Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on July 10, 2022, 10:22:AM
-
AE's WS says Bamber was very keen to be involved in a possible revamp or replacement of the caravan shop.
She then says the caravan site shop was burnt down. She had no explanation for this.
Mmmm.
-
Bamber wanted to be more involved with the farm business. Rather than be a labourer. However Nevill said he had no business sense.
-
Adam, can you remember 'Jack Black and his dog Silver' from Viz? He used to solve 'crimes'. His sleuthing approach and the results of his crime-solving are quite AE-esque.
-
AEs witness statements are full of lies.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842)
-
Well it is certain the caravan park shop was burnt down. AE couldn't lie about that as it would be too easy to disprove.
The only issue is whether Bamber was keen to be involved in a revamp/replacement.
Lets face it, anything is better than 14 hours a day hard farm labour.
-
If there was cash in the shop, that could be taken. Prior to the burning. So a win, win.
This would have given him the confidence to escalate a few months later - caravan robbery.
-
Well it is certain the caravan park shop was burnt down. AE couldn't lie about that as it would be too easy to disprove.
The only issue is whether Bamber was keen to be involved in a revamp/replacement.
Lets face it, anything is better than 14 hours a day hard farm labour.
Good day Adam. Hard farm labour=1920s Clydesdale horse and plow Moderate farm labour=1950s Introduction of the little grey Ferguson tractor. Non[minimal]labour=1980s Fast track tractors,forklifts and combine harvesters.
-
And in JBs case walking through a caravan park.
-
Who else mentioned the shop allegedly burning down?
-
Who else mentioned the shop allegedly burning down?
Possibly someone called Dennis Wager, as the following is in Carol Ann Lee's book:
Dennis Wager was also hired to construct a new shop at Osea Road after
the old one was destroyed by fire; it was the second case of suspected arson at the site. Jeremy was given the responsibility of planning the layout, advertising the lease, and estimating costs.
Wager disliked working with him: "He appeared full of his own importance. He was also always trying to impress upon people that he was one of the governors."
This excerpt was attributed to: Dennis Wager's w/s, 23 September 1985. But I don't know if she's attributing Dennis Wager for the whole story, or just the bit in quotes at the end.
Not sure if Dennis Wager's W/S is available anywhere. I haven't looked.
There isn't anything about Jeremy Bamber actually committing the arson.
-
Discussions about the caravan site shop started in late 1983.
It was burnt down in March 84.
Maybe things were not progressing or Nevill was not interested. Bamber was frustrated so decided to be pro active.
-
Obviously his only options 12 & 19 months later for instant money gains was to rob the caravan site then commit the massacre.
Both of which he did do.
-
One of which he'd confessed to doing, the other he didn't do.
-
Bamber the arsonist.
What ever next
-
Discussions about the caravan site shop started in late 1983.
It was burnt down in March 84.
Maybe things were not progressing or Nevill was not interested. Bamber was frustrated so decided to be pro active.
What was Nevills role in osea if any? His baby was WHF, north Maldon growers. I thought the speakman Boutflour side of the family ran the osea aspect.
-
What was Nevills role in osea if any? His baby was WHF, north Maldon growers. I thought the speakman Boutflour side of the family ran the osea aspect.
Steve might know that.
-
Julie would not be involved in the caravan site shop being burned down.
If there relationship lasted 18 months, it had either not started or was just starting in March 84.
A year & 19 months later, he felt comfortable involving Julie.
-
Do we know if Sheila had shares in the caravan site as Jeremy did ?
-
The only relevant statement was that of Freddie Emami's who gives a better description of someone in an advanced psychotic state----more so than Ferguson.
In normal conditions, Sheila had a violent temper and could turn in seconds, added to that, a psychotic episide and you have a recipe for disaster.
-
The only relevant statement was that of Freddie Emami's who gives a better description of someone in an advanced psychotic state----more so than Ferguson.
In normal conditions, Sheila had a violent temper and could turn in seconds, added to that, a psychotic episide and you have a recipe for disaster.
It's not true to say that 'Sheila had a violent temper and could turn in seconds'. It's true that she was highly strung, but only exhibited negative reactions when she felt cheated, or let down. She was insecure, that's all. Like a lot of people.
It is quite grotesque to caricature her well documented personality as 'Sheila had a violent temper and could turn in seconds'.
The Schizophrenia she suffered from is totally separate from her day to day personality, which has been overwhelmingly described as fun loving, friendly and loving.
Paragraph 518 of the 2002 CoA proves beyond reasonable doubt (according to 3 CoA judges), that Sheila was murdered. It doesn't prove in itself that Jeremy Bamber is guilty, but it does prove that Sheila was murdered. And that means that Sheila is innocent.
Cruel and senseless character assassinations of Sheila Caffell will never change the facts.
-
Possibly someone called Dennis Wager, as the following is in Carol Ann Lee's book:
Dennis Wager was also hired to construct a new shop at Osea Road after
the old one was destroyed by fire; it was the second case of suspected arson at the site. Jeremy was given the responsibility of planning the layout, advertising the lease, and estimating costs.
Wager disliked working with him: "He appeared full of his own importance. He was also always trying to impress upon people that he was one of the governors."
This excerpt was attributed to: Dennis Wager's w/s, 23 September 1985. But I don't know if she's attributing Dennis Wager for the whole story, or just the bit in quotes at the end.
Not sure if Dennis Wager's W/S is available anywhere. I haven't looked.
There isn't anything about Jeremy Bamber actually committing the arson.
It seems that Bamber got his wish to be involved in the development of a new caravan site shop.
After the last one mysteriously burnt down.
-
It's not true to say that 'Sheila had a violent temper and could turn in seconds'. It's true that she was highly strung, but only exhibited negative reactions when she felt cheated, or let down. She was insecure, that's all. Like a lot of people.
It is quite grotesque to caricature her well documented personality as 'Sheila had a violent temper and could turn in seconds'.
The Schizophrenia she suffered from is totally separate from her day to day personality, which has been overwhelmingly described as fun loving, friendly and loving.
Paragraph 518 of the 2002 CoA proves beyond reasonable doubt (according to 3 CoA judges), that Sheila was murdered. It doesn't prove in itself that Jeremy Bamber is guilty, but it does prove that Sheila was murdered. And that means that Sheila is innocent.
Cruel and senseless character assassinations of Sheila Caffell will never change the facts.
This was stated by someone who knew Sheila well and who also helped her financially as well as giving her support.
-
Using words such as " grotesque " certainly gives me an insight of the sort of character you are !
I'm NOT in the habit of using such language personally----but each to his own!
NOR was it a character assassination toward Sheila, it was as it was with the type of illness she had.
-
@ killingeve---kindly read Freddie Emami's statement !
-
When you've had dealings with someone who's been in a psychotic meltdown, then you can use the word " grotesque " as this best describes their behaviour when it happens----and not towards the person/ onlooker who's describing the situation that someone can change in a split second from being normal to one who's completely unrecognisable !
-
When you've had dealings with someone who's been in a psychotic meltdown, then you can use the word " grotesque " as this best describes their behaviour when it happens----and not towards the person/ onlooker who's describing the situation that someone can change in a split second from being normal to one who's completely unrecognisable !
Sounds like me after a few drinks.
-
Sounds like me after a few drinks.
That would account for your skewed posts then.
-
When you've had dealings with someone who's been in a psychotic meltdown, then you can use the word " grotesque " as this best describes their behaviour when it happens----and not towards the person/ onlooker who's describing the situation that someone can change in a split second from being normal to one who's completely unrecognisable !
You said 'In normal conditions, Sheila had a violent temper and could turn in seconds'
You were commenting on Sheila's character outside of any mental health issues or breakdowns.
But even during a breakdown, there is no evidence that your appalling comment on her character - laced with anger and ignorance - resembled anything approaching the truth.
You are just using loose words and angry opinion to make Sheila look guilty, because you are struggling to find any actual evidence of guilt.
But aside from that, it's proven that she was murdered. Paragraph 518 of the 2002 CoA refers to a piece of forensic science, that for the last 20 years, legally proves that Sheila was murdered.
Michael Turner QC (Jeremy Bamber's defence lawyer at the time) declined to contradict or dismiss that evidence in any way in 2002, which was interpreted by the 3 judges at the 2002 CoA as Michael Turner QC, agreeing with the strength of the evidence. Which met with no subsequent protest from Michael Turner QC.
To my knowledge, Jeremy Bamber has never publicly attempted to make any challenge to that evidence. Privately he may well have done, but if the results favoured the prosecution, then he's not going to make that public.
To my knowledge Jeremy Bamber's supporters have never made any serious, credible challenge to that evidence. Screaming the words 'corruption' or 'cover up', and flinging insults around doesn't count.
-
That would account for your skewed posts then.
I never drink and post.
Drink & dance, yes.
-
This was stated by someone who knew Sheila well and who also helped her financially as well as giving her support.
Lookout, I think you must be talking about Freddie Armani? Whilst he certainly claimed, having witnessed Sheila having a psychotic episode, to have feared for his life, and I'm certain it would have been terrifying to witness, if we look at the occasion on which this occurred, his life, and, indeed, his person, were never in any danger. Any injuries resulting from the 'episode' would have been to her own person, inflicted by her own hand. It's doubtful she could have inflicted very much damage with a hairbrush.
In truth, I can't -don't- believe that "in normal conditions, Sheila had a violent temper and could turn in seconds". Those I've known who've suffered with schizophrenia, "in normal conditions" -living outside of hospital conditions- have shown no signs of "violent tempers" which would "turn in a second", their diagnosis coming as a complete shock to those who knew them.
-
But aside from that, it's proven that she was murdered. Paragraph 518 of the 2002 CoA refers to a piece of forensic science, that for the last 20 years, legally proves that Sheila was murdered.
Michael Turner QC (Jeremy Bamber's defence lawyer at the time) declined to contradict or dismiss that evidence in any way in 2002, which was interpreted by the 3 judges at the 2002 CoA as Michael Turner QC, agreeing with the strength of the evidence. Which met with no subsequent protest from Michael Turner QC.
To my knowledge, Jeremy Bamber has never publicly attempted to make any challenge to that evidence. Privately he may well have done, but if the results favoured the prosecution, then he's not going to make that public.
That is entirely false.
-
That is entirely false.
That is so often the problem with people that say they don't believe the evidence. They deny it either through angry personal insults, or a single sentence devoid of any information.
Which is what you've done here. No attempt at picking apart the evidence.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it wrong.
The silence on this issue from the Jeremy Bamber camp regarding this absolutely critical piece of evidence, is deafening.
The fact that you make no effort to explain yourself, means that you probably find the evidence hard to accept, but have no legitimate way of debunking it.
Also legally, 3 CoA judges have said that had it been put to a jury they could have found Jeremy Bamber guilty on that point alone. There were some caveats to that, but only so that they covered all legal bases.
And that effectively sets a legal precedent. It will be respected in all future CCRC cases, including the one that is currently ongoing.
So, legally it is pretty much set in stone.
But if you are going to disagree with it and dismiss it. Be brave enough to dismiss it in more than 4 words. Because 4 words doesn't count.
-
That is so often the problem with people that say they don't believe the evidence. They deny it either through angry personal insults, or a single sentence devoid of any information.
Which is what you've done here. No attempt at picking apart the evidence.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it wrong.
The silence on this issue from the Jeremy Bamber camp regarding this absolutely critical piece of evidence, is deafening.
The fact that you make no effort to explain yourself, means that you probably find the evidence hard to accept, but have no legitimate way of debunking it.
Also legally, 3 CoA judges have said that had it been put to a jury they could have found Jeremy Bamber guilty on that point alone. There were some caveats to that, but only so that they covered all legal bases.
And that effectively sets a legal precedent. It will be respected in all future CCRC cases, including the one that is currently ongoing.
So, legally it is pretty much set in stone.
But if you are going to disagree with it and dismiss it. Be brave enough to dismiss it in more than 4 words. Because 4 words doesn't count.
I have already explained to you why it is false in your introduction thread. So did QC/Gascoigne. No need to go round in circles.
-
You said 'In normal conditions, Sheila had a violent temper and could turn in seconds'
You were commenting on Sheila's character outside of any mental health issues or breakdowns.
But even during a breakdown, there is no evidence that your appalling comment on her character - laced with anger and ignorance - resembled anything approaching the truth.
You are just using loose words and angry opinion to make Sheila look guilty, because you are struggling to find any actual evidence of guilt.
But aside from that, it's proven that she was murdered. Paragraph 518 of the 2002 CoA refers to a piece of forensic science, that for the last 20 years, legally proves that Sheila was murdered.
Michael Turner QC (Jeremy Bamber's defence lawyer at the time) declined to contradict or dismiss that evidence in any way in 2002, which was interpreted by the 3 judges at the 2002 CoA as Michael Turner QC, agreeing with the strength of the evidence. Which met with no subsequent protest from Michael Turner QC.
To my knowledge, Jeremy Bamber has never publicly attempted to make any challenge to that evidence. Privately he may well have done, but if the results favoured the prosecution, then he's not going to make that public.
To my knowledge Jeremy Bamber's supporters have never made any serious, credible challenge to that evidence. Screaming the words 'corruption' or 'cover up', and flinging insults around doesn't count.
I'm trying to get across how difficult it is dealing with someone who's having a meltdown. Neither Freddie nor the 2 doctors who'd called at Sheila's flat could pacify the woman. The episode came out of the blue when she started punching walls----now tell me if this is normal behaviour ?
It was then suggested that someone picks up a prescription in order to medicate Sheila, then a phone-call to Nevill was made to collect his daughter from Maida Vale which he did next day, to which Nevill then took her to the clinic in Northampton for one last time.
Tell me that you've worked with/experienced such sick people and then you can talk of anger towards those who don't understand, such as yourself and your complete misunderstanding of any severe mental condition.
How dare you accuse me of pointing my " anger " towards Sheila when it's aimed at you and the sheer ignorance of others that don't understand mental illness and all its forms.
In future, aim your remarks at the post and not the poster----minus the drama !
-
Why did Ferguson say in his statement that he'd have " understood if it had just been her mother who'd died " ? Did he know something nobody else did ? Just why did he say that ?
-
Why are the opposition so insulting and accusatory ?
-
I'm trying to get across how difficult it is dealing with someone who's having a meltdown. Neither Freddie nor the 2 doctors who'd called at Sheila's flat could pacify the woman. The episode came out of the blue when she started punching walls----now tell me if this is normal behaviour ?
It was then suggested that someone picks up a prescription in order to medicate Sheila, then a phone-call to Nevill was made to collect his daughter from Maida Vale which he did next day, to which Nevill then took her to the clinic in Northampton for one last time.
Tell me that you've worked with/experienced such sick people and then you can talk of anger towards those who don't understand, such as yourself and your complete misunderstanding of any severe mental condition.
How dare you accuse me of pointing my " anger " towards Sheila when it's aimed at you and the sheer ignorance of others that don't understand mental illness and all its forms.
In future, aim your remarks at the post and not the poster----minus the drama !
Big jump from punching walls to shooting your mother, father, sons & yourself in the head.
As said Nevill would instantly negate Daniel, Nicholas or Sheila if they picked up such a low powered rifle.
-
I could also go on about the carelessness of the way the guns,etc were stored when there were young children around, but it doesn't mean to say that I'm " angry " towards Nevill, these are your accusatory words which are used to throw a bad light on the poster.
What have I got to be/feel anger about on a forum with faceless people ?
-
Big jump from punching walls to shooting your mother, father, sons & yourself in the head.
As said Nevill would instantly negate Daniel, Nicholas or Sheila if they picked up such a low powered rifle.
Big Jump from never showing one iota of violence in your life let alone even a temper to shooting your family dead.
Nobody who knew Bamber recall a violent streak or temper
-
Big Jump from never showing one iota of violence in your life let alone even a temper to shooting your family dead.
Nobody who knew Bamber recall a violent streak or temper
Welcome to the world of the inheritance killer.
-
Welcome to the world of the inheritance killer.
Well it didn't work. If gulity. £25 maximum prison canteen spend a week. 37 years rotting in the slammer
-
Well it didn't work. If gulity. £25 maximum prison canteen spend a week. 37 years rotting in the slammer
£25?
That will pay for 125 tins of Rice Pudding in Lidls. They sell for 20p a tin.
-
£25?
That will pay for 125 tins of Rice Pudding in Lidls. They sell for 20p a tin.
I don't think it's quite what Bamber if gulity envisaged for himself
-
I don't think it's quite what Bamber if gulity envisaged for himself
Certainly not while in Amsterdam, St Tropez, London, Pevensey, Eastbourne & Burnham after the massacre.
-
I have already explained to you why it is false in your introduction thread. So did QC/Gascoigne. No need to go round in circles.
Refusing to repeat what you've said previously just muddies the waters and confuses things.
You made grandiose statements in your post in my introduction thread, but without any explanation.
You haven't in any way whatsoever explained why Mr Ismails forensic report, which proves that Sheila Caffell was murdered (which none of us has actually seen), is wrong.
But you have said it was wrong. Which is mind boggling given that you haven't even read it.
But if you want to know why it has been proven that Sheila Caffell was murdered, then read on...
But let's go over the issues properly, which you seem reluctant to do.
Ismails evidence was ruled inadmissible by the COA. Thus the defence had nothing to respond to and neither had to cross examine Ismail for reasons stated above.
Mt Ismails evidence wasn't ruled inadmissible, that is totally misleading.
The CoA will hear any evidence submitted to it by both defence and prosecution, the same as in a normal court case.
Mr Ismails evidence was submitted by the prosecution, and it was treated in exactly the same way as grounds 1 to 16, which was submitted by the defence.
