Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on April 02, 2022, 03:12:AM
-
I thought it would be good idea to make this easily accessible for all members.
Barry Parker.
Michael Horsnell.
June Bamber.
Freddie Emani.
Carol Ann Lee.
Tora Tompkinson.
Multiple side effects of Haloperiodal .
Pamela Boutflour.
Roger Wilkes.
Jeremy Bamber WS.
Julie Mugford WS.
Sheila having no other injuries.
Bamber having no injuries.
Sheila being shot in Bamber's chosen location.
[`Sheila' did not sleep in her own bed at all at any stage between supper time on the evening of the 6th and the raid team forcibly entering the farmhouse at 7.30am the following morning, 7th August 1985]
-
All of these relate to hours before or after the massacre.
The exception being Toro Tompkinson, which was a week earlier.
-
In my view Sheila did not wake & get up during the downstairs kitchen fight.
However if she did, the evidence shows she put up no/minimal resistance when faced with Bamber.
[`Sheila' did not sleep in her own bed at all at any stage between supper time on the evening of the 6th and the raid team forcibly entering the farmhouse at 7.30am the following morning, 7th August 1985]
-
As previously said Bamber was going ahead regardless & had stolen June's bike as part of the preparation.
The suggestion a fully alert Sheila may have 'scratched or punched him' was not a deterrent. Besides which after he saw Sheila's condition around 3 hours beforehand he knew that was very unlikely.
There is no evidence of any bruises or scratches on Bamber.
-
One thing we know Bamber is telling the truth about, was that he saw Sheila at supper.
Sheila was still up & downstairs after Bamber had left & she spoke to PB on the phone.
[`Sheila' did not sleep in her own bed at all at any stage between supper time on the evening of the 6th and the raid team forcibly entering the farmhouse at 7.30am the following morning, 7th August 1985]
-
As my previous thread states, there is no counter evidence Sheila was alert, coordinated & aggressive just before the massacre.
[`Sheila' was alert enough to take hold of the telephone handset and listen to 'Aunty Pamela' at around 10.00pm, on the 6th August 1985. She was co-ordinated enough to give the handset back to 'June Bamber' and then rather abruptly leave the kitchen, which caused 'June' to tell 'Pamela' that 'Sheila' had 'gone to bed']
Supporters quote things from years earlier to support a murder/suicide. One of them only witnessed by Bamber.
-
As previously said Bamber was going ahead regardless & had stolen June's bike as part of the preparation.
The suggestion a fully alert Sheila may have 'scratched or punched him' was not a deterrent. Besides which after he saw Sheila's condition around 3 hours beforehand he knew that was very unlikely.
There is no evidence of any bruises or scratches on Bamber.
The main advantage of the thread post for guilters, is that it rules Sheila out as a suspect.
Partly because her condition made Bamber's job easier.
But mainly because it confirms she did not have the mental & physical capabilities to commit the massacre.
-
`Sheila' did not sleep in her own bed at all at any stage between supper time on the evening of the 6th and the raid team forcibly entering the farmhouse at 7.30am the following morning, 7th August 1985]
----------
I can't agree with that Mike. But good to get different views.
[`Essex police' who attended the incident, including members of the firearm officers who entered the premises, stated that it 'appeared that' both 'Sheila' and 'June' had been sat up in bed, bible reading! So, was 'Sheila' in her own bed, in her own bedroom, whereas 'June was in bed in the main bedroom, and each of them with a bible in their possession, reciting chapter and verse to one another!
-
Adam I think you're missing something here. Could a docile, uncoordinated Adam, with low levels of cannabis in his system control a bunch of fully fit supporters? He would be virtually a zombie. I think it's unlikely.
-
both 'Sheila' and 'June' had been sat up in bed, bible reading!
---------
I wonder how they worked that out Mike.
Sheila & June were found on the bedroom floor.
-
Where is your evidence that Sheila was " docile/ uncoordinated ? Because others said so ??
-
I thought it would be good idea to make this easily accessible for all members.
Barry Parker.
Michael Horsnell.
June Bamber.
Carol Ann Lee.
Tora Tompkinson.
Multiple side effects of Haloperiodal .
Pamela Boutflour.
Roger Wilkes.
Jeremy Bamber WS.
Julie Mugford WS.
Sheila having no other injuries.
Bamber having no injuries.
Sheila being shot in Bamber's chosen location.
[`Sheila' did not sleep in her own bed at all at any stage between supper time on the evening of the 6th and the raid team forcibly entering the farmhouse at 7.30am the following morning, 7th August 1985]
Good day Adam,you've had a busy night.Well let us go through each point and see how they hold up.Ok ,Batty Parker the shop keeper,talks of strange behaviour and recoiling at the sight of the lipstick.He does not mention Sheila walking funny or acting like a zombie,just her lack of interest in the twins buing their trainers,so nothing here to suggest she was tired and docile.Michael Horsnell-acted like a zombie and did not even turn her head,but you wouldnt need to turn your head unless you were distracted by something,and in her withdrawn state would have little interest in anything around her to bother taking notice of.Again no evidence of being docile.June Bamber-is this the phone call to Pam? She spoke of Sheila having no interest in the twins or anything else,she did not say Sheila that Sheila was either weak,docile or ina confused state,only withdrawn which is an entirely different thing.Carol Ann Lee-Interviewed the likes of Tora Tompkinson,who helped convince her Sheila was innocent,but remember Tora was a close friend of Sheila and would not believe she could carry out the crimes no matter what.Tora Tompkinson-could not get up,but does not elaborate too much about it,no real biggie.Multiple side effects of Haloperidol-no conclusive evidence of any,except tiredness.No evidence she was docile or confused the night of the slaughter,only withdrawn.Pamela Boutflower-zombie,from some unknown source,did someone say Colin Caffell? Roger Wilkes-no idea,never seen his book.Jeremy Bamber-Only said Sheila did not contribute to the discussion about fostering.Denied in a 2013 letter that he had ever seen Sheila in such docile state that others suggest.Julie-Well as always,depends who is telling the truth.And remember anything Julie knew about Sheila was not witnessed by herself,anything she knew was second hand information,be it from JB or anyone else.Sheila having no other injuries-not nessesary if she ambushed the others,wounding them before finishing them off without much of a struggle,although Mike and others say she had many defencive wounds and possibly wounds inflicted on her back.Bamber having no injuries-Well of course he wouldnt have injuries if he wasnt involved in the massacre.Sheila being shot in Bambers chosen location-Where Sheila was shot proves nothing,it dosent tell us if Bamber led her there or if she decided to lie down there herself and pull the trigger.So over all Adam i dont think you have much compelling evidence that Sheila was severely weak,tired,docile and confused that night.Not by what the witnesses said or by what the Doctors involved testified to.
-
Oh and Sheila walked down to the field of rape to see Jeremy with the twins.How far away was the field? And there was no mention from JB that she was acting like a zombie and walking strangely.All he said was that they chatted for about ten minutes.Yet it was later on that same day that Michael Horsnell observed the zombie behaviour.I would say it probably depended which of the witnesses believed Jb was guilty and how much they were possibly goaded into exaggerating what they had seen of heard.
-
Coordination-we are told Sheila couldnt even open a tin of baked beans.Could she cook? What was she eating while she lived on her own? We are told the autopsy showed she was well nourished.Was she really that hopeless at looking after herself?And as i have said,Sheila rolled numerous joints while talking to Helen Grimster the day after she was discharged from hospita, having newly received her Haloperidol injection. So just how clumsy and uncoordinated was she.by the effects of the Haloperidol?
-
Or is this just another myth to prove she did not have the dexterity to load and use the rifle?
-
Or is this just another myth to prove she did not have the dexterity to load and use the rifle?
I guess you'd need to find out who was responsible for collecting all these diverse characters together to persuade them that Sheila was uncoordinated. It's odd that so many, who seem unknown to each other, would say the same of her.
-
Coordination-we are told Sheila couldnt even open a tin of baked beans.Could she cook? What was she eating while she lived on her own? We are told the autopsy showed she was well nourished.Was she really that hopeless at looking after herself?And as i have said,Sheila rolled numerous joints while talking to Helen Grimster the day after she was discharged from hospita, having newly received her Haloperidol injection. So just how clumsy and uncoordinated was she.by the effects of the Haloperidol?
I can't remember if she went to finishing school. If she had, high end cookery, along with flower arranging, deportment and etiquette would have been part of the curriculum. Perhaps she didn't like cooking. She may not have been required to get stuck in at WHF. There was a housekeeper and I imagine June to have been a competent cook.
Without having proof of HG's knowledge of marijuana, it's not certain what it was that smelled "funny". It may just have been cheap, loose tobacco.
The docu made at the Maudsley, highlighting the effects of antipsychotics, showed patients in zombie like states, walking with lumbering, ungainly gaits which they seemed to be aware of, but could so nothing about.
-
I guess you'd need to find out who was responsible for collecting all these diverse characters together to persuade them that Sheila was uncoordinated. It's odd that so many, who seem unknown to each other, would say the same of her.
Hiya Jane,hope your well.How many of them spoke about Sheila being uncoordinated? I think i can remember Colin mentioning this,but i am not sure who else.Certainly never by JB or the relatives,i think impractical may have been mentioned,maybe clumsy.
-
I can't remember if she went to finishing school. If she had, high end cookery, along with flower arranging, deportment and etiquette would have been part of the curriculum. Perhaps she didn't like cooking. She may not have been required to get stuck in at WHF. There was a housekeeper and I imagine June to have been a competent cook.
Without having proof of HG's knowledge of marijuana, it's not certain what it was that smelled "funny". It may just have been cheap, loose tobacco.
The docu made at the Maudsley, highlighting the effects of antipsychotics, showed patients in zombie like states, walking with lumbering, ungainly gaits which they seemed to be aware of, but could so nothing about.
But she must have fed herself while living on her own Jane,unless she lived entirely on fast food.I will look at some of the docs about Haloperidol and the side effects you talk of.
-
Hiya Jane,hope your well.How many of them spoke about Sheila being uncoordinated? I think i can remember Colin mentioning this,but i am not sure who else.Certainly never by JB or the relatives,i think impractical may have been mentioned,maybe clumsy.
Tut tut, Snow! You must get a grip on your similes. Ann it was who said of Sheila that she was unable to put beans on toast. Some might call that clumsy -actually I'm prepared to say she was severely lacking in confidence- Colin, if you remember correctly, called her uncoordinated. That's simply two sides of the same coin. I suspect your own suggestion of her being impractical is somewhere in the mix, too.
-
Tut tut, Snow! You must get a grip on your similes. Ann it was who said of Sheila that she was unable to put beans on toast. Some might call that clumsy -actually I'm prepared to say she was severely lacking in confidence- Colin, if you remember correctly, called her uncoordinated. That's simply two sides of the same coin. I suspect your own suggestion of her being impractical is somewhere in the mix, too.
Sorry Jane,i do get mixed up with who said what.Anyway,i have been watching videos of Haloperidol,it seems to be a very dangerous drug.Havent come across any examples or demonstrations of patients walking problems yet.Will continue the research.
-
Oh and Sheila walked down to the field of rape to see Jeremy with the twins.How far away was the field? And there was no mention from JB that she was acting like a zombie and walking strangely.All he said was that they chatted for about ten minutes.Yet it was later on that same day that Michael Horsnell observed the zombie behaviour.I would say it probably depended which of the witnesses believed Jb was guilty and how much they were possibly goaded into exaggerating what they had seen of heard.
I don't think he would say that then claim she committed murder/suicide a few hours later.
Sheila could obviously walk. But had coordination problems. As said by Toro Tompkinson & Michael Horsnell.
-
Sorry Jane,i do get mixed up with who said what.Anyway,i have been watching videos of Haloperidol,it seems to be a very dangerous drug.Havent come across any examples or demonstrations of patients walking problems yet.Will continue the research.
Yes, a very powerful drug. Lots of side effects which could be working simultaneously on a person.
-
Yes, a very powerful drug. Lots of side effects which could be working simultaneously on a person.
Which is why Sheila should have been taking other drugs to counteract or reverse the symptoms of Haldol to help with the side-effects-----but she didn't, as was noted in her blood test. On its own, Haldol would have had adverse effects which is why Sheila asked for a reduction in her dose, before the drug had time to take effect.
-
Sorry Jane,i do get mixed up with who said what.Anyway,i have been watching videos of Haloperidol,it seems to be a very dangerous drug.Havent come across any examples or demonstrations of patients walking problems yet.Will continue the research.
https://youtu.be/ve1N3xOlc-g
This video mentions Tardive dyskinesia, a condition where your face, body or both make sudden, irregular movements which you cannot control.
-
Obviously it was impossible for Sheila to commit the massacre. However easy for Bamber to control her.
There are so many strong side effects of Haloperiodal & so many sources regarding Sheila's condition just before the massacre.
-
Obviously it was impossible for Sheila to commit the massacre. However easy for Bamber to control her.
There are so many strong side effects of Haloperiodal & so many sources regarding Sheila's condition just before the massacre.
But are you not just picking the side effects to fit your scenario Adam? For instance being tired or drowsy through the day does not mean you will automatically sleep well at night.Restlessness ,aggitation and insomnia are also common side effects,and we know Sheila was prescribed a sleeping tablet.So therefore we must take it that insomnia was a problem.Now which is it,we are told she was careless taking oral meds,so if she did not take her procyclidene tablets she would suffer tiredness,and if she did not take her sleeping tablet she would have insomnia.Now heres the problem Adam,your scenario has Sheila very weak and tired,but also sound asleep the time of the shooting.So you are effectively saying that Sheila didnt take the procyclidene tablets,but did take her sleeping tablets.So therefore you are manipulating things to fit your version of Sheilas actions that night.Isnt that so Adam?
-
But are you not just picking the side effects to fit your scenario Adam? For instance being tired or drowsy through the day does not mean you will automatically sleep well at night.Restlessness ,aggitation and insomnia are also common side effects,and we know Sheila was prescribed a sleeping tablet.So therefore we must take it that insomnia was a problem.Now which is it,we are told she was careless taking oral meds,so if she did not take her procyclidene tablets she would suffer tiredness,and if she did not take her sleeping tablet she would have insomnia.Now heres the problem Adam,your scenario has Sheila very weak and tired,but also sound asleep the time of the shooting.So you are effectively saying that Sheila didnt take the procyclidene tablets,but did take her sleeping tablets.So therefore you are manipulating things to fit your version of Sheilas actions that night.Isnt that so Adam?
My scenario does not say what condition Sheila is in. As said, Bamber was going ahead regardless.
The evidence of the side effects of Haloperiodal & Sheila's condition just before the massacre is on the forum. These rule out Sheila as a suspect.
-
My scenario does not say what condition Sheila is in. As said, Bamber was going ahead regardless.
The evidence of the side effects of Haloperiodal & Sheila's condition just before the massacre is on the forum. These rule out Sheila as a suspect.
But a fully fit comos mentis Sheila would have screamed,kicked and punched and ran away Adam,that is why Vanezis said if JB was the killer,Sheila would have had to be drugged.
