Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on March 20, 2012, 08:06:PM
-
The (Andrew Hunter) Book draft, that never got published from (2004) seven years ago...
-
Book Continuation:-
-
Continuation of Book manuscript:-
-
Book manuscript has been fully uploaded...
-
As extracts from the manuscript suggest, there appears to have been a monumental effort by Essex police to tamper and interfere with the batch of crime scene ammunition?
-
As extracts from the manuscript suggest, there appears to have been a monumental effort by Essex police to tamper and interfere with the batch of crime scene ammunition?
This tampering and interference, involved the full co-operation of the two main exhibit officer at the scene, (1) DC Hammersley, and (2) DS Davidson - by reference to police documentation it can be proven that they interfered with ammunition cases found at the scene, which were later substituted with replacement Ely cartrige cases with a view of presenting it as a one gun crime...
-
Mike - do you know why Andrew Hunter did not finish and publish the book?
-
Mike - do you know why Andrew Hunter did not finish and publish the book?
Yes...
I used to be in regular contact with Andrew, phone calls and emails, and I was invited to his Oxfordshire home on several occasions, we shared information about the case, and I told Andrew he could use any material in my possession for his book - I also obtained information from him, including the blanked out photograph of Ralph's body in the kitchen. It goes without saying that Andrew was/is a very influential person and that he once held an important position in Government circles. He always treated me withe the greatest respect despite his background and mine being so very different. I know or should I say I strongly suspected that Andrew had access to people who had inside information about what took place at whf, and I think he was intrigued as to how I had stumbled upon what so many had strove to hide and cover up...
He is a really nice gentleman, I stopped visiting him because Jeremy told me that Andrew had had a stroke, and he could do without being mithered by the likes of me...
Hope this helps...
-
Mike - do you know why Andrew Hunter did not finish and publish the book?
I suspect that these may be notes of a work in progress, NGB, that Andrew Hunter has not had time to finish. I have many files of notes relating to two books that I am supposedly working on - in respect of research topics that I've been studying for some years. Whether I shall ever find the time to finish these books remains to be seen.
-
Yes...
I used to be in regular contact with Andrew, phone calls and emails, and I was invited to his Oxfordshire home on several occasions, we shared information about the case, and I told Andrew he could use any material in my possession for his book - I also obtained information from him, including the blanked out photograph of Ralph's body in the kitchen. It goes without saying that Andrew was/is a very influential person and that he once held an important position in Government circles. He always treated me withe the greatest respect despite his background and mine being so very different. I know or should I say I strongly suspected that Andrew had access to people who had inside information about what took place at whf, and I think he was intrigued as to how I had stumbled upon what so many had strove to hide and cover up...
He is a really nice gentleman, I stopped visiting him because Jeremy told me that Andrew had had a stroke, and he could do without being mithered by the likes of me...
Hope this helps...
Thanks Mike for this. It is a pity Andrew did not manage to complete the book because he clearly has studied the evidence very carefully. I know he remains very supportive of Jeremy.
-
I noticed that he speaks of two silencers? One found in the gun cupboard by the relatives and one found in a draw at WHF later?
-
This would have made for a brilliant book.I have learnt things from this that I never knew and Andrew has done a great job of writing in a simplified manner making everything so easy to understand.
One thing that did intrigue me,is that Ralph was receiving strange phonecalls and had said to a business colleague who was present during one such phonecall that "he would have to keep an eye on those two" and that "they were trouble".RWB testified that Ralph was referring to Jeremy,when this so clearly was not the case at all.
Andrew also does a great job of unravelling the fabricated silencer evidence,and the culprits involved.Im so disgusted that these people have got away with it!
-
Thanks Mike for this. It is a pity Andrew did not manage to complete the book because he clearly has studied the evidence very carefully. I know he remains very supportive of Jeremy.
Andrew genuinely believed / believes that jeremy did not / has not killed anyone...
We had some good debates on the occasions I used to pop in to see Andrew for a cup of tea and biscuits, he was very interested in all the theories and explanations I had, he simplified everything I spoke to him about, and I think this comes across in his manuscript. IF andrew had not fallen ill, I feel sure he would have got his book published, he appeared to know things that jeremy and me had'nt got a clue about, I think he must have seen some of the pii material although if he did he never spoke about openly, or to me. I know Andrew had /has a series of crime scene images that I have not seen before, which left me thinking although he may have had access to these, he could not and did not refer or make mention to any of it...
Jeremy is lucky to have someone like Andrew supporting him...
-
On one occasion whilst I was visiting Andrew at his country house in Oxfordshire, we were talking about the firearms operation at the farmhouse, and I got the impression from the tone of Andrews voice and with what he was saying that he was or had been in touch and on speaking terms with one or more firearms officers involved during the seige and forced entry at whf at the material time? Either that, or he had seen reports written up outlining what had taken place (un edited version)? Albeit, he never actually said so, you could tell he knew much more than he was prepared to let on - at least that is the impression I was left with on the occasions I met up with him to talk over the case at his home...
-
Some of you who do not doubt that I have been and am in contact with an informant who was a member of the firearms team / unit on 7th August 1985, will have noted that he came on the scene once my contact with Andrew Hunter ended in 2004? You could all be forgiven for thinking or wondering if he contacted me once Andrew fell ill, and you might be wondering if he and Andrew know or knew each other?
The answer is an emphatic "No”...
-
Some of you who do not doubt that I have been and am in contact with an informant who was a member of the firearms team / unit on 7th August 1985, will have noted that he came on the scene once my contact with Andrew Hunter ended in 2004? You could all be forgiven for thinking or wondering if he contacted me once Andrew fell ill, and you might be wondering if he and Andrew know or knew each other?
The answer is an emphatic "No”...
On the other hand...
If Andrew had access to the original unedited reports / statements made by firearms officers who attended the scene in their various guises, he almost certainly would have read something bearing his name, so in this respect, Andrew might know of him...
-
he came on the scene once my contact with Andrew Hunter ended in 2004?
Mike, since when have you linked this period so far back, with the entrance of your informant? Not to my knowledge. The informant was said to have been active / a viewer of the forum for a number of months.
-
Mike, since when have you linked this period so far back, with the entrance of your informant? Not to my knowledge. The informant was said to have been active / a viewer of the forum for a number of months.
To be specific, 2008 (about four years later)...
-
To be specific, 2008 (about four years later)...
But Mike, why the delay, re bringing to you the copy of the alleged one shot photo?
-
Consider the contents of the following database (exhibits found, seized or taken by DS Davidson):-
-
But Mike, why the delay, re bringing to you the copy of the alleged one shot photo?
There was no delay, I saw the photograph of Sheila on the bed at Ewen Smiths office, at the beginning of 2004...
-
THIS BLOCK OF EXHIBITS IS OUT OF SEQUENCE...
13 exhibits, no less:-
-
None of the above mentioned 13 exhibits could have had these exhibit references, by the time they fell to be allocated to them...
In addition...
The following fingerprint exhibit references are out of sequence?references
-
There was no delay, I saw the photograph of Sheila on the bed at Ewen Smiths office, at the beginning of 2004...
