Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on January 19, 2012, 12:07:PM
-
The pathologist, Peter Venezis, hit the nail on the head when he said there was a delay between both shots received or sustained by Sheila, and that the lower neck wound did not kill her - but the one under the chin did...
Let's get the facts right...
Venezis testified to the effect that the presence of bruising around the lower entry wound on the neck, was the clearest evidence yet that Sheila did not and had not died as a result of the first shot, and that there was a delay before she sustained the second fatal shot under the chin. He was not able to put a time on the amount of delay, other than to say that it would have been possible for Sheila to have walked around a bit in between the two shots...
He drew attention to the lack of vertical bloodstains on the front of her nightdress suggesting that he would have expected to find some evidence of this if she had been walking around in between shots?
He failed to consider or take into account that the blood from the lower entry would may have dried in the interim period between both shots being received, and that if there was such a delay and consequences, there might not be any evidence of vertical blood on the nightdress, by virtue of the fact that blood from the initial lower neck wound had already dried.
-
The lower entry wound bled sufficiently enough to create the triangular bloodstain on the front upper part of Sheila's nightdress, before the second shot was fired...
In order for the triangular bloodstain on the upper right hand side of the nightdress to be there prior to the second shot being sustained, the fingers of Sheila`s right hand would have to be released from the gun that fired the initial shot and applied to the neck in the vicinity of the lower entry wound so that the fold of her arm acted like a void and bridge to allow blood from the lower entry wound to contaminate the nightdress...
What this means, is that whoever fired the shots, did not fire them both in quick succession, one after the other - but there was a considerable delay between both...
-
Now...
If Jeremy was the crack shot that the relatives would have us Believe, why did it take him two shots to kill Sheila?
-
Why, if jeremy was the crack shot the relatives would have us believe, did he shoot Sheila almost sideways through the neck?
-
Why, if jeremy was the crack shot the relatives would have us believe, did he shoot Sheila almost sideways through the neck?
How exactly did crack shot Bamber expect to kill Sheila by shooting her almost sideways on into the neck?
-
Let's get the facts right...
Venezis testified to the effect that the presence of bruising around the lower entry wound on the neck, was the clearest evidence yet that Sheila did not and had not died as a result of the first shot, and that there was a delay before she sustained the second fatal shot under the chin. He was not able to put a time on the amount of delay, other than to say that it would have been possible for Sheila to have walked around a bit in between the two shots...
Yikes!!! :o It's only gone and happened again. :o
Yes please could we get the facts right?
You might want to set out a bit earlier for your next meeting with 'Z', as I fear that your nose would be on time, but you would be twenty minutes late. ::)
-
It took crack shot Bamber eight bullets to kill robust Ralph Bamber, it took crack shot Bamber seven bullets to kill elderly June Bamber, it took crack shot Bamber five bullets to kill a defenceless Daniel, and another three to bring to an end the life of young Nicholas. Then, crack shot Bamber could n`t even get it right when he supposedly tried to kill Sheila by shooting her sideways through the neck?
-
It took crack shot Bamber eight bullets to kill robust Ralph Bamber, it took crack shot Bamber seven bullets to kill elderly June Bamber, it took crack shot Bamber five bullets to kill a defenceless Daniel, and another three to bring to an end the life of young Nicholas. Then, crack shot Bamber could n`t even get it right when he supposedly tried to kill Sheila by shooting her sideways through the neck?
There seems to be a level of incompetence in all these shootings, which suggests the person who did the shootings was far from being a crack shot like Jeremy? More likely to have been someone who was not very good with guns...
-
Also, if Jeremy was the shooter, why would there have been a delay between shots? Its been documented that Sheila would have likely been floored for a short time after the first shot so that would have been a perfect opportunity for Jeremy to fire the 2nd shot. There wouldn't have been a need for there to be any significant delay between shots as it doesn't seem Sheila would have been fit to put up a fight after the first shot.
-
There seems to be a level of incompetence in all these shootings, which suggests the person who did the shootings was far from being a crack shot like Jeremy? More likely to have been someone who was not very good with guns...
I think you need to make your mind up, one minute, depending on what theory you are presenting, you're trying to suggest that Jeremy didn't know much about firearms, then the next your are suggesting he is a 'crack' shot.
Well the truth is actually more likely to be somewhere between the two.
