Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on January 20, 2011, 08:40:PM
-
Missing Fingernail of Sheila Caffell - found by Ann Eaton at the scene
They said that Sheila was injury free, and that her fingernails were well manicured, and free from damage -but this is not what inquiries, which have been made on Jeremy's behalf, by "Kodak man" (Mr Sutherst), who has enlarged photographs taken during autopsy showing Sheila's hands, fingers and fingernails...
New evidence obtained by Mr Sutherst, shows Sheila's fingernails to be damaged, and one is missing altogether...
Jeremy recently told me that Ann Eaton found one of Sheila's fingernails at the scene, which is very interesting, since the person who scratched and gouged Ralph Bambers right forearm, may have broken a fingernail or pulled it off when they inflicted this injury to him...
-
Where was loose fingernail belonging to Shela found at the scene, by Ann Eaton, and when?
I am trying to ascertain where this loose fingernail was found or recovered from, since when this is established it may help to identify the location inside the farmhouse, when Sheila scratched and gouged Ralph's arm...
-
Mike - with reference to:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GBoXf__1A4QJ:www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/downloads/bamber/BAMBERCCRC_addendum_06_06_2004.doc+bamber+2002+appeal&cd=57&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
[2004]
It says that the person who attacked Ralph Bamber had finger nails at least 5mm-6mm long, and had the finger nails been shorter they could not have inflicted the wounds on the right arm and a similar wound on the arm of June Bamber.
It mentions that the post mortem photograph of June Bamber's arm shows one laceration consistent with a single finger nail indentation into the skin.
Could this be how/where Sheila lost her nail?
Congratulations for being so dedicated and informative by the way!
-
I had always presumed that the twins were the first to be shot. Was there any possibility that they were sedated in some way? Also, how did Julie Mugford know the extent of Ralph's injuries, and the fact that he had struggled with his assailant? Sorry, Mike, if this is old ground for you to cover.
-
I had always presumed that the twins were the first to be shot. Was there any possibility that they were sedated in some way? Also, how did Julie Mugford know the extent of Ralph's injuries, and the fact that he had struggled with his assailant? Sorry, Mike, if this is old ground for you to cover.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shonapugs:- If Ralph and Sheila struggled at all in the kitchen, at a time when Sheila was reloading the gun with bullets, it would appear that at least three additional bullets, perhaps four, could have been discharged from the rifle by that stage, and this could be an indication that June and the children were all shot during the first emptying of the guns ammunition, and if this turns out to be the case, then of course, by the time of any purported struggle, the children could already have been killed because each wound inflicted upon the children was a fatal one...
Julie Mugford knew the extent of Ralph's injuries, because she was the one who volunteered to attend the mortuary, to identify the bodies of the five victims, and received information at that time about the extent of the injuries from a police officer who accompanied her to carry out these duties..
-
I know that someone had to do it, but Julie Mugford actually volunteered to identify the bodies? Even the children's? Good grief, am I the only one to find that shocking?
-
I know that someone had to do it, but Julie Mugford actually volunteered to identify the bodies? Even the children's? Good grief, am I the only one to find that shocking?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shonapugs:- very disturbing, I agree
-
I thought she volunteered for the kids only? could be wrong on that.
According to Ann Eaton it all sounded quite legitimate... She was asked first and said she couldn't tell the twins apart, Julie said she could and therefore volunteered to do it.
Not sure why Jeremy didnt want to, couldn't...
The way Ann told it, she (Julie) appeared to just volunteer in order to make it one less burden for others. I didn't read anything overtly morbid about it.
But Julie did end up seeing Sheila too and told an it was just a shot to the neck... not too bad.
She very probably saw them all in the end - quite why that would have been, I don't know.
Perhaps it's my interpretation of Ann's account. It could be that Ann was asked and said she couldn't differentiate between the kids, and Julie said that she could... and therefore, Julie was volunteering for them all (makes sense), although a tad unusual.
