Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on October 03, 2023, 12:43:PM
-
I've only scanned through it. He comes across with bombastic arrogance. He may be correct in some of his claims - however his claims about Sheila's person are rubbish.
-
It seems that he was the official mouthpiece of the relatives post trial. He appears on a number of Jeremy Bamber documentaries.
Comes across as a reasonable chap in fairness.
-
It seems that he was the official mouthpiece of the relatives post trial. He appears on a number of Jeremy Bamber documentaries.
Comes across as a reasonable chap in fairness.
Wonder what he makes of the Aga burns ILB,thinks the scratch marks on the mantel shelf are irrelevent anyway.
-
Wonder what he makes of the Aga burns ILB,thinks the scratch marks on the mantel shelf are irrelevent anyway.
I don't know snow to be honest. Probably very little I would hazard a guess.
The relatives have always been convinced Jeremy Bamber is gulity.
From which any interpretation you can make of that.
-
I don't know snow to be honest. Probably very little I would hazard a guess.
The relatives have always been convinced Jeremy Bamber is gulity.
From which any interpretation you can make of that.
Yes,its odd how they decided within hours of seeing JB after the murders that he was telling lies and was therefore the killer.Not one family member ever seems to doubt that he is capable of such an attrocity.No one says something like...we discussed the situation and the evidence pointed to Jeremy as the killer,however we thought we must be wrong ,how could such an effeminate boy like Jeremy who hated blood sports kill five people including two boys,and simply for the sake of money? He had no history of violence whatsoever. No,surely only someone mentaly ill could do such a thing......
Would you accept right away that your cousin had just killed his family out of the blue ILB or would you be shocked and in disbelief?
-
Yes,its odd how they decided within hours of seeing JB after the murders that he was telling lies and was therefore the killer.Not one family member ever seems to doubt that he is capable of such an attrocity.No one says something like...we discussed the situation and the evidence pointed to Jeremy as the killer,however we thought we must be wrong ,how could such an effeminate boy like Jeremy who hated blood sports kill five people including two boys,and simply for the sake of money? He had no history of violence whatsoever. No,surely only someone mentaly ill could do such a thing......
Would you accept right away that your cousin had just killed his family out of the blue ILB or would you be shocked and in disbelief?
Snow.
I have always believed that there the essence of money hung over the whole affair. This isn't me suggesting that the relatives framed Jeremy. But I have always thought that success, jealousy and resentment were at stake. A long burning candle before the event. I don't know how it shaped subsequent events. But I believe it was there.
In answer to your question. I wouldnt directly accuse a cousin or any relative for that matter. But every type of case Is different
-
Snow.
I have always believed that there the essence of money hung over the whole affair. This isn't me suggesting that the relatives framed Jeremy. But I have always thought that success, jealousy and resentment were at stake. A long burning candle before the event. I don't know how it shaped subsequent events. But I believe it was there.
In answer to your question. I wouldnt directly accuse a cousin or any relative for that matter. But every type of case Is different
The point is would you be able to believe a cousin was capable of carrying out such an atrocious act without a bit of convincing ILB? Wouldn't you be shocked? None of the relatives seemed to be.Not one little bid.That to me is odd.
-
The point is would you be able to believe a cousin was capable of carrying out such an atrocious act without a bit of convincing ILB? Wouldn't you be shocked? None of the relatives seemed to be.Not one little bid.That to me is odd.
I think that as the family were not blood, and also not close. It was probably easier to do.
Many accusations were made against Jeremy Bamber from the relatives. In regards to his actions and personality. All these came without prompting
-
I think that as the family were not blood, and also not close. It was probably easier to do.
Many accusations were made against Jeremy Bamber from the relatives. In regards to his actions and personality. All these came without prompting
Yes,I suppose you are right ILB,if you have a long standing dislike of someone it would be easy to think them capable of anything.or even hope they are capable of something evil and atrocious.
-
Yes,its odd how they decided within hours of seeing JB after the murders that he was telling lies and was therefore the killer.Not one family member ever seems to doubt that he is capable of such an attrocity.No one says something like...we discussed the situation and the evidence pointed to Jeremy as the killer,however we thought we must be wrong ,how could such an effeminate boy like Jeremy who hated blood sports kill five people including two boys,and simply for the sake of money? He had no history of violence whatsoever. No,surely only someone mentaly ill could do such a thing......
Would you accept right away that your cousin had just killed his family out of the blue ILB or would you be shocked and in disbelief?
You have overlooked what kicked the whole thing off and police involvement: Bamber's claim of a tel call from his father: 'Sheila' s gone crazy, she's got the gun'. Followed by Bamber's call to the police. The relatives were then faced with a horrible truth: one of their adopted cousins was a murderer. And since they were unable or unwilling to accept Sheila was capable, by default it had to be Bamber.
-
You have overlooked what kicked the whole thing off and police involvement: Bamber's claim of a tel call from his father: 'Sheila' s gone crazy, she's got the gun'. Followed by Bamber's call to the police. The relatives were then faced with a horrible truth: one of their adopted cousins was a murderer. And since they were unable or unwilling to accept Sheila was capable, by default it had to be Bamber.
David Boutflour is on record saying when he saw Jeremy crack a smile at the funeral that " left him with no doubt "
-
The point is would you be able to believe a cousin was capable of carrying out such an atrocious act without a bit of convincing ILB? Wouldn't you be shocked? None of the relatives seemed to be.Not one little bid.That to me is odd.
Undoubtedly, Snow. I reported, as being concerning, what I'd witnessed in the behaviour of a then 8 year old family member, to his grandmother. Surprisingly, she confirmed my concerns, adding some of her own going back to when the child was in reception class. Nothing was done. His behaviour escalated, ie, borrowing money and stealing to pay it back, moving on to excessive use of alcohol and drugs. To cut a long story short, he ended up in prison. Would this have happened had his parents been more proactive in dealing with his behaviour when he was a child, rather than saying he'd grow out of it? It's an entirely other question, but they couldn't say they weren't warned. Might similar have been true of the Bambers? Parents often bury their heads in sand.
-
You have overlooked what kicked the whole thing off and police involvement: Bamber's claim of a tel call from his father: 'Sheila' s gone crazy, she's got the gun'. Followed by Bamber's call to the police. The relatives were then faced with a horrible truth: one of their adopted cousins was a murderer. And since they were unable or unwilling to accept Sheila was capable, by default it had to be Bamber.
This isn't true. After one of the meetings with DCI Jones , two relatives conceded that Sheila could have been responsible.
Also don't forget Ann's comment 'I can live with that'.
-
This isn't true.After one of the meetings with DCI Jones , two relatives conceded that Sheila could have been responsible.
Also don't forget Ann's comment 'I can live with that'.
I thought they were prosecution witnesses at trial?
-
Yes,its odd how they decided within hours of seeing JB after the murders that he was telling lies and was therefore the killer.Not one family member ever seems to doubt that he is capable of such an attrocity.No one says something like...we discussed the situation and the evidence pointed to Jeremy as the killer,however we thought we must be wrong ,how could such an effeminate boy like Jeremy who hated blood sports kill five people including two boys,and simply for the sake of money? He had no history of violence whatsoever. No,surely only someone mentaly ill could do such a thing......
Would you accept right away that your cousin had just killed his family out of the blue ILB or would you be shocked and in disbelief?
Consider Shipman and Letby. They trained for years to enter the 'caring' profession and then end up deliberately killing those they've been tasked to care for. Motive unclear. No history of mental illness.
-
I thought they were prosecution witnesses at trial?
Yes. That makes them prosecution witnesses who previously conceded that Sheila could have been responsible. No mystery there.
As I have argued before - expediency is one of the motivating factors behind the relatives' railroading of police to pursue Bamber.
-
Consider Shipman and Letby. They trained for years to enter the 'caring' profession and then end up deliberately killing those they've been tasked to care for. Motive unclear. No history of mental illness.
Well if gulity the primary motive of Jeremy Bamber is Greed, myself I think if gulity it wasn't just that though.
-
This isn't true. After one of the meetings with DCI Jones , two relatives conceded that Sheila could have been responsible.
Also don't forget Ann's comment 'I can live with that'.
Fair enough comment. Most of use would prefer to believe such an atrocity to have been committed by someone no longer in control of their mental health, than by someone who have planned it because of greed. Much more so if it involved a family member.
-
Well if gulity the primary motive of Jeremy Bamber is Greed, myself I think if gulity it wasn't just that though.
You're absolutely correct. However, if you start mentioning the psychology, you'll be accused of using psychobabble!
-
Yes. That makes them prosecution witnesses who previously conceded that Sheila could have been responsible. No mystery there.
As I have argued before - expediency is one of the motivating factors behind the relatives' railroading of police to pursue Bamber.
But they only conceded when they thought it was their interest to do so ie they wanted the dialogue with DCI Jones to continue. Jones threatened to throw them out and so they backed down. Mrs Eaton stopped writing and Anthony Pargeter calmed the siutation appreciating they needed the police on their side so to speak.
-
Well if gulity the primary motive of Jeremy Bamber is Greed, myself I think if gulity it wasn't just that though.
No one knows the motive(s) other than Bamber. At trial a lot of evidence was presented to support the idea he "hated" his family along with a desire for money eg caravan park break-in.
-
No one knows the motive(s) other than Bamber. At trial a lot of evidence was presented to support the idea he "hated" his family along with a desire for money eg caravan park break-in.
James Richards and Mary Mugford?
The comment to RWB.
-
But they only conceded when they thought it was their interest to do so ie they wanted the dialogue with DCI Jones to continue. Jones threatened to throw them out and so they backed down. Mrs Eaton stopped writing and Anthony Pargeter calmed the siutation appreciating they needed the police on their side so to speak.
I don't recall reading that. But would be interested in reading about it. My interpretation was that Ann refused to budge, but two others came away after conceding the possibility.
-
James Richards and Mary Mugford?
The comment to RWB.
Yes and obviously JM's testimony about killing his family: father old, mother mad, Sheila mad and twins going to be emotionally unstable because of Sheila's influence and a burden to Colin.
-
I don't recall reading that. But would be interested in reading about it. My interpretation was that Ann refused to budge, but two others came away after conceding the possibility.
Its in Mrs Eaton's statements. Even she conceded at one point when she noticed Bamber didn't have any marks on his arms. Stop splitting hairs Roch. The family were unanimous from the off Bamber was responsible because the facts narrow the perp down to Bamber or Sheila. And since they were unable/unwilling to consider Sheila capable as far as they were concerned it had to be Bamber.
-
Its in Mrs Eaton's statements. Even she conceded at one point when she noticed Bamber didn't have any marks on his arms. Stop splitting hairs Roch. The family were unanimous from the off Bamber was responsible because the facts narrow the perp down to Bamber or Sheila. And since they were unable/unwilling to consider Sheila capable as far as they were concerned it had to be Bamber.
Two relatives conceded to Taff. Craftily, Ann misses out the info given by Taff, during the meeting, that resulted in the relatives reconsidering Sheila's culpability. I would argue this is because there is no information on earth that would deviate Ann from getting JB convicted. Hence her comment to police 'I can live with that'.
-
Interesting.
Did Bamber approach Eric Allison? I know he approached Hunter & Woffinden.
-
Two relatives conceded to Taff. Craftily, Ann misses out the info given by Taff, during the meeting, that resulted in the relatives reconsidering Sheila's culpability. I would argue this is because there is no information on earth that would deviate Ann from getting JB convicted. Hence her comment to police 'I can live with that'.
Clearly out interpretations of that sentence differ. But it looks as if the Booby has another poster he can label as being a mindreader. How does Rich of the Runes grab you? :))
-
Surprising that a Guardian journalist was so taken in by the case. Woffinden changed his mind.
It seems Hunter has always been a supporter but is not very pro active.
-
Clearly out interpretations of that sentence differ. But it looks as if the Booby has another poster he can label as being a mindreader. How does Rich of the Runes grab you? :))
Presumably, DCI Jones explained something to the relatives, which resulted in two of them conceding it could have been Sheila. I cant imagine that they spontaneously just jumped ship for no reason. Ann tells us they they conceded - but she doesn't provide the information that made them concede. I have reasoned this is one of two things:
1] it's inconvenient to record such info.
2] she wasn't interested and so only heard what she wanted to hear.
Not really difficult to work out Jane. She's not going to write in her notes detailing exculpatory Information with regards to Jeremy's involvement.
-
This isn't true. After one of the meetings with DCI Jones , two relatives conceded that Sheila could have been responsible.
Also don't forget Ann's comment 'I can live with that'.
This was just a couple of days after the murders, their thoughts would have been all over the place. This also puts paid to the notion that the greedy relatives wanted to nail him from day 1 so they could get the inheritance. They became more certain over time.
She meant she could live with getting it wrong at the risk of 'not' getting it right
-
Two relatives conceded to Taff. Craftily, Ann misses out the info given by Taff, during the meeting, that resulted in the relatives reconsidering Sheila's culpability. I would argue this is because there is no information on earth that would deviate Ann from getting JB convicted. Hence her comment to police 'I can live with that'.
But all of this was weeks before the crux of the prosecution case came to the fore namely the silencer and Julie.
-
But all of this was weeks before the crux of the prosecution case came to the fore namely the silencer and Julie.
The sound moderator is fabricated evidence. Julie Mugford's testimony has been destroyed by David (and others). Even the judge thought it was shite, and that's saying something for him!
-
The sound moderator is fabricated evidence.Julie Mugford's testimony has been destroyed by David (and others). Even the judge thought it was shite, and that's saying something for him!
Evidenced by?
How individuals perceive David's post is one thing. What really matters is how the CCRC and CoA might perceive David's posts should they ever get to read them which I very much doubt. But on the assumption they do get to read them they might not necessarily share your perceptions.
Did the judge tell jurors Julie's testimony was shite? Thought he directed the court at trial as follows:
[The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.
154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.
-
The sound moderator is fabricated evidence. Julie Mugford's testimony has been destroyed by David (and others). Even the judge thought it was shite, and that's saying something for him!
I think you're placing far too much importance to the theories on the forum.
-
You have overlooked what kicked the whole thing off and police involvement: Bamber's claim of a tel call from his father: 'Sheila' s gone crazy, she's got the gun'. Followed by Bamber's call to the police. The relatives were then faced with a horrible truth: one of their adopted cousins was a murderer. And since they were unable or unwilling to accept Sheila was capable, by default it had to be Bamber.
Yes,fair enough I suppose Cutie.I'm just blethering a bit,but things were a bit odd weren't they?
-
Yes,fair enough I suppose Cutie.I'm just blethering a bit,but things were a bit odd weren't they?
It certainly wasn't an everyday occurrence, Snow.
-
I think you're placing far too much importance to the theories on the forum.