-
But a fully fit comos mentis Sheila would have screamed,kicked and punched and ran away Adam,that is why Vanezis said if JB was the killer,Sheila would have had to be drugged.
You are over estimating a fully fit Sheila. Bamber was going ahead regardless. He had already stolen June's bike.
Screaming would not stop Bamber. Everyone was already dead. Bamber was much stronger & fully clothed. So punching, kicking would not stop him.
The crime scene evidence & Sheila's condition just before the massacre, together with the multiple side effects of Haloperiodal, confirm Sheila put up no/minimal resistance. It also rules her out as a suspect.
-
And not a mark on JB---not even a scratch from those talons of Sheila's !
-
And not a mark on JB---not even a scratch from those talons of Sheila's !
The evidence shows Sheila was very docile & uncoordinated. From the multiple side effects of Haloperiodal.
Bamber was also fully clothed & a lot stronger. So would not get 'a mark' on him. Even if Sheila was fully fit.
All straight forward.
-
You are over estimating a fully fit Sheila. Bamber was going ahead regardless. He had already stolen June's bike.
Screaming would not stop Bamber. Everyone was already dead. Bamber was much stronger & fully clothed. So punching, kicking would not stop him.
The crime scene evidence & Sheila's condition just before the massacre, together with the multiple side effects of Haloperiodal, confirm Sheila put up no/minimal resistance. It also rules her out as a suspect.
But if she was punching ,kicking or even struggling at all,how did JB get a shot near her throat.He not only had to hold her down and under control,he had to use one arm to use the rifle.Very prpblematic Adam,and will always be a problem for the guilters Adam.This fact will not go away.
-
The evidence shows Sheila was very docile & uncoordinated. From the multiple side effects of Haloperiodal.
Bamber was also fully clothed & a lot stronger. So would not get 'a mark' on him. Even if Sheila was fully fit.
All straight forward.
You need a strong cup of tea Adam.
-
So not a straight forward as you would like to think Adam.
-
But if she was punching ,kicking or even struggling at all,how did JB get a shot near her throat.He not only had to hold her down and under control,he had to use one arm to use the rifle.Very prpblematic Adam,and will always be a problem for the guilters Adam.This fact will not go away.
By using his superior strenght.
Besides which the evidence shows Sheila was very docile & uncoordinated.
-
By using his superior strenght.
Besides which the evidence shows Sheila was very docile & uncoordinated.
Still very tricky Adam,very tricky,and you know it.No problem if the wounds were self inflicted however.
-
Adam I think you're missing something here. Could a docile, uncoordinated Adam, with low levels of cannabis in his system control a bunch of fully fit supporters? He would be virtually a zombie. I think it's unlikely.
I think it depends on whether Adam has been on his supper reconnaissance, as that would keep him quite sharp and alert, even if a bit docile.
-
Still very tricky Adam,very tricky,and you know it.No problem if the wounds were self inflicted however.
Supporters do tend to over exaggerate Sheila's potential response.
Kicking, screaming, punching, scratching, running away.
Doubtful she had realised what was going on prior to her first shot. Let alone reacted.
-
Supporters do tend to over exaggerate Sheila's potential response.
Kicking, screaming, punching, scratching, running away.
Doubtful she had realised what was going on prior to her first shot. Let alone reacted.
Well then you are going to need a very elaborate plan Adam.If June is already dead and lying in the doorway,JB must know that whatever state Sheila was in,she is going to waken up and be alert very quickly if she sees the body.Now even if JB turns out the bedroom light and uses the hall one to see with,it is still going to be hard to avert Sheilas eyes from Junes body,but possible i suppose.And this is supposing that Sheila slept through the shooting,which i personally doubt.Then he has to tell her to sit down for some reason,so she is presumably compos mentis enough to understand orders but not to question them.Then JB has to whip the rifle from under the bed sheets,or where ever it was hidden from view.pointaim and fire,maybe in dim light.Or he may have put on the bedroom light after Sheila was seated and could no longer see June.Of course this would mean Sheila would see the rifle being pointed at her and feel it in contact with her neck.So,in order to pull the trigger without any protestation whatsoever JB would definitely have needed to be the fastest shot in Essex.Tricky Adam,very tricky.
-
But a fully fit comos mentis Sheila would have screamed,kicked and punched and ran away Adam,that is why Vanezis said if JB was the killer,Sheila would have had to be drugged.
Having been dosed intravenously with antipsychotics, she would have been.
-
So not a straight forward as you would like to think Adam.
Or not as complicated as you're attempting to make it?
-
Having been dosed intravenously with antipsychotics, she would have been.
Not according to Vanezis Jane.
-
Or not as complicated as you're attempting to make it?
Then tell me the uncomplicated version Jane.
-
Having been dosed intravenously with antipsychotics, she would have been.
How many days before she was involved in the shooting of other family members, was it that she received her medication, and or took her prescribed tablets? Whenever that was, and whether she did, or not, there is no way that any pro-guilty Bamber is/was guilty recruits, could possibly know what sort of an influence, such failures, or successes, may have, or did have, or could have contributed to the outcome of this tragedy! It was a reckless decision by her doctor, to halve the amount of Haloperiodal given to her, so close to the time of 'the happennings'..
'Sheila' was not docile, as suggested by those who think that 'Jeremy Bamber' killed her victims!
She was 'alert enough', to 'write a suicide note' in her 'own hand'! She removed a tampon, from an unopened box of tampons that were found upon a bed in her room! An 'empty' tampon container was found downstairs in the living room', and during autopsy, the pathologist confirmed that there was a tampon inserted vaginally! I would suggest, that everything that 'Sheila' had to do (and did) in the entire process and procedure of placing her heavily bloodstained knickers in a bucket of cold water [in the kitchen], of her opening a box of 10 tampons in her bedroom and carrying one such tampon downstairs into the living room, where she removed a tampon from its packaging, and personally inserted it intimately into herself, then wash and rinse out the pair of light blue night attire legggings, and droop these over the bannister rail [half way between the main bedroom entrance and her own bedroom door, in the general region of the top landing/top of the main stairs]. She then [at about 7.15am] placed a rifle at a box room window located in between the main bedroom, and the children's bedroom, before making her way back downstairs into the kitchen, to face her preconceived fate! 'Sheila' was so docile and confused that she sorted out a second wooden chair, in front of a similar wooden chair upon which `Ralph Bamber' had slumped due to the fact that by that/this stage, he had been 'non fatally wounded 4 times already!
Need I say more?
-
'Sheila' was not in 'an uncoordinated state' when she carried out personal and private duties [6th/7th August 1985)...
'ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS'
(http://[color=blue][size=14pt]'SHE WAS CAPABLE OF UNWRAPPING THE TAMPON BOX, REMOVING A SINGLE TAMPON CONTAINER, CARRYING IT, FROM HER BEDROOM UPSTAIRS, TO THE LIVING ROOM DOWNSTAIRS, AND INTIMATELY INSERTING THE TAMPON VAGINALLY' [/size][/color])
-
You do waste a lot of time arguing about silly things.
Pointing a gun at someone is generally a very good way to control them whether they are medicated/sedated or not.
(http://[http://] [color=blue][size=14pt]'SHE WAS CAPABLE OF UNWRAPPING THE TAMPON BOX, REMOVING A SINGLE TAMPON CONTAINER, CARRYING IT, FROM HER BEDROOM UPSTAIRS, TO THE LIVING ROOM DOWNSTAIRS, AND INTIMATELY INSERTING THE TAMPON VAGINALLY' [/size][/color])
-
'Sheila' was not in 'an uncoordinated state' when she carried out personal and private duties [6th/7th August 1985)...
'ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS'
(http://[color=blue][size=14pt]'SHE WAS CAPABLE OF UNWRAPPING THE TAMPON BOX, REMOVING A SINGLE TAMPON CONTAINER, CARRYING IT, FROM HER BEDROOM UPSTAIRS, TO THE LIVING ROOM DOWNSTAIRS, AND INTIMATELY INSERTING THE TAMPON VAGINALLY' [/size][/color])
Good points Mike.
-
'SHE WAS CAPABLE OF UNWRAPPING THE TAMPON BOX, REMOVING A SINGLE TAMPON CONTAINER, CARRYING IT, FROM HER BEDROOM UPSTAIRS, TO THE LIVING ROOM DOWNSTAIRS, AND INTIMATELY INSERTING THE TAMPON VAGINALLY'
Surely, these actions serve to confirm in the affirmative, that 'Sheila' was more than able or capable of loading additional bullets into the magazine of the gun, and firing the gun!!!
-
You do waste a lot of time arguing about silly things.
Pointing a gun at someone is generally a very good way to control them whether they are medicated/sedated or not.
(http://[http://] [color=blue][size=14pt]'SHE WAS CAPABLE OF UNWRAPPING THE TAMPON BOX, REMOVING A SINGLE TAMPON CONTAINER, CARRYING IT, FROM HER BEDROOM UPSTAIRS, TO THE LIVING ROOM DOWNSTAIRS, AND INTIMATELY INSERTING THE TAMPON VAGINALLY' [/size][/color])
Hi Armchair.But once that gun is pressed against your neck,you know you either have to struggle and try to push it away,or accept what is about to happen,close your eyes and wait for the bang.It isnt easy for me to accept she gave up on life that easy.
-
'SHE WAS CAPABLE OF UNWRAPPING THE TAMPON BOX, REMOVING A SINGLE TAMPON CONTAINER, CARRYING IT, FROM HER BEDROOM UPSTAIRS, TO THE LIVING ROOM DOWNSTAIRS, AND INTIMATELY INSERTING THE TAMPON VAGINALLY'
Surely, these actions serve to confirm in the affirmative, that 'Sheila' was more than able or capable of loading additional bullets into the magazine of the gun, and firing the gun!!!
According to pathologist ['Peter Venezis'] `it appeared that 'Sheila' had 'taken her own life', after 'killing the other four victims'..
-
'Sheila' was [in my view,] readily capable of shooting dead 'other members of her family! This being' absolutely true', and 'acceptable', in 'the overwhelming circumstances of this/these incredulous police investigations' ('SC/688/85') and ('SC/786/85)..
-
You do waste a lot of time arguing about silly things.
Pointing a gun at someone is generally a very good way to control them whether they are medicated/sedated or not.
You raise an excellent point, AD.
-
I know with '100% certainty', that 'ordinary members of the public' , are 'at large', 'may', 'will not', and 'could not hope to activate' or use' these website protocols', 'mischievously'...
-
You do waste a lot of time arguing about silly things.
Pointing a gun at someone is generally a very good way to control them whether they are medicated/sedated or not.
Are you saying you disagree with Dr. Vanezis, who said that Sheila would have had to be drugged for Jeremy to manage it?
Are you implying that Nevill did not struggle with Jeremy and he went to the kitchen because Jeremy told him to go there?
Could you just explain how you think the rifle was pointed at Sheila and how Jeremy forced Sheila to comply? Did he point it at her throat or back or what?
How did Jeremy manoeuvre Sheila into the main bedroom and then into position? Did he just tell her to lie down flat on the floor and hold the rifle for him? Or was she not holding the rifle barrel when the first shot struck her?
If she did not hold the rifle barrel before being shot, how were her arms positioned when she was lying down as Jeremy told her to?
-
Before a mentally disturbed person " breaks down " they have a period of being docile, or appear to be calm and collected. This is a danger point. You don't know what they're thinking or what's troubling them.
Some years ago, out of the blue, a pilot in mid-flight had a sudden breakdown. He'd calmly told his first officer that he was " going to stretch his legs "----nothing unusual in that since the first officer was in control so all was well.
Out of the blue the pilot started shouting to which the passengers heard, then he was heard banging on the cockpit door which the first officer had managed to lock when he'd heard him shouting in the cabin. It took 4 or 5 passengers to hold him down on the floor as meanwhile a landing space was organised at the nearest airport to get the pilot off who by this time was shouting again and struggling. The first officer landed the plane safely.
This pilot had obviously shown no signs of a mental disturbance when he boarded the flight ( about 150 passengers ) and had been calm/ normal before having a brainstorm mid-flight. It would have appeared that he'd had hi-jacking on his mind which drove him mad as he'd been heard to shout various countries, then bomb.
If the passengers hadn't have restrained him it doesn't bear thinking what the man might have done. He was taken straight to a hospital for the mentally ill.
-
You do waste a lot of time arguing about silly things.
Pointing a gun at someone is generally a very good way to control them whether they are medicated/sedated or not.
Not if you know the person holding the gun is going to kill you, walking past June Sheila would know she was next, she would have nothing to lose but either try to run to her children or lash out at the killer.
No one would just lie down to be shot dead.
-
Are you saying you disagree with Dr. Vanezis, who said that Sheila would have had to be drugged for Jeremy to manage it?
Are you implying that Nevill did not struggle with Jeremy and he went to the kitchen because Jeremy told him to go there?
Could you just explain how you think the rifle was pointed at Sheila and how Jeremy forced Sheila to comply? Did he point it at her throat or back or what?
How did Jeremy manoeuvre Sheila into the main bedroom and then into position? Did he just tell her to lie down flat on the floor and hold the rifle for him? Or was she not holding the rifle barrel when the first shot struck her?
If she did not hold the rifle barrel before being shot, how were her arms positioned when she was lying down as Jeremy told her to?
She was on Haloperiodal.
Besides which, Bamber could control a fully fit Sheila. He had stolen June's bike before Sheila even arrived at WHF for goodness sake.
-
Then tell me the uncomplicated version Jane.
My scenario. Which you have read.
Ditto you with your Sheila scenario. Without 50 maybe's.
-
Or not as complicated as you're attempting to make it?
It's supporters only option.
-
I operated as 'Jeremy Bambers,' `McKensie man`, between the date of my release on the 27th July 1990, and until 'around 2004/2005' [that's 14/15 years of support, investigative ability, and logic], that 'I felt duty bound' to offer him!
-
Are you saying you disagree with Dr. Vanezis, who said that Sheila would have had to be drugged for Jeremy to manage it?
Are you implying that Nevill did not struggle with Jeremy and he went to the kitchen because Jeremy told him to go there?
Could you just explain how you think the rifle was pointed at Sheila and how Jeremy forced Sheila to comply? Did he point it at her throat or back or what?
How did Jeremy manoeuvre Sheila into the main bedroom and then into position? Did he just tell her to lie down flat on the floor and hold the rifle for him? Or was she not holding the rifle barrel when the first shot struck her?
If she did not hold the rifle barrel before being shot, how were her arms positioned when she was lying down as Jeremy told her to?
You ask questions which just require common sense.
-
I 'visited him', 'wrote to him', 'conducted privately arranged visits to potential witnesses', and 'asked for no financial assistance', from 'Jeremy' or 'anyone else'!
But, because of 'a misunderstanding' on 'Jeremys' part, 'we eventually grew apart', and 'I felt 'like' I was an' abandoned friend', and 'a loyal supporter'!
-
You raise an excellent point, AD.
Come on Jane don't get like Adam please, imagine the situation: someone is holding a gun on you and tells you to lie down. Perhaps you comply because you think they are a just a petty burglar after a bit of cash, but would you if you knew you are going to be shot dead?