Not the alleged single shot photo.
-
Not the alleged single shot photo.
Last year...
-
Last year...
My point exactly, why the delay?
-
My point exactly, why the delay?
Out of my control, I can't make anyone tell me something that they know about or have evidence of, until they want to tell me about it, or show me something? This a common feature where informants have contacted me, they never tell me or say everything at the point of first contact, it takes time for some people to build up enough confidence in you before they start to reveal what they want to say or show you...
-
What were the missing exhibits, omitted from the database?
-
Out of my control, I can't make anyone tell me something that they know about or have evidence of, until they want to tell me about it, of show me something? This a common feature where informants have contacted me, they never tell me or say everything at the point of first contact, it takes time for some people to build up enough confidence in you before they start to reveal what they want to say or show you...
That's the answer I expected. However three years is a long courtship Mike. Three more years of prison for Jeremy Bamber. And we still haven't got any closer to this alleged photo being exposed.
-
That's the answer I expected. However three years is a long courtship Mike. Three more years of prison for Jeremy Bamber. And we still haven't got any closer to this alleged photo being exposed.
Well, that is not my fault, in the same way it is not my fault that the two photographs taken by DS 'Stan' Jones at the scene on 7th August 1985, bearing the exhibit references of SBJ/2 and SBJ/3, were destroyed and form no part of either the unofficial photographic record, or the official one - Let me remind you what those photographs were taken of (1) the kitchen worktop and telephone, and (2) the downstairs toilet where Anthony Pargeter normally kept all his guns, ammunition and silencer...
These two crucial pictures have been destroyed and may never be produced, yet we know that they existed and we know that they were deliberately destroyed, as part of the cover up...
You, nor anybody else has to believe that a photograph which shows only one wound to Sheila's neck exists, and it will be difficult to prove to any of you doubters that such a photograph exists/existed? All I can tell you all, is that such a photograph exists, and i have seen it, and trust that you will accept what I am saying in the same way that I am saying and have been saying about the existence of Exhibits SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 - just because police have destroyed these exhibits does not mean that they did not exist...
-
I don't want to drag you off topic on this important thread but unless I have picked things up incorrectly, your original introduction scenario for the informant was related to him having read this forum, yet now he goes back to 2008. Like I say, I may have picked it up wrong?
-
I don't want to drag you off topic on this important thread but unless I have picked things up incorrectly, your original introduction scenario for the informant was related to him having read this forum, yet now he goes back to 2008. Like I say, I may have picked it up wrong?
yes, a misunderstanding, since I was first contacted in 2008, but informant did not start opening up until he read material on the original "Jeremy Bamber.com, site (of which I indirectly had some input), and this forum...
-
yes, a misunderstanding, since I was first contacted in 2008, but informant did not start opening up until he read material on the original "Jeremy Bamber.com, site (of which I indirectly had some input), and this forum...
I understand now. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
In Andrews manuscript he speaks of bullet cases and evidence relating to these being doctored and tampered with...
I am going to post two witness statements made in the name of DS Davidson (signed by him) which contained relevant information which was Tampered with as part of the cover up involving the wrong bullet cases being substituted with test fired Ely ones:-
-
Here is the second witness statement:-
-
All the exhibits appear to be out of sequence thereby casting a huge shadow of doubt over the integrity of such exhibits:-
-
Ask yourselves why did police destroy the photograph which DS Jones took of the phone in the kitchen (SBJ/2)?
-
Ask yourselves why did police destroy the photograph which DS Jones took of the phone in the kitchen (SBJ/2)?
You need to get rid of any references to exhibits seized, found or taken, which bear any mention of exhibit references, SBJ/2, 3, and 4, otherwise, it becomes more difficult to brainwash everybody into believing or accepting that the silencer (SBJ/1) found by DS `Stan' Jones, was the silencer found by David Boutflour (DRB/1)? Take out the other SBJ references, and it becomes much easier to carry off the silencer conspiracy, where two different silencers became merged into one...
-
You need to get rid of any references to exhibits seized, found or taken, which bear any mention of exhibit references, SBJ/2, 3, and 4, otherwise, it becomes more difficult to brainwash everybody into believing or accepting that the silencer (SBJ/1) found by DS `Stan' Jones, was the silencer found by David Boutflour (DRB/1)? Take out the other SBJ references, and it becomes much easier to carry off the silencer conspiracy, where two different silencers became merged into one...
Why don't we invite Miller to come on here? He seems to be experienced at re-jigging exhibit references. Maybe he has an opinion?
-
You need to get rid of any references to exhibits seized, found or taken, which bear any mention of exhibit references, SBJ/2, 3, and 4, otherwise, it becomes more difficult to brainwash everybody into believing or accepting that the silencer (SBJ/1) found by DS `Stan' Jones, was the silencer found by David Boutflour (DRB/1)? Take out the other SBJ references, and it becomes much easier to carry off the silencer conspiracy, where two different silencers became merged into one...
If you are DS 'Stan' Jones, and you have been ordered to eradicate references to the silencer he took possession of, not only is it necessary to destroy the exhibits linked to it, but you might have to start tampering with your pocketbook entries...
-
If you are DS 'Stan' Jones, and you have been ordered to eradicate references to the silencer he took possession of, not only is it necessary to destroyed the exhibits linked to it, but you might have to start tampering with your pocketbook entries...
Ainsley is under instruction from Simpson, SB Jones is under instruction from Ainsley? Is that how you see this as having played out? Is Simpson really as 'passive' as Shaw has suggested? He doesn't seem to be, if this is the set-up.
-
Does anyone know the height of the scratched mantle , and the height of the gun with silencer attached ?
-
Just finished reading this , a fascinating read , MT do you know , why he became interested ? Jack , do you know whether he as been interviewed for documentary ? Being an MP , will no doubt draw people's attention !!
-
Just finished reading this , a fascinating read , MT do you know , why he became interested ?
Yes, I believe that Jeremy wrote to him about his case...
-
Nick , have you read this , if so any comment's ?
-
Ainsley is under instruction from Simpson, SB Jones is under instruction from Ainsley? Is that how you see this as having played out? Is Simpson really as 'passive' as Shaw has suggested? He doesn't seem to be, if this is the set-up.
Simpson, Ainsley and Robert Boutflour - a nod, a wink, a song and a dance, fund raising and charity work, along with all sorts of funny handshakes, and what you have is a group of individuals accommodating the views of others in their circle (or is it a square)?
Justice Drake, who presided over the October 1986 trial, was also a Freemason from the same lodge, as the others...
-
Simpson, Ainsley and Robert Boutflour - a nod, a wink, a song and a dance, fund raising and charity work, along with all sorts of funny handshakes, and what you have is a group of individuals accommodating the views of others in their circle (or is it a square)?
Justice Drake, who presided over the October 1986 trial, was also a Freemason from the same lodge, as the others...
How many others were/ is there?
-
How many others were/ is there?
How many of the COLP investigating officers were also Freemasons?
-
How many of the COLP investigating officers were also Freemasons?
What of Mr Adams (CPS/DPP), was he also a freemason?