-
didnt jm say one of the reasons she identified the bodies was because she believed in the afterlife, and wanted to communicate with the dead sheila as to what happened at whf that night/morning.
-
We're trying to solve a crime here guys!!!
and people are worried about broken nail! ;-)
Just kiddin'!!
Ann did say Julie seemed to take a long time, but I suspect that was simply the whole process of identification and paperwork etc.
If Mugford was into the afterlife et al, it's just adding to the entire list of odd folks.
Are we QUITE sure this crime took place in Essex and not Norfolk?
-
Just had to add this in again if jm was lying she stitched JB for the rest of his life if she was telling the truth she knew the twins better than even the family but she went along with covering up a murder including viewing bodies with shotgun wounds before going on holiday
Sick, sick, sick and she is a teacher now unbeleivable !!!
-
Just had to add this in again if jm was lying she stitched JB for the rest of his life if she was telling the truth she knew the twins better than even the family but she went along with covering up a murder including viewing bodies with shotgun wounds before going on holiday
Sick, sick, sick and she is a teacher now unbeleivable !!!
Agree, she was either knee deep in the crap, or up to her shoulder in it, but either way, she bathed in it for some time
-
didnt jm say one of the reasons she identified the bodies was because she believed in the afterlife, and wanted to communicate with the dead sheila as to what happened at whf that night/morning.
That is decidely weird. I read that as JM wishing to ask Sheila's spirit what JM, at that stage. claims she already knew: because JB had told her. If JM did say that, in my view that reinforces the JB didn't do it case.
JM is in effect admitting that she does not know and has doubts about that which she claimed in her testimoney she knew without a shadow of doubt.
Second, because, at that stage, unless the claims JM made in court were untrue, JM by her own testimony (as given to the big fee paying News Of The World and the Court) should have believed she knew that Jeremy had hired a hitman to kill his family.
-
according to the claire powell book, the jm interview with the news of the world, the photo she posed for to go with the story, jm had her skirt hiked right up her thighs, her friends dissaproved and told her the picture was a big mistake.
if i was giving an interview on a murder as harrowing as the whf case, i certainly wouldnt pose like that for a picture.
jm just isnt credible... in my opinion
-
didnt jm say one of the reasons she identified the bodies was because she believed in the afterlife, and wanted to communicate with the dead sheila as to what happened at whf that night/morning.
That is decidely weird. I read that as JM wishing to ask Sheila's spirit what JM, at that stage. claims she already knew: because JB had told her. If JM did say that, in my view that reinforces the JB didn't do it case.
JM is in effect admitting that she does not know and has doubts about that which she claimed in her testimoney she knew without a shadow of doubt.
Second, because, at that stage, unless the claims JM made in court were untrue, JM by her own testimony (as given to the big fee paying News Of The World and the Court) should have believed she knew that Jeremy had hired a hitman to kill his family.
Well.... as shady as she seems, she did allude to assuming Jeremy was talking rubbish prior to the murders ('tonight's the night' etl al), and less credibly, but she did say it, was that she couldn't quite believe it was him, somehow even after the events.
I'm not sure how I feel about that. My initial reaction is 'Bulls***', if what you think is a joke before the act (fine) turns out to actually happen! then you sure as hell would start believing!.... but it's never happened to me, I don't actually know what I'd think and feel. Maybe it really was all to 'surreal' to believe it could be him, even when told so. It's possible, even though I'm not buying it myself.
The longer it goes one though, the less credible it gets. I could forgive a day or two.. shock, fear, confusion etc... but not a month.
this is what gets to me... for 1 month she contemplated going along with it all. That cannot be disputed... at some point she's thought about "should I tell, or should I not?" and she's decided to stick with him. HOW she got away with no punishment is beyond me.
