila froze,June started towards her son,who fired three more shots into her neck,head,and finally between her eyes.June hit her shoulder against the door as she slumped to the floor.Jeremy then forced Sheila down beside the bed and shot her once in the throat.-----
Hi Snow I am ok thanks hope you are too.
A person freezes because instinctively they feel its their best course of action, but in this situation Nevil shot, June shot it will soon be her turn I don't think she would freeze or if she did it would only be for a few seconds then she would try to flee.
-
WHERE IS THE BLOOD? I think you should write to CAL and ask her why there is not a pooling of blood around June's head.
Yes,you mentioned that fact to me before Bubo.It definatelly needs answering in my opinion.
-
Hi Snow I am ok thanks hope you are too.
A person freezes because instinctively they feel its their best course of action, but in this situation Nevil shot, June shot it will soon be her turn I don't think she would freeze or if she did it would only be for a few seconds then she would try to flee.
And if she rushed to the box room door,why would she bother to stop and turn round when JB entered the room,she would keep moving.Maybe JB shouted FREEZE! ,and she did,literally.Ha ha!
-
And if she rushed to the box room door,why would she bother to stop and turn round when JB entered the room,she would keep moving.Maybe JB shouted FREEZE! ,and she did,literally.Ha ha!
As I have said if it was JB then this aspect of the case is a mystery to me? as you know I think it's a MOJ.
-
As I have said if it was JB then this aspect of the case is a mystery to me? as you know I think it's a MOJ.
Of course this part of the case is a mystery Rob,take a look at my JB scenario,i had Sheila being blind folded by JB and told she was going to a party,for heavens sake.As you know,a detailed scenario was not needed to convict JB,only proof that Sheila could not have murdered her parents and the twins.
-
Sheila was on Haloperidol & in a non responsive state.
As confirmed by the last two alive witnesses to see/hear her alive - Bamber & the house keeper.
She was so sedated, that she fooled the firearm officers that she was dead, downstairs in the kitchen, where they left her body along with 'Neville Bambers', body!
Unfortunately, for 'those of you who obviously can't see the wood for the trees', the raid team cops, exited the kitchen to search the rest of the farmhouse for the other family members, of which there were another three! Cops checked every room downstairs after confirming that there were two bodies in the kitchen. Now, if 'Sheila' was so 'zonked out of her mind', funnily enough then how did she end thereafter in the main bedroom upstairs, and lay alongside her adopted mother ('June Bamber') on the top of the bed! In order for this to have happened, 'Sheila' must have obviously been 'compusmentus'! Allow me, to educate you, regarding how alert she was, after cops assumed that 'she had died', and was 'deaded' there in the kitchen!
A key element to establishing as close as possible, let me try to focus your attention on the doorway in the kitchen, behind which was an escape route consisting of a spiral staircase, which linked the kitchen downstairs to the landing upstairs, the upstairs doorway would have, and did eventually provide access to that upstairs landing, and of course, the main bedroom where she subsequently laid upon the bed, alongside her adoptive mother! How astounding, that in the crime scene photographs taken of the staged managed kitchen set up, that the latched doorway and the spiral staircase that afforded access up and down between the kitchen and the upstairs landing, that none of the 6 man raid team, mention anything about that latched doorway or the spiral stairway beyond? Nobody checked what was beyond that latched doorway in a corner of the kitchen downstairs! Instead, the cops searched all the other rooms of the farmhouse on ground level. One officer, went up the back stairs in an attempt to communicate 'Sheika', by calling out her name [Sheila Bamber] as he cautiously mounted each step of the back stairway!
The original 6 man raid team, did not search or look inside cupboard doors, or the doorway to the so, - called gun cupboard in the downstairs office ('den')! Neither did they look behind or beyond the latched door in one corner of the kitchen (at the time a man and a woman's body was confirmed as being present in the kitchen upon entry!
It was not until the raid team discovered the other three victims bodies upstairs [8.10am] when the firearm officers operation had been completed, and the entrance of senior officers into the farmhouse Via the same route taken by the firearm officers at the time of their initial entry into the farmhouse, when upon entering the kitchen those senior officers raised the alert that there was only one body present in the kitchen, and that was the body of a male victim! The female, had gone missing!!!
At that time, it is understood that 'Sheila' had concealed herself behind the latched door and rested somewhere upon the spiral staircase, until the opportunity arose for her to exit the door above (top landing) and she slipped into the main bedroom, and collapsed onto the bed, next to 'June Bamber'..
'June' had possession of a rifle, at this stage which she had rested next to her on top of the bed, there was also two bibles on the bed at the same time. When 'Sheila' arrived on the bed, she picked up one of the bibles, and before she lost consciousness, she searched for religeous scripture within the pages of one of the two bibles, and faded into unconsciousness, with the bible fallen and resting upon her chest!
She was not relocated, on the bed of her adoptive parents bed until 8.30am..
-
Hi Gascoine,hope your well today.Well,i have looked at Carol Ann Lees book again,and you and Cutie are correct in thinking the phrase -Sheila froze-on page 415 comes from the official police scenario sent to the DPP to bring JB to trial.It also says Sheila walked through to the bedroom of her own accord while JB was in the kitchen with nevill.I have been looking through the 2002 appeal,but cant find Martyn Ismails evidence,can you tell me what number in the report his analysis starts Gascoigne?
If you would care to go to the link below, and then look at paragraphs 514-520, you will see Mr Ismail's evidence discussed. Mr Ismail also gave an opinion on the blood evidence, and his work in that regard is discussed briefly at 498(v).
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
For future reference, most browsers allow you to carry out a word search of webpages. If you search for 'Ismail', you will find he is mentioned 10 times.
It is best to read the judgment all the way through, though, rather than selectively.
-
I don't believe Sheila froze. She was just easy to control.
Physically weak & uncordinated, half asleep, not knowing what was going on and under the influence of the sedative effects of Haloperidol.
The last two people to see/hear her alive - Bamber/housekeeper both commented on how docile she was. After observing Sheila, Bamber rang Julie to tell her 'tonights the night'.
The evidence shows Sheila put up no/minimal resistance. Which allowed Bamber's first shot to be a fatal one. Although not instantaneous.
The housekeeper commented that Sheila seemed normal.
Pamela did not see Sheila, she only spoke to her on the phone, and merely commented that she seemed quiet.
Haloperidol can have sedative side-effects, but there is no evidence that Sheila was sedated. In any case, being sedated does not in itself preclude her involvement in a massacre. It is not the same as being asleep and could mean anything from feeling drowsy and numb through to actual sleep.
-
She was so sedated, that she fooled the firearm officers that she was dead, downstairs in the kitchen, where they left her body along with 'Neville Bambers', body!
She was not relocated, on the bed of her adoptive parents bed until 8.30am..
Hence, why DCS Harris was re quested to contact 'ACC PETER SIMPSON' using a land-line [8.15am] rather than by radio, and why at 8.09am the open 999 phone line was requested to be terminated!!
-
Why is there no recordings or transcripts with regards to the conversation which 'Harris' and 'Simpson' had between 8.15am and 8.30am?
Surely, such information and evidence will be 'the death of all these' / 'those crooked police officers' in this case!!!
-
The housekeeper commented that Sheila seemed normal.
Pamela did not see Sheila, she only spoke to her on the phone, and merely commented that she seemed quiet.
Haloperidol can have sedative side-effects, but there is no evidence that Sheila was sedated. In any case, being sedated does not in itself preclude her involvement in a massacre. It is not the same as being asleep and could mean anything from feeling drowsy and numb through to actual sleep.
Sorry it was Pamela Boutflour who spoke to Sheila on the phone. Saying Sheila just gave one word answers before June took the phone back.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8254.msg391666.html#msg391666
Here is a thread on Haloperiodal.
Obviously Sheila would have been easy to move a few feet into the main bedroom. Otherwise Bamber would not have carried out the massacre a few hours after checking on her.
-
If you would care to go to the link below, and then look at paragraphs 514-520, you will see Mr Ismail's evidence discussed. Mr Ismail also gave an opinion on the blood evidence, and his work in that regard is discussed briefly at 498(v).
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
For future reference, most browsers allow you to carry out a word search of webpages. If you search for 'Ismail', you will find he is mentioned 10 times.
It is best to read the judgment all the way through, though, rather than selectively.
Thanks Gascoigne,i will read Ismails evidence and get back to you.I have read quite a bit of the appeal now,but will read it again thoroughly.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8254.msg391666.html#msg391666
Here is a thread on Haloperiodal.
Obviously Sheila would have been easy to move a few feet into the main bedroom. Otherwise Bamber would not have carried out the massacre a few hours after checking on her.
Hi Adam hope you are well tonight.You have a great belief that Sheila was in a trance like state onthe night of the murders,and this caused JB to put his plan in to action.Let me give you my opinion of this,and the drug Haloperidol.Most of the side effects you mention are the serious ones,and if Sheila suffered from any of these,she would have been taken off Haloperidol or given another medicine to counteract them.You mention Tardive Dyskinesia,an involuntary movement of the limbs,this is a rare side effect and mostly happens in the elderly.Drowsiness is also a less common side effect,but you have Sheila more or less acting like a zombie,with little will of her own.To say she was dazed and confused is nonsense,confusion is a VERY serious side effect,and would have come to light as soon as she was prescribed the drug.Serious side effects are rare in the population,and must be reported straight away,i have no doubt this would have happened in Sheilas case if anything untoward happened.So Adam,i for one am far from convinced by your argument that Sheila was more or less in a trance.There is no reason to think Sheila was anything less that compos mentis,albeit with underlying schizophrenic thoughts.So to think anyone could man handle or manipulate her is nonsense as far as i can see.As i have said,if she was obviously off balance or dizzy,or throwing her arms or legs about,this would have been noticed at an early stage after the Haloperidol was prescribed.Sheila wuold have needed to be chaperoned constanty to climb stairs and generaly get about.There is no evidence of this,there are even reports of her being out on her own in the days leading up to the massacre.You wouldnt let a staggering,confused zombie out of your sight,would you? There is however a report of Sheila shouting obscenities at a work man who approached the white House,was this her illness rearing its head again with the REDUCTION of the Haloperidol? Almost all medicines have serious side effects,but they rarely happen,if so,this is discovered at an early stage,and the medicine is withdrawn.To think that Sheila was left in a drowsy,sedated,confused,unresponsive mess is nonsense.No,i think Sheila knew exactly what happened that night,and in her restless state would have been involved from the outset.,either as the culprit,or fighting to save the others.One of the common non serious side effects of Haloperidol is aggitation and insomnia,she would have been the FIRST to be aware something was wrong that night,NOT the last.
-
Hi Adam hope you are well tonight.You have a great belief that Sheila was in a trance like state onthe night of the murders,and this caused JB to put his plan in to action.Let me give you my opinion of this,and the drug Haloperidol.Most of the side effects you mention are the serious ones,and if Sheila suffered from any of these,she would have been taken off Haloperidol or given another medicine to counteract them.You mention Tardive Dyskinesia,an involuntary movement of the limbs,this is a rare side effect and mostly happens in the elderly.Drowsiness is also a less common side effect,but you have Sheila more or less acting like a zombie,with little will of her own.To say she was dazed and confused is nonsense,confusion is a VERY serious side effect,and would have come to light as soon as she was prescribed the drug.Serious side effects are rare in the population,and must be reported straight away,i have no doubt this would have happened in Sheilas case if anything untoward happened.So Adam,i for one am far from convinced by your argument that Sheila was more or less in a trance.There is no reason to think Sheila was anything less that compos mentis,albeit with underlying schizophrenic thoughts.So to think anyone could man handle or manipulate her is nonsense as far as i can see.As i have said,if she was obviously off balance or dizzy,or throwing her arms or legs about,this would have been noticed at an early stage after the Haloperidol was prescribed.Sheila wuold have needed to be chaperoned constanty to climb stairs and generaly get about.There is no evidence of this,there are even reports of her being out on her own in the days leading up to the massacre.You wouldnt let a staggering,confused zombie out of your sight,would you? There is however a report of Sheila shouting obscenities at a work man who approached the white House,was this her illness rearing its head again with the REDUCTION of the Haloperidol? Almost all medicines have serious side effects,but they rarely happen,if so,this is discovered at an early stage,and the medicine is withdrawn.To think that Sheila was left in a drowsy,sedated,confused,unresponsive mess is nonsense.No,i think Sheila knew exactly what happened that night,and in her restless state would have been involved from the outset.,either as the culprit,or fighting to save the others.One of the common non serious side effects of Haloperidol is aggitation and insomnia,she would have been the FIRST to be aware something was wrong that night,NOT the last.
I wonder why it is that you appear dismissive of what Sheila's friends said of her behaviours and appearance in the fortnight prior to her death, but seem prepared to accept an uncorroborated report of her "shouting obscenities at a workman". You are also ignoring that Sheila, because it seems she'd been overmedicated when she left hospital, had visited her doctor and asked for it to be reduced.
-
Another option Bamber had with Sheila was to wake her & use friendly persuasion to get her to stand up. Then lift her off her feet & carry her the few feet to her final resting place.
Sheila would be half asleep, on Haloperidol & not know everyone else had been killed. She would also trust her brother.
She would not have time to react to being lifted as taken by surprise.
Although Bamber may have attempted friendly persuasion to direct Sheila into the main bedroom. Again relying on Sheila trusting her brother.