-
What of Mr Adams (CPS/DPP), was he also a freemason?
Bob Miller?
-
Bob Miller?
DCI 'George' Harris?
-
DCI 'George' Harris?
CCRC - Commissioners?
-
CCRC - Commissioners?
Mr Soanes - Special branch?
-
Mr Soanes - Special branch?
Police surgeon - Dr Craig?
-
Police surgeon - Dr Craig?
Pathologist - Peter Venezis?
-
Pathologist - Peter Venezis?
Ballistics expert - Malcolm Fletcher?
-
Ballistics expert - Malcolm Fletcher?
Blood expert - John Hayward?
-
How many of the firearms team who attended this incident were / are freemasons?
-
Are the freemasons above the law, and should we not have an enquiry into the possible links between this organisation and the investigation and outcome (thus far) in to these killings?
-
How many of the jury members were freemasons who may have had inside knowledge or information about the investigation from colleagues of theirs?
-
How many of the jury members were freemasons who may have had inside knowledge or information about the investigation from colleagues of theirs?
Was / is there a conspiracy?
-
This is what the court was told about the state of play when the matter fell to be considered, according to Andrew Hunter, MP, at Chelmsford Crown court, in October 1986:-
-
Was / is Jeremy Bamber guilty?
Me thinks not...
-
Nick , have you read this , if so any comment's ?
Hi jon, I have not read it all yet as it is quite lengthy.
What I have read is very intersting and as you put it fascinating.
There are many aspects to this case that support JB, but, as with David Shaw and Mike Tesko's numerous supportive post's there is not that nugget that makes this case a clear cut MOJ.
I will be watching (certainly recording) the documentary on 29 March, and waiting with baited breath the decision of the CCRC.
I have no problem accepting the CCRC's decision either way!
I may comment further on the AH works when I've finished reading it.
-
Hi jon, I have not read it all yet as it is quite lengthy.
What I have read is very intersting and as you put it fascinating.
There are many aspects to this case that support JB, but, as with David Shaw and Mike Tesko's numerous supportive post's there is not that nugget that makes this case a clear cut MOJ.
I will be watching (certainly recording) the documentary on 29 March, and waiting with baited breath the decision of the CCRC
I have no problem accepting the CCRC's decision either way!
I may comment further on the AH works when I've finished reading it.
Cheers !!
-
Nick , would you believe JB innocent , if it was shown , this was a two gun crime ?
-
Nick , would you believe JB innocent , if it was shown , this was a two gun crime ?
Jon, no.
This is based on my belief that for either JB (or Sheila) to have carried out the murders using one gun and loading twice has always been difficult point to fathom (more so imo for Sheila). Loading the magazine is fiddly and takes time - consider each bullet has to be picked up and individually inserted in to a narrow slot - this would, again imo, take some nerve.
If however a two gun position is considered, this imo would suit JB doing it (either alone or with someone).
If JB did it alone, having two guns handy with preloaded magazines would be more efficient.
If JB did it with someone else each using a gun - again more efficient.
I cannot see Sheila using two preloaded guns!
Jon, do you believe a two gun scenario would help prove JB innocent, and if so, could you please explain why?
-
Jon, no.
This is based on my belief that for either JB (or Sheila) to have carried out the murders using one gun and loading twice has always been difficult point to fathom (more so imo for Sheila). Loading the magazine is fiddly and takes time - consider each bullet has to be picked up and individually inserted in to a narrow slot - this would, again imo, take some nerve.
If however a two gun position is considered, this imo would suit JB doing it (either alone or with someone).
If JB did it alone, having two guns handy with preloaded magazines would be more efficient.
If JB did it with someone else each using a gun - again more efficient.
I cannot see Sheila using two preloaded guns!
Jon, do you believe a two gun scenario would help prove JB innocent, and if so, could you please explain why?
If there were two sized holes in the victim's , as claimed by Hunter , and there was never any proof provided by EP , that two gun's were used , it begs the question who fired the two gun's ? Now add all of this to all the difficulties JB as faced trying to get withheld evidence released , it tells me something happened that night after EP entered the farm !!
-
If there were two sized holes in the victim's , as claimed by Hunter , and there was never any proof provided by EP , that two gun's were used , it begs the question who fired the two gun's ? Now add all of this to all the difficulties JB as faced trying to get withheld evidence released , it tells me something happened that night after EP entered the farm !!
Fair point, and and if two guns were used a question that needs an answer - who will give it?
And why again, with such entry wound anomalies, did Rivlin not pick this up (as the entry wound sizes were I believe available to him at the time of trial).
I wonder if a hollow tip bullet could distort in fight, or on immediate impact, and make bigger entry wounds? - ngb!
Maybe some of the bullets used were faulty (e.g the fragmented bullet xrayed in Sheilas throat - and then made whole - definitely something wrong with that bullet :o )
-
Odd how only Ralph, and June Bamber, had the 1/2 inch diameter, bullet entry wounds?
-
Jon, no.
This is based on my belief that for either JB (or Sheila) to have carried out the murders using one gun and loading twice has always been difficult point to fathom (more so imo for Sheila). Loading the magazine is fiddly and takes time - consider each bullet has to be picked up and individually inserted in to a narrow slot - this would, again imo, take some nerve.
If however a two gun position is considered, this imo would suit JB doing it (either alone or with someone).
If JB did it alone, having two guns handy with preloaded magazines would be more efficient.
If JB did it with someone else each using a gun - again more efficient.
I cannot see Sheila using two preloaded guns!
Jon, do you believe a two gun scenario would help prove JB innocent, and if so, could you please explain why?
I look at it rather differently myself. If two guns were used it would go a long way towards showing that Sheila did it premeditatedly? In that it looks very much as if her bed was not slept in. Therefore she could have had a lot of time preparing what she would do and one of those things would be to have two loaded guns so that she would not have to hastily load one of them a second time. Of course the same rules could be applied to Jeremy?
But this would explain the lack of residue on her hands and the unbroken nails. Because it would give her the added time after she loaded the guns and planned her tactics to shower and put on her makeup and do her nails in order to look her best.
My father in law was in the Thames River Police for a while and had to deal with suicides. He would describe one woman who had drowned herself and being immaculately dressed with all her clothes spotlessly clean. So I for one can see where Sheila could have easily done it.
-
Odd how only Ralph, and June Bamber, had the 1/2 inch diameter, bullet entry wounds?
There were three bullet entry sized holes found upon the bodies of victims, (1) - 3/16ths, (2) - 1/4, and (3) - 1/2 inch in diameter
-
Which bodies were found in the kitchen by police upon entry?
-
The fact that the bodies of Ralph and June were / are the only ones which have 1/2 inch diameter wounds found upon them, could be evidence that it was June's body the police found downstairs, not Sheila's?
-
The fact that the bodies of Ralph and June were / are the only ones which have 1/2 inch diameter wounds found upon them, could be evidence that it was June's body the police found downstairs, not Sheila's?
But if true, why was /would June Bambers death be described as a suicide, by 7:45am?
-
But if true, why was /would June Bambers death be described as a suicide, by 7:45am?