I do accept she did the right thing in the end, and possibly should be credited for that, the I still believe a judge could have said "Miss Mugford, it is impossible to ignore the period of time for which you kept this information to yourself, and whilst there are mitigating circumstances, you hindered the investigation of a tragedy that was without doubt earth shattering for a great number of people. Whilst we accept you took no part in the instigation of the murders, you did elect to effectively protect Jeremy Bamber. It must be born in mind that you have come forward and that is why your sentence will be reduced considerably.... Miss Mugford, I sentence you to 5 years imprisonment"
For me, that would have been fair.
-
I'm possibly on the wrong thread here, I've got a bit lost, but I would be very interested to know if JM really could identify which twin was which, especially after (presumably) being warned of the extent of their injuries. Did she really know them so well?
-
I'm possibly on the wrong thread here, I've got a bit lost, but I would be very interested to know if JM really could identify which twin was which, especially after (presumably) being warned of the extent of their injuries. Did she really know them so well?
Well nobody else seemed to object, and I don't think the front of their faces would be so bad... then again, twins alive and well, vs twins when dead might be quite a different thing (but that's true for anybody who'd have to identify them).
IF she could identify them, then that suggests a fairly close relationship with them, and sheila I would think (or even Colin?)
Not impossible, since Sheila was older, but certainly closer to Jeremy and Julie's age group...
In real practical terms... who WAS going to do it? Jeremy ought to have I'd have thought, but after him... who? call me old fashioned, but I'd have expected one of the men to volunteer, but women can really rise to the occasion sometimes. Seems nobody did though, except Julie.
What was to gain? some morbid kick? If she did get such a thing from it, none of the family seemed to think so then or after (to my limited knowledge).
But overall, I just can't help but feel someone related to the family by blood ought to have done it. David Boutflour perhaps, or Robert, or Pamela (hard as it may be).
-
Well, I might be wandering into the realm of the Twilight Zone (although I wouldn't be the first!) but could JM have had an ulterior motive for viewing the bodies? I'm still going with the theory of a paid hit-man - could JB have been interested in knowing how the bodies looked?
-
And from a previous post I understand that JM readily agreed to identify the bodies, almost before anyone else could volunteer. And surely, because of the range and amount of shots to (tragically) such small heads, there would have been facial damage.
-
Well, I might be wandering into the realm of the Twilight Zone (although I wouldn't be the first!) but could JM have had an ulterior motive for viewing the bodies? I'm still going with the theory of a paid hit-man - could JB have been interested in knowing how the bodies looked?
Yes
But 'ulterior' can sound sinister or wrong... some people do have a morbid curiosity. In fact most do, in some form or another.
Put a picture of June dead on here and I bet you it gets viewed many many times... I know I've looked.
I don't know that I'd volunteer to see them for real, but clearly Julie did.
Funny how she was 'together' enough to do something that tough (by most people's standards) but didn't have the guts to tell the police sooner.
-
And from a previous post I understand that JM readily agreed to identify the bodies, almost before anyone else could volunteer. And surely, because of the range and amount of shots to (tragically) such small heads, there would have been facial damage.
I disagree with the 'barging in' type scenario. I think the family would have had plenty of change to decline her offer even if she did AND, if it had seemed 'out of line' surely they would have said "thanks Julie, but it really ought to be one of us"
They didnt
They let her do it
Maybe we should be looking at the family and saying "hmmm YOU let her DO IT?... WHY?"
-
Can we truly imagine how anyone involved with this case would have reacted at the time? We're now working with hindsight - but I do agree with your point about morbid curiosity. Because of this forum I've googled stuff that has upset me, frightened me, and taken me to sites that I would have never dreamt of visiting. And I'm afraid that it has re-inforced my theory that a third party was involved.
-
Can we truly imagine how anyone involved with this case would have reacted at the time? We're now working with hindsight - but I do agree with your point about morbid curiosity. Because of this forum I've googled stuff that has upset me, frightened me, and taken me to sites that I would have never dreamt of visiting. And I'm afraid that it has re-inforced my theory that a third party was involved.
By 3rd party, do you mean hitman/woman, another member of the extended family, or somebody completely external?