Then we have the wounds to the five victims, you suggest that the wounds are spread all over the place, a little inaccurate, yet on the other hand, not a single shot failed to hit one of the victims, so perhaps they could be described as more accurate than you suggest.
In fact for Sheila, who was inexperienced with firearms, to have fired 25 shots, whilst being in a psychotic rage, and somehow hitting the target with 100% accuracy, could be considered highly unlikely.
Your example of needing several shots to murder the twins and somehow trying to link it to Jeremy's ability with firearms, whether he was a 'crack' shot or not is irrelevant as these particular shots were contact shots, the number of shots fired also does not have anything to do with Jeremy's ability.
Another interpretation of the shootings, would be that shots were sadistically fired to cause pain to June and Neville, before finishing June off with an execution style shot between the eyes, perhaps the same was intended for Neville but he had a lot more fight in him than expected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given enough time we could make anything fit, which is precisely why unless these speculative theories, are based on some sort of evidence, then they aren't worth a damn.
-
Yet to be worked out by those in favour of Bambers guilt, is precisely how Sheila managed to be holding the fingers of her right hand against her neck long enough for blood to pool in the fold of her arm to dry, before the second shot under the chin was executed?
If Jeremy was the killer, then surely he would have known it unlikely that shooting Sheila sideways on in the neck stood little chance of killing Sheila? Even more so, when as she must have done, put the fingers of her right hand up against her neck - OUCH, that hurts?
-
In fact for Sheila, who was inexperienced with firearms, to have fired 25 shots, whilst being in a psychotic rage, and somehow hitting the target with 100% accuracy, could be considered highly unlikely.
I would argue people in psychotic rages are capable of just about anything. Now, playing devils advocate, I could imagine if Jeremy hated his parents as much as some say, he may shoot them in a "sadistic" manner as you put it but why on earth would he unleash such hatred on the children? I just can't see it. To me, that is more of an indication of someone behaving in an irrational, psychotic manner
-
I would argue people in psychotic rages are capable of just about anything. Now, playing devils advocate, I could imagine if Jeremy hated his parents as much as some say, he may shoot them in a "sadistic" manner as you put it but why on earth would he unleash such hatred on the children? I just can't see it. To me, that is more of an indication of someone behaving in an irrational, psychotic manner
As I said, we could make anything fit.
Perhaps, if it was Jeremy, who had no particular problem with the children, but did also not want to share the estate with them, then he shot them in their sleep several times to ensure that they did not suffer. one still had their thumb in their mouths.
-
As I said, we could make anything fit.
Perhaps, if it was Jeremy, who had no particular problem with the children, but did also not want to share the estate with them, then he shot them in their sleep several times to ensure that they did not suffer. one still had their thumb in their mouths.
When it only needed one shot?? And him being such a good shot and all?? To me it just doesn't fit. Its so over the top and unecessary. As you say, Jeremy didn't have any particular problem with the children so I dont understand...although some may say he did that precisely to make it look as though Sheila had gone crazy I guess.
-
Also, if Jeremy was the shooter, why would there have been a delay between shots?
Its been documented that Sheila would have likely been floored for a short time after the first shot so that would have been a perfect opportunity for Jeremy to fire the 2nd shot.
There wouldn't have been a need for there to be any significant delay between shots as it doesn't seem Sheila would have been fit to put up a fight after the first shot.
I did give an account to a previous question you posed on a different thread (Campion Calling Aunt Agatha #46) in this respect, but received no response from you (not that you have to respond of course).
The delay between shots to SC could have been down to the first shot being accidental (as previously posted).
JB may have hoped that having shot SC in the throat and rendering her unconscious, that she may die; however when SC stirred JB was forced into firing the 2nd shot to make sure she died.
The second shot was not something JB planned for, but when SC did stir after the first shot he panicked and had to fire the 2nd shot. He could not let her live after what he had just done. The second shot did the job!
This is just a reply to your post and food for thought - not fact!
-
When it only needed one shot?? And him being such a good shot and all?? To me it just doesn't fit. Its so over the top and unecessary. As you say, Jeremy didn't have any particular problem with the children so I dont understand...although some may say he did that precisely to make it look as though Sheila had gone crazy I guess.
That's another argument I suppose.
You also have to remember that a .22 hollow round from a rimfire rifle, is not guaranteed to cause death.