Might this have also got something to do with the officers report about the shooting incident which took place in the kitchen?
-
Might this have also got something to do with the officers report about the shooting incident which took place in the kitchen?
What shooting incident in the kitchen, involving who, and when?
-
What happened to Ralph Bambers service revolver?
-
Odd how only Ralph, and June Bamber, had the 1/2 inch diameter, bullet entry wounds?
It would be interesting to know which entry wounds were the 1/2" wounds?
-
It would be interesting to know which entry wounds were the 1/2" wounds?
I have got that information somewhere, and will strive to locate it, and post it...
-
I look at it rather differently myself. If two guns were used it would go a long way towards showing that Sheila did it premeditatedly? In that it looks very much as if her bed was not slept in. Therefore she could have had a lot of time preparing what she would do and one of those things would be to have two loaded guns so that she would not have to hastily load one of them a second time. Of course the same rules could be applied to Jeremy?
But this would explain the lack of residue on her hands and the unbroken nails. Because it would give her the added time after she loaded the guns and planned her tactics to shower and put on her makeup and do her nails in order to look her best.
My father in law was in the Thames River Police for a while and had to deal with suicides. He would describe one woman who had drowned herself and being immaculately dressed with all her clothes spotlessly clean. So I for one can see where Sheila could have easily done it.
If Shelia had used two .22 rifles using .22 hollow tipped bullets, when it was 4 murders and a suicide, the two guns imo would have been recovered by EP at the time!
As for the altruistic washing problem.
If, again imo, Shelia had shot them all, washed herself, did her nails etc. before killing herself, she would also have put on a clean pair of knickers - and according to Mike she was not wearing any when found.
-
If Shelia had used two .22 rifles using .22 hollow tipped bullets, when it was 4 murders and a suicide, the two guns imo would have been recovered by EP at the time!
As for the altruistic washing probelm.
If, again imo, Shelia had shot them all, washed herself, did her nails etc. before killing herself, she would also have put on a clean pair of knickers - and according to Mike she was not wearing any when found.
I wasn't at the scene, and I did not personally witness this...
-
And why again, with such entry wound anomalies, did Rivlin not pick this up (as the entry wound sizes were I believe available to him at the time of trial).
I wonder if a hollow tip bullet could distort in fight, or on immediate impact, and make bigger entry wounds? - ngb!
The fact that there were different entry wound sizes was not explored by Rivlin. The defence retained Major Mead as their ballistics expert. He presumably did not attach any significance to the different sizes.
A hollowpoint bullet will not distort in flight but it will tend to expand upon impact. The extent of the expansion depends upon the nature of the impact point. My own view on this is that Andrew Hunter is wrong to suggest that a larger calibre weapon was used in addition to the Anschutz .22 rifle. The only larger calibre weapons were police weapons which included revolvers of .38 calibre and a Ruger carbine of .223 calibre. What Andrew Hunter has failed to realise is that it is not so much the calibre (i.e. the diameter of the bullet) which differentiate these weapons from the Anschutz rifle, it is the fact that the Anschutz was a rimfire weapon and all of the police weapons were centrefire weapons. The power of a centrefire weapon is considerably greater than that of a rimfire weapon and the injuries caused at close range would have been very considerably greater. I believe all the rounds fired were .22 rimfire.
-
I wasn't at the scene, and I did not personally witness this...
But this is what you have stated you have seen in the photo you have referred to on many occasions of Sheila on the bed?
-
The fact that there were different entry wound sizes was not explored by Rivlin. The defence retained Major Mead as their ballistics expert. He presumably did not attach any significance to the different sizes.
A hollowpoint bullet will not distort in flight but it will tend to expand upon impact. The extent of the expansion depends upon the nature of the impact point. My own view on this is that Andrew Hunter is wrong to suggest that a larger calibre weapon was used in addition to the Anschutz .22 rifle. The only larger calibre weapons were police weapons which included revolvers of .38 calibre and a Ruger carbine of .223 calibre. What Andrew Hunter has failed to realise is that it is not so much the calibre (i.e. the diameter of the bullet) which differentiate these weapons from the Anschutz rifle, it is the fact that the Anschutz was a centrefire weapon and all of the police weapons were centrefire weapons. The power of a centrefire weapon is considerably greater than that of a rimfire weapon and the injuries caused at close range would have been very considerably greater. I believe all the rounds fired were .22 rimfire.
So do I.
-
But this is what you have stated you have seen in the photo you have referred to on many occasions of Sheila on the bed?
Well...
I have stated that is what I have seen, and there is evidence that her heavily bloodstained panties were found in a bucket of water in the kitchen, but I was not at the scene, and I did not witness these things at the scene...
-
The fact that there were different entry wound sizes was not explored by Rivlin. The defence retained Major Mead as their ballistics expert. He presumably did not attach any significance to the different sizes.
A hollowpoint bullet will not distort in flight but it will tend to expand upon impact. The extent of the expansion depends upon the nature of the impact point. My own view on this is that Andrew Hunter is wrong to suggest that a larger calibre weapon was used in addition to the Anschutz .22 rifle. The only larger calibre weapons were police weapons which included revolvers of .38 calibre and a Ruger carbine of .223 calibre. What Andrew Hunter has failed to realise is that it is not so much the calibre (i.e. the diameter of the bullet) which differentiate these weapons from the Anschutz rifle, it is the fact that the Anschutz was a centrefire weapon and all of the police weapons were centrefire weapons. The power of a centrefire weapon is considerably greater than that of a rimfire weapon and the injuries caused at close range would have been very considerably greater. I believe all the rounds fired were .22 rimfire.
different sized entry wounds could also be accounted for different types of .22 ammunition, for example, some Purchased by Ralph Bamber, and some purchased by Anthony Pargeter at different times, but fired via two .22 weapons, namely, (1) - the Bamber owned .22 semi-automatic ri9fle,and (2) - the .22 bolt action Bruno rifle owned by Pargeter...
Types of .22 ammunition used was / could have been:-
(a) - Eley
(b) - Winchester
(c) - Remington
-
different sized entry wounds could also be accounted for different types of .22 ammunition, for example, some Purchased by Ralph Bamber, and some purchased by Anthony Pargeter at different times, but fired via two .22 weapons, namely, (1) - the Bamber owned .22 semi-automatic rifle,and (2) - the .22 bolt action Bruno rifle owned by Pargeter...
Types of .22 ammunition used was / could have been:-
(a) - Eley
(b) - Winchester
(c) - Remington
Would entry wounds made by all three types of ammunition make exactly the same sized diameter entry wounds?
-
Would entry wounds made by all three types of ammunition make exactly the same sized diameter entry wounds?
Me thinks, perhaps not...
-
Would entry wounds made by all three types of ammunition make exactly the same sized diameter entry wounds?
No, there would be differences. I believe some of the .22 ammunition was high velocity and jacketed, which means the bullet itself was encased in copper, unlike the Eley subsonic hollowpoint which was exposed lead. The differences could be quite pronounced.
-
Well...
I have stated that is what I have seen, and there is evidence that her heavily bloodstained panties were found in a bucket of water in the kitchen, but I was not at the scene, and I did not witness these things at the scene...