-
I wonder why it is that you appear dismissive of what Sheila's friends said of her behaviours and appearance in the fortnight prior to her death, but seem prepared to accept an uncorroborated report of her "shouting obscenities at a workman". You are also ignoring that Sheila, because it seems she'd been overmedicated when she left hospital, had visited her doctor and asked for it to be reduced.
But thats it Jane,if her medication was reduced to the proper dose,WHY was she in the state Adam talks about,the state that prompted JB to put his plan into action that night.
-
Another option Bamber had with Sheila was to wake her & use friendly persuasion to get her to stand up. Then lift her off her feet & carry her the few feet to her final resting place.
Sheila would be half asleep, on Haloperidol & not know everyone else had been killed. She would also trust her brother.
She would not have time to react to being lifted.
Although Bamber may have attempted friendly persuasion to direct Sheila into the main bedroom. Again relying on Sheila trusting her brother.
No,no,no,Adam ,i am not buying that,there is no way she slept through the massacre.She would still have been suffering from restlessness and insomnia.She would have been first on the scene.
-
No,no,no,Adam ,i am not buying that,there is no way she slept through the massacre.She would still have been suffering from restlessness and insomnia.She would have been first on the scene.
Bamber used a silencer.
Sheila was asleep & under sedation. Behind closed doors and thick walls.
What will wake her?
-
There is a very slim chance Sheila woke from the downstairs kitchen fight. But that was over quickly & a long way from Sheila.
If she did wake & decide to go into the main bedroom, Bamber had to deal with her upon his return upstairs. Which would not be difficult for him.
-
Another option Bamber had with Sheila was to wake her & use friendly persuasion to get her to stand up. Then lift her off her feet & carry her the few feet to her final resting place.
Sheila would be half asleep, on Haloperidol & not know everyone else had been killed. She would also trust her brother.
She would not have time to react to being lifted as taken by surprise.
Although Bamber may have attempted friendly persuasion to direct Sheila into the main bedroom. Again relying on Sheila trusting her brother.
Trusting her brother Adam,what about after she saw what he had done to her mother?Too weak Adam,too weak.
-
Sheila would have gone balistic.
-
Trusting her brother Adam,what about after she saw what he had done to her mother?Too weak Adam,too weak.
My post says Sheila had not woken. So trusted her brother.
Keep up.
-
I wonder why it is that you appear dismissive of what Sheila's friends said of her behaviours and appearance in the fortnight prior to her death, but seem prepared to accept an uncorroborated report of her "shouting obscenities at a workman". You are also ignoring that Sheila, because it seems she'd been overmedicated when she left hospital, had visited her doctor and asked for it to be reduced.
I think some witnesses said Sheila was in good spirits leading up to the shooting Jane,meaning she would not comit suicide,So what was her condition,where do we seperate the fact from the fiction?
-
It is surprising that people believe Sheila woke.
The twins were shot in their sleep, June shot 5 times while she slept & Nevill ran straight downstairs while being shot 4 times.
Bamber using a silencer.
So basically a silent massacre upstairs.
Sheila was asleep, under sedation & behind thick walls & doors.
-
Was she so depressed that she could do something drastic,or was she in good spirits?
-
It is surprising that people believe Sheila woke.
The twins were shot in their sleep, June shot 5 times while she slept & Nevill ran straight downstairs while being shot 4 times.
Bamber using a silencer.
So basically a silent massacre upstairs.
Sheila was asleep, under sedation & behind thick walls & doors.
No Adam ,it is surprising anyone believes she was ever asleep.
-
My post says Sheila had not woken. So trusted her brother.
Keep up.
The prosecution said there was no love lost between them Adam,so i dont think Sheila was going to let him man handle her in ANY way.
-
There is a very slim chance Sheila woke from the downstairs kitchen fight. But that was over quickly & a long way from Sheila.
If she did wake & decide to go into the main bedroom, Bamber had to deal with her upon his return upstairs. Which would not be difficult for him.
Well,not according to the scenario the police sent to the DPP Adam,but many of us find their scenario laughable.
-
According to the latest research into when 'Pc Myall' arrived at the scene [3.39am] as confirmed in one of his witness statements, and also, that it is recorded in another police log [' MAJOR INCIDENT REGISTER'] in the first entry (0001) timed 03.45hrs, it states that at the noted time, that 'Pc Myall' saw 'an unidentified man' walking away from the grounds of 'WHF'. Now, if this incident occurred at 03.45hrs, on the morning of the 7th August 1985, as alleged, then he could not have arrived at the scene along with the occupants of call-sign 'CA07' containing 'PS Bews' and 'PS Saxby' who set off from 'Witham police station at 3.35am to attend the unfolding domestic drama on going at the farmhouse as reported via the first phone call received by' PC West' in the control room at Chelmsford police headquarters at 3.26am (earlier).
For the benefit of being transparent, police documents, logs, and testimony during the 'October 1986 Chelmsford Crown Court trial - the occupants of' CA07' arrived at the scene outside FARM (tied) cottages on 'PAGES LANE' at 3.48hrs, a journey which took all of 13 minutes to complete [3.35am - 3.48am]!!!
With this in mind, how was it possible for 'Pc Myall' to arrive at the scene, in the company of 'PS Bews' and 'PS Saxby' by 3.39am, which could not possibly be true! For it to be true, it would mean that the occupants of 'CA07' took only 4 minutes, to travel from 'Witham police station' if the time of their actual departure really was at 3.35am! This is a significant development! Because, 'If', the occupants of vehicle 'CA07' ['PS BEWS', 'PS SAXBY' and 'PC MYALL'] had all arrived at the scene by 3.39hrs, then their departure time from 'WITHAM POLICE STATION' would have had to have been some 13 minutes earlier, than their arrival time at the scene [3.39am] could lead to a departure time from 'Witham police station some 13 minutes earlier, or in other words at 3.31hrs...
What careful analysis of these facts help to establish, is that' Pc Myall' left 'Witham police station to attend the scene at around about 3.31am [ not 3.35hrs] whilst the occupants [`Bews' and 'Saxby'] which arrived at the scene until 3.48am, did not leave 'Witham police station' to go to the scene until 3.35hrs [some 4 minutes later than 'Pc Myall']. I have taken the trouble, to `focus on these issues`, because it provides concrete proof, that the first group of responders to attend the domestic incident unfolding at the farmhouse was 'not' the true occupants of police vehicle 'CA07' (in the format of 'Bews', 'Saxby' and 'Pc Myall'), but that 'Pc Myall' arrived at the scene [3.39am] some 9 minutes before 'Bews' and 'Saxby' could possibly arrive there on the same occasion [3.39am], because it is well documented that the true occupants of police vehicle 'CA07' did not arrive at the scene until 3.48hrs that same morning'..
-
There is no simple,rational,logical way,that Jeremy Bamber could have shot Sheila Caffell.
-
What careful analysis of these facts help to establish, is that' Pc Myall' left 'Witham police station to attend the scene at around about 9.31am, whilst the occupants [`Bews' and 'Saxby'] which arrived at the scene until 3.48am, did not leave 'Witham police station' to go to the scene until 3.35hrs [some 4 minutes later than 'Pc Myall'. I have taken the trouble, to focus on these issues, because it provides concrete proof, that the first group of responders to attend the domestic incident unfolding at the farmhouse was 'not' the true occupants of police vehicle 'CA07' (in the format of 'Bews', 'Saxby' and 'Pc Myall'), but that 'Pc Myall' arrived at the scene [3.39am] some 9 minutes before 'Bews' and 'Saxby' could possibly arrive there on the same occasion [3.39am], because it is well documented that the true occupants of police vehicle 'CA07' did not arrive at the scene until 3.48hrs that same morning'..
If 'Pc Myall' arrived at the scene in police vehicle 'CA07' at 3.48hrs, along with 'PS Bews' and 'PS Saxby', then it beggars belief, that 'Pc Myall' could have seen an unidentified male, walking away from the grounds of the farm house at 3.45hrs?
-
If 'Pc Myall' arrived at the scene in police vehicle 'CA07' at 3.48hrs, along with 'PS Bews' and 'PS Saxby', then it beggars belief, that 'Pc Myall' could have 'seen an unidentified male', 'walking away from the grounds of the farm house' at 3.45hrs?
It should also be noted, that around the time [3.31am] that 'PC Myall' was leaving 'Witham police station`, to attend the incident at the farmhouse, that' JeremyBamber' was speaking to 'Julie Mugford' from around '3.30am' onwards, where 'he' was telling 'Julie' that 'there was something wrong at the farm'!
-
There is no simple,rational,logical way,that Jeremy Bamber could have shot Sheila Caffell.
I totally agree Snow, when the toxicology reports showed Sheila was not sedated I became very interested in the case when watching the WHF series.
Am glad you can see through Adams BS!
-
It should also be noted, that around the time [3.31am] that 'PC Myall' was leaving 'Witham police station`, to attend the incident at the farmhouse, that' JeremyBamber' was speaking to 'Julie Mugford' from around '3.30am' onwards, where 'he' was telling 'Julie' that 'there was something wrong at the farm'!
'Jeremy' called 'Julie', as a result a brief telephone call that he had received from his father at around 3.23 - 3.25am. During that call, his father quickly told 'Jeremy' to 'come quickly,' your sister has gone berserk', 'she has got the gun' [ 'then that the connection was' cut off' unexpectedly']. 'Jeremy' attempted to reconnect [3.26am]and speak to his father, but when he managed to get through, all he got was an engaged tone...
So, he tried to phone the police at 'Witham police station' but the police were operating an answer phone which was trying to divert the call to the control room at Chelmsford police headquarters. He was frustrated that the local police were not answering his call to them so he hung up!
That was when he telephoned his then girlfriend (at around 3.30am) 'Julie Mugford' , and told her, 'There's something wrong at the farm'.
Ater speaking briefly to 'Julie Mugford' he then contacted the police at Chelmsford, a telephone call timed as starting at 3.36hrs, and lasting until about 9 minutes later [3.45hrs], at which stage, 'Pc West' told 'Jeremy' to go to the scene, where he will be met by police officers who were already deployed to the incident. 'Pc West' told 'Jeremy' that 'under no circumstances should he make an approach to enter the farmhouse, if he got to the scene before the police themselves arrived there!
It took' Jeremy' 7 minutes 'to get from his cottage' at '9 Head Street', Goldhanger' before 'he arrived at the scene' in 'Pages Lane' [3.45hrs - 3.52hrs].I find it remarkable that from the moment that 'Jeremy Bamber' contacted 'Pc West' in the control room at Chelmsford police headquarters [3.36am and was kept on the line about 9 minutes [until 3.45hrs]and that this 9 minute period, matched the difference more or less, between an initial phone call made by his father to police at 3.26am, and the fact that 'Pc Bews' and 'PS Saxby' left `Witham police station` to go to the incident, departing at 3.35hrs, and arriving at the scene by 3.48hrs [9 minute event]. Rather more disturbingly, that 'Pc Myall' arrived at the scene [3.39hrs] the equivalent 9 minute period, between the time of his arrival at the scene [3.39hrs] and the corresponding time of 3.48hrs that police vehicle 'CA07' arrived there (again the 9 minute event versus event comparison, and that this series of 9 minute calibration involving all possible scenarios, should be cropping up, its no accident, or mistake - there were 2 telephone calls made to the police, one by 'Neville Bamber at 3.26am, and the 2nd call to police (in the grand scheme of things) was made by' Jeremy himself at 3.36am, and that the occupants of police vehicle 'CA07' set off from 'Witham
police station 9 minutes after the first 3.26am call made by' Neville Bamber' to the police, and that 'the 2nd call' made to the police by 'Jeremy' was about 9 minutes or so, after the first call [3.26am] made to police by 'Neville' was terminated (at about 3.27hrs)..
These anomalies [ the 9 minute factors] are almost certainly linked and connected to the police deliberately setting out to try and merge the two differently timed calls to the police
[3.26am and 3.36am] as 'one call' [`ONLY']...
-
I totally agree Snow, when the toxicology reports showed Sheila was not sedated I became very interested in the case when watching the WHF series.
Am glad you can see through Adams BS!
Well,i respect Adams point of view Rob,but i simply cannot agree with it.
-
Well,i respect Adams point of view Rob,but i simply cannot agree with it.
I do try to respect his view as well Snow but when he says things like she was sedated when he knows she was not it's hard to.
-
I do try to respect his view as well Snow but when he says things like she was sedated when he knows she was not it's hard to.
Well Adam thinks the Haloperidol sedated her Rob.But having studied the drug and its common side effects,i do not agree.
-
Well Adam thinks the Haloperidol sedated her Rob.But having studied the drug and its common side effects,i do not agree.
He knows full well Haloperidol would not sedate her Snow.
-
He knows full well Haloperidol would not sedate her Snow.
Well the thing is Rob,drugs are given to relieve symptoms and enhance the day to day life of the patient.If Haloperidol was sedating Sheila to that extent,it has detracted from her quality of life.Maybe that is why the dosage was halved.After it was halved,it is hard to believe she would still be acting like an unresponsive zombie with severe brain fog.If that was the case,what the heck kind of a sedated state was she in before it was reduced?
-
And as for sleeping through most of the disturbance,are we really expected to believe that when Nevill and June were shot,that they didnt scream their heads off,with shock and pain.Was Nevill unable to scream as well as unable to talk.And no speaking or shouting from anyone that may have roused Sheila.Sheila who,as Adam says was only a few yards away across the landing.I wonder if any other major shootings have been carried out,where aperson who was not a target woke up in the morning and found out they had slept through a night of carnage.Sound feasible?