You would either run or fight there is no other option.
-
You ask questions which just require common sense.
The rifle would need two hands to control, so how does JB control Sheila as well? I am glad you mention common sense Adam we are making progress.
-
It is surprising that people believe a fit, fully clothed, motivated 24 year old male holding a rifle, couldn't control Sheila for a few seconds.
-
It is surprising that people believe a fit, fully clothed, motivated 24 year old male holding a rifle, couldn't control Sheila for a few seconds.
Espescially as the evidence shows Sheila was docile & uncoordinated. As my thread post states.
-
Espescially as the evidence shows Sheila was docile & uncoordinated. As my thread post states.
How many days before she was involved in the shooting of other family members, was it that she received her medication, and or took her prescribed tablets? Whenever that was, and whether she did, or not, there is no way that any pro-guilty Bamber is/was guilty recruits, could possibly know what sort of an influence, such failures, or successes, may have, or did have, or could have contributed to the outcome of this tragedy! It was a reckless decision by her doctor, to halve the amount of Haloperiodal given to her, so close to the time of 'the happennings'..
'Sheila' was not docile, as suggested by those who think that 'Jeremy Bamber' killed her victims!
She was 'alert enough', to 'write a suicide note' in her 'own hand'! She removed a tampon, from an unopened box of tampons that were found upon a bed in her room! An 'empty' tampon container was found downstairs in the living room', and during autopsy, the pathologist confirmed that there was a tampon inserted vaginally! I would suggest, that everything that 'Sheila' had to do (and did) in the entire process and procedure of placing her heavily bloodstained knickers in a bucket of cold water [in the kitchen], of her opening a box of 10 tampons in her bedroom and carrying one such tampon downstairs into the living room, where she removed a tampon from its packaging, and personally inserted it intimately into herself, then wash and rinse out the pair of light blue night attire legggings, and droop these over the bannister rail [half way between the main bedroom entrance and her own bedroom door, in the general region of the top landing/top of the main stairs]. She then [at about 7.15am] placed a rifle at a box room window located in between the main bedroom, and the children's bedroom, before making her way back downstairs into the kitchen, to face her preconceived fate! 'Sheila' was so docile and confused that she sorted out a second wooden chair, in front of a similar wooden chair upon which `Ralph Bamber' had slumped due to the fact that by that/this stage, he had been 'non fatally wounded 4 times already!
Need I say more?
-
I 'visited him', 'wrote to him', 'conducted privately arranged visits to potential witnesses', and 'asked for no financial assistance', from 'Jeremy' or 'anyone else'!
But, because of 'a misunderstanding' on 'Jeremys' part, 'we eventually grew apart', and 'I felt 'like' I was an' abandoned friend', and 'a loyal supporter'!
I am sure that everyone who has ever been a member of this forum has never doubted how much you have done for JBs cause over the years Mike.And you probably dont get the acknowledgement and respect you deserve a lot of the time.I am sure it hurt when you and JB grew apart,but there is no doubt he knows you are still campaigning on his behalf.And God willing one day on the outside he will thank you for all you have done Mike.[If he is innocent that is]
-
It is surprising that people believe a fit, fully clothed, motivated 24 year old male holding a rifle, couldn't control Sheila for a few seconds.
The results of blood grouping type obtained from scientific examination of 'Sheila Caffells nightdress [`ND/3' - Lab' item no. 19] and the. 22 rifle, suggests that other victims blood types, were found to be present upon each side of the nightdress (referred to above) and that the specific blood group type obtained from a loose flake that was trapped between baffle plates, [1 and 2] of 'Anthony Parveters 17 baffled Parker hale silencer, was not unique, and or, exclusive to' Sheila Caffell, despite the prosecutions expert witnesses claims that it did, or was...
-
I am sure that everyone who has ever been a member of this forum has never doubted how much you have done for JBs cause over the years Mike.And you probably dont get the acknowledgement and respect you deserve a lot of the time.I am sure it hurt when you and JB grew apart,but there is no doubt he knows you are still campaigning on his behalf.And God willing one day on the outside he will thank you for all you have done Mike.[If he is innocent that is]
OK!
-
Not if you know the person holding the gun is going to kill you, walking past June Sheila would know she was next, she would have nothing to lose but either try to run to her children or lash out at the killer.
No one would just lie down to be shot dead.
Hi Armchair.But once that gun is pressed against your neck,you know you either have to struggle and try to push it away,or accept what is about to happen,close your eyes and wait for the bang.It isnt easy for me to accept she gave up on life that easy.
I thought Sheila was suicidal, why would she fight like an 80's action hero?
-
You ask questions which just require common sense.
I didn't know that. Thanks Adam.
She was on Haloperiodal.
Besides which, Bamber could control a fully fit Sheila. He had stolen June's bike before Sheila even arrived at WHF for goodness sake.
Due to the supper reconnaissance earlier.
-
I thought Sheila was suicidal, why would she fight like an 80's action hero?
What do you mean by "80s action hero"? Isn't the point that Sheila might struggle and/or flee? Jeremy needs to stage Sheila's suicide, which means she needs to be shot in a particular way. If Sheila struggles, he risks injury.
You haven't answered my earlier questions. Just to be clear, are you saying that you think the prosecution case depends on Sheila complying quietly with Jeremy?
-
I didn't know that. Thanks Adam.
Due to the supper reconnaissance earlier.
Bamber had to do reconnaisance. To make sure all 5 members were sleeping there that night.
We know for sure he saw an awake Sheila then, who he would have monitored.
-
I thought Sheila was suicidal, why would she fight like an 80's action hero?
I was replying to your post in which JB is the perpetrator in which case she is not suicidal is she.
-
Come on Jane don't get like Adam please, imagine the situation: someone is holding a gun on you and tells you to lie down. Perhaps you comply because you think they are a just a petty burglar after a bit of cash, but would you if you knew you are going to be shot dead?
You would either run or fight there is no other option.
Come on Rob, if your terrified father woke you up in the middle of the night to tell you your schizophrenic sister had gone mad with a gun, would you instantly dial 999 and get over there or waste 20 minutes calling your girlfriend and thumbing through a phone book?
This case is really easy if we just use hindsight to judge the most sensible course of action for each of the protagonists.
NB? - would have dialled 999 rather than useless JB
June? Would have gotten out of bed, not lay there waiting to be shot...
-
What do you mean by "80s action hero"? Isn't the point that Sheila might struggle and/or flee? Jeremy needs to stage Sheila's suicide, which means she needs to be shot in a particular way. If Sheila struggles, he risks injury.
You haven't answered my earlier questions. Just to be clear, are you saying that you think the prosecution case depends on Sheila complying quietly with Jeremy?
He could control a struggling Sheila.
He had no visible injuries.
-
I thought Sheila was suicidal, why would she fight like an 80's action hero?
Well,it was argued that Sheila was not suicidal and unlikely to have taken her own life.You cant have it all ways Armchair.
-
Come on Rob, if your terrified father woke you up in the middle of the night to tell you your schizophrenic sister had gone mad with a gun, would you instantly dial 999 and get over there or waste 20 minutes calling your girlfriend and thumbing through a phone book?
This case is really easy if we just use hindsight to judge the most sensible course of action for each of the protagonists.
NB? - would have dialled 999 rather than useless JB
June? Would have gotten out of bed, not lay there waiting to be shot...
A fully fit Nevill would have instantly taken the rifle.
-
Come on Rob, if your terrified father woke you up in the middle of the night to tell you your schizophrenic sister had gone mad with a gun, would you instantly dial 999 and get over there or waste 20 minutes calling your girlfriend and thumbing through a phone book?
This case is really easy if we just use hindsight to judge the most sensible course of action for each of the protagonists.
NB? - would have dialled 999 rather than useless JB
June? Would have gotten out of bed, not lay there waiting to be shot...
Straying off topic. These points have been debated at length on other threads. 'Would have'. None of this is evidence. It's just your own opinion about what the people involved should have done based on your interpretation of the situation.
-
He could control a struggling Sheila.
He had no visible injuries.
How did he control her?
-
How did he control her?
By using his vastly superior strenght, motivation, coordination, alertness.
-
Come on Rob, if your terrified father woke you up in the middle of the night to tell you your schizophrenic sister had gone mad with a gun, would you instantly dial 999 and get over there or waste 20 minutes calling your girlfriend and thumbing through a phone book?
This case is really easy if we just use hindsight to judge the most sensible course of action for each of the protagonists.
NB? - would have dialled 999 rather than useless JB
June? Would have gotten out of bed, not lay there waiting to be shot...
Lots of different questions there AD, but my point is if you know you are going to die you don't just lie down, so a gun itself will not guarantee compliance.
As for your other points if JB planned the crime for months and is just lying why not just dial 999 nothing stopping him?
-
By using his vastly superior strenght, motivation, coordination, alertness.
How did he control her?
You haven't answered the question.
-
Lots of different questions there AD, but my point is if you know you are going to die you don't just lie down, so a gun itself will not guarantee compliance.
As for your other points if JB planned the crime for months and is just lying why not just dial 999 nothing stopping him?
He might well "...waste 20 minutes calling [his] girlfriend and thumbing through a phone book" if he is innocent, as he might have wanted Sheila to kill them.
On the other hand, if he is guilty, then he knows everybody is dead, so why delay and why not dial 999?
-
How did he control her?
You haven't answered the question.
By using his vastly superior strenght, speed, motivation, coordination, alertness.
He was also fully clothed & holding a rifle.
Not sure what else he needed for a few seconds. But Sheila being docile & uncoordinated would be a bonus.
-
What do you mean by "80s action hero"? Isn't the point that Sheila might struggle and/or flee? Jeremy needs to stage Sheila's suicide, which means she needs to be shot in a particular way. If Sheila struggles, he risks injury.
You haven't answered my earlier questions. Just to be clear, are you saying that you think the prosecution case depends on Sheila complying quietly with Jeremy?
Who's to say that Sheila didn't freeze?
Who's to say that Sheila hadn't just woken up and wandered into the bedroom moments before JB returns upstairs, almost paralyzed by fear, she stumbles over and is already on the floor when he approaches?
There are all sorts of permutations.
-
By using his vastly superior strenght, speed, motivation, coordination, alertness.
He was also fully clothed & holding a rifle.
Not sure what else he needed for a few seconds. But Sheila being docile & uncoordinated would be a bonus.
I don't accept that you have answered the question. You've given a glib answer which can be summed up as: Sheila is smaller and weaker than Jeremy, therefore Jeremy can just somehow make her do what he wants. There's no detail in your answer, and neither you nor Armchair Detective have answered my other questions - except that you claim it is all 'common sense' (whatever that means).
I would suggest you and Armchair Detective have not thought it all through.
-
Straying off topic. These points have been debated at length on other threads. 'Would have'. None of this is evidence. It's just your own opinion about what the people involved should have done based on your interpretation of the situation.
Bingo!
-
He might well "...waste 20 minutes calling [his] girlfriend and thumbing through a phone book" if he is innocent, as he might have wanted Sheila to kill them.
On the other hand, if he is guilty, then he knows everybody is dead, so why delay and why not dial 999?
Thanks my thoughts precisely!
-
Who's to say that Sheila didn't freeze?
Who's to say that Sheila hadn't just woken up and wandered into the bedroom moments before JB returns upstairs, almost paralyzed by fear, she stumbles over and is already on the floor when he approaches?
There are all sorts of permutations.
The 'freeze' theory has been discussed on here and can be dismissed in five seconds. Even if she did 'freeze', she must still move or be moved, so you still have to explain a great deal and 'freezing' doesn't explain any of it.
Now you suggest she may have stumbled over, which goes against what you said earlier when you tried to suggest that just having a rifle was enough for Jeremy.
It appears that, like everybody else, you don't have a single clue how it happened. You are just guessing. But you maintain Jeremy did it. You are entitled to do so, of course.
-
I don't accept that you have answered the question. You've given a glib answer which can be summed up as: Sheila is smaller and weaker than Jeremy, therefore Jeremy can just somehow make her do what he wants. There's no detail in your answer, and neither you nor Armchair Detective have answered my other questions - except that you claim it is all 'common sense' (whatever that means).
I would suggest you and Armchair Detective have not thought it all through.
That is correct.
Sheila being docile & uncoordinated from the numerous side effects of the very powerful Haloperiodal would be another bonus.
'Sheila' was not docile, or uncoordinated on the evening of the 6th August 1985
-
The 'freeze' theory has been discussed on here and can be dismissed in five seconds. Even if she did 'freeze', she must still move or be moved, so you still have to explain a great deal and 'freezing' doesn't explain any of it.
Now you suggest she may have stumbled over, which goes against what you said earlier when you tried to suggest that just having a rifle was enough for Jeremy.
It appears that, like everybody else, you don't have a single clue how it happened. You are just guessing. But you maintain Jeremy did it. You are entitled to do so, of course.
We are all just guessing aren't we?
Sheila freezing or just doing as she is told is much more likely than her turing into Jackie Chan IMO.
-
How did he control her?
You haven't answered the question.
We're talking about a matter of seconds. He woke her up with some tale which came naturally in other circumstances, leading her swiftly across the landing to the master bedroom, where she had no time to react at all: no movement save a hand to the neck on the first report, then falling back as the fatal shot was fired. No physical contact with other members of the family as the nightdress shows, no strenuous effort as the facial features belied, only Jeremy, contemptuous to the last, as he pulled her legs, causing the rucked up apparel, tossing the blue Bible onto the corpse and vowing never to return to the premises he had loathed so much for so long.
-
Who's to say that Sheila didn't freeze?
Who's to say that Sheila hadn't just woken up and wandered into the bedroom moments before JB returns upstairs, almost paralyzed by fear, she stumbles over and is already on the floor when he approaches?
There are all sorts of permutations.
That is more or less the official police scenario Armchair,except that June was still alive when JB entered the room and was shot first.
-
He might well "...waste 20 minutes calling [his] girlfriend and thumbing through a phone book" if he is innocent, as he might have wanted Sheila to kill them.
On the other hand, if he is guilty, then he knows everybody is dead, so why delay and why not dial 999?
He needed time to clean up and put on an extra blouson, for what reason only he knows. Why we must at all times have concepts which accord with the mind of a mentally-ill individual beats me.
-
We're talking about a matter of seconds. He woke her up with some tale which came naturally in other circumstances, leading her swiftly across the landing to the master bedroom, where she had no time to react at all: no movement save a hand to the neck on the first report, then falling back as the fatal shot was fired. No physical contact with other members of the family as the nightdress shows, no strenuous effort as the facial features belied, only Jeremy, contemptuous to the last, as he pulled her legs, causing the rucked up apparel, tossing the blue Bible onto the corpse and vowing never to return to the premises he had loathed so much for so long.
On the contrary, there were other types of blood found and analysed on the front and rear of 'Sheila Caffells nightdress' [blood stain 1, and blood stain 2, on the front of her nightdress, and 'stain 3 on the reverse of the same garment [the results of which were not disclosed to the defence pre-trial, and for a long time afterwards!