I have not stated you were at the scene, and I accept you were not at the scene; and you have agreed that you have stated that you have seen a picture of Sheila dead on the bed wearing no knickers.
Also to note not being at the scene certainly does not hold us back from commenting on the case - that's for sure!
Do you know Mike (or anyone) if there is any other (official) reference to Sheila not wearing any knickers when found - or do we only have your (Mikes) reference to this?
My point here, as referred to earlier, is that in order to support altruistic suicide it would make more sense to me if Sheila was wearing clean knickers if she killed herself!
-
Which bodies were found in the kitchen by police upon entry?
Mike, the boy'es bdroom was next to June and Ralph's bedroom. If Sheila decided to kill herself and therefore to take her boys with her as many mothers/fathers do when the 'balance of their minds is disturbed' or June for similar reason. Although the sound would only be like a handclap surely people who were used to guns would recognise the sound, especially from the otherside of a bedroom wall Maybe Sheila did not plan to kill anyone but herself and her boys but was discovered before she killed herself which then set off a series of events, with one gun or two or whatever.
-
Mike, the boy'es bdroom was next to June and Ralph's bedroom. If Sheila decided to kill herself and therefore to take her boys with her as many mothers/fathers do when the 'balance of their minds is disturbed' or June for similar reason. Although the sound would only be like a handclap surely people who were used to guns would recognise the sound, especially from the otherside of a bedroom wall Maybe Sheila did not plan to kill anyone but herself and her boys but was discovered before she killed herself which then set off a series of events, with one gun or two or whatever.
Maggie that is a very interesting suggestion.
-
If Shelia had used two .22 rifles using .22 hollow tipped bullets, when it was 4 murders and a suicide, the two guns imo would have been recovered by EP at the time!
As for the altruistic washing problem.
If, again imo, Shelia had shot them all, washed herself, did her nails etc. before killing herself, she would also have put on a clean pair of knickers - and according to Mike she was not wearing any when found.
No no. I meant that she would have loaded the guns and prepared things BEFORE she washed and then washed and manicured her nails then committed the crime. Quite feasible.
-
[quote ="Nick"]....she would also have put on a clean pair of knickers - and according to Mike she was not wearing any when found.
[/quote]There would be the same question if all this had not happened. There will still be questions regarding why she was not wearing underwhere anyway, especially as she was during her monthly?
-
No no. I meant that she would have loaded the guns and prepared things BEFORE she washed and then washed and manicured her nails then committed the crime. Quite feasible.
I am interested in the possibilty of the two Pargetter magazines being used. Although these were used with the Brno bolt action rifle I believe they would also fit the Anschutz rifle. If all three magazines were used a total of 25 rounds would have been available, with a possible additional round in the breach.
-
I am interested in the possibilty of the two Pargetter magazines being used. Although these were used with the Brno bolt action rifle I believe they would also fit the Anschutz rifle. If all three magazines were used a total of 25 rounds would have been available, with a possible additional round in the breach.
Pargitter said he had taken his gun away from the farm that weekend which was strange because he always left it there and using his magazines would, I presume, make it much easier yo load and fire the rifle?
There is something about the Pargitter rifle which does not ring true.
-
I think it may have been Nick who stated earlier that if it was a two gun crime then EP would have taken two guns away from the scene.Neil Davidson in his COLP interview as good as tells us that there was a second weapon that they were interested in.He stated that a weapon was found with red paint upon its BARREL and this is why samples were taken of paint from the mantle.
What I would like to know is what the secrecy regarding the downstairs loo is all about?There seemed to much interest taken in that room.What did EP find there that they have never disclosed?
-
We know that EP took away more than one gun from the crime scene, they took at least two, possibly three at the beginning of the investigation, and a shotgun later on...
-
Five of the bullet cases had double magazine markings on them, which suggested to the ballistics expert, that these five bullets had been loaded once into the magazine of a gun, removed and reloaded again? It was not possible to say if these five bullets had been placed into the same ammunition magazine or a different one before being removed and fired via the Bamber owned Anshulz rifle?
Could these five bullets have been loaded into the magazine of the second weapon, and for some reason or another taken out and reloaded into the magazine of the Bamber gun and subsequently fired?
-
As I have previously pointed out, the shape and position of the arms and hands of both June Bamber and Sheila Caffell, suggest that they both had possession of a gun shortly before they both died...
-
I have not stated you were at the scene, and I accept you were not at the scene; and you have agreed that you have stated that you have seen a picture of Sheila dead on the bed wearing no knickers.
Also to note not being at the scene certainly does not hold us back from commenting on the case - that's for sure!
Do you know Mike (or anyone) if there is any other (official) reference to Sheila not wearing any knickers when found - or do we only have your (Mikes) reference to this?
My point here, as referred to earlier, is that in order to support altruistic suicide it would make more sense to me if Sheila was wearing clean knickers if she killed herself!
As Shocking as it appeared to see the photograph of Sheila on the bed, when I visited Ewen smiths office in Birmingham at the beginning of 2004, it was even more disturbing to note that she was not wearing panties. If she had been wearing panties at the time of her death, or even when she was found by police once they got into the farmhouse, why would anyone want to take off or remove panties from the body of a good looking dead woman? If police removed them, why? What did the police need to do that for? What happened to any clean panties she might have had on, and if they were removed by police, what exhibit reference were given to this elusive pair of clean panties? I personally do not think she put on a clean pair of panties once she had taken off her other heavily sanitised pair in the kitchen. Linked to the discovery of Sheila`s heavily bloodstained panties having been found soaking in a bucket of water in the kitchen, was the discovery of an empty tampon holder in one of the other downstairs rooms, and a box of 9 tampons upstairs in her bedroom? Sheila appears to have opened a full box of tampons upstairs in her bedroom, removed a tampon from the box and gone downstairs to put her bloodstained panties into soak in a bucket in the kitchen. The exact sequence of what she did and when she did these things can only be speculated on, but at some stage one assumes that she paid a visit to the downstairs toilet with a view to cleaning herself up, and that she went into the solitude of the lounge during the middle of the night and inserted a tampon. I do not profess to know when she undertook these activities, but it seems to me that if she was the shooter, and she intended to kill herself, then there must have been very time elapsed between her performing these activities, and her dying, and this would help to explain why she was wearing no panties when police found her body. Her possible use of the downstairs toilet during the middle of the night to clean herself up, would also of course put her in the very same room where Anthony Pargeter kept his .22 bolt action rifle, silencer and ammunitions. This of course could help to explain how two different weapons, and a variety of different .22 ammunition could have been and possibly was used in the shootings...
-
Photograph published in National Newspaper showing fresh looking blood pouring, leaking and running from wounds on Sheila's neck (photograph not taken until after 10am, that morning:-
-
If this photograph was not taken until after 10am, and if the new pathologists report is accurate in stating that Sheila could not have been shot and killed any longer or sooner than two hours before the taking of the said photograph, then of course Jeremy could not possibly have been responsible for shooting his sister and killing her, nor could he be responsible for stage managing her death in the bedroom, as a suicide..