-
He knows full well Haloperidol would not sedate her Snow.
Haloperidol has sedative effects. See the link to my thread. It's also in the COA.
Keep up.
-
Well,not according to the scenario the police sent to the DPP Adam,but many of us find their scenario laughable.
I agree with some of the police scenario. Although find it doubtful Sheila woke.
If she did wake mid massacre, it would make no difference to the outcome. Bamber had already killed everyone else & violently beaten Nevill. Sheila was not going to stop him finishing the job.
-
To be fair the police scenario is 10 times better than Snow's Sheila scenario. This has 6 'maybe's' before Nevill even gets out bed! -
Maybe Sheila shot the twins first.
Maybe Sheila screamed afterwards for some reason. Very loudly.
Maybe this woke Crispy.
Maybe Crispy barked. Very loudly & continuously.
Maybe this woke Nevill. But not June.
Maybe Nevill got out of bed. But did not wake June.
----------
Don't get me started on June walking around then getting shot in bed & Sheila locking herself in the bathroom.
-
Rob's Sheila scenario isn't any better. He abandoned it straight away after attempting but failing to adequatly answer 4 of my 34 questions. Quickly changing tactics & saying 'a Sheila scenario is not important'.
Rob now claims Bamber is innocent because he wouldn't use the silencer, then put it away in it's proper place - away from the crime scene!
-
To avoid dozens of 'maybe's' or not being able to answer questions on a scenario, you just need to follow the crime scene evidence.
A Bamber scenario is straight forward & matches the crime scene evidence.
There is no evidence Sheila committed the massacre. A fully fit Nevill would instantly negate Sheila. So not sure why people attempt an impossible scenario.
-
To be fair Snow66! agreed his Sheila scenario was rubbish & created his 'revised Sheila scenario'. However that was also rubbish.
As said, Rob won't defend his own Sheila scenario. His main focus is on Bamber putting the silencer away.
-
But thats it Jane,if her medication was reduced to the proper dose,WHY was she in the state Adam talks about,the state that prompted JB to put his plan into action that night.
Simply because Haloperidol is meant to have a calming influence. Combine that with the lethargy caused by her depression, and you have clear picture of what her mental state was. The behaviours she was exhibiting in the fortnight prior to her death were more indications of depression, than problems with medication.
-
Sheila would have gone balistic.
"Ballistic" is hardly an appropriate state to apply to Sheila. Other than throwing things at Colin during a time when she wasn't medicated -and he admits to having provoked her- there doesn't seem to have been anything close to violence in her.
-
I think some witnesses said Sheila was in good spirits leading up to the shooting Jane,meaning she would not comit suicide,So what was her condition,where do we seperate the fact from the fiction?
Well I never! I think you may have just rewritten the potential suicide code! It seems that all it takes is "some witnesses" saying the 'victim' "was in good spirits" to mean it wasn't possible for them to "commit suicide"? Supposing you go back and read those who talked about her failing to take care of her personal hygiene and having no interest generally. Even her mother noted her listlessness. Suicide requires mental energy. Something Sheila seemed short on. If she couldn't raise the energy to kill herself, it's highly unlikely she'd have been able to kill four other people first.
By the way, if you want the professional insight to her condition I suggest you read the statements made by her doctor, Dr Hugh Ferguson.
-
Haloperidol has sedative effects. See the link to my thread. It's also in the COA.
Keep up.
Severe drowsiness is the symptom of an overdose Adam,apart from that,i cant see the word sedation in any web article.
-
I agree with some of the police scenario. Although find it doubtful Sheila woke.
If she did wake mid massacre, it would make no difference to the outcome. Bamber had already killed everyone else & violently beaten Nevill. Sheila was not going to stop him finishing the job.
So,if she did wake,she simply waited for her turn to be shot,instead of trying to hide or escape the premises,and if caught make no attempt to struggle.Oops i forgot about the effects of that darned drug called Haloperidol and its sedative effect,also turning you into a moron like someone in a cheap Horror movie who dosnt know to run the hell for their life.
-
To be fair the police scenario is 10 times better than Snow's Sheila scenario. This has 6 'maybe's' before Nevill even gets out bed! -
Maybe Sheila shot the twins first.
Maybe Sheila screamed afterwards for some reason. Very loudly.
Maybe this woke Crispy.
Maybe Crispy barked. Very loudly & continuously.
Maybe this woke Nevill. But not June.
Maybe Nevill got out of bed. But did not wake June.
----------
Don't get me started on June walking around then getting shot in bed & Sheila locking herself in the bathroom.
My Sheila scenario is well within the realms of possibility Adam.
-
Rob's Sheila scenario isn't any better. He abandoned it straight away after attempting but failing to adequatly answer 4 of my 34 questions. Quickly changing tactics & saying 'a Sheila scenario is not important'.
Rob now claims Bamber is innocent because he wouldn't use the silencer, then put it away in it's proper place - away from the crime scene!
Well,you must admit,if he used the silencer,the logical thing would be to leave it beside Sheila.Your problem is Adam,you wont let the slightest thought of any jiggery-pokery enter your head.
-
To be fair Snow66! agreed his Sheila scenario was rubbish & created his 'revised Sheila scenario'. However that was also rubbish.
As said, Rob won't defend his own Sheila scenario. His main focus is on Bamber putting the silencer away.
Ha ha,thats pretty harsh talk Adam,but slightly amusing.I dont recall saying my scenario was rubbish.
-
Simply because Haloperidol is meant to have a calming influence. Combine that with the lethargy caused by her depression, and you have clear picture of what her mental state was. The behaviours she was exhibiting in the fortnight prior to her death were more indications of depression, than problems with medication.
So dont you think depression,along with severe paranoid schizophrenia,just might put you over the edge and do something drastic Jane,ie end it all.After all many suicides happen without any warning that anything was wrong.It was VERY well documented in Sheilas case ,that something was VERY wrong.So why say it was not possible for her to flip.Does it really make more sense,that JB with no underlying mental health problems,carried out the gruesome massacre for MONEY.
-
"Ballistic" is hardly an appropriate state to apply to Sheila. Other than throwing things at Colin during a time when she wasn't medicated -and he admits to having provoked her- there doesn't seem to have been anything close to violence in her.
Not even at the sight of her own mother shot to pieces Jane.
-
Well I never! I think you may have just rewritten the potential suicide code! It seems that all it takes is "some witnesses" saying the 'victim' "was in good spirits" to mean it wasn't possible for them to "commit suicide"? Supposing you go back and read those who talked about her failing to take care of her personal hygiene and having no interest generally. Even her mother noted her listlessness. Suicide requires mental energy. Something Sheila seemed short on. If she couldn't raise the energy to kill herself, it's highly unlikely she'd have been able to kill four other people first.
By the way, if you want the professional insight to her condition I suggest you read the statements made by her doctor, Dr Hugh Ferguson.
Not quite sure about all that Jane,and exactly what you mean.I have read Fergusons notes,but those are only his opinions of what she may or may not do.As i have said ,suicides often happen without any knowledge of the person being unwell,In Sheilas case,she was very unwell indeed.So is it really a surprise she just MAY have commited the crime?
-
Severe drowsiness is the symptom of an overdose Adam,apart from that,i cant see the word sedation in any web article.
"Web articles" provide generic information. I believe you'll will find "sedated" to have been used in one of the reports on Sheila.
-
Severe drowsiness is the symptom of an overdose Adam,apart from that,i cant see the word sedation in any web article.
Going by Bamber & Pamela Boutflour, severe drowiness describes Sheila a few hours before the massacre.
-
Not quite sure about all that Jane,and exactly what you mean.I have read Fergusons notes,but those are only his opinions of what she may or may not do.As i have said ,suicides often happen without any knowledge of the person being unwell,In Sheilas case,she was very unwell indeed.So is it really a surprise she just MAY have commited the crime?
If you're "not quite sure about allk that", may I suggest you have another dip into CAL's book. When it comes down to his notes being "only his opinion", I'd say that after his years of experience, it was something Dr Ferguson was entitled to have.
-
Going by Bamber & Pamela Boutflour, severe drowiness describes Sheila a few hours before the massacre.
By Bamber,do you mean JB Adam,if so,i thought he said Sheila didnt join in,in the fostering conversation.When did he say she hsd severe drowsiness? And as for Pamela Boutflour,didnt she only talk to her over the phone,do you mean she knew by the tone of her voice? And just what do you mean by severe drowsiness Adam,was she constantly nodding off or something?
-
"Web articles" provide generic information. I believe you'll will find "sedated" to have been used in one of the reports on Sheila.
As i say ,i will read all the available reports from the doctors involved Jane.
-
By Bamber,do you mean JB Adam,if so,i thought he said Sheila didnt join in,in the fostering conversation.When did he say she hsd severe drowsiness? And as for Pamela Boutflour,didnt she only talk to her over the phone,do you mean she knew by the tone of her voice? And just what do you mean by severe drowsiness Adam,was she constantly nodding off or something?
Bamber said she was non responsive during the fostering conversation.
Pamela Boutflour said Sheila just gave one word answers before June took the phone back.
Bamber felt Sheila was ready resulting in his 10pm call to Julie he refuses to talk about & the massacre a few hours later.
-
Rob's Sheila scenario isn't any better. He abandoned it straight away after attempting but failing to adequatly answer 4 of my 34 questions. Quickly changing tactics & saying 'a Sheila scenario is not important'.
Rob now claims Bamber is innocent because he wouldn't use the silencer, then put it away in it's proper place - away from the crime scene!
Still waiting for your revised JB scenario Adam? One that is at least plausible!
Can you explain why according to your preliminary scenario he did his very best to get caught? despite months of detailed planning.
-
Still waiting for your revised JB scenario Adam? One that is at least plausible!
Can you explain why according to your preliminary scenario he did his very best to get caught? despite months of detailed planning.
Who, exactly, is saying he did his very best to get caught? To quote Snow, it's only your opinion. You fail to see that, but for the family constancy, and Julie coming forward, he'd all BUT got away with it. It's only now, with the benefit of hindsight, that his errors of judgement show. MOST of those being around overplaying his hand, a prime example of which was getting in through a window to retrieve his passport. Totally unnecessary, especially as it's said he knew he was being watched. He had a phone. So, too, did the family, the housekeeper, and the farm secretary. All he had to do was ask them to meet him there/drop the key off at Bourtree/leave the key at a designated place at the farm. He overthought it. He overplayed his hand in a big way. "They" didn't think he had to be innocent because he'd never have done it if he was guilty. "They" no longer needed to prove that he MAY have got in through a window. He'd shown them how he could do it.
-
Severe drowsiness is the symptom of an overdose Adam,apart from that,i cant see the word sedation in any web article.
I stand by my comment #182 on this thread, and will repeat here:
Haloperidol can have sedative side-effects, but there is no evidence that Sheila was sedated. In any case, being sedated does not in itself preclude her involvement in a massacre. It is not the same as being asleep and could mean anything from feeling drowsy and numb through to actual sleep.
Now let me continue in a bit more depth, since I see there is interest in this topic on the thread.
One problem in discussing this is that the terminology is quite confusing and even medical doctors use the terminology incorrectly. From what I can gather, some antipsychotics are tranquilising, others are sedative in their effects. Furthermore, antipsychotics that are tranquilising can have sedative side-effects if taken in high enough doses and/or if other factors are present.
Tranquilisation is not the same as sedation, however most run-of-the-mill medical doctors - GPs, most psychiatrists, etc. - will conflate the two terms and use sedation as a synonym for tranquilise, even though the two things are very different. This is because the distinction isn't necessarily of great practical importance in their day-to-day work, so they forget.
Both tranquilisers and sedatives act to suppress brain activity and can result in drowsiness. The difference is that a tranquiliser is not intended to induce the patient into the sleep spectrum and therefore will not normally be analgesic in its effect (though it can be), whereas a sedative will induce somnolence and is therefore analgesic. This distinction is quite important in the Bamber case, if you think about it.
Now let's consider the pharmacology of Haloperidol.
Haloperidol is a first-generation antipsychotic of the butyrophenone type. This makes it a tranquiliser, not a sedative. The whole point of Haloperidol is to antagonise certain biochemical receptors in the brain in order to suppress neural 'excitement', and thus counteract the typical symptoms of a severe mental illness such as schizophrenia. Haloperidol is a highly effective (but also highly-dangerous) antipsychotic and is perhaps the most commonly-used drug in psychiatric emergencies - typically when somebody goes nuts and needs to be injected and then sectioned. As such, Haloperidol is not optimum for sedation and is never prescribed or used for that purpose, as it would not make much sense. However, it is openly acknowledged that one of the adverse side-effects of Haloperidol can be sedation. This seems to happen when the drug is administered in high doses or where there are contraindications or other factors present.
The presumed lack of analgesic effect of Haloperidol may be of significance to us because, remember, Dr. Vanezis was of the opinion that someone incurring a .22 flesh wound to the neck would experience great pain.
However, two further significant facts need to be considered in Sheila's case:
(i). The toxicology report shows that Sheila was almost-entirely unmedicated by the point of death.
(ii). There were contraindications because Sheila took recreational drugs and the toxicology report confirms that she was taking illicit drugs up to around her death.