I don't see the wounds to the children as the killer having gone crazy and excessively violent on them, quite the opposite, I see it as they were coldly and clinically murdered.
It can also be theorised that several of the shots could have come at a later stage, so for example the head shots to Neville and the additional head shots to the twins, the killer may have revisited that room to make sure after the other victims had been murdered.
-
All this 100% accuracy lark? It was not surprising that most of the shots hit their target "somewhere" on the victim's bodies as they were probably all fired no more than 6 feet away? The plain fact are that the shots "were" all over the place on the victims. To interpret this as being some kind of torture as some do on the part of Jeremy is ludicrous. Just to explain away the erratic shots to the victims. Anything but that the shooter was inexperienced or in a psychotic episode.
-
All this 100% accuracy lark? It was not surprising that most of the shots hit their target "somewhere" on the victim's bodies as they were probably all fired no more than 6 feet away? The plain fact are that the shots "were" all over the place on the victims. To interpret this as being some kind of torture as some do on the part of Jeremy is ludicrous. Just to explain away the erratic shots to the victims. Anything but that the shooter was inexperienced or in a psychotic episode.
You have missed the point entirely I think Grahame.
Expert witnesses have given an opinion that the shooter was competent in the use of the firearm used. What is ludicrous is to completely ignore that, say the shooter was a novice, suggest that Jeremy was a 'crack shot', and then come to the conclusion that it must have been Sheila. Put that to the CCRC and it would be laughed back to you.
-
You may also have an opinion about why Jeremy told the police that Sheila knew how to use all the weapons in the house, which is clearly inaccurate.
-
As I said, we could make anything fit.
Perhaps, if it was Jeremy, who had no particular problem with the children, but did also not want to share the estate with them, then he shot them in their sleep several times to ensure that they did not suffer. one still had their thumb in their mouths.
Only a highly brutalised person could murder his two 6 year old nephews, his mother, his father and sister.
Only someone highly brutalised - and psychotic - could masacre his entire immediate family in the horrific and frenzied manner with which the Bamber and caffell families were murdered.
Jeremy Bamber did not have any history of violence prior to the murders.
During his 26 years of imprisonment, he has, to my knowledge, never shown any trace of being violent.
Bamber's prison governors and warders allow Jeremy to wander around freely and to devote all of his time to researching his case and proving his innocence. Why? Because their long experience of Jeremy and of prison work with murderers tells them that Jeremy Bamber is not a murderer.
Bamber's follow inmates, many of them killers who know a murderer when they see one and who know Jeremy well do not believe that Jeremy Bamber is a murderer. One said, if Bamber's a killer he's a brilliant actor too - but he ain't that good an actor.
Jeremy's friends who knew him before he was imprisoned say JB is soft as butter and is incapable of murder.
Forgive me for this, I don't wish to upset or offend anyone, but Hartley's belief that Jeremy could look his own, seriously injured, mother in the eyes as the poor woman desperately crawled across the floor in an attempt to escape, then shot her between the eyes - and all merely for money when Jeremy was about to inherit a large sum from his grandma just months hence - that is utter nonsense!
Jeremy Bamber does not have a murderer's profile. He does not have a violent impulse in him, let alone the psychotic instincts of a murderer.
-
You may also have an opinion about why Jeremy told the police that Sheila knew how to use all the weapons in the house, which is clearly inaccurate.
Can you prove this is inaccurate?
-
Only a highly brutalised person could murder his two 6 year old nephews, his mother, his father and sister.
Only someone highly brutalised - and psychotic - could masacre his entire immediate family in the horrific and frenzied manner with which the Bamber and caffell families were murdered.
Jeremy Bamber did not have any history of violence prior to the murders.
During his 26 years of imprisonment, he has, to my knowledge, never shown any trace of being violent.
Bamber's prison governors and warders allow Jeremy to wander around freely and to devote all of his time to researching his case and proving his innocence. Why? Because their long experience of Jeremy and of prison work with murderers tells them that Jeremy Bamber is not a murderer.
Bamber's follow inmates, many of them killers who know a murderer when they see one and who know Jeremy well do not believe that Jeremy Bamber is a murderer. One said, if Bamber's a killer he's a brilliant actor too - but he ain't that good an actor.