If a hitman, this seemed to have been completely discounted at trial, but this need not mean it wasn't possible... just that both sides decided to fight on "me vs you" and mutually agreed to exclude the notion of a hitman (this actually is true for any 3rd party).
IF it was a hitman, then someone hired them... if it was Jeremy, they I can't see him doing 25 years without bringing the hitman down with him, and he ought to have set up a better alibi for himself.
If someone from the family hired a hitman, then they move in some strange circles, and I'd better shut up now before I'm next.
If it was a complete stranger, then they went to a lot of effort to make it look like a suicide. They didn't want the jewels, so it must have been a grudge... heck of a grudge I'd say.
What's your thinking behind 3rd party?
-
TBM, I've had a tough day, struggling with a recalcitrant pony and a runaway pug, and I will never match your grasp of language or facts, but at the risk of sounding like a complete plum I'm going to trudge down the hit-man route for a while longer, because it works for me and puts so many pieces of the jigsaw into place. If JB hired a hit-man it would make him almost equally culpable, and also in danger of retribution. I'm guessing that that's a bit woolly for you, but it makes more sense than most of the theories on here. Suck it and see.
-
AND, TBM, I can dredge up a myriad of evidence, all shown on this forum, and mostly conflicting, and still JM's original testimony, before she a) panicked and b) was persuaded of a way out of the whole, horrible mess, rings true as the probable scenario. I think that she knew all along what was planned, but probably didn't believe that it would be carried out. And when it was, certain elements helped her to cover her own arse. Pardon my french.
-
As we have a vote on is jb guilty could we have a vote regarding Julie mugford on which is worse
1 Lying that your boyfriend has committed murder because you have been dumped putting him in prison for the rest of his life
2 Being aware 5 people were going to be murdered, before, on the day, and knowing when the murders had happened, offering to identify the bodies, attending the funerals supporting the person who carried out the murders and standing next to the father of two children your boyfriend had just murdered the spending the next month living it up and holidaying twice with the murderer. Then selling your story for £25,000
Which is worse because it is either one or the other?
-
Oh, hello Jackie. You are such a staunch supporter of JB. Well done. But may I just add this - Ann Eaton's statement was fascinating - blah, blah, blah.... until the bit about the silencer (still IMO the ultimate red herring) and suddenly her statement is detailed and repetetive, and seemingly rehearsed. It's like pin the tail on the donkey. "It couldn't have been Sheila, she didn't shoot, couldn't even pour a cup of tea. So who else could it have been?" I know I'm banging on, but to me it's all very obvious. TBM, I await your shooting me down in flames!!
-
And Jackie, if you're still out there, please don't take this as a criticism, but I would genuinely like to know if you have ever wavered from your belief that JB is innocent. Has nothing that you have ever read, on this forum or elsewhere, ever caused you to doubt JB, even for a moment?
-
And, one more point, would anyone disagree (apart from Jackie and Mike) that on the strength of testimonies shown on this forum, JB's demeanour after the decimation of his entire family was brusque, even cavalier? Is it just me who has always remained unconvinced by his "sad" face at the funeral?
-
And, one more point, would anyone disagree (apart from Jackie and Mike) that on the strength of testimonies shown on this forum, JB's demeanour after the decimation of his entire family was brusque, even cavalier? Is it just me who has always remained unconvinced by his "sad" face at the funeral?
I'm not sure I agree, but definitely don't disagree... allow me to explain:
There doesn't seem to be much testimony (other than Ann Eaton's) that makes much of his demeanour.
There's some stuff about the actions he carried out though which fall in line with the 'not exactly distraught' view.
But there's a massive danger. He was good looking, reasonably privileged you might argue. Certainly above average for the UK. Perhaps you might describe it 'public school' type. Almost conditioned to have the permanent 'smugness' about him.