What we are left with is a complex picture, which I would sum up in the following way:
1. Haloperidol is not a sedative. Dr. Ferguson uses slovenly terminology in his most important statement of 18th. September 1985, saying it has a tranquilising effect, which is correct, but then using the terms sedation/sedative, which gives an incorrect impression of the drug's effects on Sheila, implying that she was sedated and somnolent. This is unfortunate but does not mean Dr. Ferguson was incompetent. It is common for run-of-the-mill doctors to use the two terms interchangeably.
2. Sheila was tranquilised by Haloperidol, though the toxicology report shows that she was virtually unmedicated by the 6th./7th. August 1985.
3. Even if Sheila was in a tranquilised state at the time in question, this in itself would not preclude her participation in violence and a firearms massacre.
4. It is possible Haloperidol also had a sedative side-effect on Sheila, perhaps due to over-dosing and/or contraindications such as illicit drug-taking. It is furthermore possible that Sheila was in a sedative state during the evening of 6th. August 1985, but there is no evidence for this.
5. Even if Sheila was in a sedative state at the time in question, this in itself would not preclude her participation in violence and a firearms massacre.
6. When a Haloperidol regime is being withdrawn or reduced, it is strongly advised that dosage is reduced gradually. Due to an administrative mix-up between the different doctors involved, Sheila's dosage was cliffed (at Sheila's own request). It is plausible that this could have resulted in a worsening of symptoms and behaviour.
-
I stand by my comment #182 on this thread, and will repeat here:
Haloperidol can have sedative side-effects, but there is no evidence that Sheila was sedated. In any case, being sedated does not in itself preclude her involvement in a massacre. It is not the same as being asleep and could mean anything from feeling drowsy and numb through to actual sleep.
Now let me continue in a bit more depth, since I see there is interest in this topic on the thread.
One problem in discussing this is that the terminology is quite confusing and even medical doctors use the terminology incorrectly. From what I can gather, some antipsychotics are tranquilising, others are sedative in their effects. Furthermore, antipsychotics that are tranquilising can have sedative side-effects if taken in high enough doses and/or if other factors are present.
Tranquilisation is not the same as sedation, however most run-of-the-mill medical doctors - GPs, most psychiatrists, etc. - will conflate the two terms and use sedation as a synonym for tranquilise, even though the two things are very different. This is because the distinction isn't necessarily of great practical importance in their day-to-day work, so they forget.
Both tranquilisers and sedatives act to suppress brain activity and can result in drowsiness. The difference is that a tranquiliser is not intended to induce the patient into the sleep spectrum and therefore will not normally be analgesic in its effect (though it can be), whereas a sedative will induce somnolence and is therefore analgesic. This distinction is quite important in the Bamber case, if you think about it.
Now let's consider the pharmacology of Haloperidol.
Haloperidol is a first-generation antipsychotic of the butyrophenone type. This makes it a tranquiliser, not a sedative. The whole point of Haloperidol is to antagonise certain biochemical receptors in the brain in order to suppress neural 'excitement', and thus counteract the typical symptoms of a severe mental illness such as schizophrenia. Haloperidol is a highly effective (but also highly-dangerous) antipsychotic and is perhaps the most commonly-used drug in psychiatric emergencies - typically when somebody goes nuts and needs to be injected and then sectioned. As such, Haloperidol is not optimum for sedation and is never prescribed or used for that purpose, as it would not make much sense. However, it is openly acknowledged that one of the adverse side-effects of Haloperidol can be sedation. This seems to happen when the drug is administered in high doses or where there are contraindications or other factors present.
The presumed lack of analgesic effect of Haloperidol may be of significance to us because, remember, Dr. Vanezis was of the opinion that someone incurring a .22 flesh wound to the neck would experience great pain.
However, two further significant facts need to be considered in Sheila's case:
(i). The toxicology report shows that Sheila was almost-entirely unmedicated by the point of death.
(ii). There were contraindications because Sheila took recreational drugs and the toxicology report confirms that she was taking illicit drugs up to around her death.
What we are left with is a complex picture, which I would sum up in the following way:
1. Haloperidol is not a sedative. Dr. Ferguson uses slovenly terminology in his most important statement of 18th. September 1985, saying it has a tranquilising effect, which is correct, but then using the terms sedation/sedative, which gives an incorrect impression of the drug's effects on Sheila, implying that she was sedated and somnolent. This is unfortunate but does not mean Dr. Ferguson was incompetent. It is common for run-of-the-mill doctors to use the two terms interchangeably.
2. Sheila was tranquilised by Haloperidol, though the toxicology report shows that she was virtually unmedicated by the 6th./7th. August 1985.
3. Even if Sheila was in a tranquilised state at the time in question, this in itself would not preclude her participation in violence and a firearms massacre.
4. It is possible Haloperidol also had a sedative side-effect on Sheila, perhaps due to over-dosing and/or contraindications such as illicit drug-taking. It is furthermore possible that Sheila was in a sedative state during the evening of 6th. August 1985, but there is no evidence for this.
5. Even if Sheila was in a sedative state at the time in question, this in itself would not preclude her participation in violence and a firearms massacre.
6. When a Haloperidol regime is being withdrawn or reduced, it is strongly advised that dosage is reduced gradually. Due to an administrative mix-up between the different doctors involved, Sheila's dosage was cliffed (at Sheila's own request). It is plausible that this could have resulted in a worsening of symptoms and behaviour.
Thanks Gascoigne.So you agree there is no way of knowing what state of sedation Sheila was in that night,and Adams claims of severe drowsiness,allowing her to sleep through the massacre and be aesily manhandled are only speculation.This is just a convenient thing to use,to fit a JB scenario and explain why there is no signs of Sheila fighting for her life or anyone elses.Also,as you say,there was not much Haloperidol left in her system by 7 Aug.And Sheila was also prescribed Procyclidene tablets for the side effects.The bottle of tablets must have been found at the scene,and surely it would have been checked if Sheila had been taking them,by the amount used.Her mum and dad would have been told what meds she was taking, and it is reasonable to assume that they would have made sure she took them,when under their care.And as Jane pointed out,her unresponsiveness and lack of interest may have had more to do with her depression rather than being sedated with drugs.
-
The person who knew whether Sheila was ready, was the last person to see her alive - Bamber.
He rang Julie when he got back from his reconnaissance. To tell her 'tonights the night' & 'it's now or never'.
A few hours later Julie & an operative at Chelmsford police station received a phone call...... It was Bamber.
-
The person who knew whether Sheila was ready, was the last person to see her alive - Bamber.
He rang Julie when he got back from his reconnaissance. To tell her 'tonights the night' & 'it's now or never'.
A few hours later Julie & an operative at Chelmsford police station received a phone call. It was Bamber.
Hi Adam.But as we have been discussing,how do you know Sheila was in a sedated state ready to sleep like Rip Van Winkle,and not simply in a state of depression.
-
Thanks Gascoigne.So you agree there is no way of knowing what state of sedation Sheila was in that night,and Adams claims of severe drowsiness,allowing her to sleep through the massacre and be aesily manhandled are only speculation.This is just a convenient thing to use,to fit a JB scenario and explain why there is no signs of Sheila fighting for her life or anyone elses.Also,as you say,there was not much Haloperidol left in her system by 7 Aug.And Sheila was also prescribed Procyclidene tablets for the side effects.The bottle of tablets must have been found at the scene,and surely it would have been checked if Sheila had been taking them,by the amount used.Her mum and dad would have been told what meds she was taking, and it is reasonable to assume that they would have made sure she took them,when under their care.And as Jane pointed out,her unresponsiveness and lack of interest may have had more to do with her depression rather than being sedated with drugs.
Snow, you speak of Sheila as if she were a child rather than a 27yr old woman. I have no idea why you believe her parents would have been informed about her medication. Sheila's boys may be said to have been in her parents' care, but as an adult, Sheila certainly wasn't and her parents had no right to know. Have you never heard of "Patient Confidentiality"? It would have been entirely Sheila's decision whether or not to tell them. I imagine, if the question had been raised, the most she'd have been likely to say was that her meds had been changed.
I'm not clear what you mean about there being "not much Haloperidol left in her system". If women forget to start the next cycle of contraceptive pills on the correct day, the chances are likely that she'll become pregnant. The cut off point for antipsychotics is far more flexible and isn't a case of immediate protected/not protected. This would have been built into the date given for her following injection. It wasn't something she was allowed to take into her own hands.
-
Hi Adam.But as we have been discussing,how do you know Sheila was in a sedated state ready to sleep like Rip Van Winkle,and not simply in a state of depression.
Bamber made the decision to committ the massacre. He only had a short window of opportunity.
Going by Pamela Boutflour's & Bamber's WS's, Sheila was ready.
-
I really hope that we have not just witnessed about 10,000 lives lost, destruction of homes and infrastructure, plus 3 million refugees, for a deal that could have been struck beforehand.
I agree with you, but it may well have to be the best that can be hoped for, Roch. There can't possibly be a perfect outcome. I can't begin to imagine the resentment which will build up after the relief and gratitude that it's over. Country in ruins, lives lost, families bereft, beautiful and historic cities decimated!!!! It can surely only be a matter of time before the festering boil, on both sides, erupts again. Long live Ukraine and Ukranians.
-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/haloperidol#:~:text=Haloperidol%20is%20another%20butyrophenone%20which,antiemetic%20effects%20through%20D2%20antagonism
Haloperidol does have sedative effects.
Together with the vast amount of other side effects.
-
The person who knew whether Sheila was ready, was the last person to see her alive
The last people, to see 'that Sheila was still alive', were those police officers who are responsible for carrying out 'INFORMATIVES' [9.13am - 10.00am]..
-
Snow, you speak of Sheila as if she were a child rather than a 27yr old woman. I have no idea why you believe her parents would have been informed about her medication. Sheila's boys may be said to have been in her parents' care, but as an adult, Sheila certainly wasn't and her parents had no right to know. Have you never heard of "Patient Confidentiality"? It would have been entirely Sheila's decision whether or not to tell them. I imagine, if the question had been raised, the most she'd have been likely to say was that her meds had been changed.
I'm not clear what you mean about there being "not much Haloperidol left in her system". If women forget to start the next cycle of contraceptive pills on the correct day, the chances are likely that she'll become pregnant. The cut off point for antipsychotics is far more flexible and isn't a case of immediate protected/not protected. This would have been built into the date given for her following injection. It wasn't something she was allowed to take into her own hands.
Yes,i fully understand all that you have said Jane,but the simple question is whether or not she was in a severely drowsy,sedated state to sleep through a shooting and have no strength to fight for her life.And it was Gascoigne who said she would not have much Haloperidol left in her system Jane,see his post above.
-
Snow, you speak of Sheila as if she were a child rather than a 27yr old woman. I have no idea why you believe her parents would have been informed about her medication. Sheila's boys may be said to have been in her parents' care, but as an adult, Sheila certainly wasn't and her parents had no right to know. Have you never heard of "Patient Confidentiality"? It would have been entirely Sheila's decision whether or not to tell them. I imagine, if the question had been raised, the most she'd have been likely to say was that her meds had been changed.
I'm not clear what you mean about there being "not much Haloperidol left in her system". If women forget to start the next cycle of contraceptive pills on the correct day, the chances are likely that she'll become pregnant. The cut off point for antipsychotics is far more flexible and isn't a case of immediate protected/not protected. This would have been built into the date given for her following injection. It wasn't something she was allowed to take into her own hands.
Gascoigne says the toxicology report says Sheila was virtually unmedicated by 6/7 Aug.
-
Gascoigne says the toxicology report says Sheila was virtually unmedicated by 6/7 Aug.
That's his view. I doubt that any doctor would agree.
-
That's his view. I doubt that any doctor would agree.
I dont know what the Doctors agreed Jane,but remember the Haloperidol was HALVED by mistake.
-
I dont know what the Doctors agreed Jane,but remember the Haloperidol was HALVED by mistake.
You may call it "HALVED". Those with greater knowledge will call it and acceptable and appropriate dose.
-
You may call it "HALVED". Those with greater knowledge will call it and acceptable and appropriate dose.
But it was halved Jane,by those with greater knowledge.And by mistake,the dosage was supposed to be 150mg.
-
But it was halved Jane,by those with greater knowledge.And by mistake,the dosage was supposed to be 150mg.
This has already been discussed ad nauseum. The error has been pointed out, but whatever it is you're attempting to make of it, the dosage, be it accidental or deliberate, still fell within acceptable norms.
-
Thanks Gascoigne.So you agree there is no way of knowing what state of sedation Sheila was in that night,and Adams claims of severe drowsiness,allowing her to sleep through the massacre and be aesily manhandled are only speculation.This is just a convenient thing to use,to fit a JB scenario and explain why there is no signs of Sheila fighting for her life or anyone elses.Also,as you say,there was not much Haloperidol left in her system by 7 Aug.And Sheila was also prescribed Procyclidene tablets for the side effects.The bottle of tablets must have been found at the scene,and surely it would have been checked if Sheila had been taking them,by the amount used.Her mum and dad would have been told what meds she was taking, and it is reasonable to assume that they would have made sure she took them,when under their care.And as Jane pointed out,her unresponsiveness and lack of interest may have had more to do with her depression rather than being sedated with drugs.