It's as simple as that...
-
If this photograph was not taken until after 10am, and if the new pathologists report is accurate in stating that Sheila could not have been shot and killed any longer or sooner than two hours before the taking of the said photograph, then of course Jeremy could not possibly have been responsible for shooting his sister and killing her, nor could he be responsible for stage managing her death in the bedroom, as a suicide..
It's as simple as that...
Police or prosecution have not yet explained how blood could be running so freely from the wounds on Sheila's neck at such a late stage in proceedings, and how this could mean anything other than Jeremy is innocent and that he did not shoot his sister dead in the bedroom...
-
Bullet weight information could be vital clue to identifying the type of .22 ammunition used in the shootings - this could indicate that ammunition from different manufacturers was used in the shootings, and that not all of the 25 bullets originated from the same batch of Ely ammunition found on the kitchen worktop?
-
Size of bullet entry wounds:-
-
Size of bullet entry wounds:-
Actually...
Some of the bullet entry wounds were 3/16ths in diameter, whilst others were 1/4 inch in diameter, and five others were 1/2 inch in diameter...
-
According to the official explanation relied upon at the time of trial (October 1986) relating to the whereabouts each body was found, was as follows:-
-
Actually...
Some of the bullet entry wounds were 3/16ths in diameter, whilst others were 1/4 inch in diameter, and five others were 1/2 inch in diameter...
The very slight differences between the 3/16th and 1/4 inch diameter entry wounds could be explained because of the area of the body where the victim was shot and the elastic properties of human skin in those places...
But, not the five 1/2 inch diameter entry wound sites...
-
Recovery of spent bullet cases found in different locations around farmhouse:-
-
Recovery of spent bullet cases found in different locations around farmhouse:-
Bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, fall under suspicion, as PI Miller instructs DC Hammersley to make alterations in his statement regarding therse four bullet cases...
-
Bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, fall under suspicion, as PI Miller instructs DC Hammersley to make alterations in his statement regarding therse four bullet cases...
If police tampered with the whereabouts of these four bullet cases to build up a false picture where shots could have been fired during the incident, to be pondered is the real/true whereabouts of these four bullet cases?
Finding out and establishing the true whereabouts of where these four bullet cases (DRH/1, 2, 3 and 4) were found is therefore crucial in helping to reconstruct what actually took place?
-
If police tampered with the whereabouts of these four bullet cases to build up a false picture where shots could have been fired during the incident, to be pondered is the real/true whereabouts of these four bullet cases?
Finding out and establishing the true whereabouts of where these four bullet cases (DRH/1, 2, 3 and 4) were found is therefore crucial in helping to reconstruct what actually took place?
Take these four bullet cases out of the equation from in or around the main bedroom, then the 13 bullet cases attributed to the kitchen alters to 9...
-
Take these four bullet cases out of the equation from in or around the main bedroom, then the 13 bullet cases attributed to the kitchen alters to 9...
These 9 bullet cases, turn into 8 actually because one of them was found on the landing at the top of the stairs near to the bedroom door and could have been a shot fired at Ralph when he was hurrying up or downstairs?
-
These 9 bullet cases, turn into 8 actually because one of them was found on the landing at the top of the stairs near to the bedroom door and could have been a shot fired at Ralph when he was hurrying up or downstairs?
8 shots fired in the bedroom, seven of these relate to bullets that wounded and killed June Bamber - leaving one to kill off Sheila with fatal shot under the chin...
-
8 shots fired in the bedroom, seven of these relate to bullets that wounded and killed June Bamber - leaving one to kill off Sheila with fatal shot under the chin...
Lets take a different approach, lets say that the 9 bullet cases found in the vicinity of the main bedroom, involved or related to the seven bullets that wounded and killed June, and the two bullets which wounded and killed Sheila - this does not leave any room for Ralph to be shot at all inside the main bedroom, unless of course you then introduce the four bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4...
-
Lets take a different approach, lets say that the 9 bullet cases found in the vicinity of the main bedroom, involved or related to the seven bullets that wounded and killed June, and the two bullets which wounded and killed Sheila - this does not leave any room for Ralph to be shot at all inside the main bedroom, unless of course you then introduce the four bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4...
Once you introduce these four rogue bullet cases into the equation it allows the police to argue that Ralph must have been shot four times non fatally upstairs in the bedroom, June shot seven times there, and Sheila twice? This is very interesting since if Sheila was only shot once upstairs in the bedroom, not twice, it would mean that Ralph was shot five times upstairs in the bedroom and therefore according to what the Pathologist Peter Venezis said, he should have died in the bedroom and not made it down to the kitchen..
-
Once you introduce these four rogue bullet cases into the equation it allows the police to argue that Ralph must have been shot four times non fatally upstairs in the bedroom, June shot seven times there, and Sheila twice? This is very interesting since if Sheila was only shot once upstairs in the bedroom, not twice, it would mean that Ralph was shot five times upstairs in the bedroom and therefore according to what the Pathologist Peter Venezis said, he should have died in the bedroom and not made it down to the kitchen..
Now...
To try and get around this problem, police introduce a 26 shot theory, but they only recover 25 bullet cases?
-
Now...
To try and get around this problem, police introduce a 26 shot theory, but they only recover 25 bullet cases?
So...
Either, a bullet case is missing altogether, or has not been disclosed and is being withheld under pii, or the .22 air rifle was used to inflict one of the wounds, to one of the victims...
-
So...
Either, a bullet case is missing altogether, or has not been disclosed and is being withheld under pii, or the .22 air rifle was used to inflict one of the wounds, to one of the victims...
Does this missing bullet case have anything to do with the officers report dealing with the shooting incident which took place downstairs in the kitchen?
-
Does this missing bullet case have anything to do with the officers report dealing with the shooting incident which took place downstairs in the kitchen?
Why has the content of this officers report being withheld under pii?
-
Why has the content of this officers report being withheld under pii?
What is it that Essex police do not want Jeremy or those representing his interests to know about surrounding this shooting incident in the kitchen - what shooting incident?
Did this shooting incident involve use of the .22 air rifle, or the shotgun?
-
Next...
Linked to the distribution of these bullet cases, is the rather strange account of exit wounds suffered by a number of the victims, as follows:-
-
According to this information there should have been six loose crime scene bullets found or recovered at the scene, but in fact there was only five...
-
According to this information there should have been six loose crime scene bullets found or recovered at the scene, but in fact there was only five...
Four of these loose bullets were found or recovered from the scene, inside the main bedroom, the other one was found inside the bedroom where the children were shot...
-
All five loose bullets found or recovered from the scene, were found inside the main bedroom...
What is interesting about the find of these five loose bullets, is that June had three exit wounds and Ralph and only one, so where did the other loose bullet come from? Linked to this, is the fact that the children each had an exit wound, and yet only one loose bullet was found in that bedroom?
-
by my reckoning the shot to June's left breast...with entry and exit wound does not appear in your calculations mike...
the bullet from that is very likely one of the five you list....so you have 2 missing bullets and not 1 .
The 4 bullets in the bedroom tie up with the 4 exit wounds in regards to June.