-
He needed time to clean up and put on an extra blouson, for what reason only he knows. Why we must at all times have concepts which accord with the mind of a mentally-ill individual beats me.
Please elaborate Steve time for what? if he is guilty he just gets ready, changed, cleaned up or whatever then just calls the police? He is under no time constraints?
-
The 'freeze' theory has been discussed on here and can be dismissed in five seconds. Even if she did 'freeze', she must still move or be moved, so you still have to explain a great deal and 'freezing' doesn't explain any of it.
Now you suggest she may have stumbled over, which goes against what you said earlier when you tried to suggest that just having a rifle was enough for Jeremy.
It appears that, like everybody else, you don't have a single clue how it happened. You are just guessing. But you maintain Jeremy did it. You are entitled to do so, of course.
But you can freeze mentally without freezing physically.
-
With Sheila for those few seconds, Bamber either -
Used persuasion.
Used force.
Used a combination of persuasion & force.
Carried Sheila.
Took advantage of an awake & up Sheila who froze.
-------
All of the above made easier as Sheila was on the very powerful Haloperiodal.
-
On the contrary, there were other types of blood found and analysed on the front and rear of 'Sheila Caffells nightdress [blood stain 1, and bloodstainshh 2 on the front of her nightdress, and stain three on the reverse of the same garment [the results of which were not disclosed to the defence pre-trial, and for a long time afterwards!
Mike I believe the person from whom you retrieved these documents has falsified them for his or her own purposes.
-
Please elaborate Steve time for what? if he is guilty he just gets ready, changed, cleaned up or whatever then just calls the police? He is under no time constraints?
But the crimes are predicated on establishing the alibi that he is located at Bourtree Cottage when the massacre occurred. Any delay between the killings and the initial telephone call to police weakens this alibi.
[`who placed the rifle at the box room window, at 7.15am, a box room located between the main bedroom and the bedroom where the two child victims were shot? Moreover, why have police not accounted for the presence of this/that rifle leaning against the inside payne of that particular box room window?
'WPC Julia Jeapes' and 'another officer' who were 'present in the grounds of the farmhouse' both made witness statement confirming the sudden appearance of that rifle, at that box room window. Now, just to be clear, if there was only one rifle present upstairs at the farmhouse crime scene, then it stands to reason, that if it was the rifle which cops used to stage manage 'Sheila Caffells death scene on the bedroom floor, how did' that rifle get from it leaning against the inside of the box room window (7.15am),into the main bedroom (next door) and end up upon 'Sheila' s body by 9.13am, on that same morning?
-
Murun Buchstansangur.
-
But the crimes are predicated on establishing the alibi that he is located at Bourtree Cottage when the massacre occurred. Any delay between the killings and the initial telephone call to police weakens this alibi.
So why would he delay?
-
The rifle would need two hands to control, so how does JB control Sheila as well? I am glad you mention common sense Adam we are making progress.
Indeed so, Rob! So how did Sheila manage to shoot herself twice? I'm guessing the normal way is resting the stock on a shoulder, directing/supporting the barrel with one hand and pulling the trigger with the other. Sheila would have had to do it in reverse. Nowhere solid to rest the stock to steady it/stop its weight from moving the barrel. Both hands to align the barrel. Pushing the trigger from such a position wouldn't have been easy.
It comes to mind that, IF, as is being suggested, Sheila wandered aimlessly around the house for several hours after shooting her family, wouldn't she have used a less unwieldy weapon to shoot herself?
-
I am sure that everyone who has ever been a member of this forum has never doubted how much you have done for JBs cause over the years Mike.And you probably dont get the acknowledgement and respect you deserve a lot of the time.I am sure it hurt when you and JB grew apart,but there is no doubt he knows you are still campaigning on his behalf.And God willing one day on the outside he will thank you for all you have done Mike.[If he is innocent that is]
And here we have Mike's own, profound, words on the subject:-
'Your truth', 'my truth', 'this'/ 'that', and 'everybody's truth', does 'NOT' prove or establish what the 'ACTUAL TRUTH', is or could be!
'However' when it comes down to considering the truth of police officers when they introduce witness statements, or they seek to rely upon notes that they often claim were made up prior to them going off duty, when the notes were written up in pocket books that had not yet even been issued to an officer, until weeks and sometimes even months afterwards. There is always a minimum of at least two doppelganger police officers, who submit two almost identical statement content, except for the fact that the name and rank of both officers is added so as to distinguish one false narrative, from the other' in such cases, where this practice is regularly adopted, it becomes a matter of 'their truth', 'their truth', 'their truth' and 'their thruths' all being their actual truth(s).
And gullible members of the brainwashed public, listen intently, and believe every lie that these rogue bad boy cops tell....
-
Mike I believe the person from whom you retrieved these documents has falsified them for his or her own purposes.
Steve, I believe the chances are high, that many, produced here, have been subject to the same treatment. As Mike himself has told us:-
'Your truth', 'my truth', 'this'/ 'that', and 'everybody's truth', does 'NOT' prove or establish what the 'ACTUAL TRUTH', is or could be!
'However' when it comes down to considering the truth of police officers when they introduce witness statements, or they seek to rely upon notes that they often claim were made up prior to them going off duty, when the notes were written up in pocket books that had not yet even been issued to an officer, until weeks and sometimes even months afterwards...
-
But you can freeze mentally without freezing physically.
Absolutely!
-
Please elaborate Steve time for what? if he is guilty he just gets ready, changed, cleaned up or whatever then just calls the police? He is under no time constraints?
You're speaking as if he's a robot, Rob. What about having him spend some time going over what he'd done. Reflecting on how it went. Savouring his success. Musing over, not what he'd do if he HAD the money, but how he was going to spend it now he'd got it.
-
Murun Buchstansangur.
A rather more humble character than JB, I think.
-
If anyone had intentions of wiping out a family, they wouldn't be waking up at silly o'clock to phone the police.
Considering that no trace of JB had been found i.e. blood/ sweat/ DNA/ , nobody would have been any the wiser next day on discovering the carnage. Then what ?
-
If anyone had intentions of wiping out a family, they wouldn't be waking up at silly o'clock to phone the police.
Considering that no trace of JB had been found i.e. blood/ sweat/ DNA/ , nobody would have been any the wiser next day on discovering the carnage. Then what ?
They weren't being looked for on day 1. JB wasn't a suspect then. By the time he was, it was too late to look.
How do you explain 'DS Jones' and 'DC Clark upon entering the main bedroom crime scene at around 9.10am, that the bodies of' Sheila' and June' were both laid out on top of the bed side by side one another, and that they saw a rifle resting on/in the bed space in between them! Additionally, they saw (on 'that occasion') that there was a bible resting upon 'Sheila Caffells' chest?
Furthermore, so certain that the bodies of 'Sheila' and 'June' were on the bed, but that within an hour or so later, whilst they were at 'Jeremys' cottage taking a witness statement from him, 'Ann Eaton' turned up, and she was told by one or other officer, that the bodies of 'Sheila' and 'June' had been on top of the parents bed in the main bedroom. Moreover, 'DS Jones' informed 'Ann Eaton' that 'Sheila' had taken her own life by way of a solitary shot under the chin'!
So, all this and that being true, then how did the bodies of the two victims, end up on the main bedroom floor, either side of the bed? Common sense and logic dictates that at the time 'Jones' and 'Clark' entered the main bedroom crime scene at around 9.10am, that 'June Bamber' could not yet, have been shot directly between the eyes, so somebody must have shot her, after 'Jones' and 'Clark' exited the crime scene? It is also true, that somebody fired a 2nd shot into 'Sheila Caffells neck' and that was when both victims died...
-
They weren't being looked for on day 1. JB wasn't a suspect then. By the time he was, it was too late to look.
As soon as SJ showed his face JB was guilty and it went from there. A hatchet job, wheels within wheels began.
-
As soon as SJ showed his face JB was guilty and it went from there. A hatchet job, wheels within wheels began.
He wasn't the only one, Lookout. Most of those who spoke to JB seemed to have got the impression he was guilty. Taff wasn't someone who tolerated opposition, so they kept quiet.
-
He wasn't the only one, Lookout. Most of those who spoke to JB seemed to have got the impression he was guilty. Taff wasn't someone who tolerated opposition, so they kept quiet.
Without proof as well----clever them. Wishful thinking for the " most " in their own ways, eh ?
-
When you have the last man standing, it isn't hard to arrive at the simplest of conclusions.
-
Without proof as well----clever them. Wishful thinking for the " most " in their own ways, eh ?
With practice gained, they were entitled to have reached reasoned conclusions -we all do it- based on training and experience. It certainly sounds as if more believed him guilty, after being in conversation with him, than innocent.
-
You're speaking as if he's a robot, Rob. What about having him spend some time going over what he'd done. Reflecting on how it went. Savouring his success. Musing over, not what he'd do if he HAD the money, but how he was going to spend it now he'd got it.
Sorry Jane you have totally lost me? At this stage how does JB know he has got away with the crime?
He has cycled across tracks, paths and fields with no lights but he might still have been seen, and someone hearing of the tragedy phoning the police days latter. Apart from all the things that might have given him away.
-
Sorry Jane you have totally lost me? At this stage how does JB know he has got away with the crime?
He has cycled across tracks, paths and fields with no lights but he might still have been seen, and someone hearing of the tragedy phoning the police days latter. Apart from all the things that might have given him away.
Well, they're dead, for starters. Are you familiar with the area, Rob? JB knew it intimately. The chances of him taking a route where being seen was a possibility is rather like looking for a hen with teeth. All villains have to take some chances, murderers who've planned it, more than most. However, I'll allow that he may have had a bit of a wobble about whether he's adequately covered his tracks and broken out in a cold sweat. It's good that you're accepting there'd have been more to it than casually getting washed, brushed up and changed.
-
When you have the last man standing, it isn't hard to arrive at the simplest of conclusions.
And just the tiniest seed of doubt. Once it's there, they'd have to run with it.
-
With practice gained, they were entitled to have reached reasoned conclusions -we all do it- based on training and experience. It certainly sounds as if more believed him guilty, after being in conversation with him, than innocent.
A lot would have depended on the conversation I think, but sadly like most accusatory conversations and thoughts at the time it was very one-sided and remained the same throughout the case, literally based upon hearsay of others but without the concrete evidence to convict him. Friends and family had acted as judge and jury simply because there was no evidence to prove his guilt other than nobody liked him.
-
Well, they're dead, for starters. Are you familiar with the area, Rob? JB knew it intimately. The chances of him taking a route where being seen was a possibility is rather like looking for a hen with teeth. All villains have to take some chances, murderers who've planned it, more than most. However, I'll allow that he may have had a bit of a wobble about whether he's adequately covered his tracks and broken out in a cold sweat. It's good that you're accepting there'd have been more to it than casually getting washed, brushed up and changed.
Did you listen to Barbara De'Ath's podcast interview. She poured a lot of scorn on the notion of cycling over the coastal wall and the fields in that era. There were divvets a plenty. And in the dark, across the divvets, with that bike?
-
Did you listen to Barbara De'Ath's podcast interview. She poured a lot of scorn on the notion of cycling over the costal wall and the fields in that era. There were divvets a plenty. And in the dark, across the divvets, with that bike?
I didn't, Roch, but I've read what she had to say and there certainly appears to have been an axe to grind re the site fees/moving of an aging caravan? I suspect she isn't a local and Osea is a long way from Goldhanger and even further from WHF. I suspect she has never made such a journey, at least not by bike, and definitely not on foot. I think JB was in his late teens at the times she holidayed there.
-
I didn't, Roch, but I've read what she had to say and there certainly appears to have been an axe to grind re the site fees/moving of an aging caravan? I suspect she isn't a local and Osea is a long way from Goldhanger and even further from WHF. I suspect she has never made such a journey, at least not by bike, and definitely not on foot. I think JB was in his late teens at the times she holidayed there.
I advise you should give it a listen. Even if she had an axe to grind (which is debatable), I doubt that could influence her opinion of how they land lay in terms of geography. She also provides an interesting anecdote about Mr Ainsley.
-
Mike I believe the person from whom you retrieved these documents has falsified them for his or her own purposes.
No, they did not, 'Lee' and 'Ian' were good people, who used to visit Jeremy regularly every fortnight or so at HMP Full Sutton, nr York. There was nothing sinister about the way I got access to a lot of documents from them. The documents had been stored in their garage, and they needed the space because they intended to turn the garage into living quarters for their daughter, who was pregnant. So, they either had to find someone who Jeremy could trust, or the only other alternative, was for the documents to be taken to HMP Full Sutton, and be placed in storage under private property of an inmate rules. However, 'Jeremys' application to allow this to happen, was turned down by the governor and security staff, on the basis that it was too big a consignment and their was insufficient space in reception in which to store them! As a result, I was asked to take possession of all the documents, which at first I was a bit hesitant to do so. In the end, however, only because if I didn't take responsibility for it all, it would all be thrown away into one of the skips located at a local 'dump-it' site in the Colchester area..
So, I agreed to become the guardian of all files belonging to 'Jeremys case', on the proviso that once the property was in my possession that 'Jeremy' could not ask me for the lot back. I agreed to send him, copies of any documents which I thought might be helpful to his cause, which when all the dust had settled, is what I did on a regular basis. There is nothing dodgy about any of the statements, documents or anything, just that most of the material contained in many statements, diagrams, and reports, had not previously disclosed to 'Jeremy' or those representing his interests at trial...
-
Well, they're dead, for starters. Are you familiar with the area, Rob? JB knew it intimately. The chances of him taking a route where being seen was a possibility is rather like looking for a hen with teeth. All villains have to take some chances, murderers who've planned it, more than most. However, I'll allow that he may have had a bit of a wobble about whether he's adequately covered his tracks and broken out in a cold sweat. It's good that you're accepting there'd have been more to it than casually getting washed, brushed up and changed.
Actually very few villains take unnecessary chances Jane, and very few would plan a crime and carry it out in such a way that there are only two suspects and they were one of them!
As for getting around at night without lights it's very difficult, because of my job I have been caught out several times so I know.
-
Did you listen to Barbara De'Ath's podcast interview. She poured a lot of scorn on the notion of cycling over the coastal wall and the fields in that era. There were divvets a plenty. And in the dark, across the divvets, with that bike?
Well Roch! What can I say? The podcast was no different from the blog, other that the intervention of a man, and a woman with a smoker's voice. From the CT, I assume.
I took notes so I wouldn't forget, but the main thrust, as I said previously, seems to be about a grudge held because they were asked to move their caravan back from the sea wall and "placed among the mozzies" and "they didn't want riff-raff like us" because "they wanted the site to be gentrified". This appears to have been of greater interest to her than talking about JB, a subject to which she frequently had to be bought back, spending the first 20 or so minutes talking about the site and their eventual decision, in the late 80's, to leave it, having not visited for several years.
She claims to have had, after purchasing the van in 82/83 -only two years before the tragedy and working full time- overnights and weekends there, rather than long holidays. It's very doubtful that there were that many occasions when JB was there. "Hardworking, industrious, shy"? Perhaps they weren't his type?