Yes, the sedation theory comes under the heading of 'speculation'. It has only gained legs because of slovenly terminology in Dr. Ferguson's witness statements, the lazy but widespread belief that somebody with impressive paper credentials must be right and should not be challenged, and the inattention of the defence, who should have instructed an expert pharmacologist or psychopharmacologist. Sedation is possible with Haloperidol, but the idea that this was Sheila's state in this case is misinformed speculation in most cases, because most people are eliding two different neuro-pharmacological effects: in correct clinical language, tranquilisation and sedation are not the same thing.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Sheila was sedated. It is possible that she was as a side-effect of Haloperidol, and an informed argument could be made for the notion, but we will never be sure.
Sheila was certainly tranquilised. That is the direct effect of the Haloperidol, it's what the drug is for.
The toxicology results are not my opinion. They are what they are. Sheila was virtually unmedicated by the time she was shot (whether by Jeremy or her own hand) and she had traces of illicit drugs in her system, suggesting the antipsychotic regimen was contraindicated.
The fact the medication dosage was halved is hugely significant and cannot be airily brushed aside. This was medical negligence, pure and simple. That is tacitly admitted. I am not stating anything controversial here. It is established medical canon that withdrawal from antipsychotics should be gradual. Sudden withdrawal is dangerous. Haloperidol is a dangerous enough drug as it is.
Bear in mind these points I am submitting neither assist nor undermine Jeremy's position. I have no axe to grind. I am merely reciting facts to you.
In a nutshell, some people on here are not looking at the case objectively. Instead, they are stretching and twisting facts to suit their narrative. It's actually completely unnecessary to do this. A creditable scenario in which Jeremy is guilty could be constructed without the need to rely on Sheila being sedated. Ironically, if anything, it weakens the prosecution case to argue that position.
-
Yes,i fully understand all that you have said Jane,but the simple question is whether or not she was in a severely drowsy,sedated state to sleep through a shooting and have no strength to fight for her life.And it was Gascoigne who said she would not have much Haloperidol left in her system Jane,see his post above.
The evidence & WS's shows she was & didn't fight/shoot anyone.
Bamber was going ahead. He only had a short window of opportjnity.
If everything went to plan, no one would wake. It was a 2am silent massacre attempt.
-
The evidence & WS's shows she was.
Bamber was going ahead. He only had a short window of opportjnity.
If everything went to plan, no one would wake. It was a silent massacre attempt.
If someone did wake, Bamber had to react. As he did with Nevill.
Bamber was so chuffed at Sheila's docile demenour during his reconnaissance, he rang Julie as soon as he got home.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1188.0.html
Even June seemed to be in control of Sheila a few hours before the massacre.
Taking the phone back without giving Sheila the chance to say goodbye.
Maybe June agreed with Bamber that Sheila was very docile at supper.
After 3 minutes of just saying 'yes/no' on the phone, she felt Sheila wouldn't bother saying goodbye anyway.
-
Yes,i fully understand all that you have said Jane,but the simple question is whether or not she was in a severely drowsy,sedated state to sleep through a shooting and have no strength to fight for her life.And it was Gascoigne who said she would not have much Haloperidol left in her system Jane,see his post above.
We can all make sweeping statements. It's of no use 'Gascoigne' trying to put over his personal views as fact. He needs to post the toxicology report and point to where it states that Sheila was barely medicated.
-
How else is Sheila's resting state to be explained if not sedated? Perfectly clean? Undamaged nails/polish? I think Mr Doutflour jnr is on record as saying "Not a hair out of place". Etc, etc.
Also how did Sheila manage to overpower Mr Bamber in the kitchen? And how did blood in the silencer, matching Sheila's groups, find its way deep inside the silencer if not by the drawback phenomenon when Bamber shot her? All the pieces slot together with sedation being one of many hence Bamber's conviction has stood the test of time.
-
We can all make sweeping statements. It's of no use 'Gascoigne' trying to put over his personal views as fact. He needs to post the toxicology report and point to where it states that Sheila was barely medicated.
I invite you to consider the toxicology report, which I was in possession of before I recently joined this Forum, and which I see has been posted on this Forum as well. I have no need to post it. You can find it, read it and refer to it as you please. The report should be interpreted in light of the surrounding facts, including the date of Sheila's last intramuscular injection and the greatly reduced dosage received on that occasion.
You are of course welcome to disagree. I do not wish to argue with you about this or anything else. I am not coming on here with an agenda.
-
I invite you to consider the toxicology report, which I was in possession of before I recently joined this Forum, and which I see has been posted on this Forum as well. I have no need to post it. You can find it, read it and refer to it as you please. The report should be interpreted in light of the surrounding facts, including the date of Sheila's last intramuscular injection and the greatly reduced dosage received on that occasion.
You are of course welcome to disagree. I do not wish to argue with you about this or anything else. I am not coming on here with an agenda.
I think you do. You can't just tell the forum that you've seen a report which claims X,Y, or Z. How does the forum know you're telling the truth? You may just be interpreting it to suit yourself.
-
Bamber Gascoigne
-
Dustin Gee did an impersonation of Bamber Gascoigne in Russ Abbots madhouse.
-
Griff Rhys Jones did an impersonation of Bamber Gascoigne in The young ones.
-
Coincidentally,the episode of The young ones in which Griff appeared as Bamber Gascoigne was entitled -Bambie
-
Soory---Bambi
-
Mark Gatiss played Bamber Gascoigne in the film--Starter for 10
-
Mark Gatiss played Bamber Gascoigne in the film--Starter for 10
Whats all this nonsense got to do with the Jeremy Bamber case Snow?
-
Whats all this nonsense got to do with the Jeremy Bamber case Snow?
Nothing snow,its just the fact that a member is called =Gascoigne-so that brought to mind Bamber Gascoigne.
-
Nothing snow,its just the fact that a member is called =Gascoigne-so that brought to mind Bamber Gascoigne.
Well,forget about Bamber Gascoigne and stick to the Jeremy Bamber case you childish moron.Or i will see that you are banned.
-
Well,forget about Bamber Gascoigne and stick to the Jeremy Bamber case you childish moron.Or i will see that you are banned.
Ok snow,i will say no more about Bamber Gascoigne.
-
But please dont call me a childish moron snow,or i will come over and give you a damned good thrashing!
-
But please dont call me a childish moron snow,or i will come over and give you a damned good thrashing!
Well snow,you will have to grow a bit first sonny!
-
Well snow,you will have to grow a bit first sonny!
Oh you think so do you snowman,i will come over and after one smack,your head will be where your heels are!
-
Oh you think so do you snowman,i will come over and after one smack,your head will be where your heels are!
For heavens sake grow up snow! Go to bed!
-
I think you do. You can't just tell the forum that you've seen a report which claims X,Y, or Z. How does the forum know you're telling the truth? You may just be interpreting it to suit yourself.
I've literally just told you what my source is: the toxicology report and the surrounding facts. I'm not making a point for or against Jeremy here. I'm just providing a factual account of things.
Looking at this factually, you can't say she was sedated. Nobody can say that. She was on a tranquilising antipsychotic, not a sedative. The drug did potentially have a sedative effect, among its adverse side-effects, and she was contraindicated, so it is possible she was sedated and therefore somnolent to some degree. But we can't say that she was. When Dr. Ferguson and the appeal court say that, they are just plain wrong. It doesn't matter how many universities they have attended and how many letters they have after their names. They're wrong. If you're wrong, you're wrong.
One problem in this case is that assertions that are a load of rubbish have become treated as hard fact because people don't check things.
-
Ok snow,i will say no more about Bamber Gascoigne.
Jeremy's nickname at Gresham's was Gascoigne, for that very reason. This was in the days before the Newcastle, Tottenham and Lazio footballer.
My selection of the name is due to an interest in history - a number of eminent men have held the name, and the Gascoignes were an important Yorkshire family. I am thinking in particular of William Gascoigne, a descendent of the Yorkshire Gascoignes, and one of the great English lawyers of the Middle Ages.
-
I've literally just told you what my source is: the toxicology report and the surrounding facts. I'm not making a point for or against Jeremy here. I'm just providing a factual account of things.
Looking at this factually, you can't say she was sedated. Nobody can say that. She was on a tranquilising antipsychotic, not a sedative. The drug did potentially have a sedative effect, among its adverse side-effects, and she was contraindicated, so it is possible she was sedated and therefore somnolent to some degree. But we can't say that she was. When Dr. Ferguson and the appeal court say that, they are just plain wrong. It doesn't matter how many universities they have attended and how many letters they have after their names. They're wrong. If you're wrong, you're wrong.
One problem in this case is that assertions that are a load of rubbish have become treated as hard fact because people don't check things.
How do any of us know that you've taken your words from the toxicology report? Are they? Are you telling the truth? Are you lying? Are you simply giving your own interpretation? Is it YOUR interpretation that you're trying to force? -Hey!! Isn't that just what Putin is doing?- if you post the report, posters are more than capable of coming to their own conclusions.
As you say "One problem in this case is that assertions that are a load of rubbish have become treated as hard fact......" It's become something which may be relied on by those with their own agendas.
-
How do any of us know that you've taken your words from the toxicology report? Are they? Are you telling the truth? Are you lying? Are you simply giving your own interpretation? Is it YOUR interpretation that you're trying to force? -Hey!! Isn't that just what Putin is doing?- if you post the report, posters are more than capable of coming to their own conclusions.
As you say "One problem in this case is that assertions that are a load of rubbish have become treated as hard fact......" It's become something which may be relied on by those with their own agendas.
Its obviously good practice to upload supporting docs when one wishes to make an assertion but in any event the CoA didn't assert Sheila was sedated:
148. Sheila Caffell, probably in a sedated state from her medication, was also shot in the bedroom.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
Its obviously good practice to upload supporting docs when one wishes to make an assertion but in any event the CoA didn't assert Sheila was sedated:
148. Sheila Caffell, probably in a sedated state from her medication, was also shot in the bedroom.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Thank-you, Cami. Not "possibly", PROBABLY. A somewhat different take to her being "virtually unmedicated".
-
Thank-you, Cami. Not "possibly", PROBABLY. A somewhat different take to her being "virtually unmedicated".
Where did the COA get their opinion from?
-
Where did the COA get their opinion from?
Can't give you a definitive answer to that, Roch, but I'm willing to bet they didn't take into consideration the opinions of posters on forums who think they know better than experts.
-
Can't give you a definitive answer to that, Roch, but I'm willing to bet they didn't take into consideration the opinions of posters on forums who think they know better than experts.
The victims of a miscarriage of justice, are more knowledgable and intuitive than any state governed, controlled, so called experts, and 'all brainwashed state worshippers'! It matters not a jot, whether such Victims are posters on any forum...
. Unless, you or anybody else, has been 'one of the victims of a miscarriage of justice', or if you and anybody else becomes such 'a victim', 'you' and 'they', 'can never know what the absolute truth was', 'is' or 'could be'...
-
How do any of us know that you've taken your words from the toxicology report? Are they? Are you telling the truth? Are you lying? Are you simply giving your own interpretation? Is it YOUR interpretation that you're trying to force? -Hey!! Isn't that just what Putin is doing?- if you post the report, posters are more than capable of coming to their own conclusions.
As you say "One problem in this case is that assertions that are a load of rubbish have become treated as hard fact......" It's become something which may be relied on by those with their own agendas.
You've been posting on this Forum for years and you know - or should know - what the toxicology findings are. So read them for yourself. I understand they are on the Forum and available to you.
I've explained my position, which is based on the toxicology results and the surrounding facts - the third time I have told you. If you disagree, by all means tell me why you disagree, with reference to facts. Otherwise stop taking everything so personally.
Can't give you a definitive answer to that, Roch, but I'm willing to bet they didn't take into consideration the opinions of posters on forums who think they know better than experts.
The Court of Appeal got their facts from Dr. Ferguson.
Dr. Ferguson was clearly wrong. At best, he did what a lot of doctors do and conflated the concepts of tranquilisation and sedation. The defence failed to call expert pharmacological/psychopharmacological evidence to challenge him. Dr. Ferguson's error is perhaps understandable in that the distinction is not terribly important to the day-to-day work of most ordinary doctors, as they tend to rely on what they are told about the proper function of various drugs available for them to prescribe.
However, sedation and tranquilisation are two different things.
It's not that I think I know better than experts. I am sure Dr. Ferguson was a very diligent doctor, and no doubt far cleverer than myself when it comes to medicine and psychiatry, but experts often get things wrong. It is a very great mistake to rely on experts. The function of an expert is to advise, not to decide. You should weigh things up and decide for yourself. But that requires you to think for yourself, which requires effort and brains, which not everybody has.
A certain Dr. Skuse averred that he could trace nitroglycerin compounds in the hand swabs of terrorist suspects. He was an expert, but his evidence was shown to be wrong. He took in lots of otherwise intelligent people who ought to have questioned what he was doing. Instead, they rested on the fact that he was an expert in his field.
A certain Dr. Meadows, a very eminent paediatrician, swore blind that his statistical evidence about the incidence of infanticide was reliable. He was wrong. Indeed, his evidence was plainly ridiculous and could have been dismantled by a GCSE maths pupil, but it was accepted by a jury, a judge, prosecution barristers with law degrees, and appeal judges, as well as lots of other otherwise intelligent people who just treated expert 'scientific' evidence as unassailably credible. This cost a woman years in prison.
-
You've been posting on this Forum for years and you know - or should know - what the toxicology findings are. So read them for yourself. I understand they are on the Forum and available to you.
I've explained my position, which is based on the toxicology results and the surrounding facts - the third time I have told you. If you disagree, by all means tell me why you disagree, with reference to facts. Otherwise stop taking everything so personally.
The Court of Appeal got their facts from Dr. Ferguson.