Michael Turner's job, was to disprove Mr Ismails evidence, which he failed to do. More on that later.
Micheal Turner's next job is, if you can't disprove the science, then get it slung out on a technicality.
That's what he successfully did.
The judges agreed that the evidence in theory, was available in 1986, and therefore would not be considered in the final conclusion of the CoA report.
But it remains a valid piece of evidence, perfectly admissible in a legal sense. It was just disregarded by the judges when drawing up their final conclusions.
Paragraph 519 from the 2002 CoA states (concerning Mr Ismails evidence): ...if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it.
The bit in brackets is important, as it applies specifically to the CoA.
That bit in brackets makes very clear that Michael Turner QC, declined to make an application to the judges to call his own expert witness, in order to contradict Mr Ismails evidence.
Put simply Michael Turner QC, couldn't find an expert witness to contradict the evidence. Remember his job is to disprove everything the prosecution put forward. And they only put forward one piece of evidence.
If Michael Turner QC could have found an expert witness to contradict Mr Ismails evidence, he would have done. Because that would have put a lid on the argument for good.
It would have killed it off.
If Michael Turner QC cannot disprove Mr Ismails evidence using his own expert witness, then it remains that Sheila Caffell was murdered.
------------------------
Ismail contends Sheila's head was resting upwards after she was shot.
I don't know where you got that from, but this is how the judges worded it in their final report (The final report is the only thing that matters):
Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet
The CoA judges, in their report, also say this:
...there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force...
That means that the only weight above the body is the head.
So, the back of her head propped against the bedside cabinet, combined with, only the weight above the body is the head; can only mean that her head was vertical against the bedside cabinet, and the body was "lying almost flat on her back".
And that is what Mr Ismails forensic examination discovered, and that is a predicted final resting position after death. So please don't say 'where are the photos'. Surely you know the answer to that?
Given that Sheila fell into this predicted position after the second shot, and is now dead, blood has stopped pumping, but there must be escaped blood inside her body, and gravity must be keeping that escaped blood below anywhere where it can exit. Remember, her head is vertical at this point.
When her murderer pulls the body back from the bedside cabinet, probably by the ankles, the head drops down and becomes horizontal, and that is when the blood spills out. The blood may have spilled out because of the physical movement of the body, or because her mouth and wounds were now in a more favourable position to enable blood to leak out. And maybe it was a combination of those things that led to the blood leaking out.
The blood running down her cheeks rather than down her chin, proves that she was moved immediately after death, other wise the blood would have dried and congealed inside her body.
Had her dead body (with the head in the vertical position) been moved by the police when they broke in at 07:30, or any time after, there would either be dried blood that had dripped down toward her chin, or no blood at all (if the effect of gravity ensured that the blood remained below any places where it could exit).
And as the blood running down her cheeks was very obviously dry in the photos, Sheila must have died before any of the firearms officers entered the house at approx. 07:30.
Also, some of the firearms officers noted the bullet wounds in her neck. Had her head been in a vertical position, propped against the bedside cabinet, I would think it would be impossible to see the wounds.
All of that proves that Sheila was murdered, and it proves that she was dead when the firearms officers broke into the house.
It also means that she would have been dead when the police turned up at 03:48, as there were no witnesses to a burglar or assassin leaving the premises after the police turned up.
This may not be how things play out in peoples heads, but what I've described is roughly how things will play out at the CCRC, or a court of law.
As you can see, the truth takes a long time to explain. Lies and dismissal, ignorance and arrogance, can all be achieved in one small sentence.
-
Micheal Turner's next job is, if you can't disprove the science, then get it slung out on a technicality.
That's what he successfully did.
---------
How did he manage that?
-
Refusing to repeat what you've said previously just muddies the waters and confuses things.
You made grandiose statements in your post in my introduction thread, but without any explanation.
You haven't in any way whatsoever explained why Mr Ismails forensic report, which proves that Sheila Caffell was murdered (which none of us has actually seen), is wrong.
But you have said it was wrong. Which is mind boggling given that you haven't even read it.
But if you want to know why it has been proven that Sheila Caffell was murdered, then read on...
But let's go over the issues properly, which you seem reluctant to do.
Mt Ismails evidence wasn't ruled inadmissible, that is totally misleading.
The CoA will hear any evidence submitted to it by both defence and prosecution, the same as in a normal court case.
Mr Ismails evidence was submitted by the prosecution, and it was treated in exactly the same way as grounds 1 to 16, which was submitted by the defence.
Michael Turner's job, was to disprove Mr Ismails evidence, which he failed to do. More on that later.
Micheal Turner's next job is, if you can't disprove the science, then get it slung out on a technicality.
That's what he successfully did.
The judges agreed that the evidence in theory, was available in 1986, and therefore would not be considered in the final conclusion of the CoA report.
But it remains a valid piece of evidence, perfectly admissible in a legal sense. It was just disregarded by the judges when drawing up their final conclusions.
Paragraph 519 from the 2002 CoA states (concerning Mr Ismails evidence): ...if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it.
The bit in brackets is important, as it applies specifically to the CoA.
That bit in brackets makes very clear that Michael Turner QC, declined to make an application to the judges to call his own expert witness, in order to contradict Mr Ismails evidence.
Put simply Michael Turner QC, couldn't find an expert witness to contradict the evidence. Remember his job is to disprove everything the prosecution put forward. And they only put forward one piece of evidence.
If Michael Turner QC could have found an expert witness to contradict Mr Ismails evidence, he would have done. Because that would have put a lid on the argument for good.
It would have killed it off.
If Michael Turner QC cannot disprove Mr Ismails evidence using his own expert witness, then it remains that Sheila Caffell was murdered.
------------------------
I don't know where you got that from, but this is how the judges worded it in their final report (The final report is the only thing that matters):
Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet
The CoA judges, in their report, also say this:
...there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force...
That means that the only weight above the body is the head.
So, the back of her head propped against the bedside cabinet, combined with, only the weight above the body is the head; can only mean that her head was vertical against the bedside cabinet, and the body was "lying almost flat on her back".
And that is what Mr Ismails forensic examination discovered, and that is a predicted final resting position after death. So please don't say 'where are the photos'. Surely you know the answer to that?
Given that Sheila fell into this predicted position after the second shot, and is now dead, blood has stopped pumping, but there must be escaped blood inside her body, and gravity must be keeping that escaped blood below anywhere where it can exit. Remember, her head is vertical at this point.
When her murderer pulls the body back from the bedside cabinet, probably by the ankles, the head drops down and becomes horizontal, and that is when the blood spills out. The blood may have spilled out because of the physical movement of the body, or because her mouth and wounds were now in a more favourable position to enable blood to leak out. And maybe it was a combination of those things that led to the blood leaking out.
The blood running down her cheeks rather than down her chin, proves that she was moved immediately after death, other wise the blood would have dried and congealed inside her body.
Had her dead body (with the head in the vertical position) been moved by the police when they broke in at 07:30, or any time after, there would either be dried blood that had dripped down toward her chin, or no blood at all (if the effect of gravity ensured that the blood remained below any places where it could exit).
And as the blood running down her cheeks was very obviously dry in the photos, Sheila must have died before any of the firearms officers entered the house at approx. 07:30.
Also, some of the firearms officers noted the bullet wounds in her neck. Had her head been in a vertical position, propped against the bedside cabinet, I would think it would be impossible to see the wounds.
All of that proves that Sheila was murdered, and it proves that she was dead when the firearms officers broke into the house.
It also means that she would have been dead when the police turned up at 03:48, as there were no witnesses to a burglar or assassin leaving the premises after the police turned up.
This may not be how things play out in peoples heads, but what I've described is roughly how things will play out at the CCRC, or a court of law.
As you can see, the truth takes a long time to explain. Lies and dismissal, ignorance and arrogance, can all be achieved in one small sentence.
The blood running from Sheila's nose, mouth and neck is all running in the same downward direction (with no deviations) as it would have done in the position her head was found (lying flat). Thus her head was always in that position. With her head lying flat and her left shoulder right by the bedside table, it is simply not possible for her body to have been any further up than it already was. Thus she cannot have been pulled down with her head up against the bedside table.
(http://i.imgur.com/ombpV.jpg)
Moreover PC Collins and PS Adams said the crime scene photos of Sheila is not how she first appeared when they entered the room. Leading to the only possible deduction that the police had moved the body.
(https://i.ibb.co/VBBR9BK/ADAMS10maaaa.jpg)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,189.msg510.html#msg510 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,189.msg510.html#msg510)
-
Micheal Turner's next job is, if you can't disprove the science, then get it slung out on a technicality.
That's what he successfully did.
---------
How did he manage that?
If you read the full hearing transcript. Turner pointed out that Vanezis had already looked into this back in 1985/6 and the prosecution never brought it forward at trial. Thus it was not admissible for the prosecution to use at appeal.
-
Refusing to repeat what you've said previously just muddies the waters and confuses things.
You made grandiose statements in your post in my introduction thread, but without any explanation.
You haven't in any way whatsoever explained why Mr Ismails forensic report, which proves that Sheila Caffell was murdered (which none of us has actually seen), is wrong.
But you have said it was wrong. Which is mind boggling given that you haven't even read it.
But if you want to know why it has been proven that Sheila Caffell was murdered, then read on...
But let's go over the issues properly, which you seem reluctant to do.
Mt Ismails evidence wasn't ruled inadmissible, that is totally misleading.
The CoA will hear any evidence submitted to it by both defence and prosecution, the same as in a normal court case.
Mr Ismails evidence was submitted by the prosecution, and it was treated in exactly the same way as grounds 1 to 16, which was submitted by the defence.
Michael Turner's job, was to disprove Mr Ismails evidence, which he failed to do. More on that later.
Micheal Turner's next job is, if you can't disprove the science, then get it slung out on a technicality.
That's what he successfully did.
The judges agreed that the evidence in theory, was available in 1986, and therefore would not be considered in the final conclusion of the CoA report.
But it remains a valid piece of evidence, perfectly admissible in a legal sense. It was just disregarded by the judges when drawing up their final conclusions.
Paragraph 519 from the 2002 CoA states (concerning Mr Ismails evidence): ...if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it.
The bit in brackets is important, as it applies specifically to the CoA.
That bit in brackets makes very clear that Michael Turner QC, declined to make an application to the judges to call his own expert witness, in order to contradict Mr Ismails evidence.
Put simply Michael Turner QC, couldn't find an expert witness to contradict the evidence. Remember his job is to disprove everything the prosecution put forward. And they only put forward one piece of evidence.
If Michael Turner QC could have found an expert witness to contradict Mr Ismails evidence, he would have done. Because that would have put a lid on the argument for good.
It would have killed it off.
If Michael Turner QC cannot disprove Mr Ismails evidence using his own expert witness, then it remains that Sheila Caffell was murdered.
------------------------
I don't know where you got that from, but this is how the judges worded it in their final report (The final report is the only thing that matters):
Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet
The CoA judges, in their report, also say this:
...there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force...
That means that the only weight above the body is the head.
So, the back of her head propped against the bedside cabinet, combined with, only the weight above the body is the head; can only mean that her head was vertical against the bedside cabinet, and the body was "lying almost flat on her back".
And that is what Mr Ismails forensic examination discovered, and that is a predicted final resting position after death. So please don't say 'where are the photos'. Surely you know the answer to that?
Given that Sheila fell into this predicted position after the second shot, and is now dead, blood has stopped pumping, but there must be escaped blood inside her body, and gravity must be keeping that escaped blood below anywhere where it can exit. Remember, her head is vertical at this point.
When her murderer pulls the body back from the bedside cabinet, probably by the ankles, the head drops down and becomes horizontal, and that is when the blood spills out. The blood may have spilled out because of the physical movement of the body, or because her mouth and wounds were now in a more favourable position to enable blood to leak out. And maybe it was a combination of those things that led to the blood leaking out.
The blood running down her cheeks rather than down her chin, proves that she was moved immediately after death, other wise the blood would have dried and congealed inside her body.
Had her dead body (with the head in the vertical position) been moved by the police when they broke in at 07:30, or any time after, there would either be dried blood that had dripped down toward her chin, or no blood at all (if the effect of gravity ensured that the blood remained below any places where it could exit).
And as the blood running down her cheeks was very obviously dry in the photos, Sheila must have died before any of the firearms officers entered the house at approx. 07:30.
Also, some of the firearms officers noted the bullet wounds in her neck. Had her head been in a vertical position, propped against the bedside cabinet, I would think it would be impossible to see the wounds.
All of that proves that Sheila was murdered, and it proves that she was dead when the firearms officers broke into the house.
It also means that she would have been dead when the police turned up at 03:48, as there were no witnesses to a burglar or assassin leaving the premises after the police turned up.
This may not be how things play out in peoples heads, but what I've described is roughly how things will play out at the CCRC, or a court of law.
As you can see, the truth takes a long time to explain. Lies and dismissal, ignorance and arrogance, can all be achieved in one small sentence.
Hi Killing eve,nice day.Just one question,why did the killer shoot Sheila and immediately pull her body flat? As usual,I have missed the reason for doing this.
-
Hi Killing eve,nice day.Just one question,why did the killer shoot Sheila and immediately pull her body flat? As usual,I have missed the reason for doing this.
Good evening everyone,are you sitting having a cold beer? Anyway,my question hasn't been answered by Killingeve,so I will just have to inflict the forum with a long post on the pulling of Sheilas legs,as it were ,later on.
-
Hi Killing eve,nice day.Just one question,why did the killer shoot Sheila and immediately pull her body flat? As usual,I have missed the reason for doing this.
Possibly because he realized that the first shot hadn't killed her. Perhaps he'd taken the shot from the wrong angle? Pulling her flat may have tilted her head? Whatever, the second shot obviously did the job.
-
Micheal Turner's next job is, if you can't disprove the science, then get it slung out on a technicality.
That's what he successfully did.
---------
How did he manage that?
It's written in the transcript for the actual CoA
Vincent Temple QC presented the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, stating that Mr Ismail's evidence was as good as DNA evidence.
Michael Turner QC responded by saying that the evidence only works if the police didn't move Sheila's body before taking the photos. Therefore it should be dis-regarded. The judges disagreed with that.
Then Michael Turner had another go by saying that the evidence was available in 1986, and the CoA can only deal with new evidence. Which the judges agreed, and declared that the evidence wouldn't have any influence over their final judgement.
The evidence was never declared inadmissible in the same way that hearsay might be deemed inadmissible. So it's perfectly admissible in the conventional legal sense.
Michael Turner QC would have much preferred to get the evidence disproven, rather than disregarded on a technicality. Because now, today, 20 years later, it still stands that there is very strong scientific, forensic evidence, that says that Sheila was murdered, and murdered before the firearms officers entered the house.
It would have been a feather in his cap if he could have disproven it, but he was unable to. And that was confirmed very clearly by the judges in the CoA report 2002.
The actual transcript is here...
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4276.msg174390.html#msg174390
But the transcriber writes almost in broken English, probably due to the lack of transcribing technology at the time. So it's quite hard to read, plus we don't have the documentation that they were referring to, so it's of limited use. The 2002 CoA report is a much better source of information.
-
Possibly because he realized that the first shot hadn't killed her. Perhaps he'd taken the shot from the wrong angle? Pulling her flat may have tilted her head? Whatever, the second shot obviously did the job.
Hiya Jane,but the argument by ismail or whatever you call him,is that Sheila received the second shot then had her legs pulled immediately.
-
The blood running from Sheila's nose, mouth and neck is all running in the same downward direction (with no deviations) as it would have done in the position her head was found (lying flat). Thus her head was always in that position. With her head lying flat and her left shoulder right by the bedside table, it is simply not possible for her body to have been any further up than it already was. Thus she cannot have been pulled down with her head up against the bedside table.
(http://i.imgur.com/ombpV.jpg)
Moreover PC Collins and PS Adams said the crime scene photos of Sheila is not how she first appeared when they entered the room. Leading to the only possible deduction that the police had moved the body.
(https://i.ibb.co/VBBR9BK/ADAMS10maaaa.jpg)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,189.msg510.html#msg510 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,189.msg510.html#msg510)
Nice try, no cigar.
(Two can play at your game)
-
Possibly because he realized that the first shot hadn't killed her. Perhaps he'd taken the shot from the wrong angle? Pulling her flat may have tilted her head? Whatever, the second shot obviously did the job.
Jane, you mention the two shots.. sorry to press but.. which shot caused these marks?
-
Hiya Jane,but the argument by ismail or whatever you call him,is that Sheila received the second shot then had her legs pulled immediately.
Mmm. He might be right............it's anyone's guess, isn't it? None of us were there.
-
Mmm. He might be right............it's anyone's guess, isn't it? None of us were there.
Well, I am afraid I am going to subject you to my opinion anyway Jane.
-
Well, I am afraid I am going to subject you to my opinion anyway Jane.
Mmm. I was afraid you might ::)
-
Mmm. I was afraid you might ::)
Blame Killingeve :))
-
Blame Killingeve :))
Not at all. Their posts are very enjoyable.
-
Not at all. Their posts are very enjoyable.
Do you believe Bamber could have burnt down the caravan park shop?
-
Jane, you mention the two shots.. sorry to press but.. which shot caused these marks?
Sorry for butting in Roch,but if the marks were caused by the second shot,the blood must have somehow spurted out of her neck or her mouth and landed on her wrist.Everyone agrees that Sheila was lying on her back immediately after the second shot,so the blood could not have RUN to her wrist.Not from the second shot.
-
Certainly not while in Amsterdam, St Tropez, London, Pevensey, Eastbourne & Burnham after the massacre.