Jeremy's friends who knew him before he was imprisoned say JB is soft as butter and is incapable of murder.
Forgive me for this, I don't wish to upset or offend anyone, but Hartley's belief that Jeremy could look his own, seriously injured, mother in the eyes as the poor woman desperately crawled across the floor in an attempt to escape, then shot her between the eyes - and all merely for money when Jeremy was about to inherit a large sum from his grandma just months hence - that is utter nonsense!
Jeremy Bamber does not have a murderer's profile. He does not have a violent impulse in him, let alone the psychotic instincts of a murderer.
I agree. Good post.
-
That's another argument I suppose.
You also have to remember that a .22 hollow round from a rimfire rifle, is not guaranteed to cause death.
I don't see the wounds to the children as the killer having gone crazy and excessively violent on them, quite the opposite, I see it as they were coldly and clinically murdered.
It can also be theorised that several of the shots could have come at a later stage, so for example the head shots to Neville and the additional head shots to the twins, the killer may have revisited that room to make sure after the other victims had been murdered.
THen why have their deaths been compellingly described as 'overkill', Hartley?
-
THen why have their deaths been compellingly described as 'overkill', Hartley?
I have not suggested otherwise, yes very much overkill, whoever did it wanted them dead, that is indisputable.
-
That's another argument I suppose.
You also have to remember that a .22 hollow round from a rimfire rifle, is not guaranteed to cause death.
I don't see the wounds to the children as the killer having gone crazy and excessively violent on them, quite the opposite, I see it as they were coldly and clinically murdered.
It can also be theorised that several of the shots could have come at a later stage, so for example the head shots to Neville and the additional head shots to the twins, the killer may have revisited that room to make sure after the other victims had been murdered.
I feel the that the fragmented bullet (1st shot) in SC's throat was a .22 hollow round that was faulty and simply fragmented on firing or impact.
(The fragmented bullet - that old chestnut - could have been relplaced with a whole bullet as the cops may have lost all the bits (or parts) and had to replace it to make the number of rounds tally - who knows :P)
I also believe the head shot's to the children were clinical and execution style. I hope this is not too graphic, but I imagine the rifle was placed near or against the head and then quickly pull the trigger x 5, move over to the other twin and the same x 3 (or vice versa). I believe nbg stated that a semi-auto can fire c. 3 rounds a second.
To me Nevills head shots are also execution style (the groups of 2) and June's between the eyes is almost a give away! IMO
-
I feel the that the fragmented bullet (1st shot) in SC's throat was a .22 hollow round that was faulty and simply fragmented on firing or impact.
(The fragmented bullet - that old chestnut - could have been relplaced with a whole bullet as the cops may have lost all the bits (or parts) and had to replace it to make the number of rounds tally - who knows :P)
I also believe the head shot's to the children were clinical and execution style. I hope this is not too graphic, but I imagine the rifle was placed near or against the head and then quickly pull the trigger x 5, move over to the other twin and the same x 3 (or vice versa). I believe nbg stated that a semi-auto can fire c. 3 rounds a second.
Others have compellingly argued that those poor little boys were murdered with a frenzied arc of shots and in a manner which suggests overkill - the sort of overkill that parents who kill their children indulge in.
To me Nevills head shots are also execution style (the groups of 2) and June's between the eyes is almost a give away! IMO
What you see a clinical execution, I see a botched, frenzied bloodbath.
-
You have missed the point entirely I think Grahame.
Expert witnesses have given an opinion that the shooter was competent in the use of the firearm used. What is ludicrous is to completely ignore that, say the shooter was a novice, suggest that Jeremy was a 'crack shot', and then come to the conclusion that it must have been Sheila. Put that to the CCRC and it would be laughed back to you.
I seem to remember Ann saying that she wasn't aware that either Sheila or Jeremy could use firearms?
-
I seem to remember Ann saying that she wasn't aware that either Sheila or Jeremy could use firearms?
Well we know that Jeremy could, by his own admission. Hence the going out to shoot rabbits and the target practice with Anthony Pargeter.
-
That's another argument I suppose.
You also have to remember that a .22 hollow round from a rimfire rifle, is not guaranteed to cause death.
I don't see the wounds to the children as the killer having gone crazy and excessively violent on them, quite the opposite, I see it as they were coldly and clinically murdered.