Dr. Ferguson was clearly wrong. At best, he did what a lot of doctors do and conflated the concepts of tranquilisation and sedation. The defence failed to call expert pharmacological/psychopharmacological evidence to challenge him. Dr. Ferguson's error is perhaps understandable in that the distinction is not terribly important to the day-to-day work of most ordinary doctors, as they tend to rely on what they are told about the proper function of various drugs available for them to prescribe.
However, sedation and tranquilisation are two different things.
It's not that I think I know better than experts. I am sure Dr. Ferguson was a very diligent doctor, and no doubt far cleverer than myself when it comes to medicine and psychiatry, but experts often get things wrong. It is a very great mistake to rely on experts. The function of an expert is to advise, not to decide. You should weigh things up and decide for yourself. But that requires you to think for yourself, which requires effort and brains, which not everybody has.
A certain Dr. Skuse averred that he could trace nitroglycerin compounds in the hand swabs of terrorist suspects. He was an expert, but his evidence was shown to be wrong. He took in lots of otherwise intelligent people who ought to have questioned what he was doing. Instead, they rested on the fact that he was an expert in his field.
A certain Dr. Meadows, a very eminent paediatrician, swore blind that his statistical evidence about the incidence of infanticide was reliable. He was wrong. Indeed, his evidence was plainly ridiculous and could have been dismantled by a GCSE maths pupil, but it was accepted by a jury, a judge, prosecution barristers with law degrees, and appeal judges, as well as lots of other otherwise intelligent people who just treated expert 'scientific' evidence as unassailably credible. This cost a woman years in prison.
Okay, I don't agree with you on the grounds that I think you're an arch manipulator of facts, and as in your last incarnation here, will argue which ever way suits you in the moment as long as your opinion stands out as being different from that which is being discussed.
That being said, I can find no toxicology report as such on the forum, however, having trawled through Vanezis' trial testimony he indicates that her blood sample contained 15 ng per ml of Haloperidol. In giving this information Vanezis indicated that he wished to make a statement regarding this, however, the following page which would have contained such, appears to be missing from the upload to the forum, because the following page makes no sense as a follow on to the last sentence. How convenient, what?............however, the important thing to note, is that the 15ng per ml of Haloperidol in Sheila's blood is considered to be within the medium range, not a low range, and certainly not a "virtually unmedicated" range. But, unlike some posters expect, please don't just take my word for it, read the following article abstract "Haloperidol Blood Levels and Clinical Effects" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1586270/
So, to summarize, tests revealed that Sheila's blood contained 15ng per ml of Haloperidol and as the above article indicates this is considered to be within the MEDIUM range, not the "virtually unmedicated" even though her dose had been HALVED and she was due her next injection.
Note For Mike! Any idea where the missing page of Vanezis' court testimony has gone? If you have it, perhaps you could post it. Think it will make for interesting reading.
-
Okay, I don't agree with you on the grounds that I think you're an arch manipulator of facts, and as in your last incarnation here, will argue which ever way suits you in the moment as long as your opinion stands out as being different from that which is being discussed.
That being said, I can find no toxicology report as such on the forum, however, having trawled through Vanezis' trial testimony he indicates that her blood sample contained 15 ng per ml of Haloperidol. In giving this information Vanezis indicated that he wished to make a statement regarding this, however, the following page which would have contained such, appears to be missing from the upload to the forum, because the following page makes no sense as a follow on to the last sentence. How convenient, what?............however, the important thing to note, is that the 15ng per ml of Haloperidol in Sheila's blood is considered to be within the medium range, not a low range, and certainly not a "virtually unmedicated" range. But, unlike some posters expect, please don't just take my word for it, read the following article abstract "Haloperidol Blood Levels and Clinical Effects" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1586270/
So, to summarize, tests revealed that Sheila's blood contained 15ng per ml of Haloperidol and as the above article indicates this is considered to be within the MEDIUM range, not the "virtually unmedicated" even though her dose had been HALVED and she was due her next injection.
Note For Mike! Any idea where the missing page of Vanezis' court testimony has gone? If you have it, perhaps you could post it. Think it will make for interesting reading.
QC?
Or has David got another suggestion?
Hopefully appropriate action will be taken.
-
QC is posting as if he's never been away. Or rather permanently banned after two warning bans. Asking Mike for information.
Hopefully appropriate action will be taken.
-
QC did used to post on the Luke Mitchell case, which Gascoigne claimed was his main interest in the Foyer. A cheeky diversion tactic as the Bamber case is his main interest & is where Gasgoigne has posted since joining.
QC was also very determined to argue against Sheila being sedated. As Gascoigne is doing.
Hopefully appropriate action will be taken to prevent forum disruption & degrade. There is no point permanently banning posters if they just return a few weeks later.
-
Surprised David didn't notice QC has returned. Maybe he just notices guilters.
Anyway, Scipio was banned after a quick return attempt. QC has attempted a quick return so the same action should be taken. Maybe he's aware NGB is currently not around.
Other moderators need to step in. QC will only go back to normal once he gets more confident, which resulted in 3 bans in quick succession. One permanant.
-
There was a campaign to reinstate Scipio after his first ban. A successful one.
His second ban was implemented by Mike after discussions between just the two of them on one of Mike's threads.
David made a big fuss when Scipio returned as Lemonhead & he was quickly banned.
This is unlike QC's bans where there were no reinstatement campaigns. The concensus from posters being it was deserved and right for the forum.
Hopefully appropriate action will be taken.
-
QC?
Or has David got another suggestion?
Hopefully appropriate action will be taken.
Who?
-
QC is entitled to post on the Red Forum. If he posts enough, the responses will follow. The Red Forum can get busy.
Or if he wants to promote his 'Guilty but would not convict in 2022' stance, there are plenty of other avenues online & on Youtube.
So don't know why he has returned to a forum where posters do not like him & where he has been banned 3 times in quick succession. The last time permanantly.
Hopefully appropriate action will be taken.
-
QC was permanantly banned in January. Not before time. Then instantly returned as Gasgoigne in February. Probably outraged that someone should dare take action against him.
There is no point him or anyone else insulting our intelligence saying it is not QC.
There just needs confirmation of a reinstatement of the permanant ban.
-
Forgive and forget!
-
Okay, I don't agree with you on the grounds that I think you're an arch manipulator of facts, and as in your last incarnation here, will argue which ever way suits you in the moment as long as your opinion stands out as being different from that which is being discussed.
That being said, I can find no toxicology report as such on the forum, however, having trawled through Vanezis' trial testimony he indicates that her blood sample contained 15 ng per ml of Haloperidol. In giving this information Vanezis indicated that he wished to make a statement regarding this, however, the following page which would have contained such, appears to be missing from the upload to the forum, because the following page makes no sense as a follow on to the last sentence. How convenient, what?............however, the important thing to note, is that the 15ng per ml of Haloperidol in Sheila's blood is considered to be within the medium range, not a low range, and certainly not a "virtually unmedicated" range. But, unlike some posters expect, please don't just take my word for it, read the following article abstract "Haloperidol Blood Levels and Clinical Effects" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1586270/
So, to summarize, tests revealed that Sheila's blood contained 15ng per ml of Haloperidol and as the above article indicates this is considered to be within the MEDIUM range, not the "virtually unmedicated" even though her dose had been HALVED and she was due her next injection.
Note For Mike! Any idea where the missing page of Vanezis' court testimony has gone? If you have it, perhaps you could post it. Think it will make for interesting reading.
Sorry but we are still in disagreement. With respect, I am also quite surprised that somebody who has posted on this Forum for years has not read the toxicology report. I read it before I posted on the topic, and it is also on the Forum. I've just searched and I found it in 10 seconds.
For your information, I am looking at the statement of the forensic scientist Mr Allan, dated 12th. November 1985. In regard to Haloperidol, Dr. Allan states that Sheila had 0.55 micrograms per gram in her liver and 15 nanograms per millilitre in her blood.
I say 'virtually unmedicated' in relation to her last monthly dosage of 100mg - which is a lot in comparison to what was in her by the end. We could instead say 'low-medicated' or words to that effect, but it's just semantics. I appreciate that 'medicated' is not a linear concept, but the effect of the drug varies according to the individual and the circumstances. To be clear, I am simply talking about the diminishing concentration of the drug in her body in relation to the original dosage.
The link you provide is not to a full article, but to an abstract behind a paywall. That means we don't know the context and basis of their opinion of what a low or medium or high dosage is. Sheila's level is at the lower end of what the authors of the paper call 'medium' or 'moderate'. Other clinicians may take the view that it is a low concentration.
It is also not clear to me whether "plasma level" is a reference to concentration of the drug or dosage. We'd have to read the article to know. Furthermore, the reference is to plasma not blood - not the same thing. It is likely that a blood level matrix would render a lower concentration. (I accept it is possible that Mr Anderson may have used a plasma matrix to measure drug concentration).
Furthermore, the abstract summary - such as is it - does not make clear what point the article is making. It states in conclusion: "Only minor differences in clinical responses were noted among the three levels of haloperidol. These results imply that low or moderate doses of neuroleptics are appropriate for many acutely psychotic patients." But what does that mean? What are 'clinical responses'? What was the state of the patients entering the trial? The abstract is saying that someone can be virtually unmedicated and show little difference in 'clinical response' in comparison to someone who is moderately medicated or highly medicated. But isn't that confusing on its face? We'd have to know what they mean by "minor differences". A minor difference to them could be a significant difference to you and me. We need to read the full article to make any sense of it.
The article also does not address the points germane to the issue presently under discussion: which are whether she was 'virtually unmedicated' and whether there is any basis for saying she was sedated, but in any event, the abstract suggests that the article is neutral on the point I make.
Sheila had her last monthly intramuscular dose on 11th. July 1985. Again, in fairness, this was a few days later than I thought. For some reason, I had in mind that her last dose was on the 4th. and the next was imminent. Even so, she was approaching the end of her medication cycle.
Despite your efforts, I am still left in the same position, which is as follows:
(i). There is no evidence that Sheila was sedated. Sheila's medication was tranquilising and is known for having a low sedative effect, though admittedly Halioperidol can have a sedative side-effect, so it is possible she was sedated.
(ii). Sheila was approaching the end of her medication cycle. The toxicology report confirms that Sheila had a low concentration of Haloperidol in her.
(iii). The toxicology report and the surrounding facts and knowledge we have about Sheila suggest that Sheila took illicit drugs, both soft and hard. Both Dr. Ferguson and Dr. Allan say this would have had no effect, but Mr Allan puts it in terms of the cannabis interacting with the Haloperidol, whereas Dr. Ferguson merely says that in his view the Haloperidol would not have been inhibited in its effect by the cannabis. Neither of these experts were pharmacologists or psychopharmacologists. Dr. Allan was a Chartered Chemist and professional toxicologist, whereas Dr. Ferguson was a psychiatrist.
Finally, please refrain from making personal comments and attacks. I have no idea what you mean by "previous incarnation".
-
Moderators, can you make a statement please. You have been online for a long period.
QC has returned as Gascoigne after a deserved permanant ban. Which was supported by fellow posters due to his behaviour.
-
A vast reduction in the type of medication that Sheila had would render her condition as being dangerous because previous symptoms would return with a vengeance.
-
Cascoigne has not tried to hide he is QC. Which is very arrogant.
He is who he is & won't start posting 4 line posts. Although he will be itching to start his snide comments & smugness.
Surprising he is still here. Banned members will return in another guise on forums. If lucky this won't be spotted. Otherwise instantly re banned.
Banned members can contact forum moderators, apologise & ask to be reinstated. There is no way QC did that.
-
Sorry but we are still in disagreement. With respect, I am also quite surprised that somebody who has posted on this Forum for years has not read the toxicology report. I read it before I posted on the topic, and it is also on the Forum. I've just searched and I found it in 10 seconds.
For your information, I am looking at the statement of the forensic scientist Mr Allan, dated 12th. November 1985. In regard to Haloperidol, Dr. Allan states that Sheila had 0.55 micrograms per gram in her liver and 15 nanograms per millilitre in her blood.
I say 'virtually unmedicated' in relation to her last monthly dosage of 100mg - which is a lot in comparison to what was in her by the end. We could instead say 'low-medicated' or words to that effect, but it's just semantics.
The link you provide is not to a full article, but to an abstract behind a paywall. That means we don't know the context and basis of their opinion of what a low or medium or high dosage is. Sheila's level is at the lower end of what the authors of the paper call 'medium' or 'moderate'. Other clinicians may take the view that it is a low concentration.
It is also not clear to me whether "plasma level" is a reference to concentration of the drug or dosage. We'd have to read the article to know. Furthermore, the reference is to plasma not blood - not the same thing. It is likely that a blood level matrix would render a lower concentration. (I accept it is possible that Mr Anderson may have used a plasma matrix to measure drug concentration).
Furthermore, the abstract summary - such as is it - does not make clear what point the article is making. It states in conclusion: "Only minor differences in clinical responses were noted among the three levels of haloperidol. These results imply that low or moderate doses of neuroleptics are appropriate for many acutely psychotic patients." But what does that mean? What are 'clinical responses'? What was the state of the patients entering the trial? The abstract is saying that someone can be virtually unmedicated and show little difference in 'clinical response' in comparison to someone who is moderately medicated or highly medicated. But isn't that nonsensical? We'd have to know what they mean by "minor differences". A minor difference to them could be a significant difference to you and me. We need to read the full article to make any sense of it.