I think it would be fair to say that type of manner is generally not going to appeal to the masses (in this situation), as a Prime Minister, maybe, but not as a potential murderer. Although not quite a yuppie, he wasn't far off in most people's eyes. (And yuppies where very much of that era)
If I were advising him, I'd without question tell him that his appearance and manner would do nothing to help him, only hinder him, but that wouldn't make him arrogant, or brusque, he simply appeared to be.
Many of his actions also did him no favours at all, even though only one of them was 'wrong' (breaking back into the house).
I do agree that as the public impression went (by and large) people thought him smug and a little too 'full of himself'.
There are many reports of others who knew him saying this too, but this is hearsay, and it's easy to say that after he's been accused. I must note too that I didn't find many saying he was a monster (as sometimes they do)
Anybody trying to claim he was seen as 'normal happy go lucky young man' would be hard pressed.
If ever there was a young man who FITTED the image of 'spoilt brat kills to get hands on money" he was it.
I do believe that really counted against in the minds of the public, and the jury.
I feel though that I must defend some of his actions too...
BECAUSE he had good looks and a certain swagger, a bit of money and privilege... people judged his actions to git in with that image... "off to the south of france!".
If our families had all been killed, we might well have tried to get away for a short while... somewhere in the country maybe and people might say "aww, who blames them, cottage in Devon to avoid all the press", but because he could afford to go to Amsterdam or SoF, it looks like he's being flash with the cash and enjoying a 'holiday' !!!
It's said he spent reasonably lavishly after the deaths too... perhaps dining and drinking more than you might expect... but people grieve in many ways, Trying to put it behind you, going to a pub, and people buying you drinks, offering condolences etc... can quickly be reported as drinking in a bar with 10 'friends' living it up.
If I'm honest, I am one of those people who think he over egged the pudding at the funeral, and acted incredibly unwisely after the deaths, and I suspect it was simple manifestation of his arrogance. He could LITERALLY get away with murder. So cocky, he gave little consideration to keeping his head down to avoid being caught.
It's every bit as valid to think "that's how he was" and since he didn't do it, he didn't think like a killer. If he HAD been a killer, he was a total idiot, he'd have kept his head down.
So all in all - toss away his image and the hearsay about him (if you can) ... and look at what he did and said, rather that how he did something or said something.
(but if you see anybody like him, don't buy a car from them) ;-)
-
TBM, I've had a tough day, struggling with a recalcitrant pony and a runaway pug, and I will never match your grasp of language or facts, but at the risk of sounding like a complete plum I'm going to trudge down the hit-man route for a while longer, because it works for me and puts so many pieces of the jigsaw into place. If JB hired a hit-man it would make him almost equally culpable, and also in danger of retribution. I'm guessing that that's a bit woolly for you, but it makes more sense than most of the theories on here. Suck it and see.
Good post! at last,someone that shares my sentiments.Whether it was JB that "hired" someone,I must admit I am still not sure.Ralph had made innuendos to a couple of people prior to his death with effect to fearing that he would be killed.He slept with a shotgun under his bed,which according to one person was in order to shoot foxes prowling in the night but according to someone else was because the gun was deemed expensive! IMO there is only one reason why one would sleep with a shotgun under their bed?It seems to me that Ralph was in fear of someone and I am not yet convinced that it was JB.
-
TBM, I've had a tough day, struggling with a recalcitrant pony and a runaway pug, and I will never match your grasp of language or facts, but at the risk of sounding like a complete plum I'm going to trudge down the hit-man route for a while longer, because it works for me and puts so many pieces of the jigsaw into place. If JB hired a hit-man it would make him almost equally culpable, and also in danger of retribution. I'm guessing that that's a bit woolly for you, but it makes more sense than most of the theories on here. Suck it and see.
Good post! at last,someone that shares my sentiments.Whether it was JB that "hired" someone,I must admit I am still not sure.Ralph had made innuendos to a couple of people prior to his death with effect to fearing that he would be killed.He slept with a shotgun under his bed,which according to one person was in order to shoot foxes prowling in the night but according to someone else was because the gun was deemed expensive! IMO there is only one reason why one would sleep with a shotgun under their bed?It seems to me that Ralph was in fear of someone and I am not yet convinced that it was JB.