He knew he wouldn't get away with it if gulity.Even if innocent the initial arrests and being charged and remanded on bail on the burglary charge shook him to the core
Once the heat was on by EP he knew it would be only a matter of time before he'd be doing porridge.
The st Tropez trip is a great testament to that. It was two weeks break respite period before the shit storm came crashing down.
-
Hi Killing eve,nice day.Just one question,why did the killer shoot Sheila and immediately pull her body flat? As usual,I have missed the reason for doing this.
Only the killer knows the answer to that question.
But not knowing the answer to that question doesn't make the evidence any less strong. It is conclusive legal proof (as conclusive as you can get outside of a courtroom) that Sheila was murdered by someone. Could have been a burglar, could have been an assassin, could have been Jeremy Bamber.
I would assume that Sheila's body may have looked a bit contorted in her original position after death, and the murderer, when setting up the body to look like suicide, may have felt that Sheila in a horizontal position, with the gun on her, looked more convincing.
But that is something only the killer knows.
-
He knew he wouldn't get away with it if gulity.Even if innocent the initial arrests and being charged and remanded on bail on the burglary charge shook him to the core
Once the heat was on by EP he knew it would be only a matter of time before he'd be doing porridge.
The st Tropez trip is a great testament to that. It was two weeks break respite period before the shit storm came crashing down.
Guess he shouldn't have done it then.
Seriously he was very confident afterwards - 'watertight', 'open & shut case'.
-
Sorry for butting in Roch,but if the marks were caused by the second shot,the blood must have somehow spurted out of her neck or her mouth and landed on her wrist.Everyone agrees that Sheila was lying on her back immediately after the second shot,so the blood could not have RUN to her wrist.Not from the second shot.
The angle of shots may be relevant in trying to work things out Snow?..
-
Do you believe Bamber could have burnt down the caravan park shop?
Certainly he could have. Did he? Mmm?
-
Guess he shouldn't have done it then.
Seriously he was very confident afterwards - 'watertight', 'open & shut case'.
I think if gulity he was up to the point of being arrested. First off before being bailed
After that I think it dawned on him. I think. He knew the heat was on.
Think if gulity it may have dawned on him he dropped a bollock in enlightening Julie. From his own infidelities and boredom of Julie he would know she would go to the police.this relationship had been dying a slow death for a while. Friends remarked they were shocked they stayed together so long. Bamber was bored with her
From a gulity Bamber perspective there's nothing else apart from eventual arrest you can say. It is madness if gulity he thought he would get away with it
-
I think if gulity he was up to the point of being arrested. First off before being bailed
After that I think it dawned on him. I think. He knew the heat was on.
Think if gulity it may have dawned on him he dropped a bollock in enlightening Julie. From his own infidelities and boredom of Julie he would know she would go to the police.
From a gulity Bamber perspective there's nothing else apart from eventual arrest you can say. It is madness if gulity if he thought he would get away with it
From the moment it dawned on him, I think he's have believed he could bluff and blag his way out, ie "That is for you to establish"!
-
From the moment it dawned on him, I think he's have believed he could bluff and blag his way out, ie "That is for you to establish"!
I'm aware of that, but that was bluff and bluster. At that point you mention he was under cross examination on trial for five murders. The very real threat of a permanent prison cell was a very much real probability.
-
Jane, you mention the two shots.. sorry to press but.. which shot caused these marks?
Those marks were probably made when Sheila lifted her hand to her throat, smudged the blood around the wound, and put her arm back down again.
So, spots of blood land on her arm, after being shot once, with her arm being fairly level with the floor, so gravity doesn't make the blood drip down. Then, in shock after being shot first time, she moves her hand to the wound. Gravity then makes the blood move, then her arm moves back down. The blood stops moving, congeals a bit, then she gets shot a second time and dies.
That is how I understand those streaks of blood were produced in the way that they were.
You have to remember that there were 10 people that observed the post mortem, and the bodies were washed. So any physical wounds would have been noticed and noted.
4 of the 10 people in the post mortem were police officers who fully expected the pathologists to concur that Sheila had murdered everyone and then shot herself. So anything that jollied that along would be gratefully accepted.
Off the top of my head, there was Vanezis, an assistant, 2 students, 4 police, then two others who I can't remember.
The pathologists were very aware when they examined the bodies, what the police wanted to hear. And all they were looking for at that time, was confirmation that Sheila committed the crime, then killed herself.
-
I'm aware of that, but that was bluff and bluster. At that point you mention he was under cross examination on trial for five murders. The very real threat of a permanent prison cell was a very much real probability.
Yes, and at that point he was running out of options.
-
When I first met Jeremy Bamber in 1993. All he ever talked about was the case. He spent every waking moment on it. Believe at that time it was more or less dead. At that time i didn't know much how about his case just what he himself had told me. I had heard of it before but I don't think back then it was that high profile. This was pre internet and thus the case did not have the higher profile platform that it does today.
I have met many many prisoners over my time. Many have protested innocence. Some are.
The test I used in prison to test innocence is to look at someones energy when claiming they are a miscarriage of justice. Many a truly gulity party will protest their innocence and then stop trying to do anything else. It is a process. They become tired with lying and the trying to convince people. It becomes tedious.
Bamber never spoke about much other than gym and the case. He has been fighting his conviction for 37 years. If he is a liar he is a good actor and has an unreltenting energy level. He has never confessed to anyone. He has never faltered. He is either innocent, hates prison so much he wants out (from what I saw of him he took to prison like duck out of a water) or he is bored, I want to comment on the latter.
There has been much debate about Bamber appealing because he is bored. It will not occupy your for ,37 years. If you are gulity you will starve it off after repeated knockbacks. Many people just rest it after a while because fighting the system takes a lot of effort and energy. He has never wavered in 37 years.
I have never come across another prisoner like him
-
When I first met Jeremy Bamber in 1993. All he ever talked about was the case. He spent every waking moment on it. Believe at that time it was more or less dead. At that time i didn't know much how about his case just what he himself had told me. I had heard of it before but I don't think back then it was that high profile. This was pre internet and thus the case did not have the higher profile platform that it does today.
I have met many many prisoners over my time. Many have protested innocence. Some are.
The test I used in prison to test innocence is to look at someones energy when claiming they are a miscarriage of justice. Many a truly gulity party will protest their innocence and then stop trying to do anything else. It is a process. They become tired with lying and the trying to convince people. It becomes tedious.
Bamber never spoke about much other than gym and the case. He has been fighting his conviction for 37 years. If he is a liar he is a good actor and has an unreltenting energy level. He has never confessed to anyone. He has never faltered. He is either innocent, hates prison so much he wants out (from what I saw of him he took to prison like duck out of a water) or he is bored, I want to comment on the latter.
There has been much debate about Bamber appealing because he is bored. It will not occupy your for ,37 years. If you are gulity you will starve it off after repeated knockbacks. Many people just rest it after a while because fighting the system takes a lot of effort and energy. He has never wavered in 37 years.
I have never come across another prisoner like him
Thank you for that fascinating and insightful post.
Re that test you used. Do you know of any other lifer who has been given the same amount of attention, and the same opportunity to self publicize as JB? I feel certain it would make him feel enormously powerful -even innocent?!!!- to have all these fairly high profile people dancing attendance on him and appearing to believe him............and that's without the racy love interests he's alleged to have indulged in!!!
-
Hello everyone.Let us look at Mr Ismails evidence that Killingeve claims is proof that Sheila was murdered.To be quite honest,I dont understand it that well,the dress rucked up in different positions and so on.Infact it's no wonder the experts didn't bother to challenge it,they probably didn't know what the hell Ismail was talking about no more than I do.So,what is Ismail claiming? Part of his evidence is that Sheilas dress is rucked up differently front and back,and that this is proof her body was pulled down.He says he can tell this from the photos of Sheila,really? Ismail then says that Sheila received the second shot while she was lying with the back of her head against the bedside cabinet,having slipped down from a sitting position after the first shot.Fair enough,this matches the bullet trajectories.But heres the thing,for me,looking at the photos of Sheila,it looks as if her head has simply fallen to the side after the second shot.Ismail states that as soon as Sheila was shot a second time,JB must have thrown the rifle to one side and immediately pulled Sheila down flat.The reason for and importance of doing so is beyond my understanding.No doubt I will be enlightened by Killingeve.Now Ismail said that Sheila had to be pulled flat by someone because her head did not have enough weight to push her body down flat after the second shot.But as I have said,it looks to me as if Sheilas head has simply fallen to the side.Take another look at the photos of Sheila,her head is still up past the front of the cabinet,she hasnt been pulled at all.If you were to lift her head and place it against the front of the cabinet,that would be the position she was in when she received the second shot.Look at her left shoulder,its only a few inches away from the front of the cabinet,it couldn't be much nearer.Sheila hasn't been pulled AT ALL!,her hesd simply fell to the side after the second shot,and her dress was simply rucked up when she slipped down from the sitting position after the first shot.So,for me,Ismails so called evidence that Sheila was murdered is poop as far as I can see,no conclusive evidence at all.Bye for now.
-
Those marks were probably made when Sheila lifted her hand to her throat, smudged the blood around the wound, and put her arm back down again.
So, spots of blood land on her arm, after being shot once, with her arm being fairly level with the floor, so gravity doesn't make the blood drip down. Then, in shock after being shot first time, she moves her hand to the wound. Gravity then makes the blood move, then her arm moves back down. The blood stops moving, congeals a bit, then she gets shot a second time and dies.
That is how I understand those streaks of blood were produced in the way that they were.
You have to remember that there were 10 people that observed the post mortem, and the bodies were washed. So any physical wounds would have been noticed and noted.
4 of the 10 people in the post mortem were police officers who fully expected the pathologists to concur that Sheila had murdered everyone and then shot herself. So anything that jollied that along would be gratefully accepted.
Off the top of my head, there was Vanezis, an assistant, 2 students, 4 police, then two others who I can't remember.
The pathologists were very aware when they examined the bodies, what the police wanted to hear. And all they were looking for at that time, was confirmation that Sheila committed the crime, then killed herself.
There are no smudge marks on the first wound Killingeve.
-
Refusing to repeat what you've said previously just muddies the waters and confuses things.
You made grandiose statements in your post in my introduction thread, but without any explanation.
You haven't in any way whatsoever explained why Mr Ismails forensic report, which proves that Sheila Caffell was murdered (which none of us has actually seen), is wrong.
But you have said it was wrong. Which is mind boggling given that you haven't even read it.
But if you want to know why it has been proven that Sheila Caffell was murdered, then read on...
But let's go over the issues properly, which you seem reluctant to do.
Mt Ismails evidence wasn't ruled inadmissible, that is totally misleading.
The CoA will hear any evidence submitted to it by both defence and prosecution, the same as in a normal court case.
Mr Ismails evidence was submitted by the prosecution, and it was treated in exactly the same way as grounds 1 to 16, which was submitted by the defence.
Michael Turner's job, was to disprove Mr Ismails evidence, which he failed to do. More on that later.
Micheal Turner's next job is, if you can't disprove the science, then get it slung out on a technicality.
That's what he successfully did.
The judges agreed that the evidence in theory, was available in 1986, and therefore would not be considered in the final conclusion of the CoA report.
But it remains a valid piece of evidence, perfectly admissible in a legal sense. It was just disregarded by the judges when drawing up their final conclusions.
Paragraph 519 from the 2002 CoA states (concerning Mr Ismails evidence): ...if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it.
The bit in brackets is important, as it applies specifically to the CoA.
That bit in brackets makes very clear that Michael Turner QC, declined to make an application to the judges to call his own expert witness, in order to contradict Mr Ismails evidence.
Put simply Michael Turner QC, couldn't find an expert witness to contradict the evidence. Remember his job is to disprove everything the prosecution put forward. And they only put forward one piece of evidence.
If Michael Turner QC could have found an expert witness to contradict Mr Ismails evidence, he would have done. Because that would have put a lid on the argument for good.
It would have killed it off.
If Michael Turner QC cannot disprove Mr Ismails evidence using his own expert witness, then it remains that Sheila Caffell was murdered.
------------------------
I don't know where you got that from, but this is how the judges worded it in their final report (The final report is the only thing that matters):
Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet
The CoA judges, in their report, also say this:
...there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force...
That means that the only weight above the body is the head.
So, the back of her head propped against the bedside cabinet, combined with, only the weight above the body is the head; can only mean that her head was vertical against the bedside cabinet, and the body was "lying almost flat on her back".
And that is what Mr Ismails forensic examination discovered, and that is a predicted final resting position after death. So please don't say 'where are the photos'. Surely you know the answer to that?
Given that Sheila fell into this predicted position after the second shot, and is now dead, blood has stopped pumping, but there must be escaped blood inside her body, and gravity must be keeping that escaped blood below anywhere where it can exit. Remember, her head is vertical at this point.
When her murderer pulls the body back from the bedside cabinet, probably by the ankles, the head drops down and becomes horizontal, and that is when the blood spills out. The blood may have spilled out because of the physical movement of the body, or because her mouth and wounds were now in a more favourable position to enable blood to leak out. And maybe it was a combination of those things that led to the blood leaking out.
The blood running down her cheeks rather than down her chin, proves that she was moved immediately after death, other wise the blood would have dried and congealed inside her body.
Had her dead body (with the head in the vertical position) been moved by the police when they broke in at 07:30, or any time after, there would either be dried blood that had dripped down toward her chin, or no blood at all (if the effect of gravity ensured that the blood remained below any places where it could exit).
And as the blood running down her cheeks was very obviously dry in the photos, Sheila must have died before any of the firearms officers entered the house at approx. 07:30.
Also, some of the firearms officers noted the bullet wounds in her neck. Had her head been in a vertical position, propped against the bedside cabinet, I would think it would be impossible to see the wounds.
All of that proves that Sheila was murdered, and it proves that she was dead when the firearms officers broke into the house.
It also means that she would have been dead when the police turned up at 03:48, as there were no witnesses to a burglar or assassin leaving the premises after the police turned up.
This may not be how things play out in peoples heads, but what I've described is roughly how things will play out at the CCRC, or a court of law.
As you can see, the truth takes a long time to explain. Lies and dismissal, ignorance and arrogance, can all be achieved in one small sentence.
Thanks for posting this which is interesting, though I am with David on this and cannot see how it proves murder?
After the first shot if Sheila's head was vertical even for a few seconds then the direction of blood runs on her face and neck would not match? The blood on her neck would run downwards to start with, then as her legs were pulled only then then would the blood change direction and align with the blood escaping on Sheila face.
Where you say "and is now dead, blood has stopped pumping" when someone is shot in the head the persons heart can carry on beating for sometime? So I am not clear on this line of reasoning?
-
Hello everyone.Let us look at Mr Ismails evidence that Killingeve claims is proof that Sheila was murdered.To be quite honest,I dont understand it that well,the dress rucked up in different positions and so on.Infact it's no wonder the experts didn't bother to challenge it,they probably didn't know what the hell Ismail was talking about no more than I do.So,what is Ismail claiming? Part of his evidence is that Sheilas dress is rucked up differently front and back,and that this is proof her body was pulled down.He says he can tell this from the photos of Sheila,really? Ismail then says that Sheila received the second shot while she was lying with the back of her head against the bedside cabinet,having slipped down from a sitting position after the first shot.Fair enough,this matches the bullet trajectories.But heres the thing,for me,looking at the photos of Sheila,it looks as if her head has simply fallen to the side after the second shot.Ismail states that as soon as Sheila was shot a second time,JB must have thrown the rifle to one side and immediately pulled Sheila down flat.The reason for and importance of doing so is beyond my understanding.No doubt I will be enlightened by Killingeve.Now Ismail said that Sheila had to be pulled flat by someone because her head did not have enough weight to push her body down flat after the second shot.But as I have said,it looks to me as if Sheilas head has simply fallen to the side.Take another look at the photos of Sheila,her head is still up past the front of the cabinet,she hasnt been pulled at all.If you were to lift her head and place it against the front of the cabinet,that would be the position she was in when she received the second shot.Look at her left shoulder,its only a few inches away from the front of the cabinet,it couldn't be much nearer.Sheila hasn't been pulled AT ALL!,her hesd simply fell to the side after the second shot,and her dress was simply rucked up when she slipped down from the sitting position after the first shot.So,for me,Ismails so called evidence that Sheila was murdered is poop as far as I can see,no conclusive evidence at all.Bye for now.
It would be interesting to know if any experts were actually approached on this matter Snow, I should think such analysis would be very expensive and as you say no need to bother anyway?
-
It would be interesting to know if any experts were actually approached on this matter Snow, I should think such analysis would be very expensive and as you say no need to bother anyway?
Hi Rob,I dont see any evidence that Sheila was pulled flat,and it appears that Ismail did not even give a logical reason WHY anyone would bother to pull her flat.And remember,if it was Bamber then he must have planned to do it,it was done the moment after the shot was fired,if not the blood would have run in two different directions as you pointed out Rob.Killingeve says JB may have repositioned her to look more natural,but there would have been no rush to do this,not within a split second anyway,nonsense.Its just a ridiculous half baked claim from Ismail that dosen't hold up in any way.
-
The angle of shots may be relevant in trying to work things out Snow?..
Not really sure how Roch.
-
Hi Rob,I dont see any evidence that Sheila was pulled flat,and it appears that Ismail did not even give a logical reason WHY anyone would bother to pull her flat.And remember,if it was Bamber then he must have planned to do it,it was done the moment after the shot was fired,if not the blood would have run in two different directions as you pointed out Rob.Killingeve says JB may have repositioned her to look more natural,but there would have been no rush to do this,not within a split second anyway,nonsense.Its just a ridiculous half baked claim from Ismail that dosen't hold up in any way.