The article also does not address the points germane to the issue presently under discussion: which are whether she was 'virtually unmedicated' and whether there is any basis for saying she was sedated, but in any event, the abstract suggests that the article is neutral on the point I make.
Sheila had her last monthly intramuscular dose on 11th. July 1985. Again, in fairness, this was a few days later than I thought. For some reason, I had in mind that her last dose was on the 4th. and the next was imminent. Even so, she was approaching the end of her medication cycle.
Despite your efforts, I am still left in the same position, which is as follows:
(i). There is no evidence that Sheila was sedated. Sheila's medication was tranquilising and is known for having a low sedative effect, though admittedly Halioperidol can have a sedative side-effect, so it is possible she was sedated.
(ii). Sheila was approaching the end of her medication cycle. The toxicology report confirms that Sheila had a low concentration of Haloperidol in her.
(iii). The toxicology report and the surrounding facts and knowledge we have about Sheila suggest that Sheila she took illicit drugs, both soft and hard. Both Dr. Ferguson and Dr. Allan say this would have had no effect, but Mr Allan puts it in terms of the cannabis interacting with the Haloperidol, whereas Dr. Ferguson merely says that in his view the Haloperidol would not have been inhibited in its effect by the cannabis. Neither of these experts were pharmacologists or psychopharmacologists. Dr. Allan was a Chartered Chemist and professional toxicologist, whereas Dr. Ferguson was a psychiatrist.
Finally, please refrain from making personal comments and attacks. I have no idea what you mean by "previous incarnation".
Did you notice in Dr Fergusons first statement on 9 Aug 1985 that Sheila appeared to be on 200mg of Haloperidol every FORTNIGHT initially,but it was changed to every MONTH at her request,so in a way it was actually halved twice.In the same statement Ferguson said the side effects of Haloperidol was that she would beSLIGHTLY sedated andmay also have slight muscle stiffening.Of course Fergusons statements changed when JB became a suspect,as did many others to suit a five murders case.
-
Cascoigne has not tried to hide he is QC. Which is very arrogant.
He is who he is & won't start posting 4 line posts. Although he will be itching to start his snide comments & smugness.
Surprising he is still here. Banned members will return in another guise on forums. If lucky this won't be spotted. Otherwise instantly re banned.
Banned members can contact forum moderators, apologise & ask to be reinstated. There is no way QC did that.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or who you are referring to, and I am not that person.
-
What i meant to say,was it appears Sheila started on 200mg every fortnight,then 200mg every month,and finally 100mg a month[by mistake]Quite a reduction as Lookout says,not good for keeping the schizophrenia at bay!i
-
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or who you are referring to, and I am not that person.
Don't insult the forums intelligence.
-
Did you notice in Dr Fergusons first statement on 9 Aug 1985 that Sheila appeared to be on 200mg of Haloperidol every FORTNIGHT initially,but it was changed to every MONTH at her request,so in a way it was actually halved twice.In the same statement Ferguson said the side effects of Haloperidol was that she would beSLIGHTLY sedated andmay also have slight muscle stiffening.Of course Fergusons statements changed when JB became a suspect,as did many others to suit a five murders case.
I agree with you and Lookout that the drop in her medication is important to consider. Of significance also is that the drop on the 11th. July 1985 was medically negligent.
As I have stated, there is no evidence she was sedated. Dr. Ferguson may have been of the view that she would have been, but that is just an opinion. It doesn't mean she was (though please note, I accept it is possible she was). What is "slightly sedated" anyway? How do you distinguish that from being tired? Jeremy must have been tired and drowsy after a full day at work on the farm, but that didn't stop him committing a massacre in the middle of the night - according to the courts.
I have just been trying to find a free copy of the full article that another poster linked to above about the relationship between clinical responses in psychotics and dosages of Haloperidol. I still can't find a free copy, but I have found a report on a 1998 study by different researchers that suggests dosages above 18ng/mL are less efficacious and even counter-therapeutic.
-
Moderators need to confirm QC has gone. It is frustrating when there is silence after such contempt has been shown to the forum.
It is a straight forward re ban. Ditto if he re surfaces again next month.
He has other options so has re joined to disrupt & abuse.
-
Moderators need to confirm QC has gone. It is frustrating when there is silence after such contempt has been shown to the forum.
It is a straight forward re ban. Ditto if he re surfaces again next month.
He has other options so has re joined to disrupt & abuse.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not disrupted anything or abused anybody. It is simply that I have expressed a different opinion to yours and Jane's and revealed that the facts are not quite as the guilt camp like to present them. In particular, your glib explanation that Sheila was sedated has no basis in the evidence. Rather than accept this, you both resort to personal attacks as you can't cope with it.
If you or Jane have arguments to make that I should consider, then please add them to the thread. If all you have are personal attacks, then people will see who the real villains are here.
-
The moderators have a hard job. Which they do voluntarily.
But have to say, giving a poster two short term bans, then a permanant ban in quick succession, then allowing such a disruptive poster to join again days later, is a surprise. Being silent on the issue disrespects all the other posters.
Holly had respect for this forum & the moderators and went on the Red forum for 10 years, then came back. Although I understand her ban here had been lifted anyway.
-
It's no secret QC spends all day on here. His numerous posts take long enough to read, let alone write. He only goes quiet when questioned on them. So would have found it tough when banned.
I found it tough when the 606 football site closed down. But moved on.
QC will be well aware he deserved his 3 bans & there were no tears shed from other members. So needed to take the hit & move on instead of coming straight back.
-
Something else I forgot to mention is a phenomenon known to forensic toxicologists called post-mortem redistribution. This is when antipsychotic drugs redistribute from the body tissues and organs into the blood after death. Of course, we have to weigh this against the fact that Haloperidol continues to diminish according to its half-life after death.
-
Adam, it's you who's causing the unpleasantness-----as usual which is why I haven't posted much.
-
You were even nasty towards Rob with your usual sarcastic replies.
-
Something else I forgot to mention is a phenomenon known to forensic toxicologists called post-mortem redistribution. This is when antipsychotic drugs redistribute from the body tissues and organs into the blood after death. Of course, we have to weigh this against the fact that Haloperidol continues to diminish according to its half-life after death.
Thats getting a bit too scientific for my brain Gsacoigne! Anyway,dont you think it sticks out like a sore thumb that every statement made after the case became five murders is very obviously changed and contrived to suit this.In the end Ferguson says Sheila was obviously OVER MEDICATED by the way she was acting.After all the reductions i the Haloperidol,you are expected to believe this.And what about the Procyclidene tablets for the side effects,did they just vanish never to be seen again,leading to the assumption or argument she never took them at all?
-
Until his re ban, at least Gascoigne won't abuse posters as before. Saying 'thanks Adam' & being abusive to Steve & NGB.
He's already rubbing the forum's nose in it enough by rejoining days after a permanant ban.
-
Supporters will be pleased QC is back. At least his posts are very long which gives the impression they are saying something.
Snow66!'s struggled a lot as the sole supporter on here.
David won't be all over QC as he was with Holly & RJ. QC's 98% guilty is better than nothing.
-
Adam, over the years you've come pretty close getting several bans yourself, TBF.
-
Supporters will be pleased QC is back. At least his posts are very long which gives the impression they are saying something.
Snow66!'s struggled a lot as the sole supporter on here.
David won't be all over QC as he was with Holly & RJ. QC's 98% guilty is better than nothing.
I am reasonable doubt Adam.I am merely going through the available evidence at the moment,But nothing i have seen draws me any nearer to guilt,at the moment.
-
Things like withheld douments under PII and the destroying of evidence just before they coould be DNA tested are big issues.IF everything was above board there would be no need for any of this.The destroying of evidence wasnt even investigated,the ccrc or whoever it was simply said there was no need for any enquiry because they might rule in JBs favour regarding any evidence.Well it hasnt helped him up till now.And those who destroyed the crucial evidence got off scot free.And of course there is no convincing scenario as to how JB dealt with Sheila.Not to my satisfaction anyway.
-
And as i said,the statements are contrived.Ferguson said in one statement that Sheila would not have commited suicide because she was in GOOD SPIRITS.yet he has her over medicated.If she was in good spirits,why did she give up so easily and accept death.To be quite honest the more you read the statements and notice all the contradictions,the more they loose any ring of truth.
-
And of course the conversation with someone in the farm,and the two bodies in the kitchen have never been discredited satisfactorily.The police log read-ARE in coversation with someone--wouldnt it be more straight forward to say police are TRYING to contact anyone,if that is what they meant.Again,very suspicious,with no adequate explanation.
-
Adam, over the years you've come pretty close getting several bans yourself, TBF.
Can you confirm the forums rules on permanantly banned posters returning a few days later.
QC's permanant ban was supported by posters on here. Even Bamber supporters did not dispute it.
I have received PM's overnight supporting the re ban of QC as well as PM's when he was posting as QC.
If he keeps resurfacing he just needs to be re banned. It only takes a click of a button. He will eventually give up. There are other places he can post.
Scipio was re banned after a return attempt. And he was a popular poster.
It will be a great pity if the forum is destroyed again.
Thank you.
-
Can you confirm the forums rules on permanantly banned posters returning a few days later.
QC's permanant ban was supported by posters on here. Even Bamber supporters did not dispute it.
I have received PM's overnight supporting the re ban of QC as well as PM's when he was posting as QC.
If he keeps resurfacing he just needs to be re banned. It only takes a click of a button. He will eventually give up. There are other places he can post.
Scipio was re banned after a return attempt. And he was a popular poster.
It will be a great pity if the forum is destroyed again.
Thank you.
I will explain precedent to you very clearly when I get the chance. I have just deleted my original reply by pressing the wrong button on the phone.
-
I will explain precedent to you very clearly when I get the chance. I have just deleted my original reply by pressing the wrong button on the phone.
Thanks. The forum needs consistancy on whether permanantly banned posters can re surface a few days later.
Scipio, a guilter couldn't. QC, a supporter, at present can. Despite forum opposition .
A posters stance should not be an issue regarding forum rules.
-
Thanks. The forum needs consistancy on whether petmanantly banned posters can re surface a few days later.
Scipio, a guilter couldn't. QC, a supporter, at present can. Despite forum opposition .
A posters stance should not be an issue regarding forum rules.
As already stated, I will explain precedent clearly to you. But not until I get the chance.
-
Is there any possibility you could break your posts up into paragraphs, as I have done above? I don't mind long posts, but if you post without paragraphs it makes it very difficult to read, which is a shame.
Dr. Vanezis believed that the first shot to Sheila was when she was sitting up slightly. It is entirely possible that Jeremy first shot her while forcing her on the floor - assuming he is guilty. You mention Sheila being 'frozen'. I assume this is metaphorical but I'm not sure what you mean exactly. To position Sheila, she had to be moved, which means she had to move, which means she wasn't frozen in any sense. If you mean what Ainsley said in the DPP Report, that she 'froze', well this was the Essex Police explanation for how Jeremy managed to manhandle Sheila, but if you think about it for five seconds, it doesn't make any sense unless we're saying that Sheila was already in the main bedroom and Jeremy quickly pinned her on the floor (perhaps shooting her too early in the process, hence Dr. Vanezis' evidence).
If you have not done so already, one thing I recommend you do is look at the analysis of the evidence of Martyn Ismail and Dr. Peter Vanezis in the 2002 appeal judgment. I think the judges' analysis was mistaken and they were wrong to accept Mr Ismail's evidence, but it's still important to read it.
QC also had an aversion to snow66!'s lack of formatting.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11038.msg511805.html#msg511805
::)
-
As already stated, I will explain precedent clearly to you. But not until I get the chance.
Will pm you.
-
Surprised David didn't notice QC has returned. Maybe he just notices guilters.
Anyway, Scipio was banned after a quick return attempt. QC has attempted a quick return so the same action should be taken. Maybe he's aware NGB is currently not around.
Other moderators need to step in. QC will only go back to normal once he gets more confident, which resulted in 3 bans in quick succession. One permanant.
I have been distracted by events in Ukraine.
I suspected Gascoigne was QC when they posted on the Russia thread.
NaughtyNun received a lifetime ban yet is still posting on here as Cambridgecutie. NGB has more or less opened the floodgate by knowingly letting a banned user troll the forum. Its only going to make other banned users know they can do the same.
-
I have been distracted by events in Ukraine.
I suspected Gascoigne was QC when they posted on the Russia thread.
NaughtyNun received a lifetime ban yet is still posting on here as Cambridgecutie. NGB has more or less opened the floodgate by knowingly letting a banned user troll the forum. Its only going to make other banned users know they can do the same.
NaughtyNun didn't receive a lifetime ban. She received a week long ban and returned here 7 years later.
-
NaughtyNun didn't receive a lifetime ban. She received a week long ban and returned here 7 years later.
My mistake, it was actually 8 years later.
-
NaughtyNun didn't receive a lifetime ban. She received a week long ban and returned here 7 years later.
Yes, NGB did previously say you were able to post. Before you did start posting.
David is upset that you started posting as a guilter.
Even QC will agree he deserved a permanant ban. Not only was he abusive to other posters, but also to a moderator. More than once.
QC being QC believes permanant equals a few days for him.
Roch said he will clarify when he gets the chance. Hopefully this will be soon to stop confusion on the forum.
-
My mistake, it was actually 8 years later.