No, I'm placing importance on case evidence. I will reply to CC's post when I have a chance. It's not a short answer.
-
The sound moderator is fabricated evidence. Julie Mugford's testimony has been destroyed by David (and others). Even the judge thought it was shite, and that's saying something for him!
Good God! I hadn't observed that such 'worthies' were in residence here!
-
Good God! I hadn't observed that such 'worthies' were in residence here!
Feel free to pull apart his posts on the subject.
-
I don't think anyone on here would have done much different to the Relatives, they didn't know the full facts at first. Something wev'e never had to deal with and hopefully never will. If one thing doesn't add up, it then becomes suspicious and it would be the same for them. Just imagine being told your Niece or Cousin had killed everyone and fired off 25 shot's and battered Neville in the Process, yet she wasn't a prolific gun user, "oh and by the way she shot herself twice in the throat to do it" Your not telling me whether you would have suspicions?
-
Interesting.
Did Bamber approach Eric Allison? I know he approached Hunter & Woffinden.
Eric Allison was a guardian journalist. Also a long term ex criminal and former prisoner. I am unsure who initiated contact.
-
It certainly wasn't an everyday occurrence, Snow.
I think Posters think the relatives shouldn't have poked their nose into it, they forget one thing, it was Pam's sister [June] and Mabel's daughter who had been shot and she and them needed answers, imagine your Sister or Brother being shot and you wasn't happy with the answers that was given.
-
Undoubtedly, Snow. I reported, as being concerning, what I'd witnessed in the behaviour of a then 8 year old family member, to his grandmother. Surprisingly, she confirmed my concerns, adding some of her own going back to when the child was in reception class. Nothing was done. His behaviour escalated, ie, borrowing money and stealing to pay it back, moving on to excessive use of alcohol and drugs. To cut a long story short, he ended up in prison. Would this have happened had his parents been more proactive in dealing with his behaviour when he was a child, rather than saying he'd grow out of it? It's an entirely other question, but they couldn't say they weren't warned. Might similar have been true of the Bambers? Parents often bury their heads in sand.
Fair enough Jane,but I was talking more about the relatives behaviour really.
-
I don't think anyone on here would have done much different to the Relatives, they didn't know the full facts at first. Something wev'e never had to deal with and hopefully never will. If one thing doesn't add up, it then becomes suspicious and it would be the same for them. Just imagine being told your Niece or Cousin had killed everyone and fired off 25 shot's and battered Neville in the Process, yet she wasn't a prolific gun user, "oh and by the way she shot herself twice in the throat to do it" Your not telling me whether you would have suspicions?
Seems like THEY'D have us believe they wouldn't!
-
I think Posters think the relatives shouldn't have poked their nose into it, they forget one thing, it was Pam's sister [June] and Mabel's daughter who had been shot and she and them needed answers, imagine your Sister or Brother being shot and you wasn't happy with the answers that was given.
THEY can't, HB. THEY'D call imagining psychobabble.
-
No, I'm placing importance on case evidence. I will reply to CC's post when I have a chance. It's not a short answer.
Please don't do a bubo. :( :'(
-
Fair enough Jane,but I was talking more about the relatives behaviour really.
Just what would you have expected them to do,Snow? You point the finger, but supposing you had reason to suspect one of your family and felt as if no one was listening?
-
Consider Shipman and Letby. They trained for years to enter the 'caring' profession and then end up deliberately killing those they've been tasked to care for. Motive unclear. No history of mental illness.
Yes,good point Cutie,and everyone believed the police had got the right person.
Yet in the Bamber case the police had to be told by the relatives that they were wrong about who the killer was,
-
Feel free to pull apart his posts on the subject.
Just one, eh? And who is that at who's feet you appear to worship?
-
Seems like THEY'D have us believe they wouldn't!
I would like to know what they would have done different given the same situation. If one thing didn't add up it's only natural you start to look for other things.
-
Just what would you have expected them to do,Snow?
Not to be motivated by expediency. Not to conveniently fail to record what DCI Jones explained to them about the evidence that indicated Sheila. Not to employ any retired detectives from the case. Not to change any timings in their statements. Not to willingly withhold information from the jury and defence, via Essex Police, for example regarding Sheila having said all people are bad and should be killed. Just off the top of my head. Given more time I think we could add to the list.
-
Yes,good point Cutie,and everyone believed the police had got the right person.
Yet in the Bamber case the police had to be told by the relatives that they were wrong about who the killer was,
I don't think certain Police believed they had the right Person Snow, some Police Officers didn't need telling they had the wrong Person, Stan said this on the very first Evening.
-
Not to be motivated by expediency. Not to conveniently fail to record what DCI Jones explained to them about the evidence that indicated Sheila. Not to employ any retired detectives from the case. Not to change any timings in their statements. Not to willingly withhold information from the jury and defence, via Essex Police, for example regarding Sheila having said all people are bad and should be killed. Just off the top of my head. Given more time I think we could add to the list.
You sound as if you're applying for sainthood, Roch. However.try putting the boot on the other foot! I'm willing to bet you wouldn't allow a member of your family, who you knew was innocent, to take the wrap for a family member you strongly suspected to be guilty.
-
You sound as if you're applying for sainthood, Roch. However.try putting the boot on the other foot! I'm willing to bet you wouldn't allow a member of your family, who you knew was innocent, to take the wrap for a family member you strongly suspected to be guilty.
Time has proven that their strong suspicions were a mixture of the following.
Ignorance (about Sheila)
Arrogance (an overriding self belief & sense of entitlement)
Expediency (financial concerns / happy to bend evidence)
Genuine suspicion (that Jeremy was guilty).
-
You sound as if you're applying for sainthood, Roch. However.try putting the boot on the other foot! I'm willing to bet you wouldn't allow a member of your family, who you knew was innocent, to take the wrap for a family member you strongly suspected to be guilty.
Roch, if truthful would have been all over it as a relative, not one on here would have took things as gospil that Sheila shot and killed everyone, especially with some Police officers having doubt as well.
-
You sound as if you're applying for sainthood, Roch. However.try putting the boot on the other foot! I'm willing to bet you wouldn't allow a member of your family, who you knew was innocent, to take the wrap for a family member you strongly suspected to be guilty.
Yes fair enough Jane,but 'KNEW' was innocent? Was it really that clear cut for the relatives do you think? Their theory that someone couldn't pull the trigger of a pre-loaded rifle is weak,it certainly had no impact on Taff,Vanezis or anyone else at the start.
As Cutie pointed out,it was the controversial silencer evidence and Julie who turned the tide,without this late strange developments the relatives would simply have been ignored.
-
Yes fair enough Jane,but 'KNEW' was innocent? Was it really that clear cut for the relatives do you think? Their theory that someone couldn't pull the trigger of a pre-loaded rifle is weak,it certainly had no impact on Taff,Vanezis or anyone else at the start.
A fully fit Nevill or June would have instantly taken the rifle off Sheila.
-
Time has proven that their strong suspicions were a mixture of the following.
Ignorance (about Sheila)
Arrogance (an overriding self belief & sense of entitlement)
Expediency (financial concerns / happy to bend evidence)
Genuine suspicion (that Jeremy was guilty).
But you haven't answered my question, Roch. I'm asking what steps you'd have taken it your family found themselves in similar circumstances and no one listened.
-
A fully fit Nevill or June would have instantly taken the rifle off Sheila.
Thats your opinion Adam. Just like the relatives assumptions about Sheila's capabilities.
-
Yes fair enough Jane,but 'KNEW' was innocent? Was it really that clear cut for the relatives do you think? Their theory that someone couldn't pull the trigger of a pre-loaded rifle is weak,it certainly had no impact on Taff,Vanezis or anyone else at the start.
It wasn't pre loaded Snow according to Jeremy, only the Magazine, he'd emptied the Breech and took the Mag out. It's only when you start to piece together evidence you start to evaluate the possibilities. At first, everything seems possible, the Silence drowns out the Noise to begin with.
-
Roch, if truthful would have been all over it as a relative, not one on here would have took things as gospil that Sheila shot and killed everyone, especially with some Police officers having doubt as well.
Having experienced the penchant Rich has for getting at the truth,I'd say you were 100% correct, HB.
-
But you haven't answered my question, Roch. I'm asking what steps you'd have taken it your family found themselves in similar circumstances and no one listened.
Ask if I could be informed about any evidence that was being relied upon to confirm Sheila was the perpetrator. Can you please help me put my mind at rest by sharing with me anything you are able to, to confirm she carried this out? I am worried it was her brother and we as a family need reassurance that it could not have been him.
-
Ask if I could be informed about any evidence that was being relied upon to confirm Sheila was the perpetrator. Can you please help me put my mind at rest by sharing with me anything you are able to, to confirm she carried this out? I am worried it was her brother and we as a family need reassurance that it could not have been him.
It's obvious what evidence they had; Bambers word about a phone call from Nevill, her body with a rifle staged across it, his story that he left it out and that she knew how to use it, he mental illness.
-
Ask if I could be informed about any evidence that was being relied upon to confirm Sheila was the perpetrator. Can you please help me put my mind at rest by sharing with me anything you are able to, to confirm she carried this out? I am worried it was her brother and we as a family need reassurance that it could not have been him.
All sounds reasonable, Roch.............however!!! "Evidence relied upon" isn't a phrase used by civilians every day, and in any case, such couldn't be confirmed. Actually, it still cant, can it?. What exactly could police have shared with the family that hadn't originally been provided, to them, by JB? I'm perfectly certain the police recognized who it was they suspected. A senior officer more willing to concede that a family were far more likely to have better knowledge of their fellow family members, than he.
-
It's obvious what evidence they had; Bambers word about a phone call from Nevill, her body with a rifle staged across it, his story that he left it out and that she knew how to use it, he mental illness.
No, I'm afraid it's not obvious what evidence they had. The police are not stupid. They are not going to say 'Jeremy has told us what must have happened.. now can you please leave my office before I lose my temper'. Sorry but what you are suggesting is absurd.
-
Having experienced the penchant Roch has for getting at the truth...
I take that as a compliment. Thank you, it actually means something to me for you to state that. I'm not joking.
-
I take that as a compliment. Thank you, it actually means something to me for you to state that. I'm not joking.
I'm delighted that you take it a such, Roch. Seeking truth is admirable,....,.......even though we're sometimes reluctant to accept our findings :))
-
It wasn't pre loaded Snow according to Jeremy, only the Magazine, he'd emptied the Breech and took the Mag out. It's only when you start to piece together evidence you start to evaluate the possibilities. At first, everything seems possible, the Silence drowns out the Noise to begin with.
Nothing that Dave said in the interview dispelled any of my doubt over Bambers guilt HB,especially his description of the murder weapon.Dave describes the Anschutz as no more deadly than a knife.
Now if this is the case we have to take a close look at how the shooting unfolded and who it most likely points to as the killer.OK,Dave said it was low velocity bullets that were used which would have produced the equivalent of a stab with a knife [Similar to what Adam keeps repeating.Coincidence?]
Anyway,let us just assume that Bamber planned to kill his family and blame Sheila.One important question we must ask is how many bullets he intended to use on each victim and where did he hope to kill each victim? Presumably he didn't plan to have the victims scattered through the house and have to chase behind them as things turned out? So why did this happen in a cold blooded planned shooting? It wasn't as if it was a spur of the moment hot blooded un-planned shooting that simply ended up in chaos.
OR WAS IT?
If JB was the killer then he loaded the bullets and knew that only a direct hit to the head ot heart was going to stop his victims in their tracks,yet the only victims who received head shots only were the twins.
And this kind of suggests to me that the twins were not shot first.I think the killer tried to kill June first with several body shots only to realise after June got up and fought that the only way to kill her was by shooting her in the head.
All the initial shots to June seemed to be done randomly without much thought,mostly down the right side of the body.I dont think JB would have shot June in this way.Guilters say JB used several shots to make it look like a frenzied attack,if this was true JB would have given June a few body shots then one through the head as she attempted to get out of bed,he wouldn't have riddled her with non fatal bullet wounds and left her alive untill he re-loaded.Makes no sense whatsoever.
Sheila on the other hand would have simply pointed the rifle at June and opened fire,basically thinking a shot anywhere to the body would kill her,when this did not happen Sheila would have known to shoot the twins in the head to kill them, and to make sure they did not suffer several shots were used in rapid succession.I think this is the most logical reason the boys were shot so many times in the head.
I think that is why all victims ended up with shots to the head,Sheila had worked out it was the only way to kill the victims and make sure they were dead.
I think the reason the shooting was such a chaotic event was due to the fact of Sheila's incompetence and lack of knowledge of the rifle,just enough knowledge to subdue the victims initially but ended in a chaotic struggle.
Besides,would JB really have used such low velocity ammo,wasn't there any other more lethal type of bullets available in the house?
No ,nothing that Dave said about the rifle has convinced me of Bambers guilt,quite the contrary.
-
Yes,its odd how they decided within hours of seeing JB after the murders that he was telling lies and was therefore the killer.Not one family member ever seems to doubt that he is capable of such an attrocity.No one says something like...we discussed the situation and the evidence pointed to Jeremy as the killer,however we thought we must be wrong ,how could such an effeminate boy like Jeremy who hated blood sports kill five people including two boys,and simply for the sake of money? He had no history of violence whatsoever. No,surely only someone mentaly ill could do such a thing......
Would you accept right away that your cousin had just killed his family out of the blue ILB or would you be shocked and in disbelief?
Do you think sometimes effeminate boys as you call them feel a need to overcompensate in a show of masculinity in playing to the gallery? Just a thought.
-
Consider Shipman and Letby. They trained for years to enter the 'caring' profession and then end up deliberately killing those they've been tasked to care for. Motive unclear. No history of mental illness.
Letby: attention seeker and possible doctor's paramour. Shipman: elderly patients were a nuisance, so he disposed of them.
-
Surprising that a Guardian journalist was so taken in by the case. Woffinden changed his mind.
It seems Hunter has always been a supporter but is not very pro active.
He suffered a stroke and seemed to withdraw.
-
The sound moderator is fabricated evidence. Julie Mugford's testimony has been destroyed by David (and others). Even the judge thought it was shite, and that's saying something for him!
Funny some of the best legal brains in the country never managed to do what David achieved.
-
Nothing that Dave said in the interview dispelled any of my doubt over Bambers guilt HB,especially his description of the murder weapon.Dave describes the Anschutz as no more deadly than a knife.
Now if this is the case we have to take a close look at how the shooting unfolded and who it most likely points to as the killer.OK,Dave said it was low velocity bullets that were used which would have produced the equivalent of a stab with a knife [Similar to what Adam keeps repeating.Coincidence?]