It can also be theorised that several of the shots could have come at a later stage, so for example the head shots to Neville and the additional head shots to the twins, the killer may have revisited that room to make sure after the other victims had been murdered.
Hartley that is totat Boll*****.
A .22 hollow point or otherwise shot to the head is guarenteed to kill.
Where did you pull this gem from.
I suggest you keep away from area,s you know naff all about,
That was a stupid statement IMO.
-
Hartley that is totat Boll*****.
A .22 hollow point or otherwise shot to the head is guarenteed to kill.
Where did you pull this gem from.
I suggest you keep away from area,s you know naff all about,
That was a stupid statement IMO.
I'll just leave that one there for you to look stupid Cliff. ::)
-
Hartley that is totat Boll*****.
A .22 hollow point or otherwise shot to the head is guaranteed to kill.
Where did you pull this gem from.
I suggest you keep away from area,s you know naff all about,
That was a stupid statement IMO.
Hi Cliff,
Good point, Cliff, however, don't be too hard on poor old Hartley, he is a theorist, not a practical man, so there will inevitably be a gap between theory an practice where he is concerned.
You've never fired or even held a gun, have you, Hartley?
Apologies for garbled comments and spelling errors, I'm in my office doing two things at once again
-
I'll just leave that one there for you to look stupid Cliff. ::)
What is stupid about Cliff's post?
-
What is stupid about Cliff's post?
Apart from it being ever so slightly aggressive for no immediately apparent reason, it is also inaccurate.
-
Apart from it being ever so slightly aggressive for no immediately apparent reason, it is also inaccurate.
What is inaccurate about it?
-
During his 26 years of imprisonment, he has, to my knowledge, never shown any trace of being violent.
Do not rely on your knowledge then.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/KILLER+BAMBER%27S+BROKEN+BOTTLE+JAIL+ATTACK.-a061330122
-
Do not rely on your knowledge then.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/KILLER+BAMBER%27S+BROKEN+BOTTLE+JAIL+ATTACK.-a061330122
I believe this was self defence, Hartley, as the man had been threatening Jeremy and had launched a violent attack on him. I would think that all of those who live among prisoners, many of whom are lunatics, violent offenders of murderers, would be the subject of an attack at some time or other. However, when Jeremy's Appeal was turned down, a number of his fellow prisoners engaged in a protest with him at the injustice of this.
-
I believe this was self defence, Hartley, as the man had been threatening Jeremy and had launched a violent attack on him. I would think that all of those who live among prisoners, many of whom are lunatics, violent offenders of murderers, would be the subject of an attack at some time or other. However, when Jeremy's Appeal was turned down, a number of his fellow prisoners engaged in a protest with him at the injustice of this.
It doesn't matter whether it was in self defence or not, by definition he has been violent.
Regardless it is unimportant, whether he had a history of violence before or after the crimes, or not, does not indicate that he is innocent or guilty.
-
I believe this was self defence, Hartley, as the man had been threatening Jeremy and had launched a violent attack on him. I would think that all of those who live among prisoners, many of whom are lunatics, violent offenders of murderers, would be the subject of an attack at some time or other. However, when Jeremy's Appeal was turned down, a number of his fellow prisoners engaged in a protest with him at the injustice of this.
Also, there is no attribution for this report that I can see. Where does the report come from - a red top such as the much sued Sun, a former editor of which admits he wanted sensational headlines at any price?
-
It doesn't matter whether it was in self defence or not, by definition he has been violent.
Regardless it is unimportant, whether he had a history of violence before or after the crimes, or not, does not indicate that he is innocent or guilty.
Hartley, I come from a line of conscientious objectors. I'm totally non-violent and totally opposed to violence. Yet if you attacked me with a home made knife, I'd rip your bl**dy head off.
I am of course speaking figuratively ;D
-
Apart from it being ever so slightly aggressive for no immediately apparent reason, it is also inaccurate.
I did not intend to sound aggresive Hartley, and apologise if that is what came across, but that was a ridiculous statement.
On the other hand are you now agreeing that Sheila was quite capable of walking around with merely a neck wound.
You can't have it both ways Harts.
-
I did not intend to sound aggresive Hartley, and apologise if that is what came across, but that was a ridiculous statement.
On the other hand are you now agreeing that Sheila was quite capable of walking around with merely a neck wound.