I know JB did some daft things Snow in this case that defy logic, but surely he would not disturb Sheila's body after the first shot? perhaps he thought putting the silencer in the cupboard was not helping the police enough! Only two suspects, the silencer now moving the body he was determined he was never going to spend his inheritance!
-
I know JB did some daft things Snow in this case that defy logic, but surely he would not disturb Sheila's body after the first shot? perhaps he thought putting the silencer in the cupboard was not helping the police enough! Only two suspects, the silencer now moving the body he was determined he was never going to spend his inheritance!
Looks like it Rob.
-
Very probable Bamber pulled Sheila's legs.
Either after the first shot. To position Sheila differently for the second shot.
Or after the second shot as part of his staging.
He was not expecting to be a suspect, let alone an expert 17 years later confirming Sheila was pulled after she had been shot.
-
Obviously guilters will go by Ismails evidence. If it's good enough for the COA judges.....
Supporters will become experts themselves & say Ismail is wrong.
-
Ismail was a tool reinforcement of Victor temples QC appeal
He was a mouthpiece. He looked at one photograph
-
There are no smudge marks on the first wound Killingeve.
There is if you're a pathologist and you know what to look for.
-
Thanks for posting this which is interesting, though I am with David on this and cannot see how it proves murder?
It proves murder because it proves that Sheila's body was moved after she died, and dead people can't move their own bodies.
The dried blood shows that she had been in the 'moved' position for a long time, before the firearms officers broke into the building.
It proves that the police didn't move the body, and she couldn't have moved her own body, and so that leaves a 3rd party. In other words, her murderer.
It sounds a bit like you are in denial, as even Michael Turner QC agrees with the evidence, and the 3 CoA judges, bold as brass made an official comment in their report saying that Michael Turner QC agreed with the evidence. And the 3 CoA judges also agreed with the evidence. And they all read the original piece of forensic science.
But apparently there are people on here with no forensic science experience, knowledge, training, or background, and who haven't read the original piece of forensic science, but they can say with absolute certainty that the scientists have got it wrong.
And they also say that the 3 CoA judges have got it wrong.
It also means that they are saying that the forensic science area that deals with blood pattern analysis, which was employed in this piece of forensic science, and which has been developed internationally over many decades, is incorrect.
Erm...I don't think so.
Anyway... after all that, it still stands that legally, thanks to this evidence, it is proven (as far as can be proven outside of a re-trial) that Sheila was murdered, and no one can change that fact.
-
Thanks for posting this which is interesting, though I am with David on this and cannot see how it proves murder?
After the first shot if Sheila's head was vertical even for a few seconds then the direction of blood runs on her face and neck would not match? The blood on her neck would run downwards to start with, then as her legs were pulled only then then would the blood change direction and align with the blood escaping on Sheila face.
Where you say "and is now dead, blood has stopped pumping" when someone is shot in the head the persons heart can carry on beating for sometime? So I am not clear on this line of reasoning?
Yes, she was certainly lying flat throughout as the blood flows show.
As for whether she was moved at all..
You have members of the firearms team stating "Photo of Sheila not in same position as when I saw it" "Head (1) Too close to bedside table. (2) Not sure about about angle of head but something not right"
(https://i.ibb.co/VBBR9BK/ADAMS10maaaa.jpg)
-
No amount of discussing the position of Sheila is going to name the murderer.
-
JB must be severely retarded to have given two shots to the neck when he should have known that one would have sufficed ? ::) He would have known of the jugular vein ! At close quarters ?
Yet psychological tests have proved that he had/has no such disability ?
Because that first shot had hit a blunt object ( a bone , hence the shattered bullet internally ) would there have been a recoil straight after because of this failure in hitting its target ?
Gas pressure after the first bullet would have allowed the bolt to remain open, enabling a second shot before re-loading. The idea being, of a semi-automatic, to allow the pressure to drop after firing before re-loading.
-
Sheila had unwittingly fired the second shot when the rifle was in the position it was, slightly removed from the first shot. Only a touch would have been needed for it to have re-fired because of the pressure which had remained.
A gas operated rifle fires twice !
-
Very probable Bamber pulled Sheila's legs.
Either after the first shot. To position Sheila differently for the second shot.
Or after the second shot as part of his staging.
He was not expecting to be a suspect, let alone an expert 17 years later confirming Sheila was pulled after she had been shot.
Hi Adam,you desregard Ismails evidence if you say that Sheila was pulled after the second shot.
-
Sorry,the first shot.
-
Yes, she was certainly lying flat throughout as the blood flows show.
As for whether she was moved at all..
You have members of the firearms team stating "Photo of Sheila not in same position as when I saw it" "Head (1) Too close to bedside table. (2) Not sure about about angle of head but something not right"
(https://i.ibb.co/VBBR9BK/ADAMS10maaaa.jpg)
Hi Dave,well,if Sheilas body was moved at all by the police,even inadvertently,then Ismails evidence holds even less weight,dosen't it?
-
JB must be severely retarded to have given two shots to the neck when he should have known that one would have sufficed ? ::) He would have known of the jugular vein ! At close quarters ?
Yet psychological tests have proved that he had/has no such disability ?
Because that first shot had hit a blunt object ( a bone , hence the shattered bullet internally ) would there have been a recoil straight after because of this failure in hitting its target ?
Gas pressure after the first bullet would have allowed the bolt to remain open, enabling a second shot before re-loading. The idea being, of a semi-automatic, to allow the pressure to drop after firing before re-loading.
Lookout, I hear what you say, but let's leave JB out of it for a moment. Any -EVERY- person will agree that two shots to another person's neck isn't immediately going to look like suicide. However, what do they do if the first shot -and leave aside what they SHOULD have done/known, errors/accidents occur to the best of them/us- didn't do it. What do the do next? They don't have too many options, do they, remembering that they want this to look like a suicide. They could walk away, hoping the victim would bleed to death, but given that their judgement has failed once, they risk their victim's surviving to tell the tale. They could could do a "blunt force trauma" but that would give the game away, wouldn't it? Really, all that's left is to fire another shot. Perhaps it's at that point that they make the decision to place the weapon across the victim to enhance the idea of suicide?
-
Lookout, I hear what you say, but let's leave JB out of it for a moment. Any -EVERY- person will agree that two shots to another person's neck isn't immediately going to look like suicide. However, what do they do if the first shot -and leave aside what they SHOULD have done/known, errors/accidents occur to the best of them/us- didn't do it. What do the do next? They don't have too many options, do they, remembering that they want this to look like a suicide. They could walk away, hoping the victim would bleed to death, but given that their judgement has failed once, they risk their victim's surviving to tell the tale. They could could do a "blunt force trauma" but that would give the game away, wouldn't it? Really, all that's left is to fire another shot. Perhaps it's at that point that they make the decision to place the weapon across the victim to enhance the idea of suicide?
I get what you're saying Jane and have mulled over the two shots every which way, but being, to my mind, that no other persons were involved, and because Sheila had no knowlege of the inner workings of a rifle,she herself had failed in her lack of knowlege that pressure remains in a rifle after each shot and a wait for that pressure to disperse would be the norm before another bullet is ejected.
-
The angle of shots may be relevant in trying to work things out Snow?..
Hi Roch,all I can say,is that the angles of the two shots tally with Sheila firing them.Both shots are inflicted from the right hand side and at almost the same angle,so dosen't this point to Sheila firing the first shot then slipping down still holding the rifle in the same position.The angle the second bullet enters her head changes once she has slipped down,but it still enters from the right hand side.This means that Sheilas hand never left the trigger between the shots,making it more unlikely she put her hand up to her throat.If JB shot Sheila once,then went back and shot her a second time later on,it is strange [coincidental?] how he came to shoot her AGAIN from the right hand side,at almost the SAME angle as the first shot,even after Sheila had slipped down to a different position.Isnt it more likely that Sheila shot herself,then slipped down still holding the rifle at the same angle,before pulling the trigger a second time?Makes sense to me.
-
Hi Dave,well,if Sheilas body was moved at all by the police,even inadvertently,then Ismails evidence holds even less weight,dosen't it?
Ismails evidence is the legally accepted truth, and has gone unopposed for the last 20 years.
It's quite possible that Jeremy Bamber has hired his own expert to have a look at the evidence, and the expert agreed with Ismail. That would explain the deafening silence on the matter.
The police have openly and publicly documented that they moved the body for a number of reasons. This was actually discussed at the trial.
For example, the photo of the gun against the window, taken from the landing was a photo that Bamber and his supporters said went undisclosed for years. But the very same photo was discussed at length at trial in 1986.
The police have always been open about moving the body, which was discussed at trial.
It doesn't help Jeremy Bamber's cause that he keeps lying about the evidence, and it doesn't help his cause that his supporters maintain the lie.
If you take the call log that Jeremy Bamber falsely says proves that Nevill Bamber phoned HQIR (999) that night, the document from which Bamber has fabricated that story was supposed to have been undisclosed at trial. And it was supposed to have been hidden by the police for years.
But one of the photocopies that has been publicly published, actually has a tag attached to it that confirms that is was in fact an exhibit at the 1986 court case at Chelmsford crown court.
And, on top of that, the ten minute time discrepancy was also discussed at trial, so both call logs would have been official exhibits, available to both defence and prosecution.
This isn't evidence of lying by Jeremy Bamber, it is proof of lying by Jeremy Bamber.
And these are really clumsy lies that are easy to expose.
And while I'm here...another lie that springs to mind is that Robert Boutflour's blood group was not disclosed to the defence at the time. And yet there he is, in court, being cross-examined, being accused of accidentally dripping his own blood into the silencer.
Why does Jeremy Bamber lie so much. He is addicted to lying. Why not just tell the truth. Oh yes, silly me.
-
So you know JB and the case well then,do you killingeve ? Not just through some drama that was on TV ??
-
Hi Roch,all I can say,is that the angles of the two shots tally with Sheila firing them.Both shots are inflicted from the right hand side and at almost the same angle,so dosen't this point to Sheila firing the first shot then slipping down still holding the rifle in the same position.The angle the second bullet enters her head changes once she has slipped down,but it still enters from the right hand side.This means that Sheilas hand never left the trigger between the shots,making it more unlikely she put her hand up to her throat.If JB shot Sheila once,then went back and shot her a second time later on,it is strange [coincidental?] how he came to shoot her AGAIN from the right hand side,at almost the SAME angle as the first shot,even after Sheila had slipped down to a different position.Isnt it more likely that Sheila shot herself,then slipped down still holding the rifle at the same angle,before pulling the trigger a second time?Makes sense to me.
Interesting proposition Snow. So she held the rifle in the same manner twice, but what actually changed in between shots, was her own positioning, hence the different shot angles.
I am mainly interested in how either of those shots could have deposited blood on the underside of her right wrist.
-
Interesting proposition Snow. So she held the rifle in the same manner twice, but what actually changed in between shots, was her own positioning, hence the different shot angles.
I am mainly interested in how either of those shots could have deposited blood on the underside of her right wrist.
Well,the blood could only have got to her wrist by running down her arm Roch,else we have to believe that blood spurted out of one of the wounds and landed on her wrist and nowhere else.Both of these ways seem very unlikely,hence I agree the blood was on Sheilas wrist/arm before she shot herself.
-
Hi Dave,well,if Sheilas body was moved at all by the police,even inadvertently,then Ismails evidence holds even less weight,dosen't it?
Correct.
-
So you know JB and the case well then,do you killingeve ? Not just through some drama that was on TV ??
Yes,Killingeve's knowledge of the case is very impressive Lookout,considering they have only studdied the case for about two and a half years like myself.mmm! as Jane would say.
-
Yes,Killingeve's knowledge of the case is very impressive Lookout,considering they have only studdied the case for about two and a half years like myself.mmm! as Jane would say.
You get to know these things from an early stage snow, and I'm no fool I'm afraid. :)
-
I don't know about JB allegedly saying he " should have been an actor ".
I should have been a detective, :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Ismails evidence is the legally accepted truth, and has gone unopposed for the last 20 years.
It's quite possible that Jeremy Bamber has hired his own expert to have a look at the evidence, and the expert agreed with Ismail. That would explain the deafening silence on the matter.
The police have openly and publicly documented that they moved the body for a number of reasons. This was actually discussed at the trial.
For example, the photo of the gun against the window, taken from the landing was a photo that Bamber and his supporters said went undisclosed for years. But the very same photo was discussed at length at trial in 1986.
The police have always been open about moving the body, which was discussed at trial.
It doesn't help Jeremy Bamber's cause that he keeps lying about the evidence, and it doesn't help his cause that his supporters maintain the lie.
If you take the call log that Jeremy Bamber falsely says proves that Nevill Bamber phoned HQIR (999) that night, the document from which Bamber has fabricated that story was supposed to have been undisclosed at trial. And it was supposed to have been hidden by the police for years.
But one of the photocopies that has been publicly published, actually has a tag attached to it that confirms that is was in fact an exhibit at the 1986 court case at Chelmsford crown court.
And, on top of that, the ten minute time discrepancy was also discussed at trial, so both call logs would have been official exhibits, available to both defence and prosecution.
This isn't evidence of lying by Jeremy Bamber, it is proof of lying by Jeremy Bamber.
And these are really clumsy lies that are easy to expose.
And while I'm here...another lie that springs to mind is that Robert Boutflour's blood group was not disclosed to the defence at the time. And yet there he is, in court, being cross-examined, being accused of accidentally dripping his own blood into the silencer.
Why does Jeremy Bamber lie so much. He is addicted to lying. Why not just tell the truth. Oh yes, silly me.
I think JB should get in touch with ME regarding Ismails evidence Killingeve. :))
-
I suppose I was a detective in a way as a retired nurse, as well as trying to get my head around law and litigation cases, sadly.
-
I suppose I was a detective in a way as a retired nurse, as well as trying to get my head around law and litigation cases, sadly.
Well,at least its kept you active Lookout!
-
Well,at least its kept you active Lookout!
Indeed it did,as I'm still on the ball, thankfully.
-
Indeed it did,as I'm still on the ball, thankfully.
Yes,well done.
-
Well,the blood could only have got to her wrist by running down her arm Roch,else we have to believe that blood spurted out of one of the wounds and landed on her wrist and nowhere else.Both of these ways seem very unlikely,hence I agree the blood was on Sheilas wrist/arm before she shot herself.
If you can suss this, and I can suss this, why does it seem so hard for many others to?
What I find amusing is that me and Bill have always been consistent on this, whereas those who oppose, are all over the place.
On minute Sheila is moving the underside of her wrist to her gunshot wounds; the next minute, it is blood that has ran down Sheila's dress and somehow soaked on to the underside of her wrist; the next minute, blood has spurted on to the underside of her wrist directly from a gunshot wound; the next minute blood has ran down her arm to the underside of her wrist.
Those who oppose have no unified voice. They can't sing from the same hymn sheet - they're all at sixes and sevens 😏
-
If you can suss this, and I can suss this, why does it seem so hard for many others to?
What I find amusing is that me and Bill have always been consistent on this, whereas those who oppose, are all over the place.
On minute Sheila is moving the underside of her wrist to her gunshot wounds; the next minute, it is blood that has ran down Sheila's dress and somehow soaked on to the underside of her wrist; the next minute, blood has spurted on to the underside of her wrist directly from a gunshot wound; the next minute blood has ran down her arm to the underside of her wrist.
Those who oppose have no unified voice. They can't sing from the same hymn sheet - they're all at sixes and sevens 😏
It's no big deal, though, is it Roch? We can, mainly, safely divide posters into guilty/innocent beliefs -leaving aside those who have no fixed beliefs but just like to argue aggressively!!- but rarely will any of those with the same belief, be united in sub beliefs, ergo whilst you and Bill agree on this point in particular, other than you both being in the same 'camp', there's probably more that divides, than unites, you. I guess finding ourselves united over something gives reason to celebrate.
-
If you can suss this, and I can suss this, why does it seem so hard for many others to?
What I find amusing is that me and Bill have always been consistent on this, whereas those who oppose, are all over the place.
Seriously?
You have an alleged cut on Sheila's shoulder with blood running out towards the floor (as it should). Then on Sheila's arm the rules of gravity have completely reversed and is pulling the blood upwards away from the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/T27S0j4/Shoulder-Mark5.jpg)(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f31756_77b2585e3e9f4f08b14814945de4eea3~mv2.png)
Then on top of that, you have all these alleged wounds that only seem to have bled in one direction despite allegedly suffering from these wounds while standing and mobile.
Then you have the autopsy evidence that requires a convoluted conspiracy you have no scintilla of evidence to support.
Then you have June inflicting all these wounds and going back to bed.
Then you have June inflicting fingernail wounds that caused blood to flow out of Sheila's arm. While Sheila is supposed to have inflicted the same nature of wounds to Nevills arm yet no blood is flowing from Nevill's arm and the injuries on Nevill's arm looks completely different to what is on Sheila's arm. Yet they are supposed to be the same type of injuries (according to you).
Then you have the evidence of two other experts - Bernard Knight and Helbert MacDonnell that contradict this idea. The excuse being the photos were not good enough despite the fact none of them complained about the quality and felt them to be of adequate quality to draw their conclusions on.
This entire hodgepodge of lunacy rests solely on the claims of someone who has assumed there is expert evidence to support the claim because someone in the CT told him it would be part of the submission. The same person who told everyone to put money on JB being released by Christmas 2017.
So who is all over the place here? :))
-
So you know JB and the case well then,do you killingeve ? Not just through some drama that was on TV ??
I'd say I know the case as well as most people.
I got interested not because of the TV drama, but because of the online stuff about Jeremy Bamber, generated by Jeremy Bamber.