Anyway,let us just assume that Bamber planned to kill his family and blame Sheila.One important question we must ask is how many bullets he intended to use on each victim and where did he hope to kill each victim? Presumably he didn't plan to have the victims scattered through the house and have to chase behind them as things turned out? So why did this happen in a cold blooded planned shooting? It wasn't as if it was a spur of the moment hot blooded un-planned shooting that simply ended up in chaos.
OR WAS IT?
If JB was the killer then he loaded the bullets and knew that only a direct hit to the head ot heart was going to stop his victims in their tracks,yet the only victims who received head shots only were the twins.
And this kind of suggests to me that the twins were not shot first.I think the killer tried to kill June first with several body shots only to realise after June got up and fought that the only way to kill her was by shooting her in the head.
All the initial shots to June seemed to be done randomly without much thought,mostly down the right side of the body.I dont think JB would have shot June in this way.Guilters say JB used several shots to make it look like a frenzied attack,if this was true JB would have given June a few body shots then one through the head as she attempted to get out of bed,he wouldn't have riddled her with non fatal bullet wounds and left her alive untill he re-loaded.Makes no sense whatsoever.
Sheila on the other hand would have simply pointed the rifle at June and opened fire,basically thinking a shot anywhere to the body would kill her,when this did not happen Sheila would have known to shoot the twins in the head to kill them, and to make sure they did not suffer several shots were used in rapid succession.I think this is the most logical reason the boys were shot so many times in the head.
I think that is why all victims ended up with shots to the head,Sheila had worked out it was the only way to kill the victims and make sure they were dead.
I think the reason the shooting was such a chaotic event was due to the fact of Sheila's incompetence and lack of knowledge of the rifle,just enough knowledge to subdue the victims initially but ended in a chaotic struggle.
Besides,would JB really have used such low velocity ammo,wasn't there any other more lethal type of bullets available in the house?
No ,nothing that Dave said about the rifle has convinced me of Bambers guilt,quite the contrary.
Nevill was shot six times in the head.
-
Do you think sometimes effeminate boys as you call them feel a need to overcompensate in a show of masculinity in playing to the gallery? Just a thought.
You tell me Steve.I just meant there was nothing in his charachter or past which indicated he was capable of carrying out the atrocity.And in all fairness,Sheila was the one with mental problems which just seem to be dismissed.
If Sheila was a normal young woman with no mental illness I could understand the relatives reluctance to believe she was the killer but this is not the case,she was violently psychotic,albeit at objects.She was so out of control during episodes that grown men were terrified.
The relatives ignored these facts and simply claimed Sheila could not use the rifle,very poor counter argument if you ask me.In reality there is no way the relatives could have been sure whether Sheila could re-load a rifle or not,its hardly rocket science Steve,leave a chimpanze long enough and they would manage to load a magazine with bullets.
-
Yes,its odd how they decided within hours of seeing JB after the murders that he was telling lies and was therefore the killer.Not one family member ever seems to doubt that he is capable of such an attrocity.No one says something like...we discussed the situation and the evidence pointed to Jeremy as the killer,however we thought we must be wrong ,how could such an effeminate boy like Jeremy who hated blood sports kill five people including two boys,and simply for the sake of money? He had no history of violence whatsoever. No,surely only someone mentaly ill could do such a thing......
Would you accept right away that your cousin had just killed his family out of the blue ILB or would you be shocked and in disbelief?
-
Funny some of the best legal brains in the country never managed to do what David achieved.
It is what it is Steve. He's laid it bare and shown the most likely sources for information in her written testimony. No point in sour grapes 🍇
-
You tell me Steve.I just meant there was nothing in his charachter or past which indicated he was capable of carrying out the atrocity.And in all fairness,Sheila was the one with mental problems which just seem to be dismissed.
If Sheila was a normal young woman with no mental illness I could understand the relatives reluctance to believe she was the killer but this is not the case,she was violently psychotic,albeit at objects.She was so out of control during episodes that grown men were terrified.
The relatives ignored these facts and simply claimed Sheila could not use the rifle,very poor counter argument if you ask me.In reality there is no way the relatives could have been sure whether Sheila could re-load a rifle or not,its hardly rocket science Steve,leave a chimpanze long enough and they would manage to load a magazine with bullets.
You make valid points, but remember Bamber told Julie this was "the perfect crime", so unsurprising that he had covered his tracks. The crime had to be "now or never" because he wasn't sure when all would be assembled under one roof again. Why had Jeremy quizzed Colin at the party whether the twins would be there? Why had he telephoned Julie three times when their relationship had been cooling for months? Why did Sheila choose to lie down by June's side, a woman she didn't particularly get along with and who seemed to make her mental health worse?
It's a circumstantial case, admittedly, but when you take everything in the round you find Jeremy is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Yes,its odd how they decided within hours of seeing JB after the murders that he was telling lies and was therefore the killer.Not one family member ever seems to doubt that he is capable of such an attrocity.No one says something like...we discussed the situation and the evidence pointed to Jeremy as the killer,however we thought we must be wrong ,how could such an effeminate boy like Jeremy who hated blood sports kill five people including two boys,and simply for the sake of money? He had no history of violence whatsoever. No,surely only someone mentaly ill could do such a thing......
Would you accept right away that your cousin had just killed his family out of the blue ILB or would you be shocked and in disbelief?
Good God! You speak as if he was a total.stranger to them. They'd known him all his life. They had no need to have any sort of group be together to discuss his violence potential. If the all came to the conclusion that he was capable of murder, I doubt it hit them simultaneously, it had probably been in the back of their minds for a long time. I would accept them saying it couldn't be possible, but weighed against it being Sheila? He was the only alternative, wasn't he?
-
Why had Jeremy quizzed Colin at the party whether the twins would be there?
Why is it a quiz?
It sounds like a normal question. It's also reasonable question. It's not an untoward or irrelevant question.
-
It is what it is Steve. He's laid it bare and shown the most likely sources for information in her written testimony. No point in sour grapes 🍇
You would have to say that Julie weaved lies into the truth of her relationship with Jeremy over the eighteen months or so she knew him. Liars have a habit of tripping themselves up. I'm not aware what lies Julie is proved to have told (please don't bring up the hitman again, or any other story Jeremy fed her, which she repeats verbatim in her statement and the content of which is not responsible for).
-
Why is it a quiz?
It sounds like a normal question. It's also reasonable question. It's not an untoward or irrelevant question.
Had Jeremy ever considered the twins' welfare? I know exactly what Jeremy thought of Daniel and Nicholas: they were potential usurpers, financial burdens and a millstone round Colin's neck..
-
You would have to say that Julie weaved lies into the truth of her relationship with Jeremy over the eighteen months or so she knew him. Liars have a habit of tripping themselves up. I'm not aware what lies Julie is proved to have told (please don't bring up the hitman again, or any other story Jeremy fed her, which she repeats verbatim in her statement and the content of which is not responsible for).
If David made a video for social media or got 15 mins worth of time on a documentary, he could destroy much of Julie's written testimony.
-
Nevill was shot six times in the head.
Head shots ONLY I said Steve.
-
You tell me Steve.I just meant there was nothing in his charachter or past which indicated he was capable of carrying out the atrocity.And in all fairness,Sheila was the one with mental problems which just seem to be dismissed.
If Sheila was a normal young woman with no mental illness I could understand the relatives reluctance to believe she was the killer but this is not the case,she was violently psychotic,albeit at objects.She was so out of control during episodes that grown men were terrified.
The relatives ignored these facts and simply claimed Sheila could not use the rifle,very poor counter argument if you ask me.In reality there is no way the relatives could have been sure whether Sheila could re-load a rifle or not,its hardly rocket science Steve,leave a chimpanze long enough and they would manage to load a magazine with bullets.
What proof do you have that " she was violently psychotic"? She'd had two mental breakdowns for which she was hospitalised. In both cases she was more distressed than violent. So ONE person, Freddie, was scared. Did she threaten him? Does he claim she threatened him? It was very convenient for JB that she was mentally fragile.
-
Had Jeremy ever considered the twins' welfare? I know exactly what Jeremy thought of Daniel and Nicholas: they were potential usurpers, financial burdens and a millstone round Colin's neck..
Where did he state they were potential usurpers or financial burdens? Where did express such? In what context did he describe them in the quote you seem to attribute? Could it have related to Colin's treatment of Sheila and his philandering?
-
If David made a video for social media or got 15 mins worth of time on a documentary, he could destroy much of Julie's written testimony.
He could not. Why could David overturn what a whole succession of professional lawyers and amateur sleuths have failed to do hitherto?
-
You make valid points, but remember Bamber told Julie this was "the perfect crime", so unsurprising that he had covered his tracks. The crime had to be "now or never" because he wasn't sure when all would be assembled under one roof again. Why had Jeremy quizzed Colin at the party whether the twins would be there? Why had he telephoned Julie three times when their relationship had been cooling for months? Why did Sheila choose to lie down by June's side, a woman she didn't particularly get along with and who seemed to make her mental health worse?
It's a circumstantial case, admittedly, but when you take everything in the round you find Jeremy is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
I dont Steve.I still have reasonable doubt.
-
He could not. Why could David overturn what a whole succession of professional lawyers and amateur sleuths have failed to do hitherto?
Simple. He has poured over the statements, dates, events, meetings and joined the dots. Dedication. Like Roy Castle used to say.
-
Good God! You speak as if he was a total.stranger to them. They'd known him all his life. They had no need to have any sort of group be together to discuss his violence potential. If the all came to the conclusion that he was capable of murder, I doubt it hit them simultaneously, it had probably been in the back of their minds for a long time. I would accept them saying it couldn't be possible, but weighed against it being Sheila? He was the only alternative, wasn't he?
Personally,I see no reason why Sheila could not have carried out the shooting Jane,in many ways I think the crime scene points to this.The Aga burns for one thing.
-
Where did he state they were potential usurpers or financial burdens? Where did express such? In what context did he describe them in the quote you seem to attribute? Could it have related to Colin's treatment of Sheila and his philandering?
He did say to Colin that the twins were a millstone around his neck. He told Liz Rimington that they were spoiled. Of course he must have resented the treatment they got from his parents in comparison to his own childhood. As he was good at calculating costs he must have suspected June would have paid for public school had Colin agreed, with all the costs that entailed.
-
If David made a video for social media or got 15 mins worth of time on a documentary, he could destroy much of Julie's written testimony.
It's totally irrelevant who makes a video for social.media. You may be certain there'll be another which will refute it. I hold no torch for Julie, but I'm truly SICK of reading posters here who brag about writing to Canadian police, revealing all to.her husband hoping he'll divorce her, and saying her children deserve to be told. I'm surprised at you, Roch, for putting forward such a suggestion.
-
You would have to say that Julie weaved lies into the truth of her relationship with Jeremy over the eighteen months or so she knew him. Liars have a habit of tripping themselves up. I'm not aware what lies Julie is proved to have told (please don't bring up the hitman again, or any other story Jeremy fed her, which she repeats verbatim in her statement and the content of which is not responsible for).
Julie was under police protection for a year before the trial Steve,plenty time to rehearse her story.
And her story was quite short anyway.
-
Personally,I see no reason why Sheila could not have carried out the shooting Jane,in many ways I think the crime scene points to this.The Aga burns for one thing.
What AGA burns night those be, Snow?
-
Julie was under police protection for a year before the trial Steve,plenty time to rehearse her story.
And her story was quite short anyway.
But she hasn't contradicted herself since the September 1985 statement. I think that's what the Bamberettes can't stand.
-
It's totally irrelevant who makes a video for social.media. You may be certain there'll be another which will refute it. I hold no torch for Julie, but I'm truly SICK of reading posters here who brag about writing to Canadian police, revealing all to.her husband hoping he'll divorce her, and saying her children deserve to be told. I'm surprised at you, Roch, for putting forward such a suggestion.
Flip the coin Jane.
-
But she hasn't contradicted herself since the September 1985 statement. I think that's what the Bamberettes can't stand.
An indepth interview with Julie may have proved invaluable Steve.
-
I wonder if David would let me use his research to make a Mugford vid? I can feel the old video making skills bubbling. It took intense concentration and editing when I made the last ones. A bit like Ainsley making a new case from scratch - lots of editing 😏
-
An indepth interview with Julie may have proved invaluable Steve.
Once bitten, twice shy.
-
You tell me Steve.I just meant there was nothing in his charachter or past which indicated he was capable of carrying out the atrocity.And in all fairness,Sheila was the one with mental problems which just seem to be dismissed.
If Sheila was a normal young woman with no mental illness I could understand the relatives reluctance to believe she was the killer but this is not the case,she was violently psychotic,albeit at objects.She was so out of control during episodes that grown men were terrified.
The relatives ignored these facts and simply claimed Sheila could not use the rifle,very poor counter argument if you ask me.In reality there is no way the relatives could have been sure whether Sheila could re-load a rifle or not,its hardly rocket science Steve,leave a chimpanze long enough and they would manage to load a magazine with bullets.
Inheritance killers are not hardcore or career criminals.
Which is why they are not in prison and choose an easy target - their family.
They may have committed minor crimes. Either in or outside of the family.
-
I wonder if David would let me use his research to make a Mugford vid? I can feel the old video making skills bubbling. It took intense concentration and editing when I made the last ones. A bit like Ainsley making a new case from scratch - lots of editing 😏
That would be worth watching.
What did David say that undermines Julie's WS?
-
Inheritance killers are not hardcore or career criminals.
Which is why they are not in prison and choose an easy target - their family.
They may have committed minor crimes. Either in or outside of the family.
Or may have been sexually abused (Menendez bros).
-
Flip the coin Jane.
Like I say, I hold no torch for her. Chances are, if her 60 year old self looks back at her 20 year old self, she'd probably agree that her behaviour then did her no favours, albeit, her lesser crimes might have earned her little more than a slapped wrist, her worst crime was getting involved with a guy who was out of her league and whose sense of entitlement took her into a life she'd not previously experienced. However, she was only 20........
-
That would be worth watching.
What did David say that undermines Julie's WS?
The allegations are that she concocted the statement from eavesdropping on relatives and reading the newspapers. There was another supposed contradiction which could be read ambiguously about whether Matthew McDonald had ever visited White House Farm.
-
Personally,I see no reason why Sheila could not have carried out the shooting Jane,in many ways I think the crime scene points to this.The Aga burns for one thing.
Sheila was too weak, unbalanced, uncordinated, docile & inexperienced.
And that was on a good day!
-
Like I say, I hold no torch for her. Chances are, if her 60 year old self looks back at her 20 year old self, she'd probably agree that her behaviour then did her no favours, albeit, her lesser crimes might have earned her little more than a slapped wrist, her worst crime was getting involved with a guy who was out of her league and whose sense of entitlement took her into a life she'd not previously experienced. However, she was only 20........