Do we know where this shotgun, usually kept under the bed, was on the night?
Did someone, knowing Ralph kept a shotgun under the bed, move it prior to entering whf to commit the murders?
-
TBM, I've had a tough day, struggling with a recalcitrant pony and a runaway pug, and I will never match your grasp of language or facts, but at the risk of sounding like a complete plum I'm going to trudge down the hit-man route for a while longer, because it works for me and puts so many pieces of the jigsaw into place. If JB hired a hit-man it would make him almost equally culpable, and also in danger of retribution. I'm guessing that that's a bit woolly for you, but it makes more sense than most of the theories on here. Suck it and see.
Good post! at last,someone that shares my sentiments.Whether it was JB that "hired" someone,I must admit I am still not sure.Ralph had made innuendos to a couple of people prior to his death with effect to fearing that he would be killed.He slept with a shotgun under his bed,which according to one person was in order to shoot foxes prowling in the night but according to someone else was because the gun was deemed expensive! IMO there is only one reason why one would sleep with a shotgun under their bed?It seems to me that Ralph was in fear of someone and I am not yet convinced that it was JB.
Do we know where this shotgun, usually kept under the bed, was on the night?
Did someone, knowing Ralph kept a shotgun under the bed, move it prior to entering whf to commit the murders?
+1 A really good point.
So which gun usually went under the bed?
-
TBM, I've had a tough day, struggling with a recalcitrant pony and a runaway pug, and I will never match your grasp of language or facts, but at the risk of sounding like a complete plum I'm going to trudge down the hit-man route for a while longer, because it works for me and puts so many pieces of the jigsaw into place. If JB hired a hit-man it would make him almost equally culpable, and also in danger of retribution. I'm guessing that that's a bit woolly for you, but it makes more sense than most of the theories on here. Suck it and see.
Good post! at last,someone that shares my sentiments.Whether it was JB that "hired" someone,I must admit I am still not sure.Ralph had made innuendos to a couple of people prior to his death with effect to fearing that he would be killed.He slept with a shotgun under his bed,which according to one person was in order to shoot foxes prowling in the night but according to someone else was because the gun was deemed expensive! IMO there is only one reason why one would sleep with a shotgun under their bed?It seems to me that Ralph was in fear of someone and I am not yet convinced that it was JB.
Do we know where this shotgun, usually kept under the bed, was on the night?
Did someone, knowing Ralph kept a shotgun under the bed, move it prior to entering whf to commit the murders?
+1 A really good point.
So which gun usually went under the bed?
Could this gun have been found under the bed during the search of the room, and propped up by the window to be photographed there?
-
The photograph that's been posted shows a rifle leaning against the window frame.
-
Didn't the relatives find a shot gun in the house at the same time as they found the silencer?
-
TBM, I've had a tough day, struggling with a recalcitrant pony and a runaway pug, and I will never match your grasp of language or facts, but at the risk of sounding like a complete plum I'm going to trudge down the hit-man route for a while longer, because it works for me and puts so many pieces of the jigsaw into place. If JB hired a hit-man it would make him almost equally culpable, and also in danger of retribution. I'm guessing that that's a bit woolly for you, but it makes more sense than most of the theories on here. Suck it and see.
Good post! at last,someone that shares my sentiments.Whether it was JB that "hired" someone,I must admit I am still not sure.Ralph had made innuendos to a couple of people prior to his death with effect to fearing that he would be killed.He slept with a shotgun under his bed,which according to one person was in order to shoot foxes prowling in the night but according to someone else was because the gun was deemed expensive! IMO there is only one reason why one would sleep with a shotgun under their bed?It seems to me that Ralph was in fear of someone and I am not yet convinced that it was JB.
Do we know where this shotgun, usually kept under the bed, was on the night?