I found his evidence fascinating. On the surface it looked valid, but dig a bit deeper and it became obvious that he was creating fabricated stories from individual sheets of paper.
I found it amazing that national newspapers supported him, even though the evidence that he put forward never stood up to close scrutiny.
The fact remains that it has been as good as proven that Sheila was murdered. No one here on this forum has come up with anything to put a dent in that.
It's Bamber himself who has condemned himself to a life in prison, but not because he murdered his family, but because he has spent 37 years blaming Sheila Caffell for the crimes.
It is Jeremy Bamber, who has straightjacketed the legal system into only considering Jeremy Bamber or Sheila Caffell as the criminals.
If Sheila's innocent, then Jeremy's guilty. That comes from Jeremy. He really has hoisted himself on his own petard.
Had he allowed his defence to entertain the idea that a third party may have been involved, then his defence team could have introduced reasonable doubt.
I think it's in CAL's book that Mike Ainsley says something like, if Jeremy had allowed his defence team to put forward a possible third party, then he may have been found not guilty.
Not guilty doesn't mean innocent, but it does mean you walk free with the inheritance intact.
If it was me, and I was genuinely innocent, I would have begged the police to investigate the possibility of a third party. I'd definitely instruct my defence team along those lines.
Why didn't Bamber?
-
If it was me, and I was genuinely innocent, I would have begged the police to investigate the possibility of a third party. I'd definitely instruct my defence team along those lines.
Why didn't Bamber?
Because he knows it was Sheila. 😏
-
Bamber did briefly suggest Nevill said 'she' on the phone. In his police interviews.
This was after the police said Sheila could not have shot herself a second time.
-
Bamber did briefly suggest Nevill said 'she' on the phone. In his police interviews.
This was after the police said Sheila could not have shot herself a second time.
That is incorrect. You can find those words in Jeremys August 7th W/S. This has been pointed out to you before. Repeating disinformation you have concocted is not going to help you in convincing anyone (something that you are yet to achieve).
(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10110.0;attach=56185)
-
That is incorrect. You can find those words in Jeremys August 7th W/S. This has been pointed out to you before. Repeating disinformation you have concocted is not going to help you in convincing anyone (something that you are yet to achieve).
(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10110.0;attach=56185)
You are not quoting the section when the police say Sheila could not have shot herself a second time.
This is selective lying.
-
Bamber also suggested Crispy fired the second shot. As well as saying Sheila's reflexes may have fired the second shot.
Bamber never queried that Sheila could not have fired the second shot. That is because he knew the first shot had knocked her out.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=296.0
I'll get the page later.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=296.0
I'll get the page later.
Pages 26/27.
Quite a lot of discussion. A month after the massacre Bamber suggests Nevill may have said 'She'.
-
David was either mistaken in reply 116. Or it was lying with an alternative source.
Bamber wasn't half evasive & unhelpful in his police interviews.
-
David was either mistaken in reply 116. Or it was lying with an alternative source.
Bamber wasn't half evasive & unhelpful in his police interviews.
(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5816.0;attach=37757)
-
Adam it wasn't that he was so much evasive. They were grilling him for a cough. They threatened to chuck Bruce bowler out at one point.
Policing thankfully has changed due to pace
-
(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5816.0;attach=37757)
Why have you only posted one page?
-
Why have you only posted one page?
You posted 26/27. Why did you omit page 28?
-
Adam it wasn't that he was so much evasive. They were grilling him for a cough. They threatened to chuck Bruce bowler out at one point.
Policing thankfully has changed due to pace
They were asking him straight forward questions.
He drove me crazy just reading it.
-
Thank you for that fascinating and insightful post.
Re that test you used. Do you know of any other lifer who has been given the same amount of attention, and the same opportunity to self publicize as JB? I feel certain it would make him feel enormously powerful -even innocent?!!!- to have all these fairly high profile people dancing attendance on him and appearing to believe him............and that's without the racy love interests he's alleged to have indulged in!!!
He hasn't involved himself in any love trysts. Apart from a miniscule period he has been a CAT A prisoner. He may have held hands had " girlfriends" so to speak. But I can guarantee you he hasn't entertained himself. Well tell I lie I bet after 37 years alone he most probably has!
In recent years he has had some high profile support. Peter tatchell Andrew hunter MP. His case was also effectively dead between 1989 and 2001. The wilderness years. It has picked up momentum now there is the high profile of the internet. But no more than any other prisoner.
The WHF drama probably gave the case a large profile boost. I remember at work not too long ago asking people ( all in their sixties ) if they heard of Jeremy bamber and only 20 percent had. It isn't as high profile as you think
High profile criminals in the UK are people like Ian Huntley, Charles Bronson.
-
You posted 26/27. Why did you omit page 28?
Page 28 does also discuss Bamber saying 'she'.
You said he never suggested it?
-
They were asking him straight forward questions.
He drove me crazy just reading it.
He was winding them up. He seemed pretty relaxed to me.
Some of the questions from the police were provocative to be fair
-
Anyway Bamber couldn't dispute Sheila had been murdered. Or that she could not have fired the second shot. He was there!
It was time for alternatives -
'She'
'Crispy'
'Reflex's'.
-
Anyway Bamber couldn't dispute Sheila had been murdered. Or that she could not have fired the second shot. He was there!
It was time for alternatives -
'She'
'Crispy'
'Reflex's'.
He has stated his innocence for 37 years
-
He was winding them up. He seemed pretty relaxed to me.
Some of the questions from the police were provocative to be fair
At the time the Q & A's were written down. Which gave Bamber more time.
SJ said if they were recorded Bamber would have confessed.
That I doubt. He was much too determined.
-
At the time the Q & A's were written down. Which gave Bamber more time.
SJ said if they were recorded Bamber would have confessed.
That I doubt. He was much too determined.
I agree. We just have SJ take on that though. To be fair the tape would have confirmed it. If tape recording was standard practice at the time. Sadly it wasnt
At times detectives tried to put words in Bambers mouth. He himself referenced this. They also as I stated threaten to banish Bruce bowler from interview.
Would have thought bowler would have recommended a no comment interview. Maybe Bamber went against his advice
-
I agree. We just have SJ take on that though. To be fair the tape would have confirmed it.
At times detectives tried to put words in Bambers mouth. He himself referenced this. They also as I stated threaten to banish Bruce bowler from interview.
Would have thought bowler would have recommended a no comment interview. Maybe Bamber went against his advice
Bamber did say 'no comment' a lot.
His attitude & answers in the police interviews confirms his guilt.
He now knew it was going to be all about the trial.
And he wasn't expecting the interview transcript to go online!
-
The fact is though. This 24 year old posh boy. With no prior contact with police. Couldn't be broken down by seasoned detectives. Guarantee they wanted a cough. And they couldn't get one
Bruised egos
-
Bamber did say 'no comment' a lot.
His attitude & answers in the police interviews confirms his guilt.
He now knew it was going to be all about the trial.
And he wasn't expecting the interview transcript to go online!
There is nothing in those transcripts that point to guilt at all.
No confession
A few odd no comments is not a tantamount to guilt
You know this
-
He now knew it was going to be all about the trial.
He was bailed, without charge ( apart from the caravan site) and embarked on a holiday with Brett Collins to st Tropez
-
If you want an example of a family killer who started lying when his story did not fit. Look no further than Sef Gonzales
https://www.smh.com.au/national/lies-lies-lies-sef-gonzales-admits-telling-20-of-them-20040511-gdiwfu.html (https://www.smh.com.au/national/lies-lies-lies-sef-gonzales-admits-telling-20-of-them-20040511-gdiwfu.html)
-
If you want an example of a family killer who started lying when his story did not fit. Look no further than Sef Gonzales
https://www.smh.com.au/national/lies-lies-lies-sef-gonzales-admits-telling-20-of-them-20040511-gdiwfu.html (https://www.smh.com.au/national/lies-lies-lies-sef-gonzales-admits-telling-20-of-them-20040511-gdiwfu.html)
Seen this David
That singing eulogy he did was so cringeworthy
-
He hasn't involved himself in any love trysts. Apart from a miniscule period he has been a CAT A prisoner. He may have held hands had " girlfriends" so to speak. But I can guarantee you he hasn't entertained himself. Well tell I lie I bet after 37 years alone he most probably has!
In recent years he has had some high profile support. Peter tatchell Andrew hunter MP. His case was also effectively dead between 1989 and 2001. The wilderness years. It has picked up momentum now there is the high profile of the internet. But no more than any other prisoner.
The WHF drama probably gave the case a large profile boost. I remember at work not too long ago asking people ( all in their sixties ) if they heard of Jeremy bamber and only 20 percent had. It isn't as high profile as you think
High profile criminals in the UK are people like Ian Huntley, Charles Bronson.
ILB, I was careful, when mentioning "love trysts" to use "alleged"! ;D All I can say is that such has/have been claimed!! I would agree that 37 years of celibacy might be trying and hard to cope with!!!
I think it's probably only on forums like this that interest in the case is alive. There are newer and more interesting cases for people to get their teeth into.
-
Adam it wasn't that he was so much evasive. They were grilling him for a cough. They threatened to chuck Bruce bowler out at one point.
Policing thankfully has changed due to pace
When you say 'pace', don't you mean Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
This interview was conducted in 1986.
Also his solicitor reminds Bamber that he is under no obligation to answer any questions, which he said at the beginning of this particular sequence of questioning.
Jeremy Bamber volunteered his answers, immediately after his solicitor had reminded him of his rights.
Jeremy Bamber concludes this section of questioning by resorting to 'no comment'
They were hardly 'grilling him for a cough', and it was Bamber who tied himself up in knots.
And as for 'grilling him for a cough'.....you've been watching too much Starskey and Hutch.
-
ILB, I was careful, when mentioning "love trysts" to use "alleged"! ;D All I can say is that such has/have been claimed!! I would agree that 37 years of celibacy might be trying and hard to cope with!!!
I think it's probably only on forums like this that interest in the case is alive. There are newer and more interesting cases for people to get their teeth into.
I agree Jane.
It is an interesting case. It is your classic " whodunnit" it has a beautiful women, a handsome son. As the chief suspects.
It happened in the height of thatchers Britain. As a lover of 80s music. I can't think about the case with hearing a sample of ABC look of love in my head!
I had heard of the case back in 1985. I can distinctively either reading about it or watching something on TV about it. But it wasn't until I met Bamber himself I took a greater interest in it. Even when I met Bamber for the first time it was just what he told me. I wasn't privy to documents he had. That was his business. I wasn't his McKenzie man like Mike was.
Believe until the internet came along there was nothing you could really do much research into apart from books and TV documentaries. This site proved a god send.
-
The fact is though. This 24 year old posh boy. With no prior contact with police. Couldn't be broken down by seasoned detectives. Guarantee they wanted a cough. And they couldn't get one
Bruised egos
Yes, they must have felt like punching him.
-
When you say 'pace', don't you mean Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
This interview was conducted in 1986.
Also his solicitor reminds Bamber that he is under no obligation to answer any questions, which he said at the beginning of this particular sequence of questioning.
Jeremy Bamber volunteered his answers, immediately after his solicitor had reminded him of his rights.
Jeremy Bamber concludes this section of questioning by resorting to 'no comment'
They were hardly 'grilling him for a cough', and it was Bamber who tied himself up in knots.
And as for 'grilling him for a cough'.....you've been watching too much Starskey and Hutch.
I think you will find that pace 1984 did not come into effect till long after the Bamber police interviews.
The legislation of it didn't not come into effect till after Bamber. Hence the interview was not tape recorded
The interview happened in September 1985. Not 1986.
The police were going for a cough. Jones referenced it himself years later. And it is what all police interviews are about? Do you realise this?
From a man who has spent a significant period of his life in custody. I do know what I am talking about
Reference bowler, I agree. Maybe Bamber didn't take his advice ?
-
A lot of innocent people say " no comment " as many " comments " that are made are misconstrued by their examiner and other police who are involved, then embelished and before you know it a full statement is cobbled up and lo and behold you're guilty, so it's best to say nothing and only go on the directions of your solicitor/ lawyer.
-
There is nothing in those transcripts that point to guilt at all.
No confession
A few odd no comments is not a tantamount to guilt
You know this
The whole interview was one long confession.
It was - we both know I did it. Take me to court and get a guilty verdict. I will fight you.
It becomes obvious by the first page.
-
A lot of innocent people say " no comment " as many " comments " that are made are misconstrued by their examiner and other police who are involved, then embelished and before you know it a full statement is cobbled up and lo and behold you're guilty, so it's best to say nothing and only go on the directions of your solicitor/ lawyer.
I've only seen 'no comments' from criminals. But feel free to give me alternative examples.
Bamber said 'no comment' sometimes. His other answers were so callous & provocative he might as well say 'no comment'.
-
I've only seen 'no comments' from criminals. But feel free to give me alternative examples.
Bamber said 'no comment' sometimes. His other answers were so callous & provocative he might as well say 'no comment'.
If you have seen only no comment answers from criminals. Then I'm sorry it just goes to show how wet behind the ears you really are
-
I've only seen 'no comments' from criminals. But feel free to give me alternative examples.
Bamber said 'no comment' sometimes. His other answers were so callous & provocative he might as well say 'no comment'.
Listen to the podcast about JB's police interviews. It's very informative.
-
I've only seen 'no comments' from criminals. But feel free to give me alternative examples.
Collin Stagg.
Suddenly he was the prime suspect for the Rachel murder. He was interviewed for hour after hour. Detectives noted he was defensive, awkward and repeatedly answered questions with a "no comment".
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breakthrough-as-man-quizzed-on-nickell-murder-630349 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breakthrough-as-man-quizzed-on-nickell-murder-630349)
Robert Napper later pleaded guilty to the murder of Rachel Nickell
-
If you have seen only no comment answers from criminals. Then I'm sorry it just goes to show how wet behind the ears you really are
Give me examples. David has given one.
As said Bamber used a variety of answers to tie everyone up in knots. It is very obvious from reading it.
-
Give me examples. David has given one.
As said Bamber used a variety of answers to tie everyone up in knots. It is very obvious from reading it.
Neil acourt, Jamie acourt, Luke Knight
Prime suspects in the 1993 stabbing of teenager Stephen Lawrence.
All have been arrested and interviewed and some even charged at points. All have answered no comment in interviews. And these three have never been convicted so in the eyes of the law are innocent men
-
Copied from another thread -
Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 -don't knows' & 'can't say'.
Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so' & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'
The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer.
He initially said he phoned Julie before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Julie was phoned after the police phone call.
He suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila
He also suggested Nevill said 'She', not 'Sheila' !
He didn't dispute that Sheila could not have shot herself twice
-
Neil acourt, Jamie acourt, Luke Knight
Prime suspects in the 1993 stabbing of teenager Stephen Lawrence.
All have been arrested and interviewed and some even charged at points. All have answered no comment in interviews. And these three have never been convicted so in the eyes of the law are innocent men
Surely you are not now supporting Bamber, Knight & the acourts.
-
Surely you are not now supporting Bamber, Knight & the acourts.
The acourts and Luke Knight have never been convicted. The police have never had enough evidence against them.
They are in the eyes of the law innocent men
-
Bamber also couldn't remember what he spoke to Julie about at 10pm.
The interviews say Julie saw the bike on the 4th August. I previously suggested he stole June's bike around that time.
-
Called been on the spot
Getting interviewed by seasoned detectives will put you under a little bit of pressure
-
Called been on the spot
Getting interviewed by seasoned detectives will put you under a little bit of pressure
As said he was being asked simple questions. About himself.
Everything was being written down so there was no rush.
-
Bamber not confessing during the police interviews was not a surprise. If everyone coughed during these, there would be no trials.
What is damaging is him indirectly confessing due to his constant contempt & lack of effort.
-
Bamber not confessing during the police interviews was not a surprise. If everyone coughed during these, there would be no trials.
What is damaging is him indirectly confessing due to his constant contempt & lack of effort.
The questioning was direct. As it would be expected to be. They were accusing him of five counts of murder.
He never confessed. One iota. There was never a modicum admission to anything. He denied everything that was put to him
I guarantee they saw Bamber as wet behind the ears and easy meat. Hence years later Jones recalled he was adamant he'd get a cough. They couldn't break Bamber
-
The coppers were forceful. At one point when Bamber asked if he could have a word with Bruce bowler. The copper shut him down by saying he was conducting an interview and demanded that he answered. That would not happen in this day and age. Thank god for PACE.
The coppers as I have stated threatened to eject Bruce bowler at one point. Thank god legislation has come a long way since then. This was a shambles of a process
-
As said he was being asked simple questions. About himself.
Everything was being written down so there was no rush.
They were trying to trip him up. It's how they work.
He should have just said no comment. Believe legal advice would have told him. Ultimately up to Bamber though. He chose to speak. That was his choice.
-
They were trying to trip him up. It's how they work.
He should have just said no comment. Believe legal advice would have told him. Ultimately up to Bamber though. He chose to speak. That was his choice.
'What did you speak to Julie about in your 10pm phone call?'
----------
Yes I can see they were trying to trip him up.
-
'What did you speak to Julie about in your 10pm phone call?'
----------
Yes I can see they were trying to trip him up.
I don't have the transcript to hand. I'm guessing the reply was either no comment or can't remember? Please enlighten myself
That's one question. The general jest of the interviews was to trip him up. Because they believed he was gulity. Hence he was arrested
-
I don't have the transcript to hand. I'm guessing the reply was either no comment or can't remember? Please enlighten myself
That's one question. The general jest of the interviews was to trip him up. Because they believed he was gulity. Hence he was arrested
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=296.0
-
He's in prison Adam, give up.