Indeed she was, and undergoing a stressful period in her working career.
-
The allegations are that she concocted the statement from eavesdropping on relatives and reading the newspapers. There was another supposed contradiction which could be read ambiguously about whether Matthew McDonald had ever visited White House Farm.
A lot of her WS would not be in newspapers.
Seem to remember David saying the relatives told Julie a couple of things.
He never said why the relatives would alert Bamber's GF that they were suspicious.
He also never said when the relatives told Julie. There paths rarely crossed after the massacre.
-
Nothing that Dave said in the interview dispelled any of my doubt over Bambers guilt HB,especially his description of the murder weapon.Dave describes the Anschutz as no more deadly than a knife.
Now if this is the case we have to take a close look at how the shooting unfolded and who it most likely points to as the killer.OK,Dave said it was low velocity bullets that were used which would have produced the equivalent of a stab with a knife [Similar to what Adam keeps repeating.Coincidence?]
Anyway,let us just assume that Bamber planned to kill his family and blame Sheila.One important question we must ask is how many bullets he intended to use on each victim and where did he hope to kill each victim? Presumably he didn't plan to have the victims scattered through the house and have to chase behind them as things turned out? So why did this happen in a cold blooded planned shooting? It wasn't as if it was a spur of the moment hot blooded un-planned shooting that simply ended up in chaos.
OR WAS IT?
If JB was the killer then he loaded the bullets and knew that only a direct hit to the head ot heart was going to stop his victims in their tracks,yet the only victims who received head shots only were the twins.
And this kind of suggests to me that the twins were not shot first.I think the killer tried to kill June first with several body shots only to realise after June got up and fought that the only way to kill her was by shooting her in the head.
All the initial shots to June seemed to be done randomly without much thought,mostly down the right side of the body.I dont think JB would have shot June in this way.Guilters say JB used several shots to make it look like a frenzied attack,if this was true JB would have given June a few body shots then one through the head as she attempted to get out of bed,he wouldn't have riddled her with non fatal bullet wounds and left her alive untill he re-loaded.Makes no sense whatsoever.
Sheila on the other hand would have simply pointed the rifle at June and opened fire,basically thinking a shot anywhere to the body would kill her,when this did not happen Sheila would have known to shoot the twins in the head to kill them, and to make sure they did not suffer several shots were used in rapid succession.I think this is the most logical reason the boys were shot so many times in the head.
I think that is why all victims ended up with shots to the head,Sheila had worked out it was the only way to kill the victims and make sure they were dead.
I think the reason the shooting was such a chaotic event was due to the fact of Sheila's incompetence and lack of knowledge of the rifle,just enough knowledge to subdue the victims initially but ended in a chaotic struggle.
Besides,would JB really have used such low velocity ammo,wasn't there any other more lethal type of bullets available in the house?
No ,nothing that Dave said about the rifle has convinced me of Bambers guilt,quite the contrary.
The 22 holds far more ammunition than a shotgun she/he would have needed a pocketful of ammo. The Shotgun only holds two cartridges and then a re-load, it is far more louder to use and it offers far more Kickback i'm led to believe. To set the scene he could hardly have said, i went to shoot a couple of Rabbits i'd seen so i loaded the shotgun.
Supporters like to say that Sheila knew how to use the Shotgun Snowy or she had been on a shoot with one, so if it was Sheila, why didn't she use the shotgun then?
-
The 22 holds far more ammunition than a shotgun she/he would have needed a pocketful of ammo. The Shotgun only holds two cartridges and then a re-load, it is far more louder to use and it offers far more Kickback i'm led to believe. To set the scene he could hardly have said, i went to shoot a couple of Rabbits i'd seen so i loaded the shotgun.
Supporters like to say that Sheila knew how to use the Shotgun Snowy or she had been on a shoot with one, so if it was Sheila, why didn't she use the shotgun then?
I would say that Sheila wanted to kill her family and herself for that matter as cleanly as possible HB,no doubt she knew the devastation a twelve bore would make at close range would have made.I think she hoped to kill everyone with body shots,but this was not possible due to the low velocity of the ammo.
Therefore Sheila had to end up giving all the victims head shots.
-
I would say that Sheila wanted to kill her family and herself for that matter as cleanly as possible HB,no doubt she knew the devastation a twelve bore would make at close range would have made.I think she hoped to kill everyone with body shots,but this was not possible due to the low velocity of the ammo.
Therefore Sheila had to end up giving all the victims head shots.
Make up your mind, Snow. Either she was clear headed and calculating,, which would have saved JB a whole lot of trouble because he'd have been capable of dispatching them all with one shot apiece,OR she was psychotic and firing randomly at various bodyparts.
-
Make up your mind, Snow. Either she was clear headed and calculating,, which would have saved JB a whole lot of trouble because he'd have been capable of dispatching them all with one shot apiece,OR she was psychotic and firing randomly at various bodyparts.
I believe it started with random shots Jane,but she found out the only way to kill them was by shots directly to the head.No doubt she found this out before shooting the boys,hence no body shots.
-
I believe it started with random shots Jane,but she found out the only way to kill them was by shots directly to the head.No doubt she found this out before shooting the boys,hence no body shots.
So you're in favour of her being clear headed and calculated? Do you think she'd been planning it for some time, or do you think it was a spontaneous decision?
-
This isn't true. After one of the meetings with DCI Jones , two relatives conceded that Sheila could have been responsible.
Also don't forget Ann's comment 'I can live with that'.
What relatives? Source please.
-
What relatives? Source please.
It's a CAE document. Not sure which one. Think it's either Peter and David or Anthony and Peter or Anthony and David she is referring to. She was present. She omits what was said that made them concede. As if nothing was said - very clever.
-
What relatives? Source please.
It must be the Friday 9 August meeting with DCI Thomas "Taff" Jones. It's referred to in Chapter 26 of CAL, but not explicitly stated.
-
Yes,I think what most likely happened was Sheila got hold of the rifle and attached the magazine,Nevill found her in the kitchen and tried to calm her down but unexpectedly got the rifle over the head.This may have been when the stock/butt was broken and splintered.
Nevill is knocked out and falls against the Aga.Sheila runs upstairs and fires randomly into a waking June.
Unfamiliar with the rifle,Sheila may have caused it to jam and some sort of struggle may have ensued,June is knocked to the floor and Sheila works the lever of the rifle to eject the shell casing then shoots June twice in the head to make sure she is dead.
Who knows Whether the boys heard June being shot or not,if they did they may have gone back to sleep again or Sheila may have checked on them and assured them that everything was ok.
Sheila proceeded to re-load the rifle to make sure she had enough bullets to kill the twins and managed to do this as they slept.
Sheila may have been bloodied at this stage and washed before writing letters etc.,.
At some stage Nevill came round and phoned for help,he then proceeded upstairs. Sheila has re-loaded the rifle for a second time,eight bullets will be used on Nevill and the final two on herself.
If we go by where the shell casings were found then Nevill must have been shot twice in the face at the top of the stairs or near the main bedroom.he turns and heads back down stairs receiving two more shots,the one to the arm and the one to the shoulder.
By the time Nevill reaches the kitchen he is near death from the two face shots and stumbles on to a chair.Sheila cannot get a clear shot to Nevills head as he is holding up his right arm to protect it.
Sheila prods Nevills arm viciously and whacks him on the shoulder,Nevill grabs the barrel of the rifle and the sight slashes his hand.Nevill succumbs to his injuries and topples onto the chair/scuttle nearing death.
Sheila is now free to shoot a motionless Nevill four more times in the head before dispatching herself at some stage.
I believe something like this happened.
-
Yes,I think what most likely happened was Sheila got hold of the rifle and attached the magazine,Nevill found her in the kitchen and tried to calm her down but unexpectedly got the rifle over the head.This may have been when the stock/butt was broken and splintered.
Nevill is knocked out and falls against the Aga.Sheila runs upstairs and fires randomly into a waking June.
Unfamiliar with the rifle,Sheila may have caused it to jam and some sort of struggle may have ensued,June is knocked to the floor and Sheila works the lever of the rifle to eject the shell casing then shoots June twice in the head to make sure she is dead.
Who knows Whether the boys heard June being shot or not,if they did they may have gone back to sleep again or Sheila may have checked on them and assured them that everything was ok.
Sheila proceeded to re-load the rifle to make sure she had enough bullets to kill the twins and managed to do this as they slept.
Sheila may have been bloodied at this stage and washed before writing letters etc.,.
At some stage Nevill came round and phoned for help,he then proceeded upstairs. Sheila has re-loaded the rifle for a second time,eight bullets will be used on Nevill and the final two on herself.
If we go by where the shell casings were found then Nevill must have been shot twice in the face at the top of the stairs or near the main bedroom.he turns and heads back down stairs receiving two more shots,the one to the arm and the one to the shoulder.
By the time Nevill reaches the kitchen he is near death from the two face shots and stumbles on to a chair.Sheila cannot get a clear shot to Nevills head as he is holding up his right arm to protect it.
Sheila prods Nevills arm viciously and whacks him on the shoulder,Nevill grabs the barrel of the rifle and the sight slashes his hand.Nevill succumbs to his injuries and topples onto the chair/scuttle nearing death.
Sheila is now free to shoot a motionless Nevill four more times in the head before dispatching herself at some stage.
I believe something like this happened.
25 shots fired, a new packet of bullets opened containing 50, but 30 left on the blue and white chequered worktop. Why the five-bullet discrepancy?
-
So you're in favour of her being clear headed and calculated? Do you think she'd been planning it for some time, or do you think it was a spontaneous decision?
Sheila had unhealthy delusional thoughts for years as you know Jane,when she finally made the decision to end it all is anybody's guess.
-
Sheila had unhealthy delusional thoughts for years as you know Jane,when she finally made the decision to end it all is anybody's guess.
Maybe June's cooking wasn't very good.
-
25 shots fired, a new packet of bullets opened containing 50, but 30 left on the blue and white chequered worktop. Why the five-bullet discrepancy?
Thought a lot about this Steve,could be the box that Bamber used to load the rifle to shoot the rabbits was returned to the gun cupboard and Sheila retrieved a different box later on with only five used.
-
Maybe June's cooking wasn't very good.
That isn't an appropriate answer Adam.
-
Sheila had unhealthy delusional thoughts for years as you know Jane,when she finally made the decision to end it all is anybody's guess.
But now you've returned to the Sheila who was mentally ill,, but the Sheila you've described as having committed the crime is clear headed and calculated. Well, I guess she had to have been to manage -let alone reload- a weapon she'd never seen before.
-
That isn't an appropriate answer Adam.
Don't forget June was cooking in London and WHF.
-
Yes,I think what most likely happened was Sheila got hold of the rifle and attached the magazine,Nevill found her in the kitchen and tried to calm her down but unexpectedly got the rifle over the head.This may have been when the stock/butt was broken and splintered.
Nevill is knocked out and falls against the Aga.Sheila runs upstairs and fires randomly into a waking June.
Unfamiliar with the rifle,Sheila may have caused it to jam and some sort of struggle may have ensued,June is knocked to the floor and Sheila works the lever of the rifle to eject the shell casing then shoots June twice in the head to make sure she is dead.
Who knows Whether the boys heard June being shot or not,if they did they may have gone back to sleep again or Sheila may have checked on them and assured them that everything was ok.
Sheila proceeded to re-load the rifle to make sure she had enough bullets to kill the twins and managed to do this as they slept.
Sheila may have been bloodied at this stage and washed before writing letters etc.,.
At some stage Nevill came round and phoned for help,he then proceeded upstairs. Sheila has re-loaded the rifle for a second time,eight bullets will be used on Nevill and the final two on herself.
If we go by where the shell casings were found then Nevill must have been shot twice in the face at the top of the stairs or near the main bedroom.he turns and heads back down stairs receiving two more shots,the one to the arm and the one to the shoulder.
By the time Nevill reaches the kitchen he is near death from the two face shots and stumbles on to a chair.Sheila cannot get a clear shot to Nevills head as he is holding up his right arm to protect it.
Sheila prods Nevills arm viciously and whacks him on the shoulder,Nevill grabs the barrel of the rifle and the sight slashes his hand.Nevill succumbs to his injuries and topples onto the chair/scuttle nearing death.
Sheila is now free to shoot a motionless Nevill four more times in the head before dispatching herself at some stage.
I believe something like this happened.
If you say that Sheila wanted to kill her family Snow, why didn't she kill Neville when she knocked him out?
-
Shelia was going on dates with men and applying for cleaning jobs and planning a holiday to France.
Mere days after her haloperidol injection.
-
But now you've returned to the Sheila who was mentally ill,, but the Sheila you've described as having committed the crime is clear headed and calculated. Well, I guess she had to have been to manage -let alone reload- a weapon she'd never seen before.
The shooting may have taken hours to unfold Jane,Sheila had all the time in the world to work out how to re-load the rifle once Nevill and June were wounded or dead.Nothing remarkable needed.Just remove a magazine and put the bullets in it.Or dont you think she even knew what a magazine was for Jane?
-
The shooting may have taken hours to unfold Jane,Sheila had all the time in the world to work out how to re-load the rifle once Nevill and June were wounded or dead.Nothing remarkable needed.Just remove a magazine and put the bullets in it.Or dont you think she even knew what a magazine was for Jane?
Do you disagree with BuboBubo that June fought and shot at Sheila?
-
If you say that Sheila wanted to kill her family Snow, why didn't she kill Neville when she knocked him out?
Who knows HB,maybe she intended to spare him but was forced to kill him when he came to and tried ti intervene.
-
Who knows HB,maybe she intended to spare him but was forced to kill him when he came to and tried ti intervene.
'Maybe'.
-
Do you disagree with BuboBubo that June fought and shot at Sheila?
I am simply putting forward what I think is a credible scenario Adam,just as Bubo is doing.
Whatever the truth is may incorporate parts of many different scenarios.
-
I am simply putting forward what I think is a credible scenario Adam,just as Bubo is doing.
Whatever the truth is may incorporate parts of many different scenarios.
You seem rather muddled about what you believe to be "a credible scenario". But I guess you take the prize for being the only one to believe that, despite going on about her psychosis, Sheila was clear headed and lucid when she committed the massacre.
-
Thought a lot about this Steve,could be the box that Bamber used to load the rifle to shoot the rabbits was returned to the gun cupboard and Sheila retrieved a different box later on with only five used.
There was seven boxe's of FIFTY .22bullets retrieved from the gun cupboard and one empty box, so i don't think there was an opened box, that's how i understand Snow.
there was also the silencer and Bore amunition as well. Interseting, there was what appeared to be a small drop of blood on one of the small Boxe's [i ithink he means Bore boxe's]
-
There was seven boxe's of FIFTY .22bullets retrieved from the gun cupboard and one empty box, so i don't think there was an opened box, that's how i understand Snow.
there was also the silencer and Bore amunition as well. Interseting, there was what appeared to be a small drop of blood on one of the small Boxe's [i ithink he means Bore boxe's]
Then the mystery remains HB.