They make interesting sport of talking about the inaccessibility of taking a bike along the towpath, claiming it to be busy, cluttered with fishing chairs, people having barbeques!!, and a clutter of ducks, geese and insects inhibiting his ride. They claimed it as being too hot, too windy and too stony! Dear God, these pathetic town-dwellers!! I doubt that one of them tried it at the time JB would have been abroad. Too scared of the wild life, perhaps? Certainly not speaking about a night time trip. Their only references had them walking in the direction of Goldhanger from Osea, which is nowhere close to -in fact, opposite to- the route JB would have taken.
Ainsley? She felt intimidated. Did she? He threatened her? REALLY?!!! She then goes on to talk about the East End roots she's clearly proud of and how they never trusted police.
I'm not certain how she knows that many people left. It certainly doesn't seem to have harmed the business by it "gentrification". It's now a far remove from the one set up by Mabel Speakman to provide down time for their workers -presumably non profit making?- and has expanded into an award winning site. We have no way of knowing what would have become of it had it been in JB's hands.
-
Well Roch! What can I say? The podcast was no different from the blog, other that the intervention of a man, and a woman with a smoker's voice. From the CT, I assume.
I took notes so I wouldn't forget, but the main thrust, as I said previously, seems to be about a grudge held because they were asked to move their caravan back from the sea wall and "placed among the mozzies" and "they didn't want riff-raff like us" because "they wanted the site to be gentrified". This appears to have been of greater interest to her than talking about JB, a subject to which she frequently had to be bought back, spending the first 20 or so minutes talking about the site and their eventual decision, in the late 80's, to leave it, having not visited for several years.
She claims to have had, after purchasing the van in 82/83 -only two years before the tragedy and working full time- overnights and weekends there, rather than long holidays. It's very doubtful that there were that many occasions when JB was there. "Hardworking, industrious, shy"? Perhaps they weren't his type?
They make interesting sport of talking about the inaccessibility of taking a bike along the towpath, claiming it to be busy, cluttered with fishing chairs, people having barbeques!!, and a clutter of ducks, geese and insects inhibiting his ride. They claimed it as being too hot, too windy and too stony! Dear God, these pathetic town-dwellers!! I doubt that one of them tried it at the time JB would have been abroad. Too scared of the wild life, perhaps? Certainly not speaking about a night time trip. Their only references had them walking in the direction of Goldhanger from Osea, which is nowhere close to -in fact, opposite to- the route JB would have taken.
Ainsley? She felt intimidated. Did she? He threatened her? REALLY?!!! She then goes on to talk about the East End roots she's clearly proud of and how they never trusted police.
I'm not certain how she knows that many people left. It certainly doesn't seem to have harmed the business by it "gentrification". It's now a far remove from the one set up by Mabel Speakman to provide down time for their workers -presumably non profit making?- and has expanded into an award winning site. We have no way of knowing what would have become of it had it been in JB's hands.
Fair play to you for listening. I enjoyed reading your irreverent assessment. By irreverent, I mean humorous.
-
Actually very few villains take unnecessary chances Jane, and very few would plan a crime and carry it out in such a way that there are only two suspects and they were one of them!
As for getting around at night without lights it's very difficult, because of my job I have been caught out several times so I know.
Criminals do take chances, necessary and unnecessary. They have to take some chances, due to the nature of what they do, and they may take unnecessary chances, due to their own reckless nature, which is why they are criminals in the first place. Jeremy had a reckless nature. Under the right environmental influences, this could have been put to constructive ends: he was probably not aptly fitted for a conservative vocation like farming, but might have found a legitimate trade, profession or vocation that played to his grasshopper nature and recklessness. Instead, Jeremy came under the wrong influences and this came to its head in March 1985, when he broke into the site office at Osea Road and stole money. According to the prosecution case, in words echoed by Maurice Drake at sentencing, Jeremy knew he would come under suspicion for the burglary, but also calculated that his involvement could not be proved. He took the chance. Similarly, during cross-examination by Anthony Arlidge, Q.C., it is claimed that Jeremy said: "That is for you to establish". From one point of view, you can see here a consistent thread of thought, which is a reliance on not being caught, which is quite common to the criminal mentality.
Indeed, criminality often operates pragmatically in the grey area of 'reasonable doubt'. "Say nowt". "They can't prove it". "Stick to your story". Etc., etc.
The criminal may think that he will not be caught or that detection is improbable. To be fair, detection is improbable from a generalised statistical point-of-view. Most crimes go undetected, often not even noticed. On that point, it's interesting that Jeremy carried out the Osea Road burglary in such a manner that it would be noticed. He had staged it in the hope that people would lazily conclude it was an outside job, but he clearly did it this way because otherwise he knew that suspicion would be on him immediately if such a large sum of money were to go missing all at once without an apparent explanation. The staging of a burglary was crude psychology: an attempt to divert focus, but it didn't work. Jeremy would not have seen it as 'taking a chance', as such, but as part of his plan. He did not want to be caught, but knew he would eventually be suspected and relied on the grey area of doubt to see him through.
Turning to the shootings a few months later, if Jeremy is guilty, then he engineered a spectacle outside the farmhouse for the purpose of establishing an alibi. In contrast to the burglary, here he needs to make it look like an inside job. It's no good if the police start developing doubts and thinking it could have been somebody from outside. He believed that the police would enter the farmhouse, find everybody dead, and conclude that Sheila had shot everybody and herself while he was outside with the police. Indeed, this was the police conclusion. Engineering this required a number of things. For instance, he needed to enter and exit the farmhouse undetected and without leaving forensic traces. He needed to ring the police himself, so that he would be at the scene. This meant he needed Nevill to ring him, not the police. This involved taking a risk, which was that he would be making himself the centre of police attention, but the risk was acceptable to Jeremy because the plan involved many different steps and fail-safes that would divert police suspicion away from him, of which the phone call was just one element. Putting the rifle on Sheila's body after shooting her in the main bedroom was analogous to the conspicuous burglary of the Osea Road site office: it was another a diversion of focus, crude but clever psychology.
However, this is where we come to the first fundamental problem with the prosecution case. There is a problem of logic with this scenario: if the phone is downstairs, how does he get Nevill downstairs? Surely Sheila would kill everybody while they are still in bed? Hence, no phone call, hence Jeremy could be guilty, but maybe she wouldn't have had the chance, and Jeremy is still left with the problem that the phone call has to be made. Maybe there is an argument downstairs first? But how does Jeremy ensure Nevill is downstairs rather than in bed? Isn't it risky to allow Nevill to run downstairs? How does he know Nevill will run downstairs? What if Nevill struggles with him upstairs? What then? And why was there a struggle with Nevill downstairs, but not upstairs? The prosecution may say it is because Nevill was drawing fire from the women and boys, but how does Nevill know Jeremy will follow him and not just shoot him or, if out of ammunition, knock him out with the rifle stock? And if he shoots Nevill upstairs, will the police accept that a phone call was made from downstairs first? Maybe what happened is that Jeremy pushed the rifle into Nevill's back and Nevill complied and went downstairs? But if that is what happened, then where is Sheila at this stage? Does the prosecution case depend on her being asleep? We now have somebody in the guilt camp telling us she 'mentally' froze (as opposed to physically), but presumably this is when she is accosted by Jeremy. What is she doing in the meantime? Just sleeping? If she is sleeping, does she never wake? If she wakes, a whole host of other questions enter the picture. Maybe Nevill was downstairs all along and Jeremy incapacitated him first? Perhaps after shooting at him from the stair landing, hence the blood on the kitchen door jamb.
We can see immediately that the initial conclusion of Essex Police, the belief Sheila was the killer, has something important to commend it: it accords with Occam's razor in that it is the conclusion of the fewest parts. She is severely mentally-ill. She is found with the rifle. All the doors and windows are secure. To make Jeremy the killer, we have jump through lots of hoops, answering lots of different questions and solving riddles and problems. These questions, and others, and various problems with the evidence, in my view must lead to a position of reasonable doubt about Jeremy's legal guilt, which means that if he is factually guilty, his plan came dangerously close to succeeding and was only foiled by the doubts of one or two detectives, prompted by the observation of certain highly-subjective and contestable behavioural clues in the aftermath, the evidence of Julie Mugford (to whom he told everything), and the failure of the majority of the trial jury to observe the law and apply the correct standard of proof. Some people will dispute this of course and say that the majority jury decision was correct given the evidence of Julie Mugford. Why did Jeremy take the huge risk of telling her everything? Maybe for the reason I allude to above: he thought that his plan had worked and part of him needed to tell somebody, and Julie was his confederate in crime and close confidant. He was a criminal. He had committed a burglary and was a drug dealer and trafficker of drugs, and according to Liz Rimington, he had floated the idea of burgling houses in Goldhanger. Criminals are reckless and make flawed decisions. That's why they are criminals. Maybe that's all there is to it?
-
Criminals do take chances, necessary and unnecessary. They have to take some chances, due to the nature of what they do, and they may take unnecessary chances, due to their own reckless nature, which is why they are criminals in the first place. Jeremy had a reckless nature. Under the right environmental influences, this could have been put to constructive ends: he was probably not aptly fitted for a conservative vocation like farming, but might have found a legitimate trade, profession or vocation that played to his grasshopper nature and recklessness. Instead, Jeremy came under the wrong influences and this came to its head in March 1985, when he broke into the site office at Osea Road and stole money. According to the prosecution case, in words echoed by Maurice Drake at sentencing, Jeremy knew he would come under suspicion for the burglary, but also calculated that his involvement could not be proved. He took the chance. Similarly, during cross-examination by Anthony Arlidge, Q.C., it is claimed that Jeremy said: "That is for you to establish". From one point of view, you can see here a consistent thread of thought, which is a reliance on not being caught, which is quite common to the criminal mentality.
Indeed, criminality often operates pragmatically in the grey area of 'reasonable doubt'. "Say nowt". "They can't prove it". "Stick to your story". Etc., etc.
The criminal may think that he will not be caught or that detection is improbable. To be fair, detection is improbable from a generalised statistical point-of-view. Most crimes go undetected, often not even noticed. On that point, it's interesting that Jeremy carried out the Osea Road burglary in such a manner that it would be noticed. He had staged it in the hope that people would lazily conclude it was an outside job, but he clearly did it this way because otherwise he knew that suspicion would be on him immediately if such a large sum of money were to go missing all at once without an apparent explanation. The staging of a burglary was crude psychology: an attempt to divert focus, but it didn't work. Jeremy would not have seen it as 'taking a chance', as such, but as part of his plan. He did not want to be caught, but knew he would eventually be suspected and relied on the grey area of doubt to see him through.
Turning to the shootings a few months later, if Jeremy is guilty, then he engineered a spectacle outside the farmhouse for the purpose of establishing an alibi. In contrast to the burglary, here he needs to make it look like an inside job. It's no good if the police start developing doubts and thinking it could have been somebody from outside. He believed that the police would enter the farmhouse, find everybody dead, and conclude that Sheila had shot everybody and herself while he was outside with the police. Indeed, this was the police conclusion. Engineering this required a number of things. For instance, he needed to enter and exit the farmhouse undetected and without leaving forensic traces. He needed to ring the police himself, so that he would be at the scene. This meant he needed Nevill to ring him, not the police. This involved taking a risk, which was that he would be making himself the centre of police attention, but the risk was acceptable to Jeremy because the plan involved many different steps and fail-safes that would divert police suspicion away from him, of which the phone call was just one element. Putting the rifle on Sheila's body after shooting her in the main bedroom was analogous to the conspicuous burglary of the Osea Road site office: it was another a diversion of focus, crude but clever psychology.
However, this is where we come to the first fundamental problem with the prosecution case. There is a problem of logic with this scenario: if the phone is downstairs, how does he get Nevill downstairs? Surely Sheila would kill everybody while they are still in bed? Hence, no phone call, hence Jeremy could be guilty, but maybe she wouldn't have had the chance, and Jeremy is still left with the problem that the phone call has to be made. Maybe there is an argument downstairs first? But how does Jeremy ensure Nevill is downstairs rather than in bed? Isn't it risky to allow Nevill to run downstairs? How does he know Nevill will run downstairs? What if Nevill struggles with him upstairs? What then? And why was there a struggle with Nevill downstairs, but not upstairs? The prosecution may say it is because Nevill was drawing fire from the women and boys, but how does Nevill know Jeremy will follow him and not just shoot him or, if out of ammunition, knock him out with the rifle stock? And if he shoots Nevill upstairs, will the police accept that a phone call was made from downstairs first? Maybe what happened is that Jeremy pushed the rifle into Nevill's back and Nevill complied and went downstairs? But if that is what happened, then where is Sheila at this stage? Does the prosecution case depend on her being asleep? We now have somebody in the guilt camp telling us she 'mentally' froze (as opposed to physically), but presumably this is when she is accosted by Jeremy. What is she doing in the meantime? Just sleeping? If she is sleeping, does she never wake? If she wakes, a whole host of other questions enter the picture. Maybe Nevill was downstairs all along and Jeremy incapacitated him first? Perhaps after shooting at him from the stair landing, hence the blood on the kitchen door jamb.
We can see immediately that the initial conclusion of Essex Police, the belief Sheila was the killer, has something important to commend it: it accords with Occam's razor in that it is the conclusion of the fewest parts. She is severely mentally-ill. She is found with the rifle. All the doors and windows are secure. To make Jeremy the killer, we have jump through lots of hoops, answering lots of different questions and solving riddles and problems. These questions, and others, and various problems with the evidence, in my view must lead to a position of reasonable doubt about Jeremy's legal guilt, which means that if he is factually guilty, his plan came dangerously close to succeeding and was only foiled by the doubts of one or two detectives, prompted by the observation of certain highly-subjective and contestable behavioural clues in the aftermath, the evidence of Julie Mugford (to whom he told everything), and the failure of the majority of the trial jury to observe the law and apply the correct standard of proof. Some people will dispute this of course and say that the majority jury decision was correct given the evidence of Julie Mugford. Why did Jeremy take the huge risk of telling her everything? Maybe for the reason I allude to above: he thought that his plan had worked and part of him needed to tell somebody, and Julie was his confederate in crime and close confidant. He was a criminal. He had committed a burglary and was a drug dealer and trafficker of drugs, and according to Liz Rimington, he had floated the idea of burgling houses in Goldhanger. Criminals are reckless and make flawed decisions. That's why they are criminals. Maybe that's all there is to it?
Problem? I thought Bamber had been in prison since 1986
-
Criminals do take chances, necessary and unnecessary. They have to take some chances, due to the nature of what they do, and they may take unnecessary chances, due to their own reckless nature, which is why they are criminals in the first place. Jeremy had a reckless nature. Under the right environmental influences, this could have been put to constructive ends: he was probably not aptly fitted for a conservative vocation like farming, but might have found a legitimate trade, profession or vocation that played to his grasshopper nature and recklessness. Instead, Jeremy came under the wrong influences and this came to its head in March 1985, when he broke into the site office at Osea Road and stole money. According to the prosecution case, in words echoed by Maurice Drake at sentencing, Jeremy knew he would come under suspicion for the burglary, but also calculated that his involvement could not be proved. He took the chance. Similarly, during cross-examination by Anthony Arlidge, Q.C., it is claimed that Jeremy said: "That is for you to establish". From one point of view, you can see here a consistent thread of thought, which is a reliance on not being caught, which is quite common to the criminal mentality.