-
I don't need a link to lambertons forum. Adam.
I just wanted Bambers reply to that question you said.
Either no comment or I can't remember.
Nothing of those replies he made are detrimental anyway
-
I don't need a link to lambertons forum. Adam.
I just wanted Bambers reply to that question you said.
Either no comment or I can't remember.
Nothing of those replies he made are detrimental anyway
Believe he said 'I don't remember'.
However did remember that he didn't say 'tonights the night'.
-
Believe he said 'I don't remember'.
However did remember that he didn't say 'tonights the night'.
We only have Julie's word for that
-
We only have Julie's word for that
Yes Julie gave a full account of the phone call.
After Bamber had rang her.
-
My guess is that JM didn't say such a thing. It was part of her own embroidery.
-
Yes Julie gave a full account of the phone call.
After Bamber had rang her.
Which he disputes.
-
The questioning was direct. As it would be expected to be. They were accusing him of five counts of murder.
He never confessed. One iota. There was never a modicum admission to anything. He denied everything that was put to him
I guarantee they saw Bamber as wet behind the ears and easy meat. Hence years later Jones recalled he was adamant he'd get a cough. They couldn't break Bamber
Must be the damp conditions in the interview rooms in those days. I think I'm getting a cough now.
Anyway, regarding Jeremy Bamber's interview techniques...
Lying in your interviews doesn't make you guilty, but Bamber did lie in his interviews.
Getting asked questions about the inconsistencies in his story - that you fail to answer properly, doesn't make you guilty. But this happened a number of times with Jeremy Bamber during his interviews.
Saying 'No Comment' when your lying gets exposed by your interviewer, does not make you guilty. But this kept happening with Jeremy Bamber.
Jeremy Bamber lied to the police outside the house.
Jeremy Bamber lied in his statements.
Jeremy Bamber lied in his interviews.
Jeremy Bamber lied at every given opportunity. But it doesn't make him guilty.
But if you look at his lies, and then just for a moment let's assume he is guilty, then those lies do fit with a Bamber is guilty scenario.
Doesn't make him guilty. Absolutely does not make him guilty.
But the lies do fit a guilty scenario. If he was guilty, then the lies become logical, you can see why a guilty person would make them.
But his lies still doesn't make him guilty. There is lots of other evidence that does that.
The problem with Jeremy Bamber, is that he is a terrible liar. He so obviously can't remember the lies that he's made previously. And that makes the lies even more obvious, because DS Jones, his interviewer, can remember the lies he made earlier.
And DS Jones plays a blinder, all within the new PACE laws that came in a year before. And all in front of Jeremy Bamber's solicitor who warns Bamber whenever necessary that he doesn't have to answer the questions.
Of course, his solicitor would be very aware of the new PACE laws that became law the year before, and was satisfied that DS Jones had fully complied with them, as he didn't make any complaints.
Anyway, I'm off to gen up on some macho 1970's cop talk, so that I can keep up with the Starsky and Hutch jargon....who loves ya baby?
-
Must be the damp conditions in the interview rooms in those days. I think I'm getting a cough now.
Anyway, regarding Jeremy Bamber's interview techniques...
Lying in your interviews doesn't make you guilty, but Bamber did lie in his interviews.
Getting asked questions about the inconsistencies in his story - that you fail to answer properly, doesn't make you guilty. But this happened a number of times with Jeremy Bamber during his interviews.
Saying 'No Comment' when your lying gets exposed by your interviewer, does not make you guilty. But this kept happening with Jeremy Bamber.
Jeremy Bamber lied to the police outside the house.
Jeremy Bamber lied in his statements.
Jeremy Bamber lied in his interviews.
Jeremy Bamber lied at every given opportunity. But it doesn't make him guilty.
But if you look at his lies, and then just for a moment let's assume he is guilty, then those lies do fit with a Bamber is guilty scenario.
Doesn't make him guilty. Absolutely does not make him guilty.
But the lies do fit a guilty scenario. If he was guilty, then the lies become logical, you can see why a guilty person would make them.
But his lies still doesn't make him guilty. There is lots of other evidence that does that.
The problem with Jeremy Bamber, is that he is a terrible liar. He so obviously can't remember the lies that he's made previously. And that makes the lies even more obvious, because DS Jones, his interviewer, can remember the lies he made earlier.
And DS Jones plays a blinder, all within the new PACE laws that came in a year before. And all in front of Jeremy Bamber's solicitor who warns Bamber whenever necessary that he doesn't have to answer the questions.
Of course, his solicitor would be very aware of the new PACE laws that became law the year before, and was satisfied that DS Jones had fully complied with them, as he didn't make any complaints.
Anyway, I'm off to gen up on some macho 1970's cop talk, so that I can keep up with the Starsky and Hutch jargon....who loves ya baby?
You are being absolutely ridiculous Adam.
As I have stated. Nothing in those September 1985 interviews point to guilt.
The Nancy boy didn't fall victim to South London bullying patter
-
You are being absolutely ridiculous Adam.
As I have stated. Nothing in those September 1985 interviews point to guilt.
The Nancy boy didn't fall victim to South London bullying patter
It is Killingeve's post.
-
It is Killing eves post.
No comment :)
-
Nothing in those September 1985 interviews point to guilt.
----------
Everything points to guilt.
He just didn't say 'yes I did it'.
-
The problem with Jeremy Bamber, is that he is a terrible liar. He so obviously can't remember the lies that he's made previously. And that makes the lies even more obvious, because DS Jones, his interviewer, can remember the lies he made earlier.
Such as?
-
Nothing in those September 1985 interviews point to guilt.
----------
Everything points to guilt.
He just didn't say 'yes I did it'.
No he denied everything. Claimed total innocence
A stance he has kept since 1985
-
No he denied everything. Claimed total innocence
A stance he has kept since 1985
Blackadder to Baldrick - 'deny everything'.
Didn't do them much good either.
You are a supporter. No question.
-
Blackadder to Baldrick - 'deny everything'.
Didn't do them much good either.
You are a supporter. No question.
I am a realist
Big shock. People will have an opinion that will differ to yours. You don't have to respect it. But it has been the ways of the world since Adam (no pun intended) and eve.
I have never championed Jeremy Bambers innocence
-
I am a realist
Big shock. People will have an opinion that will differ to yours. You don't have to respect it. But it has been the ways of the world since Adam (no pun intended) and eve.
I have never championed Jeremy Bambers innocence
You make Lookout look like a mild supporter.
Nothing wrong with that. Yvonne & Phillip are passionate supporters.
-
You make Lookout look like a mild supporter.
Nothing wrong with that. Yvonne & Phillip are passionate supporters.
I am not a supporter.
I met Jeremy Bamber in prison in 1993.
We have no contact with each other anymore
-
I am not a supporter.
I met Jeremy Bamber in prison in 1993.
We have no contact with each other anymore
What makes Bamber guilty?
-
What makes Bamber guilty?
What do you mean? Do you mean what do I think as a fence sitter makes him gulity?
-
What do you mean? Do you mean what do I think as a fence sitter makes him gulity?
Yes.
-
Yes.
You should have asked.
The leaving out of the rifle excuse to police. Convenient. Nevill Bamber was fastidious with rifles. Bamber saying he took the rifle out to shoot rabbits ties in with a narrative where he could make out Shelia would have access to a rifle. Because Nevills practice was to make sure they were locked out of site.
Not phoning 999 I don't place a lot on it
The milestone comment to Colin Caffell.
General behaviour. Contacting basil cock a day after his parents death. Not grieving " properly" but how does someone grieve.
-
The countless holidays. They don't point to guilt. I've referenced it to you. But circumstancial wise they point to an individual who is wishing to " make him self scarce"
-
Those marks were probably made when Sheila lifted her hand to her throat, smudged the blood around the wound, and put her arm back down again.
So, spots of blood land on her arm, after being shot once, with her arm being fairly level with the floor, so gravity doesn't make the blood drip down. Then, in shock after being shot first time, she moves her hand to the wound. Gravity then makes the blood move, then her arm moves back down. The blood stops moving, congeals a bit, then she gets shot a second time and dies.
That is how I understand those streaks of blood were produced in the way that they were.
You have to remember that there were 10 people that observed the post mortem, and the bodies were washed. So any physical wounds would have been noticed and noted.
4 of the 10 people in the post mortem were police officers who fully expected the pathologists to concur that Sheila had murdered everyone and then shot herself. So anything that jollied that along would be gratefully accepted.
Off the top of my head, there was Vanezis, an assistant, 2 students, 4 police, then two others who I can't remember.
The pathologists were very aware when they examined the bodies, what the police wanted to hear. And all they were looking for at that time, was confirmation that Sheila committed the crime, then killed herself.
Thanks for response. I will reply properly to this post and one of David's posts on the same topic, when I get the chance.
-
The window of opportunity. Something we both seem to agree on.
I have always stated the window of opportunity was there. It doesn't prove guilt or innocence. But he has no alibi. But to be fair how can a man who lives alone in a cottage have an alibi at that time of night?
-
I am not a supporter.
I met Jeremy Bamber in prison in 1993.
We have no contact with each other anymore
Hi ILb,was Bamber an intelligent person? Killingeve seems to think not.
-
I would have said that JB was/is intelligent, but by no means clever ! A huge difference.
killingeve said " gravity doesn't make the blood drip down ". It does,you know ! Any liquid which is dropped runs to find its own level----downwards. Gravity is downwards in anyone's language. Falling, like the proverbial apple off the tree.
-
Hi ILb,was Bamber an intelligent person? Killingeve seems to think not.
He seemed reasonably intelligent. A very very confident guy.
I don't think you can really judge intelligence in trying to get away with murder. Time has shown bright intellectual people have come a cropper, while people who would be seen as " thick" have gotten away with murder
It's not the same for every crime. And it's not the same for every criminal
-
He seemed reasonably intelligent. A very very confident guy.
I don't think you can really judge intelligence in trying to get away with murder. Time has shown bright intellectual people have come a cropper, while people who would be seen as " thick" have gotten away with murder
It's not the same for every crime. And it's not the same for every criminal
Thanks ILB,so you would describe him as someone with an average IQ,by no means backward,shall we say? Its just that I have noticed a few digs about not being the sharpest,but this may just be from guilters being nasty.
-
Thanks ILB,so you would describe him as someone with an average IQ,by no means backward,shall we say? Its just that I have noticed a few digs about not being the sharpest,but this may just be from guilters being nasty.
He was definitely not intellectually challenged. I would just say of average intelligence. He was sociable, very confident guy as I've alluded to
-
He was definitely not intellectually challenged. I would just say of average intelligence. He was sociable, very confident guy as I've alluded to
Thank you very much ILB,that is all I wanted to know.
-
Thank you very much ILB,that is all I wanted to know.
No problem
-
Thanks ILB,so you would describe him as someone with an average IQ,by no means backward,shall we say? Its just that I have noticed a few digs about not being the sharpest,but this may just be from guilters being nasty.
Meeeow! Very passive aggressive.
IQ is meaningless when talking about someone's intelligence. The IQ test mostly concerns logical questions, that you can improve on significantly if you practice them a lot, and work out the type of logic that's involved in those types of questions.
But there is emotional intelligence as well.
There are things like attention to detail. The ability to Dot all the I's and cross all the t's.
Having a good memory or a bad memory. Different types of memory, Short term memory, long term memory.
Charm, charisma, the ability to make friends and acquaintances, and the ability to make the right friends and acquaintances, at the right time of your life.
Driving good people away, or attracting good people to you.
or behaving in a clever way, or a stupid way.
There are many, many aspects to what constitutes intelligence, of some description.
Intelligence and clever are two different things. So you can be intelligent, but incredibly stupid at the same time.
Anyway, Jeremy fails to impress when judging him on many of the above traits.
And that's what makes me notice that he's not the sharpest person in the world.
------
For example, what sort of person would lean back on his chair and floss his teeth with fibres from his jumper, whilst being interviewed as a suspect for murder?
It's that behaviour that makes him stupid; his total and complete inability to accurately judge the tone of the moment, to read the room and so on.
It's got nothing to do with age, it's his personality and innate ability to screw everything up. Everywhere he goes, there is a little whirlwind of chaos that swirls around him. And that is as true now, as it was long before the murders took place.
You see that crazy and reckless behaviour everywhere with Bamber. I mean, it is literally everywhere.
To sum it up in one word would be stupidity. Two words; pure stupidity.
-
Meeeow! Very passive aggressive.
IQ is meaningless when talking about someone's intelligence. The IQ test mostly concerns logical questions, that you can improve on significantly if you practice them a lot, and work out the type of logic that's involved in those types of questions.
But there is emotional intelligence as well.
There are things like attention to detail. The ability to Dot all the I's and cross all the t's.
Having a good memory or a bad memory. Different types of memory, Short term memory, long term memory.
Charm, charisma, the ability to make friends and acquaintances, and the ability to make the right friends and acquaintances, at the right time of your life.
Driving good people away, or attracting good people to you.
or behaving in a clever way, or a stupid way.
There are many, many aspects to what constitutes intelligence, of some description.
Intelligence and clever are two different things. So you can be intelligent, but incredibly stupid at the same time.
Anyway, Jeremy fails to impress when judging him on many of the above traits.
And that's what makes me notice that he's not the sharpest person in the world.
------
For example, what sort of person would lean back on his chair and floss his teeth with fibres from his jumper, whilst being interviewed as a suspect for murder?
It's that behaviour that makes him stupid; his total and complete inability to accurately judge the tone of the moment, to read the room and so on.
It's got nothing to do with age, it's his personality and innate ability to screw everything up. Everywhere he goes, there is a little whirlwind of chaos that swirls around him. And that is as true now, as it was long before the murders took place.
You see that crazy and reckless behaviour everywhere with Bamber. I mean, it is literally everywhere.
To sum it up in one word would be stupidity. Two words; pure stupidity.
You dont happen to be one of Bambers psychologists do you?
-
The police interviews did not mention a lot of the forensic evidence which was in the COA - silencer, nightdress, hands, feet, nails, fingers.
It probably had not been processed yet.
He was questioned about the windows, bike & his calls to Julie. All of which had been put forward by Julie.
If confronted with the COA evidence, he may have admitted it.
-
Meeeow! Very passive aggressive.
IQ is meaningless when talking about someone's intelligence. The IQ test mostly concerns logical questions, that you can improve on significantly if you practice them a lot, and work out the type of logic that's involved in those types of questions.
But there is emotional intelligence as well.
There are things like attention to detail. The ability to Dot all the I's and cross all the t's.
Having a good memory or a bad memory. Different types of memory, Short term memory, long term memory.
Charm, charisma, the ability to make friends and acquaintances, and the ability to make the right friends and acquaintances, at the right time of your life.
Driving good people away, or attracting good people to you.
or behaving in a clever way, or a stupid way.
There are many, many aspects to what constitutes intelligence, of some description.
Intelligence and clever are two different things. So you can be intelligent, but incredibly stupid at the same time.
Anyway, Jeremy fails to impress when judging him on many of the above traits.
And that's what makes me notice that he's not the sharpest person in the world.
------
For example, what sort of person would lean back on his chair and floss his teeth with fibres from his jumper, whilst being interviewed as a suspect for murder?
It's that behaviour that makes him stupid; his total and complete inability to accurately judge the tone of the moment, to read the room and so on.
It's got nothing to do with age, it's his personality and innate ability to screw everything up. Everywhere he goes, there is a little whirlwind of chaos that swirls around him. And that is as true now, as it was long before the murders took place.
You see that crazy and reckless behaviour everywhere with Bamber. I mean, it is literally everywhere.
To sum it up in one word would be stupidity. Two words; pure stupidity.
It's not the same for any crime or the same for every criminal
The Stephen Lawrence case is a good example. In the first 48 hours 26 separate observations naming the same five youths of being responsible. These youths have no alibis.
As of 2022, only two of them have been convicted. The other three remain free men and as of such in the eyes of the law are innocent men. Appreciate the first police investigation back in 1993 was a bungled one. And apparently there was allegations of corruption
There have been cases where individuals have had rock solid alibis that seem unimpregnable and tip to at first glance. Closer investigation has been able to strip away the alibis and then that individual has been convicted.
There have been cases where the " suspects" "perpetrators" have no used any intelligence, been reckless but remain free without charge because the CPS can't quite muster the evidence to put before a jury.
-
The police interviews did not mention a lot of the forensic evidence which was in the COA - silencer, nightdress, hands, feet, nails, fingers.
It probably had not been processed yet.
He was questioned about the windows, bike & his calls to Julie. All of which were put forward by Julie.
If confronted with the COA evidence, he may have admitted it.
He didn't falter. He gave explinations. He said no comment to some questions perhaps on at his own behest. Perhaps from legal advice.
He didn't come out of the interview scathed so to speak. He was bailed hours later
-
Guarantee to you he was only charged with the osea robbery from a tactical point of view to try and get him remanded. The robbery pales into insignificance when five charges of murder hang in the balance. Would have failed anyway. He would have got bail. Having no previous convictions etc
-
You dont happen to be one of Bambers psychologists do you?
No, I just observe the facts.
-
He didn't falter. He gave explinations. He said no comment to some questions perhaps on at his own behest. Perhaps from legal advice.
He didn't come out of the interview scathed so to speak. He was bailed hours later
Have you read the interview transcripts?
Bamber was trying to be as uncoperative as possible.
Do you think he would have admitted it if confronted with the mountain of COA evidence?
-
Have you read the interview transcripts?
Bamber was trying to be as uncopetative as possible.
Do you think he would have admitted it if confronted with the mountain of COA evidence?