Do we know if AP kept any ammo at the farm?
-
I am simply putting forward what I think is a credible scenario Adam,just as Bubo is doing.
Whatever the truth is may incorporate parts of many different scenarios.
I agree Snow, sometimes it's the only way to move forward, you have an idea and it needs testing, credit to you. My idea is simple though, Jeremy killed everyone, in what order i couldn't tell you
What do you think of it being a Jeremy and Sheila pact and Sheila was complicit Snow?
-
Then the mystery remains HB.
Do we know if AP kept any ammo at the farm?
I don't know about that one Snow? The blood on the box is interesting though?
-
I agree Snow, sometimes it's the only way to move forward, you have an idea and it needs testing, credit to you. My idea is simple though, Jeremy killed everyone, in what order i couldn't tell you
What do you think of it being a Jeremy and Sheila pact and Sheila was complicit Snow?
Is that the Paul Harrison scenario you are talking about HB? If so,it had many holes in it if I remember.
-
Is that the Paul Harrison scenario you are talking about HB? If so,it had many holes in it if I remember.
No it's mine HA HA I honestly haven't read his book or had anything to do with him, i don't think i knew him when he was posting on here? The only book iv'e read is CAL's, well not read, i have them on Audible.
-
The Shelia Jeremy in league with each other is an interesting theory. But I believe it fails for the obvious reasons.
If Jeremy Is gulity hell bent on getting his cash, he would not want to share it with his sister.
If their parents and Shelias kids were shot. It's gonna both bite them on the arse as they would be prime suspects.
Shelia would have to get an alibi of why she wasn't at the farm with her children. Saying that she was with her brother would be suspicious.
Shelia and Jeremy did not have a close relationship one iota.
-
Thought a lot about this Steve,could be the box that Bamber used to load the rifle to shoot the rabbits was returned to the gun cupboard and Sheila retrieved a different box later on with only five used.
The problem I have with this is that Jeremy claimed to have tipped out a new box of ammunition in haste onto the blue and white chequered worktop in order to shoot the rabbits. But why didn't June clear these bullets away when she took Pamela's call? Jeremy had removed the master bedroom telephone to deprive his parents of the lifeline they needed in case of emergency, which of course transpired only a few hours later.
In Jeremy's version we have to believe that he tipped out the bullets, that June saw these bullets as she was conversing with her sister on the telephone, but left them in plain sight with her grandchildren upstairs, that Nevill didn't see the gun on the settle, that Sheila didn't use the bullets she must have seen when her mother put her on the telephone to talk to her aunt but decided a few hours later to open a new box, assuming there was one where you suggested it was located.
-
I have always disbelieved the rifle story. It may be true. It's just my opinion
That he decided to go rabbit hunting in the grounds after working a 14 hour shift. It reeks of the convenience of trying to make out the rifle was accessible for shelia to access in my view. It's a simple view but I always believed that anybody who has just worked a gruelling shift would want to finish work, jump in the car and go home and get some shut eye. He was due back at work in hours.
Having said that rabbits are invasive to farmers crops. But it does bug me this aspect for some reason
-
The Shelia Jeremy in league with each other is an interesting theory. But I believe it fails for the obvious reasons.
If Jeremy Is gulity hell bent on getting his cash, he would not want to share it with his sister.
If their parents and Shelias kids were shot. It's gonna both bite them on the arse as they would be prime suspects.
Shelia would have to get an alibi of why she wasn't at the farm with her children. Saying that she was with her brother would be suspicious.
Shelia and Jeremy did not have a close relationship one iota.
Well, by Sheila being Complicit it could mean that She was happy to end her life as well, Jeremy could have promised to spare the twins and told Sheila so........ that he would look after them along with Colin, but Jeremy had other idea's? Not saying this is true, but just a thought.
-
I have always disbelieved the rifle story. It may be true. It's just my opinion
That he decided to go rabbit hunting in the grounds after working a 14 hour shift. It reeks of the convenience of trying to make out the rifle was accessible for shelia to access in my view. It's a simple view but I always believed that anybody who has just worked a gruelling shift would want to finish work, jump in the car and go home and get some shut eye. He was due back at work in hours.
Having said that rabbits are invasive to farmers crops. But it does bug me this aspect for some reason
Good post
-
The Shelia Jeremy in league with each other is an interesting theory. But I believe it fails for the obvious reasons.
If Jeremy Is gulity hell bent on getting his cash, he would not want to share it with his sister.
If their parents and Shelias kids were shot. It's gonna both bite them on the arse as they would be prime suspects.
Shelia would have to get an alibi of why she wasn't at the farm with her children. Saying that she was with her brother would be suspicious.
Shelia and Jeremy did not have a close relationship one iota.
I thought proponents of this theory claimed brother and sister were in league but Jeremy double-crossed her. It's a non-starter anyway.
-
The Shelia Jeremy in league with each other is an interesting theory. But I believe it fails for the obvious reasons.
If Jeremy Is gulity hell bent on getting his cash, he would not want to share it with his sister.
If their parents and Shelias kids were shot. It's gonna both bite them on the arse as they would be prime suspects.
Shelia would have to get an alibi of why she wasn't at the farm with her children. Saying that she was with her brother would be suspicious.
Shelia and Jeremy did not have a close relationship one iota.
Yes,well pointed out ILB,and there are many other reasons too.
-
I have always disbelieved the rifle story. It may be true. It's just my opinion
That he decided to go rabbit hunting in the grounds after working a 14 hour shift. It reeks of the convenience of trying to make out the rifle was accessible for shelia to access in my view. It's a simple view but I always believed that anybody who has just worked a gruelling shift would want to finish work, jump in the car and go home and get some shut eye. He was due back at work in hours.
Having said that rabbits are invasive to farmers crops. But it does bug me this aspect for some reason
I agree, it does reek of setting the scene and a starter for Sheila, especially silencer and sights removed.
-
There has to be a spotlight outside or lighting of some sort for him to see the rabbits.
He would not see rabbits unless the garden was illuminated. And he would have been looking out of a kitchen window.
-
If you disbelieve the rifle story doesn't Jeremy's whole tale fall down?
-
If you disbelieve the rifle story doesn't Jeremy's whole tale fall down?
I'm on the fence with the rifle story. I am uncomfortable with it. But at the same time I did mention that as rabbits are invasive to crops it may be true from a layperson view.
-
If Jeremy is guilty he is obviously in one sense not comfortable with Shelia having the wherewithal to access the firearm and load it. Hence he creates the scenario with the rabbits.
Hours later he says " yes she used to go shooting with me all the time " if gulity it seems contradictory.
So if gulity his confidence must have been sky high. Because he shoots himself in the foot with his initial comments to the police and WS within a 12 hour period.
If gulity it's all very well planning. It's when the police show up you have to be tested to scrutiny. If gulity this was overlooked in the first instance and he was believed. Taff was determined it was murder suicide. The initial WS were no more than a bereaved relative fact finding mission.
-
Surprised he went out to shoot rabbits in the dark.
Espescially as the rifle had no sights or silencer on.
-
In fact did he say to PS Bews he had left the rifle out the night before ? I don't think he did. I may be wrong
-
Talk about 'a shot in the dark'. Or rather 'non shot'.
Surprised he filled up the rifle so much. Considering he would only be able to fire one shot before the rabbits scattered.
-
If he has seen two rabbits from the kitchen he speaks of being inside when he does so In his 7.8.85 WS which means that the grounds outside have to be illuminated in order for him to see the rabbits from out of the kitchen window where he says he was
-
Thought a lot about this Steve,could be the box that Bamber used to load the rifle to shoot the rabbits was returned to the gun cupboard and Sheila retrieved a different box later on with only five used.
What? So, she replaces all the bullets back in the box, then goes to the cupboard and gets another box? We seem to be working from the perspective of 'anything goes' now.
-
If he has seen two rabbits from the kitchen he speaks of being inside when he does so In his 7.8.85 WS which means that the grounds outside have to be illuminated in order for him to see the rabbits from out of the kitchen window where he says he was
Maybe that's why he changed his story ILB on the 8th, because it changed to, "while they was talking i had to check the barn was running, which i normally did, i left the house for two minutes, and returned to the farmhouse i had just seen some rabbits near the Potato shed...................
-
Maybe that's why he changed his story ILB on the 8th, because it changed to, "while they was talking i had to check the barn was running, which i normally did, i left the house for two minutes, and returned to the farmhouse i had just seen some rabbits near the Potato shed...................
In my view hardy there has to be outside lighting of the grounds i.e a lighting fixture on for him to have seen rabbits.
Spotlights usually only come on when someone walks under them. At that time of night only the core family were in the vicinity. And on the inside
Nevill Jeremy Shelia June
-
If he has seen two rabbits from the kitchen he speaks of being inside when he does so In his 7.8.85 WS which means that the grounds outside have to be illuminated in order for him to see the rabbits from out of the kitchen window where he says he was
Maybe he had his night vision goggles.
-
That is a good point.
I always thought he saw rabbits while walking to WHF. He then went straight back outside.
Now it seems he was inside and saw across the sink & through a window. In outside darkness.
-
What? So, she replaces all the bullets back in the box, then goes to the cupboard and gets another box? We seem to be working from the perspective of 'anything goes' now.
No,no,I meant Nevill may have put them back in the gun cupboard berore going to bed Zoso,then Sheila goes to the cupboard for another box when she starts the shooting.
-
That is a good point.
I always thought he saw rabbits while walking to WHF. He then went straight back outside.
Now it seems he was inside and saw across the sink & through a window. In outside darkness.
Hardy boy brought up his change of statement dated the 8th.
-
Maybe he had his night vision goggles.
Divots are the same as rabbits
Anyway
-
Hardy boy brought up his change of statement dated the 8th.
That's right, i thought maybe he changed it from seeing the Rabbits from the Kitchen Window on the 7th, to seeing them when he went to the Potato Shed on the 8th, maybe because of poor lighting or visibility from his vantage point of the Kitchen window?
-
No,no,I meant Nevill may have put them back in the gun cupboard berore going to bed Zoso,then Sheila goes to the cupboard for another box when she starts the shooting.
I would have thought, if Neville had put the bullets back he would have put the rifle and the Mag back as well? Sheila would then have to get the Key from somewhere probably from Neville to go inside the Gun Cupboard, i think that's why Jeremy set the scene to leave the items out for easy access?
Does anyone know what the arrangement would have been for the Key to the Cupboard, hardly worth locking Rifles away and leaving a key hung up in the house for easy access?
-
In my view hardy there has to be outside lighting of the grounds i.e a lighting fixture on for him to have seen rabbits.
Spotlights usually only come on when someone walks under them. At that time of night only the core family were in the vicinity. And on the inside
Nevill Jeremy Shelia June
I agree, personally i think there would have been some outside lighting on a working farm, especially for winter months.
-
I would have thought, if Neville had put the bullets back he would have put the rifle and the Mag back as well? Sheila would then have to get the Key from somewhere probably from Neville to go inside the Gun Cupboard, i think that's why Jeremy set the scene to leave the items out for easy access?
Does anyone know what the arrangement would have been for the Key to the Cupboard, hardly worth locking Rifles away and leaving a key hung up in the house for easy access?
If June had no interest in guns, it's likely that she had no idea where the key was kept. She didn't need to know.
-
There was no lock on the gun cupboard at all
-
I would have thought, if Neville had put the bullets back he would have put the rifle and the Mag back as well? Sheila would then have to get the Key from somewhere probably from Neville to go inside the Gun Cupboard, i think that's why Jeremy set the scene to leave the items out for easy access?
Does anyone know what the arrangement would have been for the Key to the Cupboard, hardly worth locking Rifles away and leaving a key hung up in the house for easy access?
There was no 'gun cupboard' at WHF that would meet today's legal criteria:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117794/security_leaflet.pdf
The so-called gun cupboard was a cupboard under the stairs used for storing firearms and all the paraphernalia. The sort of cupboard many use to store a vac and ironing board. David Boutflour describes the cupboard during his tele interview with Eric Alison.
-
I'm sure that if Nevill Bamber kept the firearms in the cupboard under the stairs for many years.
Of course both Shelia and Jeremy would both now where they were kept. From mere childhood adolescence observance
-
In Jeremy's 8.8.85 statement
" As I was loading, I had a side view to Shelia, she would have had a good view of what I was doing, I had my back to my parents.
This is a totally mundane detail. Which didn't have to be mentioned.
But again one can argue he adds it to further reinforce the view that Shelia visually knew how to load a firearm by watching him as he loaded it. If gulity he has only added that in my opinion for that sole benefit.
-
There was no 'gun cupboard' at WHF that would meet today's legal criteria:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117794/security_leaflet.pdf
The so-called gun cupboard was a cupboard under the stairs used for storing firearms and all the paraphernalia. The sort of cupboard many use to store a vac and ironing board. David Boutflour describes the cupboard during his tele interview with Eric Alison.
Yes, sorry I’ll rephrase that, was there a key to the office that leads to the gun cupboard, I thought it was that door what was locked? Yes I know it wouldn’t meet today’s standards, my neighbour has guns and I look after the alarm system while he’s away.
-
When looking out of a window at night. The only thing you see is your reflection.
Impossible for Bamber to have seen rabbits which would have been over 30 yards away.
-
In Jeremy's 8.8.85 statement
" As I was loading, I had a side view to Shelia, she would have had a good view of what I was doing, I had my back to my parents.
This is a totally mundane detail. Which didn't have to be mentioned.
But again one can argue he adds it to further reinforce the view that Shelia visually knew how to load a firearm by watching him as he loaded it. If gulity he has only added that in my opinion for that sole benefit.
There’s a reason he made that change in his statement ILB, he’s trying to implicate Sheila’s knowledge that he was using and loading the rifle. He makes the change from the 7th statement, because people are starting to ask him Questions and one Officer asks him if Sheila would have a view of what he was doing, so he wants to include this in his next statement.
-
The more light there is in a room, the more you see your reflection and the less you can see outside.
The kitchen was being used and was occupied. It would be fully lit.
Impossible for Bamber to see anything outside. Let alone rabbits
-
There’s a reason he made that change in his statement ILB, he’s trying to implicate Sheila’s knowledge that he was using and loading the rifle. He makes the change from the 7th statement, because people are starting to ask him Questions and one Officer asks him if Sheila would have a view of what he was doing, so he wants to include this in his next statement.
I think in his own mind he made the alterations himself if gulity when thinking.