You can't have it both ways Harts.
I'm not admitting or denying anything, I, along with a few others were simply discussing an aspect of the case, stop acting like a clown.
Type something like 'survived being shot in head' or 'survived being shot in head by .22', into google and you will immediately see that you are inaccurate with your aggressive 'bol***' (your word) post.
And again, it doesn't matter, it was not an important part of what was being discussed.
With regards to Sheila, I have no idea, I wasn't there, however Mike informed us all some 10 months ago that there wasn't much of a gap between shots as per the pathologists trial evidence, yet he is now saying that isn't true and there was a long delay. Either way around, he is telling you fibs, either now, or 10 months ago.
-
I'm not admitting or denying anything, I, along with a few others were simply discussing an aspect of the case, stop acting like a clown.
Type something like 'survived being shot in head' or 'survived being shot in head by .22', into google and you will immediately see that you are inaccurate with your aggressive 'bol***' (your word) post.
And again, it doesn't matter, it was not an important part of what was being discussed.
With regards to Sheila, I have no idea, I wasn't there, however Mike informed us all some 10 months ago that there wasn't much of a gap between shots as per the pathologists trial evidence, yet he is now saying that isn't true and there was a long delay. Either way around, he is telling you fibs, either now, or 10 months ago.
Please stop trying to degenerate my posts by implying that I am a clown.
Get off your very high horse, and treat people with the respect they accord you.
Talk about being pompious!
-
Please stop trying to degenerate my posts by implying that I am a clown.
Get off your very high horse, and treat people with the respect they accord you.
Talk about being pompious!
Again, another post which you manage to make yourself look stupid without any input from me.
-
Also, there is no attribution for this report that I can see. Where does the report come from - a red top such as the much sued Sun, a former editor of which admits he wanted sensational headlines at any price?
The Mirror, as it happens, but that is also unimportant.
-
Again, another post which you manage to make yourself look stupid without any input from me.
Again another post to make you look like a pompious buffoon.
-
From Choc - "Others have compellingly argued that those poor little boys were murdered with a frenzied arc of shots and in a manner which suggests overkill - the sort of overkill that parents who kill their children indulge in."
Frenzied and arc don't go together IMO.
It was either frenzied or arc.
In a frenzied attack I would expect shots all over the head and / or body.
The arc to me indicates a controlled act, and has been referred to months ago on the forum as a more execution style of shooting!
And the term "overkill" can apply to anyone wanting to make sure death was quick and final.
-
Again another post to make you look like a pompious buffoon.
Yes you've done a good job there. ::) Unfortunately in a weeks time you will be making a post telling everybody how much you respect me. ::)
-
some 10 months ago...
Hartley, separate issue just out of interest. Has your own view of the case changed at all over the last 10 months? I came across an old post of your from April recently. The tone seemed softer and less committed.
-
From Choc - "Others have compellingly argued that those poor little boys were murdered with a frenzied arc of shots and in a manner which suggests overkill - the sort of overkill that parents who kill their children indulge in."
Frenzied and arc don't go together IMO.
It was either frenzied or arc.
In a frenzied attack I would expect shots all over the head and / or body.
The arc to me indicates a controlled act, and has been referred to months ago on the forum as a more execution style of shooting!
And the term "overkill" can apply to anyone wanting to make sure death was quick and final.
You've said with clarity what I was trying (miserably) to put across. :-[
-
Yes you've done a good job there. ::) Unfortunately in a weeks time you will be making a post telling everybody how much you respect me. ::)
I did once.
-
Hartley, separate issue just out of interest. Has your own view of the case changed at all over the last 10 months? I came across an old post of your from April recently. The tone seemed softer and less committed.
Not really, I don't think I was singled out and challenged as often and rudely back then. I think that is all it is.
-
You've said with clarity what I was trying (miserably) to put across. :-[
I have my moments ;)
-
Not really, I don't think I was singled out and challenged as often and rudely back then. I think that is all it is.
[/quote
You have a more subtle way to be rude Hartley, but non theless are still rude.
-
Not really, I don't think I was singled out and challenged as often and rudely back then. I think that is all it is.
I was listening to a song the other day which I think sums up this forum beautifully at times. I'm aiming this at myself but applies to many others on here, you need to listen to the words though.