Indeed, criminality often operates pragmatically in the grey area of 'reasonable doubt'. "Say nowt". "They can't prove it". "Stick to your story". Etc., etc.
The criminal may think that he will not be caught or that detection is improbable. To be fair, detection is improbable from a generalised statistical point-of-view. Most crimes go undetected, often not even noticed. On that point, it's interesting that Jeremy carried out the Osea Road burglary in such a manner that it would be noticed. He had staged it in the hope that people would lazily conclude it was an outside job, but he clearly did it this way because otherwise he knew that suspicion would be on him immediately if such a large sum of money were to go missing all at once without an apparent explanation. The staging of a burglary was crude psychology: an attempt to divert focus, but it didn't work. Jeremy would not have seen it as 'taking a chance', as such, but as part of his plan. He did not want to be caught, but knew he would eventually be suspected and relied on the grey area of doubt to see him through.
Turning to the shootings a few months later, if Jeremy is guilty, then he engineered a spectacle outside the farmhouse for the purpose of establishing an alibi. In contrast to the burglary, here he needs to make it look like an inside job. It's no good if the police start developing doubts and thinking it could have been somebody from outside. He believed that the police would enter the farmhouse, find everybody dead, and conclude that Sheila had shot everybody and herself while he was outside with the police. Indeed, this was the police conclusion. Engineering this required a number of things. For instance, he needed to enter and exit the farmhouse undetected and without leaving forensic traces. He needed to ring the police himself, so that he would be at the scene. This meant he needed Nevill to ring him, not the police. This involved taking a risk, which was that he would be making himself the centre of police attention, but the risk was acceptable to Jeremy because the plan involved many different steps and fail-safes that would divert police suspicion away from him, of which the phone call was just one element. Putting the rifle on Sheila's body after shooting her in the main bedroom was analogous to the conspicuous burglary of the Osea Road site office: it was another a diversion of focus, crude but clever psychology.
However, this is where we come to the first fundamental problem with the prosecution case. There is a problem of logic with this scenario: if the phone is downstairs, how does he get Nevill downstairs? Surely Sheila would kill everybody while they are still in bed? Hence, no phone call, hence Jeremy could be guilty, but maybe she wouldn't have had the chance, and Jeremy is still left with the problem that the phone call has to be made. Maybe there is an argument downstairs first? But how does Jeremy ensure Nevill is downstairs rather than in bed? Isn't it risky to allow Nevill to run downstairs? How does he know Nevill will run downstairs? What if Nevill struggles with him upstairs? What then? And why was there a struggle with Nevill downstairs, but not upstairs? The prosecution may say it is because Nevill was drawing fire from the women and boys, but how does Nevill know Jeremy will follow him and not just shoot him or, if out of ammunition, knock him out with the rifle stock? And if he shoots Nevill upstairs, will the police accept that a phone call was made from downstairs first? Maybe what happened is that Jeremy pushed the rifle into Nevill's back and Nevill complied and went downstairs? But if that is what happened, then where is Sheila at this stage? Does the prosecution case depend on her being asleep? We now have somebody in the guilt camp telling us she 'mentally' froze (as opposed to physically), but presumably this is when she is accosted by Jeremy. What is she doing in the meantime? Just sleeping? If she is sleeping, does she never wake? If she wakes, a whole host of other questions enter the picture. Maybe Nevill was downstairs all along and Jeremy incapacitated him first? Perhaps after shooting at him from the stair landing, hence the blood on the kitchen door jamb.
We can see immediately that the initial conclusion of Essex Police, the belief Sheila was the killer, has something important to commend it: it accords with Occam's razor in that it is the conclusion of the fewest parts. She is severely mentally-ill. She is found with the rifle. All the doors and windows are secure. To make Jeremy the killer, we have jump through lots of hoops, answering lots of different questions and solving riddles and problems. These questions, and others, and various problems with the evidence, in my view must lead to a position of reasonable doubt about Jeremy's legal guilt, which means that if he is factually guilty, his plan came dangerously close to succeeding and was only foiled by the doubts of one or two detectives, prompted by the observation of certain highly-subjective and contestable behavioural clues in the aftermath, the evidence of Julie Mugford (to whom he told everything), and the failure of the majority of the trial jury to observe the law and apply the correct standard of proof. Some people will dispute this of course and say that the majority jury decision was correct given the evidence of Julie Mugford. Why did Jeremy take the huge risk of telling her everything? Maybe for the reason I allude to above: he thought that his plan had worked and part of him needed to tell somebody, and Julie was his confederate in crime and close confidant. He was a criminal. He had committed a burglary and was a drug dealer and trafficker of drugs, and according to Liz Rimington, he had floated the idea of burgling houses in Goldhanger. Criminals are reckless and make flawed decisions. That's why they are criminals. Maybe that's all there is to it?
A phone was in the main bedroom. Moved by Bamber after Nevill got downstairs.
-
Criminals do take chances, necessary and unnecessary. They have to take some chances, due to the nature of what they do, and they may take unnecessary chances, due to their own reckless nature, which is why they are criminals in the first place. Jeremy had a reckless nature. Under the right environmental influences, this could have been put to constructive ends: he was probably not aptly fitted for a conservative vocation like farming, but might have found a legitimate trade, profession or vocation that played to his grasshopper nature and recklessness. Instead, Jeremy came under the wrong influences and this came to its head in March 1985, when he broke into the site office at Osea Road and stole money. According to the prosecution case, in words echoed by Maurice Drake at sentencing, Jeremy knew he would come under suspicion for the burglary, but also calculated that his involvement could not be proved. He took the chance. Similarly, during cross-examination by Anthony Arlidge, Q.C., it is claimed that Jeremy said: "That is for you to establish". From one point of view, you can see here a consistent thread of thought, which is a reliance on not being caught, which is quite common to the criminal mentality.
Indeed, criminality often operates pragmatically in the grey area of 'reasonable doubt'. "Say nowt". "They can't prove it". "Stick to your story". Etc., etc.
The criminal may think that he will not be caught or that detection is improbable. To be fair, detection is improbable from a generalised statistical point-of-view. Most crimes go undetected, often not even noticed. On that point, it's interesting that Jeremy carried out the Osea Road burglary in such a manner that it would be noticed. He had staged it in the hope that people would lazily conclude it was an outside job, but he clearly did it this way because otherwise he knew that suspicion would be on him immediately if such a large sum of money were to go missing all at once without an apparent explanation. The staging of a burglary was crude psychology: an attempt to divert focus, but it didn't work. Jeremy would not have seen it as 'taking a chance', as such, but as part of his plan. He did not want to be caught, but knew he would eventually be suspected and relied on the grey area of doubt to see him through.
Turning to the shootings a few months later, if Jeremy is guilty, then he engineered a spectacle outside the farmhouse for the purpose of establishing an alibi. In contrast to the burglary, here he needs to make it look like an inside job. It's no good if the police start developing doubts and thinking it could have been somebody from outside. He believed that the police would enter the farmhouse, find everybody dead, and conclude that Sheila had shot everybody and herself while he was outside with the police. Indeed, this was the police conclusion. Engineering this required a number of things. For instance, he needed to enter and exit the farmhouse undetected and without leaving forensic traces. He needed to ring the police himself, so that he would be at the scene. This meant he needed Nevill to ring him, not the police. This involved taking a risk, which was that he would be making himself the centre of police attention, but the risk was acceptable to Jeremy because the plan involved many different steps and fail-safes that would divert police suspicion away from him, of which the phone call was just one element. Putting the rifle on Sheila's body after shooting her in the main bedroom was analogous to the conspicuous burglary of the Osea Road site office: it was another a diversion of focus, crude but clever psychology.
However, this is where we come to the first fundamental problem with the prosecution case. There is a problem of logic with this scenario: if the phone is downstairs, how does he get Nevill downstairs? Surely Sheila would kill everybody while they are still in bed? Hence, no phone call, hence Jeremy could be guilty, but maybe she wouldn't have had the chance, and Jeremy is still left with the problem that the phone call has to be made. Maybe there is an argument downstairs first? But how does Jeremy ensure Nevill is downstairs rather than in bed? Isn't it risky to allow Nevill to run downstairs? How does he know Nevill will run downstairs? What if Nevill struggles with him upstairs? What then? And why was there a struggle with Nevill downstairs, but not upstairs? The prosecution may say it is because Nevill was drawing fire from the women and boys, but how does Nevill know Jeremy will follow him and not just shoot him or, if out of ammunition, knock him out with the rifle stock? And if he shoots Nevill upstairs, will the police accept that a phone call was made from downstairs first? Maybe what happened is that Jeremy pushed the rifle into Nevill's back and Nevill complied and went downstairs? But if that is what happened, then where is Sheila at this stage? Does the prosecution case depend on her being asleep? We now have somebody in the guilt camp telling us she 'mentally' froze (as opposed to physically), but presumably this is when she is accosted by Jeremy. What is she doing in the meantime? Just sleeping? If she is sleeping, does she never wake? If she wakes, a whole host of other questions enter the picture. Maybe Nevill was downstairs all along and Jeremy incapacitated him first? Perhaps after shooting at him from the stair landing, hence the blood on the kitchen door jamb.
We can see immediately that the initial conclusion of Essex Police, the belief Sheila was the killer, has something important to commend it: it accords with Occam's razor in that it is the conclusion of the fewest parts. She is severely mentally-ill. She is found with the rifle. All the doors and windows are secure. To make Jeremy the killer, we have jump through lots of hoops, answering lots of different questions and solving riddles and problems. These questions, and others, and various problems with the evidence, in my view must lead to a position of reasonable doubt about Jeremy's legal guilt, which means that if he is factually guilty, his plan came dangerously close to succeeding and was only foiled by the doubts of one or two detectives, prompted by the observation of certain highly-subjective and contestable behavioural clues in the aftermath, the evidence of Julie Mugford (to whom he told everything), and the failure of the majority of the trial jury to observe the law and apply the correct standard of proof. Some people will dispute this of course and say that the majority jury decision was correct given the evidence of Julie Mugford. Why did Jeremy take the huge risk of telling her everything? Maybe for the reason I allude to above: he thought that his plan had worked and part of him needed to tell somebody, and Julie was his confederate in crime and close confidant. He was a criminal. He had committed a burglary and was a drug dealer and trafficker of drugs, and according to Liz Rimington, he had floated the idea of burgling houses in Goldhanger. Criminals are reckless and make flawed decisions. That's why they are criminals. Maybe that's all there is to it?
Bamber planned to kill Nevill and June in the main bedroom. He fired 9 shots into them in his opening salvo.
He was strong enough to then take Nevill a few feet from the bed. To give the impression Nevill had been out of bed. Better still Nevill would have the energy to stagger a few feet before collapsing.
He would then take the bedroom phone off the hook.
However Nevill got past him & went downstairs. Or followed Bamber when he went to re load.
-
Criminals do take chances, necessary and unnecessary. They have to take some chances, due to the nature of what they do, and they may take unnecessary chances, due to their own reckless nature, which is why they are criminals in the first place. Jeremy had a reckless nature. Under the right environmental influences, this could have been put to constructive ends: he was probably not aptly fitted for a conservative vocation like farming, but might have found a legitimate trade, profession or vocation that played to his grasshopper nature and recklessness. Instead, Jeremy came under the wrong influences and this came to its head in March 1985, when he broke into the site office at Osea Road and stole money. According to the prosecution case, in words echoed by Maurice Drake at sentencing, Jeremy knew he would come under suspicion for the burglary, but also calculated that his involvement could not be proved. He took the chance. Similarly, during cross-examination by Anthony Arlidge, Q.C., it is claimed that Jeremy said: "That is for you to establish". From one point of view, you can see here a consistent thread of thought, which is a reliance on not being caught, which is quite common to the criminal mentality.
Indeed, criminality often operates pragmatically in the grey area of 'reasonable doubt'. "Say nowt". "They can't prove it". "Stick to your story". Etc., etc.
The criminal may think that he will not be caught or that detection is improbable. To be fair, detection is improbable from a generalised statistical point-of-view. Most crimes go undetected, often not even noticed. On that point, it's interesting that Jeremy carried out the Osea Road burglary in such a manner that it would be noticed. He had staged it in the hope that people would lazily conclude it was an outside job, but he clearly did it this way because otherwise he knew that suspicion would be on him immediately if such a large sum of money were to go missing all at once without an apparent explanation. The staging of a burglary was crude psychology: an attempt to divert focus, but it didn't work. Jeremy would not have seen it as 'taking a chance', as such, but as part of his plan. He did not want to be caught, but knew he would eventually be suspected and relied on the grey area of doubt to see him through.
Turning to the shootings a few months later, if Jeremy is guilty, then he engineered a spectacle outside the farmhouse for the purpose of establishing an alibi. In contrast to the burglary, here he needs to make it look like an inside job. It's no good if the police start developing doubts and thinking it could have been somebody from outside. He believed that the police would enter the farmhouse, find everybody dead, and conclude that Sheila had shot everybody and herself while he was outside with the police. Indeed, this was the police conclusion. Engineering this required a number of things. For instance, he needed to enter and exit the farmhouse undetected and without leaving forensic traces. He needed to ring the police himself, so that he would be at the scene. This meant he needed Nevill to ring him, not the police. This involved taking a risk, which was that he would be making himself the centre of police attention, but the risk was acceptable to Jeremy because the plan involved many different steps and fail-safes that would divert police suspicion away from him, of which the phone call was just one element. Putting the rifle on Sheila's body after shooting her in the main bedroom was analogous to the conspicuous burglary of the Osea Road site office: it was another a diversion of focus, crude but clever psychology.
However, this is where we come to the first fundamental problem with the prosecution case. There is a problem of logic with this scenario: if the phone is downstairs, how does he get Nevill downstairs? Surely Sheila would kill everybody while they are still in bed? Hence, no phone call, hence Jeremy could be guilty, but maybe she wouldn't have had the chance, and Jeremy is still left with the problem that the phone call has to be made. Maybe there is an argument downstairs first? But how does Jeremy ensure Nevill is downstairs rather than in bed? Isn't it risky to allow Nevill to run downstairs? How does he know Nevill will run downstairs? What if Nevill struggles with him upstairs? What then? And why was there a struggle with Nevill downstairs, but not upstairs? The prosecution may say it is because Nevill was drawing fire from the women and boys, but how does Nevill know Jeremy will follow him and not just shoot him or, if out of ammunition, knock him out with the rifle stock? And if he shoots Nevill upstairs, will the police accept that a phone call was made from downstairs first? Maybe what happened is that Jeremy pushed the rifle into Nevill's back and Nevill complied and went downstairs? But if that is what happened, then where is Sheila at this stage? Does the prosecution case depend on her being asleep? We now have somebody in the guilt camp telling us she 'mentally' froze (as opposed to physically), but presumably this is when she is accosted by Jeremy. What is she doing in the meantime? Just sleeping? If she is sleeping, does she never wake? If she wakes, a whole host of other questions enter the picture. Maybe Nevill was downstairs all along and Jeremy incapacitated him first? Perhaps after shooting at him from the stair landing, hence the blood on the kitchen door jamb.