Over that 24 hour period I think Jeremy did a lot of " did I get that correct, should have I said this or that etc etc if gulity
I don't think he was prompted by police at that early stage straight away. DS Jones himself states that he wasn't going to come " the heavy copper" despite his deep suspicion.
-
What was Bamber doing looking outside the kitchen window anyway. The washing up?
-
What was Bamber doing looking outside the kitchen window anyway. The washing up?
Eating a ham sandwich by his own account
-
Eating a ham sandwich by his own account
He would have to be standing up to get access to the kitchen window. But then he would just see his reflection.
-
He would have to be standing up to get access to the kitchen window. But then he would just see his reflection.
That is correct. I get what you are saying reference the bright light in the room.
-
I think in his own mind he made the alterations himself if gulity when thinking.
Over that 24 hour period I think Jeremy did a lot of " did I get that correct, should have I said this or that etc etc if gulity
I don't think he was prompted by police at that early stage straight away. DS Jones himself states that he wasn't going to come " the heavy copper" despite his deep suspicion.
Look at the last four lines on what he said on the 7th and his reply.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4226.0;attach=31213;image
-
He would have to be standing up to get access to the kitchen window. But then he would just see his reflection.
He saw the rabbits by the potato shed while he was out checking that the drier or whatever it was, was still running.
-
He saw the rabbits by the potato shed while he was out checking that the drier or whatever it was, was still running.
Please provide the source.
-
Please provide the source.
I think snow means while he was checking the barn was running
-
I think snow means while he was checking the barn was running
Please provide the source.
-
Please provide the source.
Running the barn?
Both the 7.8.85 8.8.85 WS Jeremy Bamber
On this site
He mentions it was a task he did often. I suppose only a farm worker or nevill could have proved or disproved that
-
Look at the last four lines on what he said on the 7th and his reply.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4226.0;attach=31213;image
You are correct hardy, apologies
-
I'll check later. Obviously if he is saying he saw the rabbits from the kitchen, this confirms guilt within seconds of his scenario starting.
-
I'll check later. Obviously if he is saying he saw the rabbits from the kitchen, this confirms guilt within seconds of his scenario starting.
No Adam,he wasn't saying he saw the rabbits from the window,he never does.
In his 7aug statement he just says he was in a hurry to shoot the rabbits,then in his 8aug statements he expands a little and says he left the house for two minutes to check the barn was running and saw the rabbits by the potato shed.
-
No Adam,he wasn't saying he saw the rabbits from the window,he never does.
In his 7aug statement he just says he was in a hurry to shoot the rabbits,then in his 8aug statements he expands a little and says he left the house for two minutes to check the barn was running and saw the rabbits by the potato shed.
That's how i read it Snow, but it's rather Ambiguous, read his first statement from where he say's "I returned to the Farm house for thirty minutes ect" There's no mention that he went to the Potato shed or left the house? Could be he remembered he had and thats where he saw the Rabbits? He told Bew's that he thought he heard Rabbits and he told Ann at the back of the Barn, David heard him say behind the Barn as well and he had took some shots at the Rabbits and specifically remembers him saying that his shots missed?
-
That's how i read it Snow, but it's rather Ambiguous, read his first statement from where he say's "I returned to the Farm house for thirty minutes ect" There's no mention that he went to the Potato shed or left the house? Could be he remembered he had and thats where he saw the Rabbits? He told Bew's that he thought he heard Rabbits and he told Ann at the back of the Barn, David heard him say behind the Barn as well and he had took some shots at the Rabbits and specifically remembers him saying that his shots missed?
Well I suppose its quite simple really HB,from a guilty point of view the rabbit story is more than likely lies,as is leaving the rifle and ammo in plain sight.
What those with doubt of Bambers guilt have to do is decide if JBs story about the rabbits and gun are logical and credible, or simply made up to help point the blame at Sheila.
-
That's how i read it Snow, but it's rather Ambiguous, read his first statement from where he say's "I returned to the Farm house for thirty minutes ect" There's no mention that he went to the Potato shed or left the house? Could be he remembered he had and thats where he saw the Rabbits? He told Bew's that he thought he heard Rabbits and he told Ann at the back of the Barn, David heard him say behind the Barn as well and he had took some shots at the Rabbits and specifically remembers him saying that his shots missed?
He doesn't say he leaves the kitchen though while seeing the rabbits
That's the issue
-
He doesn't say he leaves the kitchen though while seeing the rabbits
That's the issue
Not much more to say really, like Snow said, you either believe it or you Don't, it's that simple.
-
The first WS he is saying he saw the rabbits while in the kitchen.
Obviously this is impossible.
-
Parents/Sheila having supper.
Had something to eat.
Went out while conversations about fostering. Having 'just seen' rabbits.
----------
So seems he saw the rabbits while eating or washing up. Both impossible.
-
Said he saw 'two rabbits'. Always thought he saw a cluster.
-
His second WS he does say he left the kitchen to go to the barn. When he saw the rabbits.
Lucky it says that as the first WS confirms guilt again.
Wonder what he means by 'check the barn is running'.
-
Wonder what he means by 'check the barn is running'.
Some kind of plant equipment?
-
Where’s the rubbish about it being dark come from? He says he was in the kitchen between 8pm and 9pm.
Sunset is around 8:40 at that time of year so he had 40 minutes before sunset to see the rabbits. It doesn’t get dark straight away when the sun sets - official lighting up time is 30 mins after sunset - I.e by law you could have driven a car without lights until around 9:10 so if it’s light enough to drive without lights then it’s light enough to see rabbits! There’s no suggestion anywhere it was dark when he saw them regardless of where he was.
-
Where’s the rubbish about it being dark come from? He says he was in the kitchen between 8pm and 9pm.
Sunset is around 8:40 at that time of year so he had 40 minutes before sunset to see the rabbits. It doesn’t get dark straight away when the sun sets - official lighting up time is 30 mins after sunset - I.e by law you could have driven a car without lights until around 9:10 so if it’s light enough to drive without lights then it’s light enough to see rabbits! There’s no suggestion anywhere it was dark when he saw them regardless of where he was.
Thanks Kest,I was going to ask how dark it would have been.
-
Evidenced by?
In short, there are 5 measurements of the length of the silencer at 165/166 mm or 6 ½ inches and there are 6 measurements of the length of the silencer of 175/180 mm or 7 inches. There are loads of descriptions of the sound moderator's appearance that don't match up.
A blood grouping matching that of David Boutflour was found in the baffle plates.
The crown deliberately withheld the information that the blood grouping being attributed to Sheila Caffell, was a direct match for Robert Boutflour. The jury were lied to.
The crown spent tens of thousands of tax payers money to prevent pictures and documents of the sound moderator from being disclosed to the defence. The judge who ruled against disclosure advised that it would be better for the CCRC, who have the necessary powers to explore this issue. If the CCRC subsequently refuse to use their powers to obtain this same evidence from the CPS, it can only be because of one of two reasons. Either it is known behind the scenes that the evidence has become 'lost' or has been destroyed; or the evidence undermines the crown's case regarding there having been only one sound moderator. Otherwise, the crown could have saved all of that tax payers money and simply disclosed the evidence.
How individuals perceive David's post is one thing. What really matters is how the CCRC and CoA might perceive David's posts should they ever get to read them which I very much doubt. But on the assumption they do get to read them they might not necessarily share your perceptions.
Unlike you, I don't see the CCRC or the COA as paragons of efficiency. I don't buy the nonsense that the CCRC is 'independent'. I don't believe the justice system is set up to right wrongs. Just like I don't believe that any police forces want to expose their own fit-ups or the fit-ups of other forces.
I stand by what I said about David. He could easily destroy Mugford's written testimony - based on facts, not perceptions.
-
Did the judge tell jurors Julie's testimony was shite? Thought he directed the court at trial as follows:
[The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.
154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.
The foreman of the jury told one of the investigative officers, that Jeremy would have walked free if it hadn't been for the judge's summing up, which the jury viewed as an instruction to convict.
The same judge has been involved in 27-28 wrongful convictions. In the other cases, it came to light there had been deliberate malpractice among the police officers concerned.
There is institutionalised wrong-doing in our justice system from top to bottom. Sorry if you don't think that's relevant.
-
In short, there are 5 measurements of the length of the silencer at 165/166 mm or 6 ½ inches and there are 6 measurements of the length of the silencer of 175/180 mm or 7 inches. There are loads of descriptions of the sound moderator's appearance that don't match up.
Well you haven't said if the measurements exclude/include the UNF thread? This measures 1/2" so I guess one could be forgiven thinking this might explain the discrepancy?
https://www.thehuntingedge.co.uk/shop/parkerhale-accurate-rimfire-silencer/
A blood grouping matching that of David Boutflour was found in the baffle plates.
I thought the match was with Robert Boutflour? Anyway it matters not. The blood serologist for the defence, Dr Patrick Lincoln, told the defence 8% of the white British population within UK would be expected to share the blood groups contained with the flake/silencer also matching Sheila's groups. How would anyone else's blood groups be found withinin the silencer if not from the shootings?
The crown deliberately withheld the information that the blood grouping being attributed to Sheila Caffell, was a direct match for Robert Boutflour. The jury were lied to.
As I asked above how would anyone else's blood/groups enter the silencer?
The crown spent tens of thousands of tax payers money to prevent pictures and documents of the sound moderator from being disclosed to the defence. The judge who ruled against disclosure advised that it would be better for the CCRC, who have the necessary powers to explore this issue. If the CCRC subsequently refuse to use their powers to obtain this same evidence from the CPS, it can only be because of one of two reasons. Either it is known behind the scenes that the evidence has become 'lost' or has been destroyed; or the evidence undermines the crown's case regarding there having been only one sound moderator. Otherwise, the crown could have saved all of that tax payers money and simply disclosed the evidence.
Don't know anything about the above.
Unlike you, I don't see the CCRC or the COA as paragons of efficiency. I don't buy the nonsense that the CCRC is 'independent'. I don't believe the justice system is set up to right wrongs. Just like I don't believe that any police forces want to expose their own fit-ups or the fit-ups of other forces.
I stand by what I said about David. He could easily destroy Mugford's written testimony - based on facts, not perceptions.
Whatever you buy/believe don't buy/believe is irrelevant in terms of Bamber overturning his conviction. I recall reading David's posts re the above and it was capable of being interpreted pro defence and prosecution. So nothing to play for.
-
The foreman of the jury told one of the investigative officers, that Jeremy would have walked free if it hadn't been for the judge's summing up, which the jury viewed as an instruction to convict.
The same judge has been involved in 27-28 wrongful convictions. In the other cases, it came to light there had been deliberate malpractice among the police officers concerned.
There is institutionalised wrong-doing in our justice system from top to bottom. Sorry if you don't think that's relevant.
But two of the jurors found not guilty so they were all free to choose.
The rest is not case specific.
-
But two of the jurors found not guilty so they were all free to choose.
The rest is not case specific.
Clearly 2 held out and refused to follow what the others saw as an instruction from the judge.
If someone had committed rape twice before, and they were up for rape for a third time, would the other two rapes be dismissed as 'not case specific'? Well, technically yes. But really?
-
Well you haven't said if the measurements exclude/include the UNF thread? This measures 1/2" so I guess one could be forgiven thinking this might explain the discrepancy?
https://www.thehuntingedge.co.uk/shop/parkerhale-accurate-rimfire-silencer/
I know nothing about that. In any event, it wouldn't explain the many different descriptions.
I thought the match was with Robert Boutflour? Anyway it matters not. The blood serologist for the defence, Dr Patrick Lincoln, told the defence 8% of the white British population within UK would be expected to share the blood groups contained with the flake/silencer also matching Sheila's groups. How would anyone else's blood groups be found withinin the silencer if not from the shootings?
If 50M white people lived in the UK in 1985, 8% would amount to 4M white people: approximately half the population of London at that time, spread across every city, large town, medium town, small town, village and hamlet in the UK, from John O Groats to Penzance and from Stornaway to Dover.
No evidence was ever presented to show how Sheila's blood got in to the sound moderator. It's nothing but a theory. Fletcher had no experience of it happening with a .22 rifle / sound moderator attached, and didn't carry out any experiments whatsoever to replicate the process / prove the theory. His court testimony is incredible.
As I asked above how would anyone else's blood/groups enter the silencer?
Sorry, but I regard this is a fatuous question. You already know the answer to it.
Whatever you buy/believe don't buy/believe is irrelevant in terms of Bamber overturning his conviction. I recall reading David's posts re the above and it was capable of being interpreted pro defence and prosecution. So nothing to play for.
You seem to think I believe that Bamber's convictions can be overturned using normal judicial processes. I do not. I have long argued for a proper use of various media methods. That is the only way the conviction will be overturned. What is required is break-though via the media, which subsequently snowballs to the point where it is uncontrollable. Not sure what you mean about David's posts.
-
One more juror would have hung the jury.
-
I know nothing about that. In any event, it wouldn't explain the many different descriptions.
If 50M white people lived in the UK in 1985, 8% would amount to 4M white people: approximately half the population of London at that time, spread across every city, large town, medium town, small town, village and hamlet in the UK, from John O Groats to Penzance and from Stornaway to Dover.
No evidence was evidence was ever presented to show how Sheila's blood got in to the sound moderator. It's nothing but a theory. Fletcher had no experience of it happening with a .22 rifle / sound moderator attached, had didn't carry out any experiments whatsoever to prove the theory. His court testimony is incredible.
Sorry, but I regard this is a fatuous question. You already know the answer to it.
You seem to think I believe that Bamber's convictions can be overturned using normal judicial processes. I do not. I have long argued for a proper use of various media methods. That is the only way the conviction will be overturned. What is required is break-though via the media, which subsequently snowballs to the point where it is uncontrollable. Not sure what you mean about David's posts.
What is the alternative you propose other than an normal judicial process Roch ?
-
Not much more to say really, like Snow said, you either believe it or you Don't, it's that simple.
Correct.
We can just draw interpretation on how we see fit
-
I don't know about that one Snow? The blood on the box is interesting though?
Where did you see this HB? About the blood on the box I mean?
-
What is the alternative you propose other than an normal judicial process Roch ?
In this case, something has to leak out in to the media, that cannot be denied. Something that gets people's attention and which prompts people to realise, hang on, that's just not right. I don't get it. What's going on here? Then it snowballs. It has to be something irrefutable. When things snowball, pressure builds. It won't go away because people keep asking about it. Bringing it up and asking awkward questions. Then the vultures circle. At this point EP / crown / prosecution agencies / review bodies have lost control of the narrative. It becomes an embarrassment.
-
In this case, something has to leak out in to the media, that cannot be denied. Something that gets people's attention and which prompts people to realise, hang on, that's just not right. I don't get it. What's going on here? Then it snowballs. It has to be something irrefutable. When things snowball, pressure builds. It won't go away because people keep asking about it. Bringing it up and asking awkward questions. Then the vultures circle. At this point EP / crown / prosecution agencies / review bodies have lost control of the narrative. It becomes an embarrassment.