So effectively we have 1 missing bullet in regards to the childrens room..and 1 missing bullet from the main kitchen where Ralph was shot.
-
by my reckoning the shot to June's left breast...with entry and exit wound does not appear in your calculations mike...
the bullet from that is very likely one of the five you list....so you have 2 missing bullets and not 1 .
The 4 bullets in the bedroom tie up with the 4 exit wounds in regards to June.
So effectively we have 1 missing bullet in regards to the childrens room..and 1 missing bullet from the main kitchen where Ralph was shot.
You will note that I start off making reference to Andrews account of the events as mentioned in his book draft - I am prepared to accept that there were /are two missing bullets. In fact at one stage police were talking about this being a 27 shot crime. This being so, two bullet cases are missing, or two of the shots were made by the .22 air rifle...
-
I think these discrepancies can be linked to the officers report about the shooting incident in the kitchen and the reason why its contents have /are being withheld under pii...
-
Quote from: Nick on March 23, 2012, 12:59:PM
It would be interesting to know which entry wounds were the 1/2" wounds?
I have got that information somewhere, and will strive to locate it, and post it...
Mike, are you able to let me (us) know, using the diagrams previously supplied, which number entry wounds were the 1/2 wounds?
This is not meant to be sarcastic, but I would have thought that a person of your experience (based on your numerous posts on the wound size subject, and the theories you have attributed to this issue) would know from memory which entry wounds were the 1/2 inch ones!
-
A good point for people new to the forum , to start reading !!
-
A good point for people new to the forum , to start reading !!
Thanks for the tip jon . I hadn't seen that prior to your pointing me in that direction .
Andrew Hunter has clearly studied the evidence and had access to much and he leaves no doubt that the conviction is unsafe . Particularly his dissection of the ballistics evidence and the police lies and fabrications around this is compelling .
Even to those who aren't new to the case this is fascinating stuff , and enlightening too , so I thought it deserved bumping to the top again and hope someone else takes the bait :)
-
Thanks for the tip jon . I hadn't seen that prior to your pointing me in that direction .
Andrew Hunter has clearly studied the evidence and had access to much and he leaves no doubt that the conviction is unsafe . Particularly his dissection of the ballistics evidence and the police lies and fabrications around this is compelling .
Even to those who aren't new to the case this is fascinating stuff , and enlightening too , so I thought it deserved bumping to the top again and hope someone else takes the bait :)
I also found Andrew Hunter compelling reading on the ballistics evidence. He left me in no doubt that the ballistics is bogus. The only conclusions I drew from it were:
A) Something went wrong with the raid which may have even resulted in weapons discharge
and/or
B) Bamber was framed
In respect of (B). I can think of no possible explanation for tampering with ballistics evidence, if Bamber is/was guilty.
-
yes very interesting - and detailed. Too much to take in all at once.
-
I also found Andrew Hunter compelling reading on the ballistics evidence. He left me in no doubt that the ballistics is bogus. The only conclusions I drew from it were:
A) Something went wrong with the raid which may have even resulted in weapons discharge
and/or
B) Bamber was framed
In respect of (B). I can think of no possible explanation for tampering with ballistics evidence, if Bamber is/was guilty.
Or even both A and B in your above, either or scenario, Roch . The evidence points in those directions . There is much evidence well documented by the author of both . Possibly the framing had to take place to cover up whatever it was that went wrong with the raid .
Do you know when the full book is being published ? There are a number of recent press articles about it but all refer to upcoming or soon to be published . Is this what people , who may have an interest in some things remaining hidden , are suddenly worried about ?
When this is published I can see the shit hitting the fan ???
-
yes very interesting - and detailed. Too much to take in all at once.
There is much to take in jansus but it is worth the effort . Truly eye opening :)
-
trouble is I am getting drawn into it all - and then I cant sleep. But that is nothing compared to what Jeremy is going through.
-
ok a couple of questions.
If the police moved the body and the wounds in Sheilas neck were disturbed - could that explain the fresh blood in the photos and counter the argument about the photos being proof of Jeremys innocence?
The reports of possible other sightings of a man possibly leaving the farmhouse- could put the idea in peoples mind that Jeremy had paid someone to do the murders.
How on earth did the fact that initially only one wound was seen in Sheilas neck ever get missed / hidden.
I am coming to the conclusion that if Jeremy gets released on the fact that the verdict was "unsafe" his life outside would still be hell. The campaign need Julie to admit she lied or some of the first police on the scene to admit what happened - and even if they were offered immunity I cant see that happening. :(
Proof is needed that Jeremy is totally innocent - not just a victim of the way the case was handled. And that info is out there somewhere. But will it ever come to light.
-
ok a couple of questions.
If the police moved the body and the wounds in Sheilas neck were disturbed - could that explain the fresh blood in the photos and counter the argument about the photos being proof of Jeremys innocence?
The reports of possible other sightings of a man possibly leaving the farmhouse- could put the idea in peoples mind that Jeremy had paid someone to do the murders.
How on earth did the fact that initially only one wound was seen in Sheilas neck ever get missed / hidden.
I am coming to the conclusion that if Jeremy gets released on the fact that the verdict was "unsafe" his life outside would still be hell. The campaign need Julie to admit she lied or some of the first police on the scene to admit what happened - and even if they were offered immunity I cant see that happening. :(
Proof is needed that Jeremy is totally innocent - not just a victim of the way the case was handled. And that info is out there somewhere. But will it ever come to light.
the questions about the fresh blood and the two wounds are dealt with in fine detail in Andrew Hunters book and there is little doubt that the scene was staged by EP to cover up their earlier bungling which includes the discharge of police firearms and the later fixing of the ballistics reports to cover up this fact .
It is not just that there are so many unanswered questions but the police refusal to help answer them that is troubling . Their obstruction in these matters leads you to the conclusion that they have much to hide which would prove fatal to the prosecution case .
When the truth finally emerges there are many witnesses and police officers who will have to face serious criminal charges . This is probably a reason why so much more effort is spent by certain people on obstructing attempts to disclose evidence rather than facilitating the exposure of all of the evidence .
-
It's one of the best documents available to read. None of the main faces among the guilters ever comment on it. They don't care to go there.
-
It's one of the best documents available to read. None of the main faces among the guilters ever comment on it. They don't care to go there.
If we're talking about the Andrew Hunter book draft I have commented on it many times. His method is flawed because he doesn't follow through on much which reminds me of Scott Lomax. To name but a few instances: the silencer mark on Sheila is spotted but not explained,there is no mention of Jeremy having admitted to gaining entry to the White House by means of the bathroom window on several occasions,no mention of the James Richards or Charles Marsden evidence,not to mention the latest from Barbara..
-
If we're talking about the Andrew Hunter book draft I have commented on it many times. His method is flawed because he doesn't follow through on much which reminds me of Scott Lomax. To name but a few instances: the silencer mark on Sheila is spotted but not explained,there is no mention of Jeremy having admitted to gaining entry to the White House by means of the bathroom window on several occasions,no mention of the James Richards or Charles Marsden evidence,not to mention the latest from Barbara..