Did someone, knowing Ralph kept a shotgun under the bed, move it prior to entering whf to commit the murders?
+1 A really good point.
So which gun usually went under the bed?
Could this gun have been found under the bed during the search of the room, and propped up by the window to be photographed there?
The gun propped at the window in the photo is, I believe, a .22 - the shotgun "usually kept under the bed" has /is not accounted for.
Knowing where this particular shotgun was on the night of the murders would (IMO) be very interesting?
-
The gun propped at the window in the photo is, I believe, a .22 - the shotgun "usually kept under the bed" has /is not accounted for.
Knowing where this particular shotgun was on the night of the murders would (IMO) be very interesting?
In Ann's statement (or it might have been Davids) it says that they found a shot gun in the house at the same time as they found the silencer.
-
TBM, I've had a tough day, struggling with a recalcitrant pony and a runaway pug, and I will never match your grasp of language or facts, but at the risk of sounding like a complete plum I'm going to trudge down the hit-man route for a while longer, because it works for me and puts so many pieces of the jigsaw into place. If JB hired a hit-man it would make him almost equally culpable, and also in danger of retribution. I'm guessing that that's a bit woolly for you, but it makes more sense than most of the theories on here. Suck it and see.
Good post! at last,someone that shares my sentiments.Whether it was JB that "hired" someone,I must admit I am still not sure.Ralph had made innuendos to a couple of people prior to his death with effect to fearing that he would be killed.He slept with a shotgun under his bed,which according to one person was in order to shoot foxes prowling in the night but according to someone else was because the gun was deemed expensive! IMO there is only one reason why one would sleep with a shotgun under their bed?It seems to me that Ralph was in fear of someone and I am not yet convinced that it was JB.
Do we know where this shotgun, usually kept under the bed, was on the night?
Did someone, knowing Ralph kept a shotgun under the bed, move it prior to entering whf to commit the murders?
+1 A really good point.
So which gun usually went under the bed?
Could this gun have been found under the bed during the search of the room, and propped up by the window to be photographed there?
The gun propped at the window in the photo is, I believe, a .22 - the shotgun "usually kept under the bed" has /is not accounted for.
Knowing where this particular shotgun was on the night of the murders would (IMO) be very interesting?
So do you know which shotgun habitually lived under the bed?
Was this the gun found leaning against the wall in the downstairs office?
-
Regarding the gun photographed in the window. Im pretty sure that Cook admitted that it was the rifle photographed with Sheila.BUT he claimed that it was only moved to be photographed AFTER all the crime scene photos of Sheila had been completed.I read somewhere that the gun usually kept under Ralphs bed was found in the gun cupboard on the morning of the murders.
-
hi sarann.
in the book i have of colins page 21 is the 1st page of the 1st chapter.
i wonder if we have different editions?
mine was published in 1994
-
I have read somewhere, and I really wish I could remember where, that JM did not identify the twins. But that they were identified by "unique features" as described to the police by Colin Caffell.
Am I even on the right thread? ???
-
I have read somewhere, and I really wish I could remember where, that JM did not identify the twins. But that they were identified by "unique features" as described to the police by Colin Caffell.
Am I even on the right thread? ???
That's always been my understanding too, but I can't remember where I read it - sorry.
-
Mike - with reference to:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GBoXf__1A4QJ:www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/downloads/bamber/BAMBERCCRC_addendum_06_06_2004.doc+bamber+2002+appeal&cd=57&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
[2004]
It says that the person who attacked Ralph Bamber had finger nails at least 5mm-6mm long, and had the finger nails been shorter they could not have inflicted the wounds on the right arm and a similar wound on the arm of June Bamber.
It mentions that the post mortem photograph of June Bamber's arm shows one laceration consistent with a single finger nail indentation into the skin.
Could this be how/where Sheila lost her nail?
Congratulations for being so dedicated and informative by the way!
Most definitely not as even the defence have had to admit in their submission to the CCRC on 4 June 2004 that Shelia's nails could not have caused the lacerations to Nevill and June's arms.