That is a good point you make and I do agree but I think in Jeremy Bambers case there lies a few fundamental difficulties.
He is not a particularly high profile convicted person. For example if I ask someone who Ian Huntley is or Charles Bronson a vast majority would know the name. Jeremy Bamber I doubt even the younger generation who watched the 2020 documentary remember or care to remember.
He does not have the support of his relatives. They think him gulity.
He does not have the support of his natural birth parents.
He doesn't have an active journalist pursuing on his behalf
He has had people like Peter thatchell and Mark Williams Thomas promote his cause. But just pure judicial wise.
I have always believed he should go on TV and get a grilling. However being a convicted category A prisoner and living in the UK this would probably not be allowed. However sentences are now being filmed live ( visual on the judge ) so this might be common practice in the next few years and filming in a category A environment may as well.
He needs to sell his case personally on the national level
-
That is a good point you make and I do agree but I think in Jeremy Bambers case there lies a few fundamental difficulties.
He is not a particularly high profile convicted person. For example if I ask someone who Ian Huntley is or Charles Bronson a vast majority would know the name. Jeremy Bamber I doubt even the younger generation who watched the 2020 documentary remember or care to remember.
He does not have the support of his relatives. They think him gulity.
He does not have the support of his natural birth parents.
He doesn't have an active journalist pursuing on his behalf
He has had people like Peter thatchell and Mark Williams Thomas promote his cause. But just pure judicial wise.
I have always believed he should go on TV and get a grilling. However being a convicted category A prisoner and living in the UK this would probably not be allowed. However sentences are now being filmed live ( visual on the judge ) so this might be common practice in the next few years and filming in a category A environment may as well.
He needs to sell his case personally on the national level
Yes,good points ILB.
You would think prisoners protesting their innocence and appealing should be ailowed the odd televised interview surely.
-
Yes,good points ILB.
You would think prisoners protesting their innocence and appealing should be ailowed the odd televised interview surely.
Snow.
Cameras are being allowed into courts in the UK now. I assume this may be allowed in prisons as well in the next few years. In the USA this is very common. Convicted murderers are even interviewed 24 hours before being scheduled to be executed for example.
Serial killers in america have given interviews as early as the 70s 80s in the US
-
Fundamentally it is Jeremy's case and life and as he is getting older and time slips him by I imagine he would pursue any angle if it helps clear his name. But of course it is his choice!
-
Snow.
Cameras are being allowed into courts in the UK now. I assume this may be allowed in prisons as well in the next few years. In the USA this is very common. Convicted murderers are even interviewed 24 hours before being scheduled to be executed for example.
Serial killers in america have given interviews as early as the 70s 80s in the US
Yes,I suppose thats true,never thought much about how the Americans handled things ILB.
-
I know nothing about that. In any event, it wouldn't explain the many different descriptions.
If 50M white people lived in the UK in 1985, 8% would amount to 4M white people: approximately half the population of London at that time, spread across every city, large town, medium town, small town, village and hamlet in the UK, from John O Groats to Penzance and from Stornaway to Dover.
No evidence was ever presented to show how Sheila's blood got in to the sound moderator. It's nothing but a theory. Fletcher had no experience of it happening with a .22 rifle / sound moderator attached, and didn't carry out any experiments whatsoever to replicate the process / prove the theory. His court testimony is incredible.
Sorry, but I regard this is a fatuous question. You already know the answer to it.
You seem to think I believe that Bamber's convictions can be overturned using normal judicial processes. I do not. I have long argued for a proper use of various media methods. That is the only way the conviction will be overturned. What is required is break-though via the media, which subsequently snowballs to the point where it is uncontrollable. Not sure what you mean about David's posts.
The prosecution case was Sheila's blood got into the moderator by back spatter.
Bamber fired 1/2 contact shots into her in an area of high blood flow.
The CCRC/COA can overturn a conviction. The media cannot do this.
-
Yes,good points ILB.
You would think prisoners protesting their innocence and appealing should be ailowed the odd televised interview surely.
That will never happen.
Prisoners can have an influence on friends, relatives and supporters publicising there case for them. They can also make submissions to the CCRC.
-
Interesting.
Did Bamber approach Eric Allison? I know he approached Hunter & Woffinden.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/eric-allison&ved=2ahUKEwi6pfj_7uCBAxWFTEEAHV2kCAAQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1MfyOCEKu0DYt478h_f8AX
Seems that Allison contacted Bamber.
-
'Immediately after they ceased using the loudhailer, they called for back-up firearms teams, as a matter of urgency. Why would they do this if, as they insist now, there was no response from within the house'.
----------
I don't agree with this from Allison. To the police, no response just means 'no response'. From an alive or dead Sheila. Better to be safe.
-
That will never happen.
Prisoners can have an influence on friends, relatives and supporters publicising there case for them. They can also make submissions to the CCRC.
How do you know ?
-
'Immediately after they ceased using the loudhailer, they called for back-up firearms teams, as a matter of urgency. Why would they do this if, as they insist now, there was no response from within the house'.
----------
I don't agree with this from Allison. To the police, no response just means 'no response'. From an alive or dead Sheila. Better to be safe.
Believe it was Bews who first radioed for back up.
-
In this case, something has to leak out in to the media, that cannot be denied. Something that gets people's attention and which prompts people to realise, hang on, that's just not right. I don't get it. What's going on here? Then it snowballs. It has to be something irrefutable. When things snowball, pressure builds. It won't go away because people keep asking about it. Bringing it up and asking awkward questions. Then the vultures circle. At this point EP / crown / prosecution agencies / review bodies have lost control of the narrative. It becomes an embarrassment.
Beginning to sound like a call to anarchy, there, Roch!
-
Yes,good points ILB.
You would think prisoners protesting their innocence and appealing should be ailowed the odd televised interview surely.
Great idea, lets set up a TV cahnnel for Murderers, Rapists and Pedo's who all protest their innocence and put in an appeal, Don't bother about the victims who have been raped, murdered and children abused and their families. How would you like to see the person that had killed or raped your child or family given air time to spew out his or her shit, absolutly Rubbish.
-
Beginning to sound like a call to anarchy, there, Roch!
Were having a tv weekly so Killers and Pedo's and rapists can now protest their innocence, Jane. I think Bamber has had enough Publicity and media coverage much more than others, Bamber is in the Papers every other month. Bamber has had documentories and books ect. Prison Island Disc's hosted by Jeffery Archer.
-
Great idea, lets set up a TV cahnnel for Murderers, Rapists and Pedo's who all protest their innocence and put in an appeal, Don't bother about the victims who have been raped, murdered and children abused and their families. How would you like to see the person that had killed or raped your child or family given air time to spew out his or her shit, absolutly Rubbish.
You"re not getting it all so I"ll put this point to bed and hopefully revisit at some point with someone who does have the intelligence to understand
Thank you
-
You"re not getting it all so I"ll put this point to bed and hopefully revisit at some point with someone who does understand
Thank you
Yes do that.
-
Where did you see this HB? About the blood on the box I mean?
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=625.0;attach=2517;image
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=625.0;attach=2517;image
Yes that is fantastic information.
-
The prosecution case was Sheila's blood got into the moderator by back spatter.
Bamber fired 1/2 contact shots into her in an area of high blood flow.
The CCRC/COA can overturn a conviction. The media cannot do this.
There is no evidence that back-spatter caused the blood to enter the sound moderator. If we go with what you and Cambridge argue for, anybody could put blood in to a sound moderator then present it at court as back-spatter.
You don't deal with the RB blood grouping being withheld. That could have had a devastating effect on the jury, who were already unconvinced by both the Crown's evidence against JB and Uncle Bobby's evidence.
The media can overturn the conviction by making the the justice system look stupid and look corrupt.
-
I know nothing about that. In any event, it wouldn't explain the many different descriptions.
Many months ago someone (who shall remain nameless) forwarded detailed info re the varying descriptions all of which were easily explained by the attachment(s).
If 50M white people lived in the UK in 1985, 8% would amount to 4M white people: approximately half the population of London at that time, spread across every city, large town, medium town, small town, village and hamlet in the UK, from John O Groats to Penzance and from Stornaway to Dover.
Well I haven't checked your demographics but assuming they're correct not sure of the point you're making? The UK population did not get to handle the silencer let alone an opportunity present for their blood to enter inside. Blood samples were taken from all 5 victims, Bamber and all the relatives that handled it post murders. The fact RB's blood groups also matched Sheila's was known to the defence and was not suprising given the 8% stat. How would anyone know their enzyme and protein groups matched another's?
No evidence was ever presented to show how Sheila's blood got in to the sound moderator. It's nothing but a theory. Fletcher had no experience of it happening with a .22 rifle / sound moderator attached, and didn't carry out any experiments whatsoever to replicate the process / prove the theory. His court testimony is incredible.
But realistically if not from the shootings how would a flake of blood matching Sheila's groups have ended up inside the silencer?
Sorry, but I regard this is a fatuous question. You already know the answer to it.
Do I?
You seem to think I believe that Bamber's convictions can be overturned using normal judicial processes. I do not. I have long argued for a proper use of various media methods. That is the only way the conviction will be overturned. What is required is break-though via the media, which subsequently snowballs to the point where it is uncontrollable. Not sure what you mean about David's posts.
Bamber has to meet the criteria for a successful appeal and win it to overturn his conviction. No amount of campaigning etc will change anything. Bamber has had access to the media but if anything it backfires: Woffinden, Harrison, Lee, Theroux, ITV/2012, Daily Mirror interview, Guardian/Eric Alison.
David's posts re Julie's testimony are open to interpretation.
-
There is no evidence that back-spatter caused the blood to enter the sound moderator. If we go with what you and Cambridge argue for, anybody could put blood in to a sound moderator then present it at court as back-spatter.
You don't deal with the RB blood grouping being withheld. That could have had a devastating effect on the jury, who were already unconvinced by both the Crown's evidence against JB and Uncle Bobby's evidence.
The media can overturn the conviction by making the the justice system look stupid and look corrupt.
There is evidence ie the mere fact it was found. How else would it get inside if not from back spatter? Plus the theory was further supported by the scratches and hair.
RB's blood groupings were not withheld from the defence. This has all been covered on here previously ie Rivlin's defence strategy was based on Sheila using the silencer with the flake representing an intimate mix of June and Nevill's blood and Sheila returning the silencer to the gun cupboard. I understand he could have run a dual strategy of putting to the jury contamination, both accidental and deliberate, but thought there was enough in the former for the jury to return a not guilty verdict based on 'reasonable doubt'. Rivlin did put to RB or DB, maybe both, about cutting themsleves around the silencer. But you can see from the summing up the jury based their verdeict on Sheila's blood (Bamber guilty) v June and Nevill's (Sheila responsible).
-
Yes,good points ILB.
You would think prisoners protesting their innocence and appealing should be ailowed the odd televised interview surely.
Why?
-
There is no evidence that back-spatter caused the blood to enter the sound moderator. If we go with what you and Cambridge argue for, anybody could put blood in to a sound moderator then present it at court as back-spatter.
You don't deal with the RB blood grouping being withheld. That could have had a devastating effect on the jury, who were already unconvinced by both the Crown's evidence against JB and Uncle Bobby's evidence.
The media can overturn the conviction by making the the justice system look stupid and look corrupt.
The evidence is it was Sheila's blood after she received 1/2 contact shots in an area of high blood flow.
There is no possibility the relatives put RB's blood & the aga paint into the silencer.
I'm sure the media would do that if they could. Anything for a scoop.
-
The evidence is it was Sheila's blood after she received 1/2 contact shots in an area of high blood flow.
As already explained. This means that anybody could place blood inside a sound moderator (which can be dismantled and rebuilt) and then claim it was the result of backspatter.
-
Many months ago someone (who shall remain nameless) forwarded detailed info re the varying descriptions all of which were easily explained by the attachment(s).
I can only reply to your points one at at time. I can't comment on this other than to say, feel free to use the info in your attachment/s without revealing your source.
-
Why?
I have already been chastised by HB Cutie.
-
As already explained. This means that anybody could place blood inside a sound moderator (which can be dismantled and rebuilt) and then claim it was the result of backspatter.
No. Only those that share Sheila's blood groups and how would anyone know they shared the same blood groups as Sheila? We are talking esoteric enzyme and protein groups:
PGM = Phosphoglucomutase (Enzyme)
EAP = Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)
AK = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)
HP = Haptoglobin (Protein)
The prosecution was able to put forward a compelling case hence the jury found guilty.
-
Bamber has to meet the criteria for a successful appeal and win it to overturn his conviction. No amount of campaigning etc will change anything. Bamber has had access to the media but if anything it backfires: Woffinden, Harrison, Lee, Theroux, ITV/2012, Daily Mirror interview, Guardian/Eric Alison.
You misunderstand my point.
-
I can only reply to your points one at at time. I can't comment on this other than to say, feel free to use the info in your attachment/s without revealing your source.
No need to. Its all striaghtforward as per your earlier post re the silencer measuring 6.5" and 7.0" with the end cap (or whatever it is technically known as) measuring 0.5".
-
You misunderstand my point.
Which is?
-
No. Only those that share Sheila's blood groups and how would anyone know they shared the same blood groups as Sheila? We are talking esoteric enzyme and protein groups:
PGM = Phosphoglucomutase (Enzyme)
EAP = Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)
AK = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)
HP = Haptoglobin (Protein)
The prosecution was able to put forward a compelling case hence the jury found guilty.
Sheila's blood was everywhere. The point we are arguing about is whether all you need to prove backspatter, is to present a sound moderator with the victim's blood in it, in a case where there have been contact shots.
-
Sheila's blood was everywhere. The point we are arguing about is whether all you need to prove backspatter, is to present a sound moderator with the victim's blood in it, in a case where there have been contact shots.
All?
-
Sheila's blood was everywhere. The point we are arguing about is whether all you need to prove backspatter, is to present a sound moderator with the victim's blood in it, in a case where there have been contact shots.
It appears you're unable or unwilling to comprehend the strength of the prosecution case.
Sheila's blood was on her person and nightdress from her contact gunshot wounds.
The prosecution case was not only based on what you have suggested above. How could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer on when it was found in a downstairs cupboard and Sheila's gunshot wounds were sustained upstairs as per all the pathological evidence? Evidence that was reinforced by way of the paint and scratches and to a much lesser degree the hair.
-
No need to. Its all striaghtforward as per your earlier post re the silencer measuring 6.5" and 7.0" with the end cap (or whatever it is technically known as) measuring 0.5".
How does that deal with all of the different descriptions of the SM?
-
All?