If I remember/understand correctly NaughtyNun's temp ban was in respect of teasing a bunch of posters about belonging to a knitting circle. And yet it seems QC was able to make such a comment with apparent impunity:
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10998.msg509557.html#msg509557
Anyway its a beautiful day and the garden is beckoning.
-
NaughtyNun didn't receive a lifetime ban. She received a week long ban and returned here 7 years later.
Yes you did receive a lifetime ban. You have made posts on red admitting this.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10913.msg504934.html#msg504934 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10913.msg504934.html#msg504934)
Your naughtynun account is still banned/locked. :))
-
Well,i think you need a bit of flamboyance on the forum.And you definitely get that with QC. And Naughty Nuns signiture alone brings a smile to the face [whoever she may or not be]These are people with strong character,and that will no doubt get them into hot water now and again.But they are also very intelligent,and i am sure will not go too far ever again.Dont you think the forum needs certain charachters to liven it up? No doubt there is a thin line between downright abuse and interesting amusing discussion.And remember,let he that is without sin cast the first stone.Ok i know what your going to say,there are forum rules,but to be honest i have not read them myself.
-
Yes you did receive a lifetime ban. You have made posts on red admitting this.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10913.msg504934.html#msg504934 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10913.msg504934.html#msg504934)
Your naughtynun account is still banned/locked. :))
Quoting JackieD ;D
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10374.msg484682.html#msg484682
-
Quoting JackieD ;D
Quoting CambridgeCutie
"I was banned from there, initially for a week for making inoffensive childish comments, despite being told by most that I made a positive contribution. I was then expected to take the punishment and sit on the naughty step for a week. Instead I chose to air my grievances on this forum and was then banned for life from the other forum for doing so."
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3739.msg141212#msg141212 (https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3739.msg141212#msg141212)
-
Quoting CambridgeCutie
"I was banned from there, initially for a week for making inoffensive childish comments, despite being told by most that I made a positive contribution. I was then expected to take the punishment and sit on the naughty step for a week. Instead I chose to air my grievances on this forum and was then banned for life from the other forum for doing so."
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3739.msg141212#msg141212 (https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3739.msg141212#msg141212)
I stand corrected.
Seems to be confusion. But it was an 8 year gap before she came on here as Cambridgeshirecutie.
QC came back a few days later! As did Scipio, whose permanant ban was quickly reinstated.
Hopefully we will get some clarity on whether permanantly banned posters can return days or years later.
-
I stand corrected.
Seems to be confusion. But it was an 8 year gap before she came on here as Cambridgeshirecutie.
QC came back a few days later! As did Scipio, whose permanant ban was quickly reinstated.
Hopefully we will get some clarity on whether permanantly banned posters can return days or years later.
The fact Cambridge came here under a false pretence and wasting everyone's time and making hundreds of posts asking questions she already knew the answers to should itself warrant a ban. She has also been dishonest in post 329 denying ever having a lifetime ban.
She has now gone to the beer garden to get wasted.
-
Hopefully we will get some clarity on whether permanantly banned posters can return days or years later.
I have already tried to explain this. Also regarding your point about CC - CC was not obligated to wait that length of time in order to return. If you look at the intervening time between then and now, there have probably been any number of bans, none of which will have played out exactly the same.
-
The fact Cambridge came here under a false pretence and wasting everyone's time and making hundreds of posts asking questions she already knew the answers to should itself warrant a ban. She has also been dishonest in post 329 denying ever having a lifetime ban.
She has now gone to the beer garden to get wasted.
You should have been banned. After ignoring a moderator instruction several times. Sent percifically to you. To not put up offensive pictures.
Anyway, onto Sheila being sedated.
-
You should have been banned. After ignoring a moderator instruction several times. Sent percifically to you. To not put up offensive pictures.
Anyway, onto Sheila being sedated.
You are in no position to judge who should or shouldn't be banned.
-
Going by the forensic & circumstantial evidence, it has to be said that Sheila was easy to control.
Forensic: -
She was on Haloperidol.
There is no evidence Sheila put up any resistance.
It was late at night/early morning. Sheila would be drowsy.
Bamber was much stronger.
Circumstantial:-
Pamela Boutflours WS.
Bamber saw Sheila earlier while working.
Bamber saw Sheila at WHF during his reconnaisance.
Bamber was so excited at Sheila's condition, he rang Julie as soon as he got home.
The massacre was carried out, around 3 hours later.
-
And talking of Cambridge Cuties past on the forum,i believe that she should never have been banned.After all she was a Nun at the time and was living in a Convent.As such,it should have been the Mother superior who took responsibility for her inaproppriate postsBut no poor Cutie,even after taking her monastic vows was cast out of the Nunnery.She now lives a life of sin,drinking expensive bottles of beer every night,along with other vices,for which she will surely go to hell,poor child.Ithink this will be punishment enough without bringing up her past from time to time,dont you?
-
Going by the forensic & circumstantial evidence, it has to be said that Sheila was easy to control.
Forensic: -
She was on Haloperidol.
There is no evidence Sheila put up any resistance.
It was late at night/early morning. Sheila would be drowsy.
Bamber was much stronger.
Circumstantial:-
Pamela Boutflours WS.
Bamber saw Sheila earlier while working.
Bamber saw Sheila at WHF during his reconnaisance.
Bamber was so excited at Sheila's condition, he rang Julie as soon as he got home.
The massacre was carried out, around 3 hours later.
Well i dont know where to start Adam,its the same stuff.We know she was on Haloperidol,but have no idea what the effects of the reduced dose at that time would have been,or if she was taking her procyclidene tablets to counteract them.Sheila would not put up any resistance if she was the one pulling the trigger.Late night/early morning,ANYONE can be drowsy,till they full wake up.Bamber being stronger suggests Sheila being manhandledwhich would leave tell tale bruises.Pamela Boutflour only spoke of Sheila acting oddly,and having an intended discussion about her with June,nothing else.The lack of interest in conversation over the phone could easily have been down to depression,not sedation.Bamber looking at Sheila does not tell him how sedated she was,he simply said she did not join in with the conversation with their parents.Bamber was SO EXCITED he phoned Julie,i dont think i have heard that one from you before Adam.
-
Hello guests and casual browsers,and welcome to the Jeremy Bamber Forum.As you can see everyone else has been banned for unacceptable behaviour.The Administrators and myself will be meeting sometime next week to see if we feel any can re-join.So, untill we get some new members,or we decide to reinstate some,whatever i say goes.As it happens i have decided JB is innocent and will be phoning the home secretary tomorrow.Anyway,as well as the forum rules,the Administrators are printing a new guide on how to behave on an online discussion forum.It will be based on the exemplary behaviour of myself -Snow66-and it is reccomended that all banned members read it carefuly before attemping to re-join.Bye for now all!
-
I have been PM,d by most of the banned members begging for mercy.I have not responded to any of them,but will make a statement here.All i can say is i will ask the Administrators to be as merciful as possible.But as for the members who told the Administrators to shove their forum up their Jacksie,and the like,i wouldnt hold out much hope.
-
Cambridge Cutie has just PM,d me again saying she will not try to re-join.She has decided to take the oppertunity to go back to her calling,which was never far from her thoughts.The Mother Superior of her convent got in touch with her recently, offering her a second chance,and this ban has made up her mind.The thought of a new Habit was just too irresistable.Good luck Cutie!
-
Adam has just PM,d me again,hes in a terrible state.Please,please let me re-join he pleads,the forum is my whole life! I told him,you should have thought about that before you told the Administrators to bend over and kiss their own a****
-
Jings,Mike has just PM,d me.He has been offered a one way trip to the inner earth[Agartha] by the Aliens,which he has accepted.Mike has decided to hand over all the files and documents he has on JB to myself.He has also decided to appoint me chief Administratot.Thanks Mike,and good luck with your new home!
-
Hello everyone,i am the new chief Administrator,and as such ,have decided to reinstate all banned members.But you better watch your ps and qs.Do you hear? Just watch it.
-
Hello everyone,i am the new chief Administrator,and as such ,have decided to reinstate all banned members.But you better watch your ps and qs.Do you hear? Just watch it.
Well when you've rounded up all the lost sheep please let me know..
-
Hello everyone,i am the new chief Administrator,and as such ,have decided to reinstate all banned members.But you better watch your ps and qs.Do you hear? Just watch it.
-
I like that Mike ;D
-
I have been distracted by events in Ukraine.
I suspected Gascoigne was QC when they posted on the Russia thread.
NaughtyNun received a lifetime ban yet is still posting on here as Cambridgecutie. NGB has more or less opened the floodgate by knowingly letting a banned user troll the forum. Its only going to make other banned users know they can do the same.
If I received a lifetime ban then how come I'm still here? How do you know what conversations may have taken place during the cold war era behind the iron curtain? And if I had other accounts here how do you know the offer wasn't made to link any such dormant accounts? How do you know any ban wasn't orchestrated to infiltrate 'enemy' territory and/or any claims made elsewhere were said for effect? You don't do you? As usual you don't have a clue.
And there's a world of difference with regard to teasing other posters about belonging to a 'knitting club'
and telling the moderator to 'go suck dick'.
If you suspected that QC and Gascoigne are one and the same I am surprised you were not as vocal as you usually are on the open forum along with telling tales to the moderators eg Lemonhead, RJ and CC. You take the term snake in the grass to another level.
-
You are in no position to judge who should or shouldn't be banned.
Neither are you! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! You constantly goad and troll others under the cloak of 'banter' but overstepped the mark recently when you extended your goading and trolling to pm's which NBG put a stop to. I have recently received an unsolicited pm from a moderator asking if I mind you goading me about my drinking habits. If the moderation was consistent you would have received numerous temporary bans leading to a permanent ban.
-
Neither are you! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! You constantly goad and troll others under the cloak of 'banter' but overstepped the mark recently when you extended your goading and trolling to pm's which NBG put a stop to. I have recently received an unsolicited pm from a moderator asking if I mind you goading me about my drinking habits. If the moderation was consistent you would have received numerous temporary bans leading to a permanent ban.
I sense that the forum would prefer it if David moved on from making such remarks. Your return to the forum wasn't the smoothest of transitions and I had a part to play in that, which I could have handled better. However, the manner in which you went about your return did seem at times deliberately aimed at getting members' backs up.
-
I sense that the forum would prefer it if David moved on from making such remarks. Your return to the forum wasn't the smoothest of transitions and I had a part to play in that, which I could have handled better. However, the manner in which you went about your return did seem at times deliberately aimed at getting members' backs up.
If a user decides to broadcast their drinking habits on an internet forum, then other people can talk about it. You reap what you sow.
Moreover, other forum users need to be made aware they are potentially wasting their time by debating with someone who is drunk. This is a true crime discussion forum, not a place to spend your evening piss up.
-
If a user decides to broadcast their drinking habits on an internet forum, then other people can talk about it. Your reap what you sow.
Moreover other forum users need to made aware they are potentially wasting their time by debating with someone who is drunk. This is a true crime discussion forum, not a place to spend your evening piss up.
If CC was as you claim, I doubt she would seem as compos mentis as she does. It would be preferable if you dropped this line of approach when posting in response to her. You are both very case knowledgeable, so why not concentrate on debate?
-
You are not drunk until you are on the floor & still holding on.
An ex girlfriend lead me to drink & I still haven't thanked her for it.
Don't believe the rumours that alcohol is an aphrodisiac. The only thing alcohol gets up is your hopes.
----------
Classics.
-
If I received a lifetime ban then how come I'm still here? How do you know what conversations may have taken place during the cold war era behind the iron curtain? And if I had other accounts here how do you know the offer wasn't made to link any such dormant accounts? How do you know any ban wasn't orchestrated to infiltrate 'enemy' territory and/or any claims made elsewhere were said for effect? You don't do you? As usual you don't have a clue.
And there's a world of difference with regard to teasing other posters about belonging to a 'knitting club'
and telling the moderator to 'go suck dick'.
If you suspected that QC and Gascoigne are one and the same I am surprised you were not as vocal as you usually are on the open forum along with telling tales to the moderators eg Lemonhead, RJ and CC. You take the term snake in the grass to another level.
QCC never said that to the moderator. You are telling lies and the only person using profanities on this Forum is you. I must say I am surprised it is allowed - multiple times, too.
QCC made one single profane remark in the heat of the moment. Cambridgecutie makes profane remarks repeatedly (while not even accurately reporting the incident she refers back to), and nothing is done. She has not received a temporary ban for it or presumably any sort of warning. I find that interesting.
Also interesting is that neither Real Justice nor Adam were banned for the original incident.
Also of interest is that a certain other member on here insulted QCC twice with foul language, and nothing was done about it. This same person harassed a female poster off the Forum. On that occasion, even NGB1066 had to say something to him. But when the same member harassed QCC, nothing was done.
It all looks a bit one-sided.
-
QCC never said that to the moderator. You are telling lies and the only person using profanities on this Forum is you. I must say I am surprised it is allowed - multiple times, too.
QCC made one single profane remark in the heat of the moment. Cambridgecutie makes profane remarks repeatedly (while not even accurately reporting the incident she refers back to), and nothing is done. She has not received a temporary ban for it or presumably any sort of warning. I find that interesting.
Also interesting is that neither Real Justice nor Adam were banned for the original incident.
Also of interest is that a certain other member on here insulted QCC twice with foul language, and nothing was done about it. This same person harassed a female poster off the Forum. On that occasion, even NGB1066 had to say something to him. But when the same member harassed QCC, nothing was done.
It all looks a bit one-sided.
I'm surprised a lot of things are allowed.