We can see immediately that the initial conclusion of Essex Police, the belief Sheila was the killer, has something important to commend it: it accords with Occam's razor in that it is the conclusion of the fewest parts. She is severely mentally-ill. She is found with the rifle. All the doors and windows are secure. To make Jeremy the killer, we have jump through lots of hoops, answering lots of different questions and solving riddles and problems. These questions, and others, and various problems with the evidence, in my view must lead to a position of reasonable doubt about Jeremy's legal guilt, which means that if he is factually guilty, his plan came dangerously close to succeeding and was only foiled by the doubts of one or two detectives, prompted by the observation of certain highly-subjective and contestable behavioural clues in the aftermath, the evidence of Julie Mugford (to whom he told everything), and the failure of the majority of the trial jury to observe the law and apply the correct standard of proof. Some people will dispute this of course and say that the majority jury decision was correct given the evidence of Julie Mugford. Why did Jeremy take the huge risk of telling her everything? Maybe for the reason I allude to above: he thought that his plan had worked and part of him needed to tell somebody, and Julie was his confederate in crime and close confidant. He was a criminal. He had committed a burglary and was a drug dealer and trafficker of drugs, and according to Liz Rimington, he had floated the idea of burgling houses in Goldhanger. Criminals are reckless and make flawed decisions. That's why they are criminals. Maybe that's all there is to it?
In my view Sheila slept through the downstairs kitchen fight. The evidence is she was very docile from the Haloperiodal & behind thick walls & doors.
However if she did wake & get up, Bamber would deal with the situation. As another poster said, she may have froze. Which would have made it easy but this was not essential for him.
Either way it would be the same result - Sheila lying with rifle across her.
-
Criminals do take chances, necessary and unnecessary. They have to take some chances, due to the nature of what they do, and they may take unnecessary chances, due to their own reckless nature, which is why they are criminals in the first place. Jeremy had a reckless nature. Under the right environmental influences, this could have been put to constructive ends: he was probably not aptly fitted for a conservative vocation like farming, but might have found a legitimate trade, profession or vocation that played to his grasshopper nature and recklessness. Instead, Jeremy came under the wrong influences and this came to its head in March 1985, when he broke into the site office at Osea Road and stole money. According to the prosecution case, in words echoed by Maurice Drake at sentencing, Jeremy knew he would come under suspicion for the burglary, but also calculated that his involvement could not be proved. He took the chance. Similarly, during cross-examination by Anthony Arlidge, Q.C., it is claimed that Jeremy said: "That is for you to establish". From one point of view, you can see here a consistent thread of thought, which is a reliance on not being caught, which is quite common to the criminal mentality.
Indeed, criminality often operates pragmatically in the grey area of 'reasonable doubt'. "Say nowt". "They can't prove it". "Stick to your story". Etc., etc.
The criminal may think that he will not be caught or that detection is improbable. To be fair, detection is improbable from a generalised statistical point-of-view. Most crimes go undetected, often not even noticed. On that point, it's interesting that Jeremy carried out the Osea Road burglary in such a manner that it would be noticed. He had staged it in the hope that people would lazily conclude it was an outside job, but he clearly did it this way because otherwise he knew that suspicion would be on him immediately if such a large sum of money were to go missing all at once without an apparent explanation. The staging of a burglary was crude psychology: an attempt to divert focus, but it didn't work. Jeremy would not have seen it as 'taking a chance', as such, but as part of his plan. He did not want to be caught, but knew he would eventually be suspected and relied on the grey area of doubt to see him through.
Turning to the shootings a few months later, if Jeremy is guilty, then he engineered a spectacle outside the farmhouse for the purpose of establishing an alibi. In contrast to the burglary, here he needs to make it look like an inside job. It's no good if the police start developing doubts and thinking it could have been somebody from outside. He believed that the police would enter the farmhouse, find everybody dead, and conclude that Sheila had shot everybody and herself while he was outside with the police. Indeed, this was the police conclusion. Engineering this required a number of things. For instance, he needed to enter and exit the farmhouse undetected and without leaving forensic traces. He needed to ring the police himself, so that he would be at the scene. This meant he needed Nevill to ring him, not the police. This involved taking a risk, which was that he would be making himself the centre of police attention, but the risk was acceptable to Jeremy because the plan involved many different steps and fail-safes that would divert police suspicion away from him, of which the phone call was just one element. Putting the rifle on Sheila's body after shooting her in the main bedroom was analogous to the conspicuous burglary of the Osea Road site office: it was another a diversion of focus, crude but clever psychology.
However, this is where we come to the first fundamental problem with the prosecution case. There is a problem of logic with this scenario: if the phone is downstairs, how does he get Nevill downstairs? Surely Sheila would kill everybody while they are still in bed? Hence, no phone call, hence Jeremy could be guilty, but maybe she wouldn't have had the chance, and Jeremy is still left with the problem that the phone call has to be made. Maybe there is an argument downstairs first? But how does Jeremy ensure Nevill is downstairs rather than in bed? Isn't it risky to allow Nevill to run downstairs? How does he know Nevill will run downstairs? What if Nevill struggles with him upstairs? What then? And why was there a struggle with Nevill downstairs, but not upstairs? The prosecution may say it is because Nevill was drawing fire from the women and boys, but how does Nevill know Jeremy will follow him and not just shoot him or, if out of ammunition, knock him out with the rifle stock? And if he shoots Nevill upstairs, will the police accept that a phone call was made from downstairs first? Maybe what happened is that Jeremy pushed the rifle into Nevill's back and Nevill complied and went downstairs? But if that is what happened, then where is Sheila at this stage? Does the prosecution case depend on her being asleep? We now have somebody in the guilt camp telling us she 'mentally' froze (as opposed to physically), but presumably this is when she is accosted by Jeremy. What is she doing in the meantime? Just sleeping? If she is sleeping, does she never wake? If she wakes, a whole host of other questions enter the picture. Maybe Nevill was downstairs all along and Jeremy incapacitated him first? Perhaps after shooting at him from the stair landing, hence the blood on the kitchen door jamb.
We can see immediately that the initial conclusion of Essex Police, the belief Sheila was the killer, has something important to commend it: it accords with Occam's razor in that it is the conclusion of the fewest parts. She is severely mentally-ill. She is found with the rifle. All the doors and windows are secure. To make Jeremy the killer, we have jump through lots of hoops, answering lots of different questions and solving riddles and problems. These questions, and others, and various problems with the evidence, in my view must lead to a position of reasonable doubt about Jeremy's legal guilt, which means that if he is factually guilty, his plan came dangerously close to succeeding and was only foiled by the doubts of one or two detectives, prompted by the observation of certain highly-subjective and contestable behavioural clues in the aftermath, the evidence of Julie Mugford (to whom he told everything), and the failure of the majority of the trial jury to observe the law and apply the correct standard of proof. Some people will dispute this of course and say that the majority jury decision was correct given the evidence of Julie Mugford. Why did Jeremy take the huge risk of telling her everything? Maybe for the reason I allude to above: he thought that his plan had worked and part of him needed to tell somebody, and Julie was his confederate in crime and close confidant. He was a criminal. He had committed a burglary and was a drug dealer and trafficker of drugs, and according to Liz Rimington, he had floated the idea of burgling houses in Goldhanger. Criminals are reckless and make flawed decisions. That's why they are criminals. Maybe that's all there is to it?
You know Bamber could bang shut the kitchen window from outside.
-
Criminals do take chances, necessary and unnecessary. They have to take some chances, due to the nature of what they do, and they may take unnecessary chances, due to their own reckless nature, which is why they are criminals in the first place. Jeremy had a reckless nature. Under the right environmental influences, this could have been put to constructive ends: he was probably not aptly fitted for a conservative vocation like farming, but might have found a legitimate trade, profession or vocation that played to his grasshopper nature and recklessness. Instead, Jeremy came under the wrong influences and this came to its head in March 1985, when he broke into the site office at Osea Road and stole money. According to the prosecution case, in words echoed by Maurice Drake at sentencing, Jeremy knew he would come under suspicion for the burglary, but also calculated that his involvement could not be proved. He took the chance. Similarly, during cross-examination by Anthony Arlidge, Q.C., it is claimed that Jeremy said: "That is for you to establish". From one point of view, you can see here a consistent thread of thought, which is a reliance on not being caught, which is quite common to the criminal mentality.
Indeed, criminality often operates pragmatically in the grey area of 'reasonable doubt'. "Say nowt". "They can't prove it". "Stick to your story". Etc., etc.
The criminal may think that he will not be caught or that detection is improbable. To be fair, detection is improbable from a generalised statistical point-of-view. Most crimes go undetected, often not even noticed. On that point, it's interesting that Jeremy carried out the Osea Road burglary in such a manner that it would be noticed. He had staged it in the hope that people would lazily conclude it was an outside job, but he clearly did it this way because otherwise he knew that suspicion would be on him immediately if such a large sum of money were to go missing all at once without an apparent explanation. The staging of a burglary was crude psychology: an attempt to divert focus, but it didn't work. Jeremy would not have seen it as 'taking a chance', as such, but as part of his plan. He did not want to be caught, but knew he would eventually be suspected and relied on the grey area of doubt to see him through.
Turning to the shootings a few months later, if Jeremy is guilty, then he engineered a spectacle outside the farmhouse for the purpose of establishing an alibi. In contrast to the burglary, here he needs to make it look like an inside job. It's no good if the police start developing doubts and thinking it could have been somebody from outside. He believed that the police would enter the farmhouse, find everybody dead, and conclude that Sheila had shot everybody and herself while he was outside with the police. Indeed, this was the police conclusion. Engineering this required a number of things. For instance, he needed to enter and exit the farmhouse undetected and without leaving forensic traces. He needed to ring the police himself, so that he would be at the scene. This meant he needed Nevill to ring him, not the police. This involved taking a risk, which was that he would be making himself the centre of police attention, but the risk was acceptable to Jeremy because the plan involved many different steps and fail-safes that would divert police suspicion away from him, of which the phone call was just one element. Putting the rifle on Sheila's body after shooting her in the main bedroom was analogous to the conspicuous burglary of the Osea Road site office: it was another a diversion of focus, crude but clever psychology.
However, this is where we come to the first fundamental problem with the prosecution case. There is a problem of logic with this scenario: if the phone is downstairs, how does he get Nevill downstairs? Surely Sheila would kill everybody while they are still in bed? Hence, no phone call, hence Jeremy could be guilty, but maybe she wouldn't have had the chance, and Jeremy is still left with the problem that the phone call has to be made. Maybe there is an argument downstairs first? But how does Jeremy ensure Nevill is downstairs rather than in bed? Isn't it risky to allow Nevill to run downstairs? How does he know Nevill will run downstairs? What if Nevill struggles with him upstairs? What then? And why was there a struggle with Nevill downstairs, but not upstairs? The prosecution may say it is because Nevill was drawing fire from the women and boys, but how does Nevill know Jeremy will follow him and not just shoot him or, if out of ammunition, knock him out with the rifle stock? And if he shoots Nevill upstairs, will the police accept that a phone call was made from downstairs first? Maybe what happened is that Jeremy pushed the rifle into Nevill's back and Nevill complied and went downstairs? But if that is what happened, then where is Sheila at this stage? Does the prosecution case depend on her being asleep? We now have somebody in the guilt camp telling us she 'mentally' froze (as opposed to physically), but presumably this is when she is accosted by Jeremy. What is she doing in the meantime? Just sleeping? If she is sleeping, does she never wake? If she wakes, a whole host of other questions enter the picture. Maybe Nevill was downstairs all along and Jeremy incapacitated him first? Perhaps after shooting at him from the stair landing, hence the blood on the kitchen door jamb.
We can see immediately that the initial conclusion of Essex Police, the belief Sheila was the killer, has something important to commend it: it accords with Occam's razor in that it is the conclusion of the fewest parts. She is severely mentally-ill. She is found with the rifle. All the doors and windows are secure. To make Jeremy the killer, we have jump through lots of hoops, answering lots of different questions and solving riddles and problems. These questions, and others, and various problems with the evidence, in my view must lead to a position of reasonable doubt about Jeremy's legal guilt, which means that if he is factually guilty, his plan came dangerously close to succeeding and was only foiled by the doubts of one or two detectives, prompted by the observation of certain highly-subjective and contestable behavioural clues in the aftermath, the evidence of Julie Mugford (to whom he told everything), and the failure of the majority of the trial jury to observe the law and apply the correct standard of proof. Some people will dispute this of course and say that the majority jury decision was correct given the evidence of Julie Mugford. Why did Jeremy take the huge risk of telling her everything? Maybe for the reason I allude to above: he thought that his plan had worked and part of him needed to tell somebody, and Julie was his confederate in crime and close confidant. He was a criminal. He had committed a burglary and was a drug dealer and trafficker of drugs, and according to Liz Rimington, he had floated the idea of burgling houses in Goldhanger. Criminals are reckless and make flawed decisions. That's why they are criminals. Maybe that's all there is to it?
Bamber was with Julie for 18 months. So confided in her over this period. Then had to keep her with him for a few weeks afterwards.
There is no way Julie would perjure herself so seriously.
-
The 6 main points in QC's long post all have simple answers.
Hopefully QC helps Rob out with his 'Sheila scenario'.
-
A lot would have depended on the conversation I think, but sadly like most accusatory conversations and thoughts at the time it was very one-sided and remained the same throughout the case, literally based upon hearsay of others but without the concrete evidence to convict him. Friends and family had acted as judge and jury simply because there was no evidence to prove his guilt other than nobody liked him.
In those first few hours, the conversations would have been entirely conciliatory and supportive. JB's was the only input they had. I doubt that each officer was given a script to follow. Their conclusions, like many of ours, were gut instinct.
-
Actually very few villains take unnecessary chances Jane, and very few would plan a crime and carry it out in such a way that there are only two suspects and they were one of them!
As for getting around at night without lights it's very difficult, because of my job I have been caught out several times so I know.
Chances are subjective, Rob. They're also dependent on what the ultimate prize is.
If you knew the area, you'd know just how easy it would be for someone, who'd lived there all their life, to find their way around in the dark.
-
This morning, 'Adam' has posted six times in succession to the same thread over the course of a twenty minute period. In each of these posts, he quotes my own post in full. The times of his posts are as follows:
5.43 a.m.
5.45 a.m.
5.50 a.m.
5.53 a.m.
6.01 a.m.
6.05 a.m.
That's crazy.
-
This morning, 'Adam' has posted six times in succession to the same thread over the course of a twenty minute period. In each of these posts, he quotes my own post in full. The times of his posts are as follows:
5.43 a.m.
5.45 a.m.
5.50 a.m.
5.53 a.m.
6.01 a.m.
6.05 a.m.
That's crazy.