Some of the police questions were ridiculous. Asking him what kind of household goods he had in his house. Threatening to kick his brief out of the room.
He may have came across as arragont. If he is innocent, why shouldn't he? He answered questions.
Yes I think he would have still denied it.
Are you familiar with how long GSR lasts for?
-
Have you read the interview transcripts?
Bamber was trying to be as uncoperative as possible.
Do you think he would have admitted it if confronted with the mountain of COA evidence?
Suspect the 'no comments' would increase. He can't dispute experts from an interview room.
He would still have nothing to lose by going to trial. Admitting it would not result in a lesser sentance. It was 5x murder.
He couldn't make a deal & become supergrass. He had worked alone.
-
Some of the police questions were ridiculous. Asking him what kind of household goods he had in his house. Threatening to kick his brief out of the room.
He may have came across as arragont. If he is innocent, why shouldn't he? He answered questions.
Yes I think he would have still denied it.
Are you familiar with how long GSR lasts for?
You need to cut the 'if's.
The 200+ pieces of evidence shows he is guilty. Nothing shows he is innocent.
But an interesting case to discuss.
-
Suspect the 'no comments' would increase. He can't dispute experts from an interview room.
He would still have nothing to lose by going to trial. Admitting it would not result in a lesser sentance. It was 5x murder.
He couldn't make a deal & become supergrass. He had worked alone.
He wouldn't be disputing experts from a police interview room. That would be his QC'S job at any subsequent trial
-
You need to cut the 'if's.
The 200+ pieces of evidence shows he is guilty. Nothing shows he is innocent.
But an interesting case to discuss.
Nothing conclusivley shows he is gulity. there is no smoking gun.
-
He wouldn't be disputing experts from a police interview room. That would be his QC'S job at any subsequent trial
He could say -
'He must be wrong'.
'I don't believe that'
'Show me the evidence'.
'How can that be if my dad said Sheila had gone crazy'.
---------
He didn't say any of these when told Sheila could not have shot herself twice.
-
Nothing conclusivley shows he is gulity. there is no smoking gun.
There is gun accessorie with Sheila's blood & paint on.
-
There is gun accessorie with Sheila's blood & paint on.
Blood belonging to Shelias blood group. A blood group shared by a percentage of the population
-
He could say -
'He must be wrong'.
'I don't believe that'
'Show me the evidence'.
'How can that be if my dad said Sheila had gone crazy'.
---------
He didn't say any of these when told Sheila could not have shot herself twice.
Perhaps he thought the police were leading him up the garden path. He was being grilled. And obviously would be on guard.
Maybe at Bruce bowlers legal advice?
Didn't incriminate himself still
-
Perhaps he thought the police were leading him up the garden path. He was being grilled. And obviously would be on guard.
Maybe at Bruce bowlers legal advice?
Didn't incriminate himself still
I'm sure BB didn't advise him to agree.
Then say a 'she', 'Crispy' or 'reflexes' resulted in the second shot.
-
I'm sure BB didn't advise him to agree.
Then say a 'she', 'Crispy' or 'reflexes' resulted in the second shot.
He was evidently being sarcastic
-
How does Jeremy Bamber get a mentally unhinged schizophrenic women to lie down so he can shoot her? With a long rifle used to shoot rabbits?
-
He was evidently being sarcastic
He was saying 'it was not me'. By suggesting alternatives.
One of the few times he gave a straight answer.
-
He was saying 'it was not me'. By suggesting alternatives.
One of the few times he gave a straight answer.
You don't think referencing a dog as being the culprit was not showing sarcasm?
-
How does Jeremy Bamber get a mentally unhinged schizophrenic women to lie down so he can shoot her? With a long rifle used to shoot rabbits?
That was a change of direction.
It's been explained before. Feel free to work it out yourself.
How is your Sheila scenario going?
-
You don't think referencing a dog as being the culprit was not showing sarcasm?
Desperation.
-
Desperation.
Oh please Adam
-
How does Jeremy Bamber get a mentally unhinged schizophrenic women to lie down so he can shoot her? With a long rifle used to shoot rabbits?
Sheila wasn't mentally unhinged. You are either ignorant, or angry/frustrated that you can't win the argument.
Resorting to stereotyping mental health patients, says more about your lack of understanding and lack of empathy, than it does about Sheila Caffell.
If Sheila felt that there was no physical way to escape, she would almost certainly have begged for mercy.
She would also have been terrified.
Jeremy Bamber may also have re-assured Sheila that he was only killing the parents, and that no one else was in any danger. Do what he says and everything will be alright. That is entirely plausible given the known facts. Far more plausible than Sheila fighting back.
Sheila also had an extreme reaction to the drug she was taking, that wouldn't have been diminished just because the dosage was halved (There is strong evidence that the tranquilising effect had not significantly diminished as a result of halving her dose).
Haloperidol doesn't work by tranquilising patients. The tranquilising effect of the drug is an unwanted side effect.
Another unwanted side effect of the drug that is experienced by even fewer patients, are symptoms similar to that of Parkinsons disease.
Parkinsons doesn't just cause tremors, it also causes slow movement.
Sheila is known to have been suffering both of those symptoms from the drug. Her body had a really bad reaction to the drug. It's the Parkinsons symptoms that contributed to her poor co-ordination and slow movement, that led people to say that she couldn't even make a cup of tea.
Not only does it make it less likely that Sheila was the killer, the side-effects of the drug would have helped to placate Sheila prior to being murdered.
I don't know why Jeremy Bamber supporters think that a tranquilised, stick thin woman exhibiting symptoms of Parkinsons would either be able to smash Nevill Bambers skull and arms to smithereens, or overpower her psychotic brother who has just murdered the family, and is now high on adrenaline.
It's also a line of defence that has not been pursued by Jeremy Bambers lawyers. It's much harder to demonise and persecute mental health patients now, than it was in 1986.
Obviously, demonising and persecuting the mentally ill may still be very popular amongst the wider public, and is a stick used frequently to beat Sheila with. But blaming the mad-old-schizo-bint-with-the-strength-of-ten-men won't wash from a legal point any more.
-
Sheila wasn't mentally unhinged. You are either ignorant, or angry/frustrated that you can't win the argument.
Resorting to stereotyping mental health patients, says more about your lack of understanding and lack of empathy, than it does about Sheila Caffell.
If Sheila felt that there was no physical way to escape, she would almost certainly have begged for mercy.
She would also have been terrified.
Jeremy Bamber may also have re-assured Sheila that he was only killing the parents, and that no one else was in any danger. Do what he says and everything will be alright. That is entirely plausible given the known facts. Far more plausible than Sheila fighting back.
Sheila also had an extreme reaction to the drug she was taking, that wouldn't have been diminished just because the dosage was halved (There is strong evidence that the tranquilising effect had not significantly diminished as a result of halving her dose).
Haloperidol doesn't work by tranquilising patients. The tranquilising effect of the drug is an unwanted side effect.
Another unwanted side effect of the drug that is experienced by even fewer patients, are symptoms similar to that of Parkinsons disease.
Parkinsons doesn't just cause tremors, it also causes slow movement.
Sheila is known to have been suffering both of those symptoms from the drug. Her body had a really bad reaction to the drug. It's the Parkinsons symptoms that contributed to her poor co-ordination and slow movement, that led people to say that she couldn't even make a cup of tea.
Not only does it make it less likely that Sheila was the killer, the side-effects of the drug would have helped to placate Sheila prior to being murdered.
I don't know why Jeremy Bamber supporters think that a tranquilised, stick thin woman exhibiting symptoms of Parkinsons would either be able to smash Nevill Bambers skull and arms to smithereens, or overpower her psychotic brother who has just murdered the family, and is now high on adrenaline.
It's also a line of defence that has not been pursued by Jeremy Bambers lawyers. It's much harder to demonise and persecute mental health patients now, than it was in 1986.
Obviously, demonising and persecuting the mentally ill may still be very popular amongst the wider public, and is a stick used frequently to beat Sheila with. But blaming the mad-old-schizo-bint-with-the-strength-of-ten-men won't wash from a legal point any more.
I'm not losing any argument. I never asked for one. I look at all aspects of the case. I'm on the fence. Nothing is coming close to changing that.
I'm not here to slate or tar anybody under the umbrella of stigma reference mental health.
She was unwell.
If she was unable to carry out a simple task of not being able to make a cup of tea, then she wouldn't be able to care for two small children, and undertake( even if fail to hold down) a number of cleaning jobs. People put Shelia in this category as more or less being static. She might have had numerous problems, but she was a reasonably energetic woman. Had a good social life, and was an active mother. All this crap about being unable to not make beans on toast, I'm sorry I don't buy it. AE here was putting Shelia down so much here. And also trying to embellish against Bamber.
Where did I reference Shelia having the strength of ten men?
What do you think Jeremy Bamber said to Shelia then to calm her? I don't think your reason of he said " it's ok I've just killed mum and dad " would have a calming effect. June and Shelia despite differences were reasonably close. And Shelia was know to adore nevill.
Don't come back at me saying " well she wouldn't harm them then" that's a weak argument. Many people have harmed people they care deeply about
This would have not been an easy task. Even if Bamber had her at gunpoint. Some sort of struggle would have taken place. He couldn't shoot her numerous times, he couldn't punch her, kick her, the bruises would take some explaining.
You are left with him saying calming words to a woman to effect what he wanted at gun point, and at an awkward angle with a long rifle
And Shelia not reacting
-
Sheila was very docile and un cordinated at the time of the massacre. Thread already created.
The man who would know this more than anyone was Bamber who studied her during his supper reconnaisance.
-
How do you know she was at the particular time uncoordinated?
Vacant, yes, docile? Funny adjective. Maybe she had lots on her mind?
-
How do you know she was at the particular time uncoordinated?
Vacant, yes, docile? Funny adjective. Maybe she had lots on her mind?
A recent thread has been created.
Why else did Bamber phone Julie & massacre his family after his reconnaisance?
Everything was ready.
-
A recent thread has been created.
Why else did Bamber phone Julie & massacre his family after his reconnaisance?
Everything was ready.
Do you mean the ten pm phonecall?
-
Do you mean the ten pm phonecall?
Yes.
As said before he only had a short window of opportunity until Sheila left WHF.
He had to go whether Sheila was a lamb to the slaughter or not. Tthe evidence shows she was.
-
Yes.
As said before he only had a short window of opportunity until Sheila left WHF.
He had to go whether Sheila was a lamb to the slaughter or not. Tthe evidence shows she was.
Are you going to write to Bamber reference the AM, or I can if you wish?
-
Are you going to write to Bamber reference the AM, or I can if you wish?
You can. Don't lead him into answers that make him look innocent.
Just ask if he switched his AM off before going to bed.
-
You can. Don't lead him into answers that make him look innocent.
Just ask if he switched his AM off before going to bed.
How can I lead him into anything?
I have never denied he had an AM.
He can either give three options, deny he had an AM. Offer a plausible explanation, or decline to write back to me
-
Yes.
As said before he only had a short window of opportunity until Sheila left WHF.
He had to go whether Sheila was a lamb to the slaughter or not. Tthe evidence shows she was.
Going back to this point.
He didn't have to do anything. Did somebody put him under pressure to kill his family?
Speaking logically of course.
The ten pm phonecall. Julie says he told her tonight or never. He says he mentioned about his day at work.
The evidence is conflicting reference Shelia. On the particular day August 6th 1985
Bamber himself states she seemed vacant
A farm worker recalled her cheerfully waving to him earlier that day and smiling warmly and greeting him warmly.
-
Adam, quick question to you about Shelia.
Do you believe she was largely sedentary, unable to make a cup of tea, beans on toast. Opinions of her from family members seem rather cruel. Even mocking her because she didn't drive. Maybe she had no desire to learn? Many don't
I see a girl who despite having mental health problems and a stay in a private clinic, was a single mother, who looked after two young boisterous happy children, who undertook cleaning work, ( doesn't matter if they fell through, she showed the gumption to turn up) an attractive girl with a lively social life.
A young woman who mocked all her life I reckon " as being slow " probably an inner family joke, and probably detrimentally wrecked her mental health. She was probably unfavourably compared against Bamber in their formative years. Despite him himself not being a high achiever. He was quick witted, reasonably smart and didn't have issues so to speak.
-
Adam, quick question to you about Shelia.
Do you believe she was largely sedentary, unable to make a cup of tea, beans on toast. Opinions of her from family members seem rather cruel. Even mocking her because she didn't drive. Maybe she had no desire to learn? Many don't
I see a girl who despite having mental health problems and a stay in a private clinic, was a single mother, who looked after two young boisterous happy children, who undertook cleaning work, ( doesn't matter if they fell through, she showed the gumption to turn up) an attractive girl with a lively social life.
A young woman who mocked all her life I reckon " as being slow " probably an inner family joke, and probably detrimentally wrecked her mental health. She was probably unfavourably compared against Bamber in their formative years. Despite him himself not being a high achiever. He was quick witted, reasonably smart and didn't have issues so to speak.
ILB is becoming the new QC. His posts are getting longer.
Sheila would have been very easy for Bamber to control. Thread recently created.
-
ILB is becoming the new QC. His posts are getting longer.
Sheila would have been very easy for Bamber to control. Thread recently created.
Just please answer my question
What's your opinion
-
Just please answer my question
What's your opinion
I did. It is in my second sentence.
-
I did. It is in my second sentence.
What brings you to that conclusion?
You understand the importance of a one shot from a Bamber gulity scenario?
Why didn't he just p1ss off
-
In any event for him even if gulity to get Shelia to be compliant ( eventually) and lie in such a place ( without attacking Bamber incessantly) is a farfetched conclusion
-
What brings you to that conclusion?
You understand the importance of a one shot from a Bamber gulity scenario?
Why didn't he just p1ss off
You asked this question a few days ago. Me & Jane answered.
Are you not able to think of reasons yourself?
-
In any event for him even if gulity to get Shelia to be compliant ( eventually) and lie in such a place ( without attacking Bamber incessantly) is a farfetched conclusion
Compliant?
Doubtful she knew what was going on.
-
Still waiting for ILB's Sheila scenario.
He tries to justify Bamber's actions enough. Then claims he's not a supporter when a Sheila scenario is requested.
-
Compliant?
Doubtful she knew what was going on.
She was a mother of two boys
She had the gumption and strength to be taken by Colin to WHF to spend time with her parents
If her only brother Jeremy Bamber had her at gunpoint, she would know " what was going on "
-
You asked this question a few days ago. Me & Jane answered.
Are you not able to think of reasons yourself?
Yeah I have my reasons
I think he would just leave and not shoot her a second time
-
Still waiting for ILB's Sheila scenario.
He tries to justify Bamber's actions enough. Then claims he's not a supporter when a Sheila scenario is requested.
As a fence sitter I just take a dispassionate view of everything
-
Yeah I have my reasons
I think he would just leave and not shoot her a second time
ILB!!! Do you really believe, having rid himself of all other impediments, and being close enough to his inheritance to smell it and taste it, that he'd have walked away from Sheila, not knowing, with absolute certainty, that she'd been mortally wounded, and wouldn't recover to say what had transpired? 'Course, we must also allow for a smidgeon of humanity and believe that the thought of leaving her in pain would have troubled him.
-
Bamber had to shoot Nevill & June 15 times.
So he would not expect Sheila shooting herself twice to be brought up. If he became a suspect.
It was a very low powered weapon.
-
ILB!!! Do you really believe, having rid himself of all other impediments, and being close enough to his inheritance to smell it and taste it, that he'd have walked away from Sheila, not knowing, with absolute certainty, that she'd been mortally wounded, and wouldn't recover to say what had transpired? 'Course, we must also allow for a smidgeon of humanity and believe that the thought of leaving her in pain would have troubled him.
In a guilty scenario, we're still waiting for the explanation of how he magically transferred her blood to her wrist, to the extent were there was enough flow to form clotting, while simultaneously ensuring that the clotting occurred in a completely fixed position.
So when manoeuvring her hand / arm, he managed to produce both flow and clotting instantaneously.
-
In a guilty scenario, we're still waiting for the explanation of how he magically transferred her blood to her wrist, to the extent were there was enough flow to form clotting, while simultaneously ensuring that the clotting occurred in a completely fixed position.
So when manoeuvring her hand / arm, he managed to produce both flow and clotting instantaneously.
Did you read what the campaign team said about the bloodied photo of Sheila taken at the morgue Roch,I am sure it is the photo which you posted on the Drop,pendant earring topic a while back,that they are talking about.
-
In a guilty scenario, we're still waiting for the explanation of how he magically transferred her blood to her wrist, to the extent were there was enough flow to form clotting, while simultaneously ensuring that the clotting occurred in a completely fixed position.
So when
manoeuvring her hand / arm, he managed to produce both flow and clotting instantaneously.
None of which has any bearing on ILB's belief that JB would have walked away after the first shot.
-
Did you read what the campaign team said about the bloodied photo of Sheila taken at the morgue Roch,I am sure it is the photo which you posted on the Drop,pendant earring topic a while back,that they are talking about.
No I didn't read what they said Snow. At least I don't recall it. I take it that it's of some interest?
-
No I didn't read what they said Snow. At least I don't recall it. I take it that it's of some interest?
Well,I found it interesting Roch,it seems to confirm that the photo that you posted on page 16 of the Drop/pendant,earring topic,is indeed that of Sheila,and that it was taken at the morgue.
If you go to the JB Official campaign site and click onto the Alibi section on the side menu,well down the page you will find written---There are also photos of Sheila still bleeding at the scene and further pictures taken at the mortuary show even more blood had flown from her mouth and nose,and was widely spread onto her face.----If you remember,there was quite a discussion about the photo.