A lack of Understanding - By the Vaccines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYLpDeSxBac
Strangely a song called Wetsuit is later on the album. :-\
-
Not really, I don't think I was singled out and challenged as often and rudely back then. I think that is all it is.
I think I picked the wrong day to ask you. Good tune nonetheless. I'm not familiar with the group but have heard of them.
-
You have a more subtle way to be rude Hartley, but nontheless are still rude.
Harters, Buddy does have a point here to some extent. You are the lone voice at times, so you do take a bit of flak. But you can also get a few barbed digs in your self.
-
From Choc - "Others have compellingly argued that those poor little boys were murdered with a frenzied arc of shots and in a manner which suggests overkill - the sort of overkill that parents who kill their children indulge in."
Frenzied and arc don't go together IMO.
It was either frenzied or arc.
In a frenzied attack I would expect shots all over the head and / or body.
The arc to me indicates a controlled act, and has been referred to months ago on the forum as a more execution style of shooting!And the term "overkill" can apply to anyone wanting to make sure death was quick and final.
I disagree, for the reasons I posted months ago. The movement of the rifle barrel in an arc is the natural way in which it would tend to move in the hands of someone inexperienced firing shots in rapid succession.
The number of shots fired in the twins' bedroom was far more than necessary to ensure death. They were both asleep (fortunately) and were shot in the head at point blank range. A single shot each would have been sufficient, two at most would have been used in an "execution style" killing. In my opinion the way in which the twins were shot can only be described as frenzied overkill.
-
I disagree, for the reasons I posted months ago. The movement of the rifle barrel in an arc is the natural way in which it would tend to move in the hands of someone inexperienced firing shots in rapid succession.
The number of shots fired in the twins' bedroom was far more than necessary to ensure death. They were both asleep (fortunately) and were shot in the head at point blank range. A single shot each would have been sufficient, two at most would have been used in an "execution style" killing. In my opinion the way in which the twins were shot can only be described as frenzied overkill.
okay, but I think this is a moment when we can agree to disagree on this point as I believe neither of us are experts in execution style or frenzied killings - I hope!
But whilst making that last comment has "an expert" ever commented on this subject??
-
Also, there is no attribution for this report that I can see. Where does the report come from - a red top such as the much sued Sun, a former editor of which admits he wanted sensational headlines at any price?
Oh yes. That well proven liar Kelvin Mackenzie. The same liar who claimed Jeremy tried to sell him indecent photos of his sister. Absolutely no proof whatsoever. Sensationalism.
-
Hartley, I come from a line of conscientious objectors. I'm totally non-violent and totally opposed to violence. Yet if you attacked me with a home made knife, I'd rip your bl**dy head off.
I am of course speaking figuratively ;D
And in love of course. ::) ;D
-
Do not rely on your knowledge then.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/KILLER+BAMBER%27S+BROKEN+BOTTLE+JAIL+ATTACK.-a061330122
The fight, then, was a reactive response.
This, together with the knife attack he suffered, is a good reminder of the type of environment in which Jeremy has been living in for 26 years.
We wonder how he manages to cope after all these years. It must be hell.
-
I'm not admitting or denying anything, I, along with a few others were simply discussing an aspect of the case, stop acting like a clown.
Type something like 'survived being shot in head' or 'survived being shot in head by .22', into google and you will immediately see that you are inaccurate with your aggressive 'bol***' (your word) post.
And again, it doesn't matter, it was not an important part of what was being discussed.
With regards to Sheila, I have no idea, I wasn't there, however Mike informed us all some 10 months ago that there wasn't much of a gap between shots as per the pathologists trial evidence, yet he is now saying that isn't true and there was a long delay. Either way around, he is telling you fibs, either now, or 10 months ago.
I got shot in the arm with a .22. I certainly hopped around a bit I can tell you. Bloody 'urts. :o
-
Again, another post which you manage to make yourself look stupid without any input from me.
I think you'll find that it was the very imput from you that caused that reaction. Shall we try your theory about surviving a headshot from a .22? ::) Volunteer?
-
I was listening to a song the other day which I think sums up this forum beautifully at times. I'm aiming this at myself but applies to many others on here, you need to listen to the words though.
A lack of Understanding - By the Vaccines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYLpDeSxBac
Strangely a song called Wetsuit is later on the album. :-\
Followed by "on yer bike" I suppose?