The finger nails of Sheila Caffell were examined. A post mortem photograph of her hands was indeed made available and formed part of the “Jury Bundle.” The said finger nails of Sheila Caffell were too long to have caused the laceration/indentation marks on the arm of Ralph Neville Bamber and the singer mark on the arm of June Bamber.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GBoXf__1A4QJ:www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/downloads/bamber/BAMBERCCRC_addendum_06_06_2004.doc+bamber+2002+appeal&cd=57&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
-
It had to be JB of Sheila that killed the other 4 ...and Ralphs arms injuries were caused by Sheila as her nails were in the correct size range to cause the damage and Jeremy's were not.
END OF STORY.
JB is innocent..
Only people who are incredibly thick or corrupt in some manner will try denying it.. the truth is what really happened not what those involved in blackmail , threats, protection of vested interests, etc would prefer it to be.
-
How can nails be too long to cause an injury. Women can and do use their long nails to injure other people it is their way of fighting. Sheila Caffel's nail were certainly long enough to cause such injury to RB's arms.
-
There was no expert opinion of worth in the submisssions that I see at all.
The foolish stupid incorrect claim that Sheila's nails were to long is obviously wrong and I am happy to stick with that.
I dare anyone to take me to court on that view....for none will..for I am right.
Sheila's nails were the correct size to cause the injuries seen on Ralphs arm and most likely June's too.
The depth of fingernail gouges is variable on many issues. Such as toughness of skin, length of nails, flexibility and strength of a particular persons nails, the pressure applied by the person inflicting, lubrication effects , angle of grip , size of person inflictings hands etc etc etc.... so excluding by specifying a tight specific range is total nonsense as any good worthy honest expert would know.
-
I have plenty of qualifications mr john lamberton . As I am not BM , things you say of this innocent man are not relevant to myself.
Personally I find what you say about BM to be disgusting. His baby daughter died as the result of an accident...and you seem to find a perverse pleasure in tormenting him by posting nonsense about him.
how many years did you spend in jail john.
as far as I am aware BM was only in jail on remand.
He was found innocent ...of what he was accused of in a court of law.
You were found guilty of your crimes in a court of law.
the courts are far from perfect but in your case I feel happy that your conviction was perfectly sound.
-
Expert opinion that the length of the nails were too long to have done the injury to Nevill or June's arms is accepted by both the Crown and the defence so one wonders what did in fact make the marks.
Perhaps m'Lud didn't have long polished fingernails so he wouldn't know? ;D ;D ;D
-
Sorry everyone - did June have scratch/gouge injuries too?
-
Sorry everyone - did June have scratch/gouge injuries too?
Hi. I think one, which could be consistent with a fingernail making the gouge.
-
Hallo, Abs. Thank you. I'm really struggling to keep up with the forum - when did it become so spiteful and dodgy?
-
Hallo, Abs. Thank you. I'm really struggling to keep up with the forum - when did it become so spiteful and dodgy?
Hmmm, I try to stay out of it and hope it just goes away... :-X
-
I'll do the same. And who on earth is smiting Kaldin? He's always so fair - it's like punching a kitten.
-
I know that someone had to do it, but Julie Mugford actually volunteered to identify the bodies? Even the children's? Good grief, am I the only one to find that shocking?
I find the whole thing very shocking.
-
Hallo, Grahame. Since I posted that, I think that I might now be shock-proof. I still believe my original conclusion, but I am very aware that I might be a million miles from the truth. This forum is scrambling my (very limited) brain.
-
I'll do the same. And who on earth is smiting Kaldin? He's always so fair - it's like punching a kitten.
You are right, I´d NEVER smite Kaldin, such a nice poster!! But are you sure Kaldin will be happy about you comparing him to a kitty cat? :P
-
Gawd, I don't know. I've always imagined him/her looking like a cross between Inspector Barnaby and a lovely cake. With a cherry on top. I think I might have ODed on chocolate.