So the campaign team are saying there are several morgue photos in their possession.And didn't Vanezis say that there were photos taken after the bodies were washed? Those are the ones you need to see to confirm the smaller wounds Roch.Maybe JBs defence team have already seen them?
-
It was part of an earring which had been literally ripped off Sheila's ear, leaving damage to that area.
-
It was part of an earring which had been literally ripped off Sheila's ear, leaving damage to that area.
Hi Lookout,I am not referring to the photo of the earring,I am talking about the photo that Roch posted at the bottom of page 16,the photo of Sheila with blood smears all over her face.I am sure that is the morgue photo that the campaign team are talking about in their 'Alibi' thread.
-
Hi Lookout,I am not referring to the photo of the earring,I am talking about the photo that Roch posted at the bottom of page 16,the photo of Sheila with blood smears all over her face.I am sure that is the morgue photo that the campaign team are talking about in their 'Alibi' thread.
Oh okay snow, I just mentioned her ear because it was so puffed up through someone trying to rip her earring off-----which by the way had a pendant drop.
-
I reckon that it had been a " woman to woman " struggle/fight going by the injuries.
-
I reckon that it had been a " woman to woman " struggle/fight going by the injuries.
Yes,but what the campaign team are getting at,is the fact that Sheila had continued to bleed quite profusely while in transit from the Whitehouse to the morgue,claiming it proves that she hadn't been long deceased.I think that is what they mean Lookout.
-
Well,I found it interesting Roch,it seems to confirm that the photo that you posted on page 16 of the Drop/pendant,earring topic,is indeed that of Sheila,and that it was taken at the morgue.
If you go to the JB Official campaign site and click onto the Alibi section on the side menu,well down the page you will find written---There are also photos of Sheila still bleeding at the scene and further pictures taken at the mortuary show even more blood had flown from her mouth and nose,and was widely spread onto her face.----If you remember,there was quite a discussion about the photo.
So the campaign team are saying there are several morgue photos in their possession.And didn't Vanezis say that there were photos taken after the bodies were washed? Those are the ones you need to see to confirm the smaller wounds Roch.Maybe JBs defence team have already seen them?
Hi Snow,
Have you got a link please? I would like to read it.
Thanks..
-
Hi Snow,
Have you got a link please? I would like to read it.
Thanks..
Hi Roch,sorry,I dont know how to post a link.But all you have to do is go to the 'Jeremy Bamber official web site' then click onto the 'Alibi' thread from the left hand side menu,if you read that page you will find reference to the photo of Sheila that you posted on page 16 of the Drop/pandent topic.At least,I take it to be that photo they are talking about among others.See what you think.
-
Bamber had to shoot Nevill & June 15 times.
So he would not expect Sheila shooting herself twice to be brought up. If he became a suspect.
It was a very low powered weapon.
Nevil and June were shot 15 times because the shooter was in a total rage, it's has nothing to do with the power of the rifle which could easily kill someone at close range with just one shot.
-
ILB!!! Do you really believe, having rid himself of all other impediments, and being close enough to his inheritance to smell it and taste it, that he'd have walked away from Sheila, not knowing, with absolute certainty, that she'd been mortally wounded, and wouldn't recover to say what had transpired? 'Course, we must also allow for a smidgeon of humanity and believe that the thought of leaving her in pain would have troubled him.
Allow for a smidgeon of humanity really Jane? If someone can shot dead their two parents and two young boys they would have absolutely no humanity at all!
-
Allow for a smidgeon of humanity really Jane? If someone can shot dead their two parents and two young boys they would have absolutely no humanity at all!
Which begs the question-----which sibling suffered from narcissistic personality behaviour ?
In it's advanced form:
Relationship difficulties.
Problems at work or school.
Depression and anxiety.
Physical health problems.
Drug or alcohol misuse.
Suicidal thoughts or behaviour.
Both overprotective and also neglectful parenting can both have an impact, as can mis-matches in parent/child relationships. Genetics ( unknown birth father to Sheila ) Neurobiology---connection between the brain and behaviour and thinking.
Which psychiatrists were correct in their diagnosis of both Sheila and Jeremy ?
Sheila had had a multitude of mental health problems, probably beginning with her first trauma of a termination, followed by other birth traumas-----PTSD today which is treated from when it becomes evident. Left untreated/undiscovered/undiagnosed it can lead to severe mental health problems.
-
Nevil and June were shot 15 times because the shooter was in a total rage, it's has nothing to do with the power of the rifle which could easily kill someone at close range with just one shot.
Oh yes. Sheila waiving the rifle around her head like a hammer thrower.
Nevill repeatedly ringing Bamber's AM.
All this after 'something wakes Nevill'.
-
Nevill didn't even go to bed that night !
-
Nevill didn't even go to bed that night !
So that's why he was shot 4 times in/by the bed & found bare footed in his pyjamas.
-
So that's why he was shot 4 times in/by the bed & found bare footed in his pyjamas.
Nope, you've got it wrong !
-
Nevill had only just got out of the shower to don his pyjama bottoms----no blood on the jacket,remember ?
-
Oh yes. Sheila waiving the rifle around her head like a hammer thrower.
Nevill repeatedly ringing Bamber's AM.
All this after 'something wakes Nevill'.
Well she would not have held the rifle like a SAS sniper would Adam would she, hope you don't want a source.
About the only gun she could handle was the one that was used that night, very low recoil etc.
-
Thanks for response. I will reply properly to this post and one of David's posts on the same topic, when I get the chance.
Roch are you going to reply to this and my post #112? You,ve had a month to get a chance. :-\
-
Roch are you going to reply to this and my post #112? You,ve had a month to get a chance. :-\
I will when I get a chance. I forget about things. But reading the couple of sentences of KE's post, it doesn't sound like he agrees with you anyway. I think yous need to get your story straight, instead of multiple options.
-
Bamber wanted to be more involved with the farm business. Rather than be a labourer. However Nevill said he had no business sense.
WRONG ! Nevill said this of RWB,not JB !! Get your facts right.Which is why Nevill bought the piece of land for the Eaton's to work on because they had little else caused by mismanagement of the farm.
-
WRONG ! Nevill said this of RWB,not JB !! Get your facts right.Which is why Nevill bought the piece of land for the Eaton's to work on because they had little else caused by mismanagement of the farm.
Why would Nevill say that about RWB?
Bamber was the one who wanted to be involved in the farm business rather than be a labourer.
-
Why would Nevill say that about RWB?
Bamber was the one who wanted to be involved in the farm business rather than be a labourer.
Nevill had said that RWB was a bad manager. It's possibly in Wilkes book.
-
Nevill had said that RWB was a bad manager. It's possibly in Wilkes book.
The thread is about Bamber burning down the caravan site.
Prior to the caravan robbery, massacre & meeting Julie.
This was to give him the chance of being more involved in the business side of things.
-
I will when I get a chance. I forget about things. But reading the couple of sentences of KE's post, it doesn't sound like he agrees with you anyway. I think yous need to get your story straight, instead of multiple options.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11342.msg525069.html#msg525069 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11342.msg525069.html#msg525069)
-
Seriously?
You have an alleged cut on Sheila's shoulder with blood running out towards the floor (as it should). Then on Sheila's arm the rules of gravity have completely reversed and is pulling the blood upwards away from the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/T27S0j4/Shoulder-Mark5.jpg)(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f31756_77b2585e3e9f4f08b14814945de4eea3~mv2.png)
Then on top of that, you have all these alleged wounds that only seem to have bled in one direction despite allegedly suffering from these wounds while standing and mobile.
Then you have the autopsy evidence that requires a convoluted conspiracy you have no scintilla of evidence to support.
Then you have June inflicting all these wounds and going back to bed.
Then you have June inflicting fingernail wounds that caused blood to flow out of Sheila's arm. While Sheila is supposed to have inflicted the same nature of wounds to Nevills arm yet no blood is flowing from Nevill's arm and the injuries on Nevill's arm looks completely different to what is on Sheila's arm. Yet they are supposed to be the same type of injuries (according to you).
Then you have the evidence of two other experts - Bernard Knight and Helbert MacDonnell that contradict this idea. The excuse being the photos were not good enough despite the fact none of them complained about the quality and felt them to be of adequate quality to draw their conclusions on.
This entire hodgepodge of lunacy rests solely on the claims of someone who has assumed there is expert evidence to support the claim because someone in the CT told him it would be part of the submission. The same person who told everyone to put money on JB being released by Christmas 2017.
So who is all over the place here? :))
It seems Roch is not going to answer this and cannot. Has the fantasy world finally come to an end? :-\
-
Seriously?
You have an alleged cut on Sheila's shoulder with blood running out towards the floor (as it should). Then on Sheila's arm the rules of gravity have completely reversed and is pulling the blood upwards away from the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/T27S0j4/Shoulder-Mark5.jpg)(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f31756_77b2585e3e9f4f08b14814945de4eea3~mv2.png)
Then on top of that, you have all these alleged wounds that only seem to have bled in one direction despite allegedly suffering from these wounds while standing and mobile.
Then you have the autopsy evidence that requires a convoluted conspiracy you have no scintilla of evidence to support.
Then you have June inflicting all these wounds and going back to bed.
Then you have June inflicting fingernail wounds that caused blood to flow out of Sheila's arm. While Sheila is supposed to have inflicted the same nature of wounds to Nevills arm yet no blood is flowing from Nevill's arm and the injuries on Nevill's arm looks completely different to what is on Sheila's arm. Yet they are supposed to be the same type of injuries (according to you).
Then you have the evidence of two other experts - Bernard Knight and Helbert MacDonnell that contradict this idea. The excuse being the photos were not good enough despite the fact none of them complained about the quality and felt them to be of adequate quality to draw their conclusions on.
This entire hodgepodge of lunacy rests solely on the claims of someone who has assumed there is expert evidence to support the claim because someone in the CT told him it would be part of the submission. The same person who told everyone to put money on JB being released by Christmas 2017.
So who is all over the place here? :))
The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
-
It seems Roch is not going to answer this and cannot. Has the fantasy world finally come to an end? :-\
I just haven't had time to sit and go through your post and the post by KE that you asked me to reply to. I don't like trying to do posts like that on my phone. It's too fiddly. I will get on laptop at some point. I expect answering to be pretty easy.
-
It seems Roch is not going to answer this and cannot. Has the fantasy world finally come to an end? :-\
From the 2002 Appeal Point 45:
"There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle." http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
From the 2002 Appeal Point 45:
"There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle." http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Whats your thoughts Steve on these stains?
In know Dave disagrees but they look like wounds to me? plus I am struggling to see if it's Sheila's blood from the shots to her neck how they came about?
-
Whats your thoughts Steve on these stains?
In know Dave disagrees but they look like wounds to me? plus I am struggling to see if it's Sheila's blood from the shots to her neck how they came about?
I don't take close-ups on this site seriously unless I see them in context. I suppose they could have happened between first and second shots when Jeremy was forcing her hands to grasp the gun but I don't know.
-
No bruising to indicate any gripping/forcing to any of them. No force showed to have been used against Sheila at all.
-
Seriously?
You have an alleged cut on Sheila's shoulder with blood running out towards the floor (as it should). Then on Sheila's arm the rules of gravity have completely reversed and is pulling the blood upwards away from the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/T27S0j4/Shoulder-Mark5.jpg)(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f31756_77b2585e3e9f4f08b14814945de4eea3~mv2.png)
The upper 'wound' you refer to was only discovered recently. I use inverted commas to denote that it is certainly an interesting and contested mark, given other factors in the immediate vicinity.
Regarding what you describe as Sheila's arm. Your argument falls down before it has even begun. It presupposes that the wounds were inflicted while Sheila was in the same position that she was photographed in. Interestingly though, the marks displayed on the wrist (as per the image you posted up) prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jeremy Bamber didn't stage his sister's crime scene.
Then on top of that, you have all these alleged wounds that only seem to have bled in one direction despite allegedly suffering from these wounds while standing and mobile.
I assume you mean the collection of single streak marks present on the upper arm. I don't normally make reference to them in my posts, as I cant work out why they would be singular - however - that is not to say that I support your theory (that they were caused by the gunshot/s).
Then you have the autopsy evidence that requires a convoluted conspiracy you have no scintilla of evidence to support.
I don't see why the post mortem needs to be a convoluted conspiracy. That would need to be explained to me. Pretty sure I could provide a rebuttal.
Then you have June inflicting all these wounds and going back to bed.
It's a suggestion. The bed is large and is the focal point of the room, it might be the natural instinct of a bedroom inhabitant to retreat to it. I hate to use the word cower, but in its physical sense, I could see that happening. Furthermore, I have long said, we do not know how many incidents occurred that night. There may have been some kind of earlier non-fatal precursor, that was brought back under control (or so they thought).
Then you have June inflicting fingernail wounds that caused blood to flow out of Sheila's arm. While Sheila is supposed to have inflicted the same nature of wounds to Nevills arm yet no blood is flowing from Nevill's arm and the injuries on Nevill's arm looks completely different to what is on Sheila's arm. Yet they are supposed to be the same type of injuries (according to you).
OK, it could simply be that June's fingernails were more sharp than Sheila's. In addition, for the marks to be caused by the barrel of the gun, it is very difficult to imagine how this could be achieved. It is an awkward and unwieldy process and motion, that would be prone to slips. Furthermore, how does it tie in with where Nevill was found?
Then you have the evidence of two other experts - Bernard Knight and Helbert MacDonnell that contradict this idea. The excuse being the photos were not good enough despite the fact none of them complained about the quality and felt them to be of adequate quality to draw their conclusions on.
Well it's difficult to know that their briefs were. I don't think either were advised to be on the lookout for non-disclosed wounds.
This entire hodgepodge of lunacy rests solely on the claims of someone who has assumed there is expert evidence to support the claim because someone in the CT told him it would be part of the submission.
An expert was commissioned and provided with the necessary images (from the previous release of the negatives).
-
The upper 'wound' you refer to was only discovered recently. I use inverted commas to denote that it is certainly an interesting and contested mark, given other factors in the immediate vicinity.
Regarding what you describe as Sheila's arm. Your argument falls down before it has even begun. It presupposes that the wounds were inflicted while Sheila was in the same position that she was photographed in. Interestingly though, the marks displayed on the wrist (as per the image you posted up) prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jeremy Bamber didn't stage his sister's crime scene.
How does this explain the sudden reversal of the direction gravity pulling the blood upwards? Why is none of it going downwards like it the picture of the left?
I assume you mean the collection of single streak marks present on the upper arm. I don't normally make reference to them in my posts, as I cant work out why they would be singular - however - that is not to say that I support your theory (that they were caused by the gunshot/s).
In other words, you have no answer.
I don't see why the post mortem needs to be a convoluted conspiracy. That would need to be explained to me. Pretty sure I could provide a rebuttal.
It has been explained to you.
It's a suggestion. The bed is large and is the focal point of the room, it might be the natural instinct of a bedroom inhabitant to retreat to it. I hate to use the word cower, but in its physical sense, I could see that happening. Furthermore, I have long said, we do not know how many incidents occurred that night. There may have been some kind of earlier non-fatal precursor, that was brought back under control (or so they thought).
No, its a fact. The blood on Junes pillow and the bullets holes in the pillow show she had her head on the pillow while shot. You are now suggesting June suffered all these imaginary cuts then went back to bed without plastering them and there are somehow no corresponding bloodstains on the bed to show this is the case? madness.
OK, it could simply be that June's fingernails were more sharp than Sheila's. In addition, for the marks to be caused by the barrel of the gun, it is very difficult to imagine how this could be achieved. It is an awkward and unwieldy process and motion, that would be prone to slips. Furthermore, how does it tie in with where Nevill was found?
How does this explain the fact that Nevills wounds appear like circular bruises while Sheila's "wounds" appear like blobs of blood with blood running upwards away from the force of gravity?
Well it's difficult to know that their briefs were. I don't think either were advised to be on the lookout for non-disclosed wounds.
They all had photos of these "wounds" and concluded they were bloodstains.
An expert was commissioned and provided with the necessary images (from the previous release of the negatives).
Allegedly. 8)
-
Even if someone gripped Sheila around the wrist and dug/sunk their nails in,there would have been bruising
-
The success of burning down the caravan site shop would have given him the aborted idea of burning down WHF.
Bamber denies he ever suggested this. This is disputed by Charles Marsden & Julie.
Doubtful Marsden & Julie ever met. So could not be working in unison on a false story.
-
Obviously Bamber had certainly thought about burning down WHF.
Two people swore he did. Charles Marsden had no reason to lie.
As Lookout would say - 'that doesn't make him guilty'. But it certainly benefits the prosecution.
-
WHF was isolated but there were workers who lived on the farm. So a chance the fire would be spotted early.
It was a big house so it would have to be a hell of a fire to burn it all down. Caused by one cigarette.
The 5 victims would have to be on powerful drugs to sleep through it.
WHF was also a base which the farmworkers knew.
Low house & contents insurance would put him out of pocket. As Julie said, it was a beautiful house.
Lots more problems than burning down a caravan site shop.
Experts may be able to ascertain it was arsen. Putting Bamber right in the frame. And he couldn't blame Sheila.
Shooting everyone was the only option.
-
If experts did ascertain it was arson, at least the suspects were not rounded down to two. As there would be no call from Nevill to Bamber.
Bamber would be a suspect, but he could claim it could have been anyone.
But a bit weird, an arsonist selecting a remote farm at 3am.
Getting a fire going in such a big house that was powerful enough to get upstairs into 3 different bedrooms & kill everyone in their beds would be very suspiscious. Sleeping tablets would not be strong enough.