-
Here are the wto entry wounds which Peter Venezis was talking about, the lower one has a bruise around it indicating that the bullet which caused this did not kill her...
-
The number of shots fired in the twins' bedroom was far more than necessary to ensure death. They were both asleep (fortunately) and were shot in the head at point blank range. A single shot each would have been sufficient, two at most would have been used in an "execution style" killing. In my opinion the way in which the twins were shot can only be described as frenzied overkill.
Thanks Neil, thats exactly the point I was trying to make but you've put it much better than I could!
-
Here's a closure look at the bruising around the lower entry wound on her neck:-
-
Here's a closure look at the upper fatal wound minus any bruising:-
-
The pathologist stated that there was a delay between both of these wounds being inflicted, and that the former (lower wound) did not kill Sheila, but the latter (under chin) did...
He also testified to the effect that once the fatal shot had been fired it would have been possible for Sheila to walk around, although he said there was no evidence of vertical blood staining on her nightdress to back this up...
-
The second under the chin shot took place after Sheila was photographed on the bed with only one wound to her neck. The police surgeon, Dr Craig, and PI 'Bob@ Miller confirmed that Sheila only had one wound when they viewed her body at 8:44am, a fact confirmed by the contents of their respective witness statements...
What was that about the contents of witness statements being more reliable and powerful than crime scene photographs?
-
Mike, is it possible that its not bruising - could it be some of kind of gun shot residue or other mark from the gun? I'm just curious.
-
Yes,I have always thought that looks like "rim burn" around the lower wound.
-
It just doesn't look like a bruise to me :-\
-
That is how the pathologist described it when he testified during the 1986 trial...
"Bruising" around the lower entry wound...
-
From Choc - "Others have compellingly argued that those poor little boys were murdered with a frenzied arc of shots and in a manner which suggests overkill - the sort of overkill that parents who kill their children indulge in."
Frenzied and arc don't go together IMO.
It was either frenzied or arc.
In a frenzied attack I would expect shots all over the head and / or body.
The arc to me indicates a controlled act, and has been referred to months ago on the forum as a more execution style of shooting!
And the term "overkill" can apply to anyone wanting to make sure death was quick and final.
Quote from: ngb1066 on January 19, 2012, 06:02:PM
I disagree, for the reasons I posted months ago. The movement of the rifle barrel in an arc is the natural way in which it would tend to move in the hands of someone inexperienced firing shots in rapid succession.
The number of shots fired in the twins' bedroom was far more than necessary to ensure death. They were both asleep (fortunately) and were shot in the head at point blank range. A single shot each would have been sufficient, two at most would have been used in an "execution style" killing. In my opinion the way in which the twins were shot can only be described as frenzied overkill.
okay, but I think this is a moment when we can agree to disagree on this point as I believe neither of us are experts in execution style or frenzied killings - I hope!
But whilst making that last comment has "an expert" ever commented on this subject??
ngb (or anyone) do you have an answer to the point highlighted in red?
-
From Choc - "Others have compellingly argued that those poor little boys were murdered with a frenzied arc of shots and in a manner which suggests overkill - the sort of overkill that parents who kill their children indulge in."
Frenzied and arc don't go together IMO.
It was either frenzied or arc.
In a frenzied attack I would expect shots all over the head and / or body.
The arc to me indicates a controlled act, and has been referred to months ago on the forum as a more execution style of shooting!
And the term "overkill" can apply to anyone wanting to make sure death was quick and final.
Quote from: ngb1066 on January 19, 2012, 06:02:PM
I disagree, for the reasons I posted months ago. The movement of the rifle barrel in an arc is the natural way in which it would tend to move in the hands of someone inexperienced firing shots in rapid succession.
The number of shots fired in the twins' bedroom was far more than necessary to ensure death. They were both asleep (fortunately) and were shot in the head at point blank range. A single shot each would have been sufficient, two at most would have been used in an "execution style" killing. In my opinion the way in which the twins were shot can only be described as frenzied overkill.
ngb (or anyone) do you have an answer to the point highlighted in red?
No, I do not believe that an expert has ever commented on this.
-
Testimony of Professor KNIGHT:-
-
At one stage, Professor Knight conceded that there could have been up to half an hour between both shots being received...
He was unable to be specific because he did not know how much blood loss there had been from the initial would...