Yes. What's to stop you or anyone else putting a dead person's blood in to a sound moderator, so that it can be argued in court that the blood in sound moderator was the result of backspatter. The argument being that the victim had contact wounds and their blood has been found in the sound moderator.
-
Yes. What's to stop you or anyone else putting a dead person's blood in to a sound moderator, so that it can be argued in court that the blood in sound moderator was the result of backspatter. The argument being that the victim had contact wounds and their blood has been found in the sound moderator.
First find yourself a convenient dead person. Failing that, persuade the nearest policeman to allow you to paddle about in blood which has flowed from said dead person...............or maybe retrieve menstrually stained water in which underwear has been soaking and see if you can extricate enough whole blood to put in the sound moderator. Of course, you'd have to take your chances on it being a 100% match.
-
First find yourself a convenient dead person. Failing that, persuade the nearest policeman to allow you to paddle about in blood which has flowed from said dead person...............or maybe retrieve menstrually stained water in which underwear has been soaking and see if you can extricate enough whole blood to put in the sound moderator. Of course, you'd have to take your chances on it being a 100% match.
You don't understand what I mean. I think it's how you read my posts.
-
You don't understand what I mean. I think it's how you read my posts.
It's the way you write'em :))
-
The nightdress was an equally strong piece of evidence -
No GSR.
No oil.
No damage.
Only Sheila's blood.
Shows Sheila had gone to bed.
Shows Sheila had just got out of bed.
Lack of blood on nightdress suggests she had not walked after the first shot (COA).
Sheila's legs pulled after the second shot.
Bloodied palm print on nightdress not Sheila's.
----------
The relatives never had this in their possession. So the CT never mention it.
-
The nightdress was an equally strong piece of evidence -
No GSR.
No oil.
No damage.
Only Sheila's blood.
Shows Sheila had gone to bed.
Shows Sheila had just got out of bed.
Lack of blood on nightdress suggests she had not walked after the first shot (COA).
Sheila's legs pulled after the second shot.
Bloodied palm print on nightdress not Sheila's.
----------
The relatives never had this in their possession. So the CT never mention it.
Yes, incredibly strong. When you consider all this, you have to wonder why Bamber bothered putting up a defence.
-
I'm sure if the relatives had gone near the nightdress, they would have been accused of putting the above 9 pieces of evidence on it!
Although not sure how you remove GSR from it.
-
No. Only those that share Sheila's blood groups and how would anyone know they shared the same blood groups as Sheila? We are talking esoteric enzyme and protein groups:
PGM = Phosphoglucomutase (Enzyme)
EAP = Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)
AK = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)
HP = Haptoglobin (Protein)
-
The prosecution was able to put forward a compelling case hence the jury found guilty.
No, they weren't, and no it didn't.
Read page 308 of CAL. The jury only convicted as a direct result of the one-sided summing up from the judge.
Unbeknown to the jury, he had already been involved in 27-28 wrongful convictions.
-
The nightdress was an equally strong piece of evidence -
No GSR.
No oil.
No damage.
Only Sheila's blood.
Shows Sheila had gone to bed.
Shows Sheila had just got out of bed.
Lack of blood on nightdress suggests she had not walked after the first shot (COA).
Sheila's legs pulled after the second shot.
Bloodied palm print on nightdress not Sheila's.
----------
The relatives never had this in their possession. So the CT never mention it.
Equally strong,yet the cops couldn't get it destroyed quick enough when advanced testing became available Adam.
-
It's the way you write'em :))
Let's at you are a SOCO. DS Jane Blackwater. You've worked your way up from traffic duties and specialised in crime scenes. You are familiar with sound moderators. You have access to a sound moderator that wasn't used in the shooting of a man, by his business partner a certain Zoso Wear. He's been found with a contact gunshot wounds in his office. Zoso Wear thinks she has got away with the perfect crime. Their's CCTV footage of her visiting the building, but nothing else. She's too clever. But she does have motive. It's financial - I won't go in to details. You have a rough window for time of death. You know it's her but you can't prove it. A sound moderator is found in the victim's locked drawer, along with some other gun / hunting paraphernalia. You have access to the exhibit. You have access to the victim's blood. Zoso Wear is gonna be laughing all the way to the bank. Are you going to let her get away with it? 😏 All you need to do is to put some of the victim's blood on the the baffle plates before it goes for testing. The ballistics expert can say it was backspatter. There's no need for any replication experiments or any of that nonsense.
-
Equally strong,yet the cops couldn't get it destroyed quick enough when advanced testing became available Adam.
Believe it was destroyed around 10 years later - 1996. Sounds reasonable.
-
Believe it was destroyed around 10 years later - 1996. Sounds reasonable.
Sounds suspicious to many Adam.
-
Let's at you are a SOCO. DS Jane Blackwater. You've worked your way up from traffic duties and specialised in crime scenes. You are familiar with sound moderators. You have access to a sound moderator that wasn't used in the shooting of a man, by his business partner a certain Zoso Wear. He's been found with a contact gunshot wounds in his office. Zoso Wear thinks she has got away with the perfect crime. Their's CCTV footage of her visiting the building, but nothing else. She's too clever. But she does have motive. It's financial - I won't go in to details. You have a rough window for time of death. You know it's her but you can't prove it. A sound moderator is found in the victim's locked drawer, along with some other gun / hunting paraphernalia. You have access to the exhibit. You have access to the victim's blood. Zoso Wear is gonna be laughing all the way to the bank. Are you going to let the smug bitch get away with it? 😏 All you need to do is to put some of the victim's blood on the the baffle plates before it goes for testing. The ballistics expert can say it was backspatter. There's no need for any replication experiments or any of that nonsense.
I hear what you're saying, Roch! Halleluia, did I hear you say? It works beautifully if it happened from the off, but it didn't. I very much doubt that any of the assembled police, let alone Jane Blackwater, thought about collecting sneaky samples of blood to contaminate a silencer which, at that point, had yet to be found. Even more so when your boss, DI Roch Clouseau is a rather difficult man who is convinced of Zoso Wear's innocence.
-
Sounds suspicious to many Adam.
I thought it might.
-
I hear what you're saying, Roch! Halleluia, did I hear you say? It works beautifully if it happened from the off, but it didn't. I very much doubt that any of the assembled police, let alone Jane Blackwater, thought about collecting sneaky samples of blood to contaminate a silencer which, at that point, had yet to be found. Even more so when your boss, DI Roch Clouseau is a rather difficult man who is convinced of Zoso Wear's innocence.
You quoted my post before I changed 'smug bitch' to 'her'.🙎
-
I thought it might.
The same thing happened in the Luke Mitchell case recently Adam.
Mass illegal destruction of productions by those at the top.
-
The same thing happened in the Luke Mitchell case recently Adam.
Mass illegal destruction of productions by those at the top.
Always the evidence the convicted hasn't got.....
-
I hear what you're saying, Roch! Halleluia, did I hear you say? It works beautifully if it happened from the off, but it didn't. I very much doubt that any of the assembled police, let alone Jane Blackwater, thought about collecting sneaky samples of blood to contaminate a silencer which, at that point, had yet to be found. Even more so when your boss, DI Roch Clouseau is a rather difficult man who is convinced of Zoso Wear's innocence.
According to Mike Tesko,Roch's scenario would have taken place in mid september 1985,this was when DB actually handed in the silencer Jane.
-
Always the evidence the convicted hasn't got.....
Many items in the Mitchell case had never been tested at all Adam.
-
Let's at you are a SOCO. DS Jane Blackwater. You've worked your way up from traffic duties and specialised in crime scenes. You are familiar with sound moderators. You have access to a sound moderator that wasn't used in the shooting of a man, by his business partner a certain Zoso Wear. He's been found with a contact gunshot wounds in his office. Zoso Wear thinks she has got away with the perfect crime. Their's CCTV footage of her visiting the building, but nothing else. She's too clever. But she does have motive. It's financial - I won't go in to details. You have a rough window for time of death. You know it's her but you can't prove it. A sound moderator is found in the victim's locked drawer, along with some other gun / hunting paraphernalia. You have access to the exhibit. You have access to the victim's blood. Zoso Wear is gonna be laughing all the way to the bank. Are you going to let her get away with it? 😏 All you need to do is to put some of the victim's blood on the the baffle plates before it goes for testing. The ballistics expert can say it was backspatter. There's no need for any replication experiments or any of that nonsense.
The silencer is of no use in this, first it wasn't a suicide and second how does blood in the silencer prove it was Zoso Wear still? Even if blood is put in the silencer, anyone could still be the killer. The stronger evidence is surely CCTV and the financial gain?
-
The silencer is of no use in this, first it wasn't a suicide and second how does blood in the silencer prove it was Zoso Wear still? Even if blood is put in the silencer, anyone could still be the killer. The stronger evidence is surely CCTV and the financial gain?
Possibly HB. It was just a bit of fun.
-
There is evidence ie the mere fact it was found. How else would it get inside if not from back spatter? Plus the theory was further supported by the scratches and hair.
RB's blood groupings were not withheld from the defence. This has all been covered on here previously ie Rivlin's defence strategy was based on Sheila using the silencer with the flake representing an intimate mix of June and Nevill's blood and Sheila returning the silencer to the gun cupboard. I understand he could have run a dual strategy of putting to the jury contamination, both accidental and deliberate, but thought there was enough in the former for the jury to return a not guilty verdict based on 'reasonable doubt'. Rivlin did put to RB or DB, maybe both, about cutting themsleves around the silencer. But you can see from the summing up the jury based their verdeict on Sheila's blood (Bamber guilty) v June and Nevill's (Sheila responsible).
Are you happy Cc that a .22 rifle using low velocity ammunition would result in a flake of blood due to blood spatter being found in the silencer?
-
Possibly HB. It was just a bit of fun.
Ha Ha I know that mate, I was trying to work out how it further implicates Zoso Wear. I know what your trying to say though
-
No. Only those that share Sheila's blood groups and how would anyone know they shared the same blood groups as Sheila? We are talking esoteric enzyme and protein groups:
PGM = Phosphoglucomutase (Enzyme)
EAP = Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)
AK = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)
HP = Haptoglobin (Protein)
The prosecution was able to put forward a compelling case hence the jury found guilty.
How does back spatter explain how blood was detected on the threaded (hidden) part of the silencer?
-
You quoted my post before I changed 'smug bitch' to 'her'.🙎
Tut Tut ::)
-
Possibly HB. It was just a bit of fun.
something that is always overlooked though Roch, how stupid would you have to be to put your own blood inside the silencer, would it be similar to finding the knife that's been used to kill everyone and putting your own fingerprints all over it do you think?
-
Tut Tut ::)
I was referring to the character not the poster 😉
-
Let's at you are a SOCO. DS Jane Blackwater. You've worked your way up from traffic duties and specialised in crime scenes. You are familiar with sound moderators. You have access to a sound moderator that wasn't used in the shooting of a man, by his business partner a certain Zoso Wear. He's been found with a contact gunshot wounds in his office. Zoso Wear thinks she has got away with the perfect crime. Their's CCTV footage of her visiting the building, but nothing else. She's too clever. But she does have motive. It's financial - I won't go in to details. You have a rough window for time of death. You know it's her but you can't prove it. A sound moderator is found in the victim's locked drawer, along with some other gun / hunting paraphernalia. You have access to the exhibit. You have access to the victim's blood. Zoso Wear is gonna be laughing all the way to the bank. Are you going to let her get away with it? 😏 All you need to do is to put some of the victim's blood on the the baffle plates before it goes for testing. The ballistics expert can say it was backspatter. There's no need for any replication experiments or any of that nonsense.
Damn! You caught me, I'd have gotten away with it if it was for those pesky kids! :-[ :( ;)
-
Damn! You caught me, I'd have gotten away with it if it was for those pesky kids! :-[ :( ;)
Cold hearted killer 🤣
-
something that is always overlooked though Roch, how stupid would you have to be to put your own blood inside the silencer, would it be similar to finding the knife that's been used to kill everyone and putting your own fingerprints all over it do you think?
I can see where you're coming from with this HB. It has crossed my mind.
-
I can see where you're coming from with this HB. It has crossed my mind.
It's a big risk in more way's than one, if it's proved without doubt it's an-other, he's got some serious answering to do and what they set out to do in the first place just completely falls apart and is lost and it's finished.
-
I've lost track of this thread. Who is Jane Blackwater?
-
People think blood is people specific like DNA.
That is a worrying aspect
-
Cold hearted killer 🤣
I'm innocent ;)
-
I've lost track of this thread. Who is Jane Blackwater?
Its just Roch making up a fictional scenario to get a point across Steve,but youv'e probably worked that out by now.
-
People think blood is people specific like DNA.
That is a worrying aspect
Blood i would thought is people specific ILB, That's how DNA was first identified in the first place through Blood, your own blood has the same DNA as your own Saliva and Semen, skin tissue hair ect, Blood is the building block for DNA. If my Blood was at a murder scene and they had my DNA profile, it would be an instant match regardless of the Grouping.
Do you mean blood grouping? Because i could have the same Blood grouping as others though? I know DNA testing wasn't available at the time and i think everyone on here knows this, still very very risky to use one's own Blood in a murder investigation though?
-
How does back spatter explain how blood was detected on the threaded (hidden) part of the silencer?
Where was that Rob. i thought it was on the outer end of the Knurled end as explained in Court?
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7104.0;attach=42356;image
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4476;image
-
Yes, incredibly strong. When you consider all this, you have to wonder why Bamber bothered putting up a defence.
With 9 pieces of evidence on one piece of clothing, both sides have to accept Bamber's guilt.
But you are entitled to support if you believe the silencer was fabricated by the relatives.
-
Seems the relatives were in constant contact with police officers - Taff, SJ, Ainsley.
They would be aware that evidence was still being processed & the case would not be closed so quickly. Taff simultaneously saying Sheila was the killer.
So no need to attempt to frame someone with one piece of evidence.
Were the relatives in contact with Bews, Miller & other officers?
-
With 9 pieces of evidence on one piece of clothing, both sides have to accept Bamber's guilt.
But you are entitled to support if you believe the silencer was fabricated by the relatives.
9 pieces of evidence ?
-
The nightdress was an equally strong piece of evidence -
No GSR.
No oil.
No damage.
Only Sheila's blood.
Shows Sheila had gone to bed.
Shows Sheila had just got out of bed.
Lack of blood on nightdress suggests she had not walked after the first shot (COA).
Sheila's legs pulled after the second shot.
Bloodied palm print on nightdress not Sheila's.
----------
The relatives never had this in their possession. So the CT never mention it.
Nine.
-
Nine.
No GSR, GSR doesn't last long periods of time
-
No oil - isn't conclusive proof of gulit of Bamber
-
No damage - having a firearm gives you an edge