It would be appreciated if Adam could incorporate his points within fewer posts. Maybe things come to him in separate realisations and he posts accordingly. I previously suggested using a word document which could be edited and then copy and pasted in to a post, as a possible method for reducing multiple posts.
-
It would be appreciated if Adam could incorporate his points within fewer posts. Maybe things come to him in separate realisations and he posts accordingly. I previously suggested using a word document which could be edited and then copy and pasted in to a post, as a possible method for reducing multiple posts.
I used to copy & paste sections of QC's posts. Then reply underneath. This took up less room. However QC complained about that to NGB.
Now I quote his post & highlight in bold the bit I am responding to. Other posters also post this way.
QC does write very long posts which incorporate lots of different things. So multiple replies are needed. When I do decide to read/respond to a post of his.
-
This morning, 'Adam' has posted six times in succession to the same thread over the course of a twenty minute period. In each of these posts, he quotes my own post in full. The times of his posts are as follows:
5.43 a.m.
5.45 a.m.
5.50 a.m.
5.53 a.m.
6.01 a.m.
6.05 a.m.
That's crazy.
I spent 22 minutes responding to your post which probably took you longer to write.
Nothing crazy about that.
-
I used to copy & paste sections of QC's posts. Then reply underneath. This took up less room. However QC complained about that to NGB.
Now I quote his post & highlight in bold the bit I am responding to. Other posters also post this way.
QC does write very long posts which incorporate lots of different things. So multiple replies are needed. When I do decide to read/respond to a post of his.
If your persona on here is not just a massive wind-up, then I believe you are really quite nutty.
-
This morning, 'Adam' has posted six times in succession to the same thread over the course of a twenty minute period. In each of these posts, he quotes my own post in full. The times of his posts are as follows:
5.43 a.m.
5.45 a.m.
5.50 a.m.
5.53 a.m.
6.01 a.m.
6.05 a.m.
That's crazy.
I agree and it should stop. I hope Adam will take note.
-
I agree and it should stop. I hope Adam will take note.
QC can always write shorter posts that don't incorporate dozens of different issues. No one else posts like that.
I'll revert back to copying & pasting sections of his posts. Then replying underneath. This takes up less room. When I do decide to read/reply.
-
If your persona on here is not just a massive wind-up, then I believe you are really quite nutty.
You should not be on here. You got banned 3 times. The third time a permanent ban.
However have contempt for the forum & started posting days later as if nothing happened.
-
Chances are subjective, Rob. They're also dependent on what the ultimate prize is.
If you knew the area, you'd know just how easy it would be for someone, who'd lived there all their life, to find their way around in the dark.
Maybe Bamber would have got lost in the dark. Cycling 3 miles between two locations.
One where he currently lived. The other where he used to live & currently worked.
-
You should not be on here. You got banned 3 times. The third time a permanent ban.
However have contempt for the forum & started posting days later as if nothing happened.
And you're " Mr Perfect " Adam ? Tsk. You're the most annoying twerp who's ever posted !
-
It would be appreciated if Adam could incorporate his points within fewer posts. Maybe things come to him in separate realisations and he posts accordingly. I previously suggested using a word document which could be edited and then copy and pasted in to a post, as a possible method for reducing multiple posts.
We do try not to call fellow-members "crazy" and "nutty".
-
We do try not to call fellow-members "crazy" and "nutty".
Why not? If people behave in a strange manner, and if it's disruptive, and if polite requests are ignored, isn't there a natural conclusion that one can come to?
It has nothing to do with his views. I've encountered people on the innocent side who are quite crackers.
This case attracts them. You yourself came on this Forum on New Year Eve's just to insult me. You spent October to December coming on the Forum and doing nothing but insulting me. I had to issue you with a harassment notice. You're barmy.
-
I think Steve is probably referring to the label, crazy (or barmy) as applied to a person, due to such terms having fell out of favour with regard to the mental health of any person. These days it is more accepted to apply such terms to an action rather than a person. Thus, Adam's multiple reply method might be deemed 'crazy' without implying that Adam himself is 'crazy'. This may have been what Gascoigne actually meant. Though, I am surmising here.
-
I think Steve is probably referring to the label, crazy (or barmy) as applied to a person, due such terms having fell out of favour with regard to the mental health of any person. These days it is more accepted to apply such terms to an action rather than a person. Thus, Adam's multiple reply method might be deemed 'crazy' without implying that Adam himself is 'crazy'. This may have been what Gascoigne actually meant. Though, I am surmising here.
Very charitable of you, Roch :)
-
Very charitable of you, Roch :)
Well I could be wrong. I'm sure that if I am, I will be informed 😏
-
I think Steve is probably referring to the label, crazy (or barmy) as applied to a person, due to such terms having fell out of favour with regard to the mental health of any person. These days it is more accepted to apply such terms to an action rather than a person. Thus, Adam's multiple reply method might be deemed 'crazy' without implying that Adam himself is 'crazy'. This may have been what Gascoigne actually meant. Though, I am surmising here.
As far as #150 is concerned I think the Moderator/s should take action before this site degenerates into constant, mutual, vitriolic abuse. If the post is not removed there will be reprisals.
-
Why not? If people behave in a strange manner, and if it's disruptive, and if polite requests are ignored, isn't there a natural conclusion that one can come to?
It has nothing to do with his views. I've encountered people on the innocent side who are quite crackers.
This case attracts them. You yourself came on this Forum on New Year Eve's just to insult me. You spent October to December coming on the Forum and doing nothing but insulting me. I had to issue you with a harassment notice. You're barmy.
Don't flatter yourself. I have far better things to do with my time. Nobody insulted you since you re-emerged on this site with your new alter ego. The worst state psychologically is not to know that you've been damaged and this applies to you: you've been damaged in your personal life through your association with a mentally-ill individual and you were damaged during your stay in prison, though you tried desperately (and still do) not to acknowledge it.
-
Steve, I agree that Gascoigne should avoid using terms like 'barmy' directed at an actual member (as opposed to just being directed to their actions). That being said, your response is way over the top here. It comes across like you are looking to get an explosive response from Gascoigne in turn, which will inevitably require moderation action of some form. Can you please de-escalate this feud? At the very least, please take it to the appropriate moderation thread and conduct it in as civil manner as possible.
-
Steve, I agree that Gascoigne should avoid using terms like 'barmy' directed at an actual member (as opposed to just being directed to their actions). That being said, your response is way over the top here. It comes across like you are looking to get an explosive response from Gascoigne in turn, which will inevitably require moderation action of some form. Can you please de-escalate this feud? At the very least, please take it to the appropriate moderation thread and conduct it in as civil manner as possible.
You are absolutely bang on here. It's nice to see somebody who can actually moderate. He is trying to provoke me. He has done it constantly since I first joined this Forum. You are correct to warn him. And I am not his first victim.
I do maintain that calling somebody 'nutty' or 'barmy' is acceptable in everyday conversation when - as here - the behaviour is extreme and warrants it. It has nothing to do with somebody's mental health and is not offensive.
However, as you correctly say, I did not call Adam 'crazy'. I said his actions were crazy, which they plainly are. Both Jane and Steve have twisted it to make it sounds like I said otherwise.
Thanks.
-
It's nice to see somebody who can actually moderate.
Please be careful. There should be no more sly digs.
-
I thought it would be good idea to make this easily accessible for all members.
Barry Parker.
Michael Horsnell.
June Bamber.
Carol Ann Lee.
Tora Tompkinson.
Multiple side effects of Haloperiodal .
Pamela Boutflour.
Roger Wilkes.
Jeremy Bamber WS.
Julie Mugford WS.
Sheila having no other injuries.
Bamber having no injuries.
Sheila being shot in Bamber's chosen location.
[`Sheila' did not sleep in her own bed at all at any stage between supper time on the evening of the 6th and the raid team forcibly entering the farmhouse at 7.30am the following morning, 7th August 1985]
I have a bone to pick with you Adam.You have read BLOOD RELATIONS by Roger Wilkes,yet you have failed to include a piece of evidence from page 41----On the morning of 6 August,Sheila and the twins were seen walking one of the dogs in woods near White House Farm.Julie Foakes,the daughter of one of the farmhands,remembered Sheila skipping about with the children quite happily.-----You tried to hide this Adam.You are a naughty boy!
-
I have a bone to pick with you Adam.You have read BLOOD RELATIONS by Roger Wilkes,yet you have failed to include a piece of evidence from page 41----On the morning of 6 August,Sheila and the twins were seen walking one of the dogs in woods near White House Farm.Julie Foakes,the daughter of one of the farmhands,remembered Sheila skipping about with the children quite happily.-----You tried to hide this Adam.You are a naughty boy!
Well if you type in 'skipping' in search, 30 references come up. So no secret.
What do you think of Wilkes's book?
-
Well if you type in 'skipping' in search, 30 references come up. So no secret.
What do you think of Wilkes's book?
I am only at page 62 Adam,i am not a fast reader.
-
I have a bone to pick with you Adam.You have read BLOOD RELATIONS by Roger Wilkes,yet you have failed to include a piece of evidence from page 41----On the morning of 6 August,Sheila and the twins were seen walking one of the dogs in woods near White House Farm.Julie Foakes,the daughter of one of the farmhands,remembered Sheila skipping about with the children quite happily.-----You tried to hide this Adam.You are a naughty boy!
You seem surprised Snow?
-
You seem surprised Snow?
Well,its no big deal Rob.The thing is no matter how Sheila was acting on that final day,her illness makes it more than possible that she could have carried out the shootings.She was definitely acting strange and withdrawn.
-
Well,its no big deal Rob.The thing is no matter how Sheila was acting on that final day,her illness makes it more than possible that she could have carried out the shootings.She was definitely acting strange and withdrawn.
I agree Snow, but Adam would have us believe Sheila could not get off the sofa oh well.
-
I have a bone to pick with you Adam.You have read BLOOD RELATIONS by Roger Wilkes,yet you have failed to include a piece of evidence from page 41----On the morning of 6 August,Sheila and the twins were seen walking one of the dogs in woods near White House Farm.Julie Foakes,the daughter of one of the farmhands,remembered Sheila skipping about with the children quite happily.-----You tried to hide this Adam.You are a naughty boy!
Was she trying to keep up appearances? There are never any references to any physical activity in London on her part in the age of the explosion of gym memberships and Jane Fonda fitness videos.
-
I agree Snow, but Adam would have us believe Sheila could not get off the sofa oh well.
Well,if she was as bad as what Adam makes out,you could only describe her as an invalid Rob.If this was the case,there is no way she could have looked after herself,washing,cooking,cleaning her flat and so forth.I think she was definitely slowed down by the Haldol to control her psychosis,but not to the extent of turning her into a complete zombie.The original zombies were drugged to carry out slave labour,not sit around all day.
-
Was she trying to keep up appearances? There are never any references to any physical activity in London on her part in the age of the explosion of gym memberships and Jane Fonda fitness videos.
I dont think she would have had the motivation for that type of thing Steve.But whether she was skipping about to keep up appearances or not,it proves she wasnt totally crippled by the Haldol,surely!
-
I agree Snow, but Adam would have us believe Sheila could not get off the sofa oh well.
Snow66! gave me the source for that.
-
Snow66! gave me the source for that.
Sorry Adam if I misquoted you, I thought you were the source.
-
Sorry Adam if I misquoted you, I thought you were the source.
It was from CALS book Rob,a statement from Tora Tompkinson,who was one of Sheilas best friends.
-
Wilkes:
'According to Freddie Emami, Sheila had lost all muscle coordination in her last weeks. If she wanted to drink a glass of water, she would need to use both hands & her movements in bringing the glass of water to her mouth would be very erratic. If she wanted to put out her left arm, her right arm moved out involuntarily to balance it'.
--------
This simulraneously means Sheila was a lamb to the slaughter & unable to shoot anyone.
-
Wilkes:
'According to Freddie Emami, Sheila had lost all muscle coordination in her last weeks. If she wanted to drink a glass of water, she would need to use both hands & her movements in bringing the glass of water to her mouth would be very erratic. If she wanted to put out her left arm, her right arm moved out involuntarily to balance it'.
--------
This simulraneously means Sheila was a lamb to the slaughter & unable to shoot anyone.
I cannot find any of that in Freddie's witness statements. Freddie's WS on when he last saw Sheila is as follows -
"I have seen her once socially since. This was last Friday, 2 August 1985.
I had been invited to a party in the flats where Sheila lives. I had gone
to Rags Nightclub with a friend when Sheila came in. She asked me if I was
going to the party. We had a discussion and a group of us went. We had o
pleasant evening during which time she told me she was going to another
party on the Saturday night with her ex-husband, and that she was going to
her parents farm on the Sunday with the twins. I have not seen Sheila
since I left the party."
Wilkes book is full of bullshit.
-
I cannot find any of that in Freddie's witness statements. Freddie's WS on when he last saw Sheila is as follows -
"I have seen her once socially since. This was last Friday, 2 August 1985.
I had been invited to a party in the flats where Sheila lives. I had gone
to Rags Nightclub with a friend when Sheila came in. She asked me if I was
going to the party. We had a discussion and a group of us went. We had o
pleasant evening during which time she told me she was going to another
party on the Saturday night with her ex-husband, and that she was going to
her parents farm on the Sunday with the twins. I have not seen Sheila
since I left the party."
Wilkes book is full of bullshit.
That statement is just saying when Freddie saw Sheila. You said so yourself.
There is no mention of her condition. Good or bad.
Wilkes obviously interviewed Freddie & asked him about her condition.
Nice try.
-
That statement is just saying when Freddie saw Sheila. You said so yourself.
There is no mention of her condition. Good or bad.
Wilkes obviously interviewed Freddie & asked him about her condition.
Nice try.
lol. Sheila went out to a nightclubbing with friends while being unable move and hold a glass of drink. Freddie never mentions these disabilities until an alleged meeting with Wilkes 10 years later. :))
-
lol. Sheila went out to a nightclubbing with friends while being unable move and hold a glass of drink. Freddie never mentions these disabilities until an alleged meeting with Wilkes 10 years later. :))
She also went to WHF. Driven by Colin.
-
Obviously a lot of evidence Sheila was a lamb to the slaughter -
Barry Parker.
Michael Horsnell.
June Bamber.
Freddie Emani.
Carol Ann Lee.
Tora Tompkinson.
Multiple side effects of Haloperiodal .
Pamela Boutflour.
Roger Wilkes.
Jeremy Bamber WS.
Julie Mugford WS.
Sheila having no other injuries.
Bamber having no injuries.
Sheila being shot in Bamber's chosen location.
Bamber's huge strength advantages.
-
Wilkes:
'According to Freddie Emami, Sheila had lost all muscle coordination in her last weeks. If she wanted to drink a glass of water, she would need to use both hands & her movements in bringing the glass of water to her mouth would be very erratic. If she wanted to put out her left arm, her right arm moved out involuntarily to balance it'.
--------
This simulraneously means Sheila was a lamb to the slaughter & unable to shoot anyone.
Maybe Freddie is referring to seeing her in a nightclub.
That is also how I dance after a few drinks.