The so called "documentary" last night was far behind I'm afraid. Because of the comment that Sheila's feet were "spotlessly" clean. The recent picture of one of her feet proves that they weren't.
-
If we're talking about the Andrew Hunter book draft I have commented on it many times. His method is flawed because he doesn't follow through on much which reminds me of Scott Lomax. To name but a few instances: the silencer mark on Sheila is spotted but not explained,there is no mention of Jeremy having admitted to gaining entry to the White House by means of the bathroom window on several occasions,no mention of the James Richards or Charles Marsden evidence,not to mention the latest from Barbara..
theres probebly no mention of him admiting it becouse he never admited it.
-
If we're talking about the Andrew Hunter book draft I have commented on it many times. His method is flawed because he doesn't follow through on much which reminds me of Scott Lomax. To name but a few instances: the silencer mark on Sheila is spotted but not explained,there is no mention of Jeremy having admitted to gaining entry to the White House by means of the bathroom window on several occasions,no mention of the James Richards or Charles Marsden evidence,not to mention the latest from Barbara..
Hi Steve as the Andrew Hunter draft stands it is just that, a draft. I would expect it to be edited and it will follow through on what is necessary before it is published as a finished book.
-
If we're talking about the Andrew Hunter book draft I have commented on it many times. His method is flawed because he doesn't follow through on much which reminds me of Scott Lomax. To name but a few instances: the silencer mark on Sheila is spotted but not explained,there is no mention of Jeremy having admitted to gaining entry to the White House by means of the bathroom window on several occasions,no mention of the James Richards or Charles Marsden evidence,not to mention the latest from Barbara..
Steve you deal with trivial issues and fail to address the more substantive problems .
How , for instance , do you explain the "difficulties" with the ballistics evidence . There is clear evidence of fabrication and outright lies in the manipulation of this evidence(out of sequence exhibit references for bullets , as an example , which along with the logs of when evidence was gathered clearly and demonstrably show that the official version cannot possibly be true and that manipulation has taken place to cover up the truth ) .
Anyone who reads this cannot escape the conclusion that the police substituted bullets to make it a "one gun crime" . The trail of evidence is expertly laid out in the Hunter manuscript which leaves no doubt to anyone reasonable that the ballistics evidence is false .
When this book is published and becomes public I think the guilters game is up .
-
What about the small matter of perverting the course of justice ?
-
theres probebly no mention of him admiting it becouse he never admited it.
I had something in my mind beyond the occasion of him returning via a window for the passport:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=801.0
Of course the above is suspicious in itself. But I was referring to the interrogation in September 1985(it's either 9,10 or 11 but there's no date on it). Jeremy is asked about the windows:
Q. When Julie and you have gone to the house have you got into the house other than through doors?
A. I can't remember doing so with Julie.
Q. Did you know a way of getting in and out of the house other than by the door?
A. There are many ways to get into the house,ie.windows..
Q. What do you mean..insecure windows?
A. Insecure windows,secure windows..it makes no difference.
Q. Would Julie know about these windows?
A. Don't know.
Q. Would she know how to get into the house without a key?
A. I would think so.
Q. Why do you say that?
A. I would imagine she could get into any house without a key.
Q. How would she get into the house without a key?
A. You must ask her.
Q. Why do you refuse to answer that question?
A. If you ask me how I would get into a house without a key I would explain..a car or padlocks.
With sash windows you can flick the catch with any thin metal object and open the window but you can't close them from the outside.
Q. Has Julie ever got into the White House via a window?
A. I really don't know,but if you remind me of the situation I might be able to explain,but I don't remember..
Q. Do you know a way in and out of the White House which anyone wouldn't discover?
A. No
Q. Are you sure about that?
A. Yes. I know ways in and one can always climb out of the pane window but you can't close catches or lock bolts or turn keys.
Q. Only you see Julie states that there was a window in the house with a catch on it,you can open the window and close it,bang on the frame from the outside and the catch will close giving the appearance that the window is secure and is in fact secure. Furthermore she states that you told her of such a window. Did you tell her?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Surely the answer should be no, shoudn't it? Because you have just said you don't know of such a window in the White House.
A. I don't think so is another way of saying no.
To my mind it's all rather ambiguous. Jeremy is wondering how much Julie has told the Police and is floundering around,wondering whether even at this stage he can tie Julie in as an accessory. But when he thinks back to DCI Taff Jones' lame questioning effort he decides to go ahead and bluff it out,with consequences we well know.
-
What about the small matter of perverting the course of justice ?
Possibly shortly to become a rather larger matter ?
-
I had something in my mind beyond the occasion of him returning via a window for the passport:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=801.0
Of course the above is suspicious in itself. But I was referring to the interrogation in September 1985(it's either 9,10 or 11 but there's no date on it). Jeremy is asked about the windows:
Q. When Julie and you have gone to the house have you got into the house other than through doors?
A. I can't remember doing so with Julie.
Q. Did you know a way of getting in and out of the house other than by the door?
A. There are many ways to get into the house,ie.windows..
Q. What do you mean..insecure windows?
A. Insecure windows,secure windows..it makes no difference.
Q. Would Julie know about these windows?
A. Don't know.
Q. Would she know how to get into the house without a key?
A. I would think so.
Q. Why do you say that?
A. I would imagine she could get into any house without a key.
Q. How would she get into the house without a key?
A. You must ask her.
Q. Why do you refuse to answer that question?
A. If you ask me how I would get into a house without a key I would explain..a car or padlocks.
With sash windows you can flick the catch with any thin metal object and open the window but you can't close them from the outside.
Q. Has Julie ever got into the White House via a window?
A. I really don't know,but if you remind me of the situation I might be able to explain,but I don't remember..
Q. Do you know a way in and out of the White House which anyone wouldn't discover?
A. No
Q. Are you sure about that?
A. Yes. I know ways in and one can always climb out of the pane window but you can't close catches or lock bolts or turn keys.
Q. Only you see Julie states that there was a window in the house with a catch on it,you can open the window and close it,bang on the frame from the outside and the catch will close giving the appearance that the window is secure and is in fact secure. Furthermore she states that you told her of such a window. Did you tell her?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Surely the answer should be no, shoudn't it? Because you have just said you don't know of such a window in the White House.
A. I don't think so is another way of saying no.
To my mind it's all rather ambiguous. Jeremy is wondering how much Julie has told the Police and is floundering around,wondering whether even at this stage he can tie Julie in as an accessory. But when he thinks back to DCI Taff Jones' lame questioning effort he decides to go ahead and bluff it out,with consequences we well know.
What in that exchange suggests your conclusion Steve .
It seems to me that you look only for signs of guilt and ignore anything contrary to that opinion .
For instance where Jeremy answers "I don't think so " and then says that this" is another way of saying no " when asked again , I don't see this as evasive .
The questioning was so witless that it would be understandable to answer "I don't think so" in a tone showing contempt for the stupid questions .
Why ask Jeremy how Julie would do something ?
And ambiguity is surely a legitimate response to ambiguous questions .
It can be read anyway you like and is not really suggestive of anything . You cannot really be advancing this as a serious argument towards JB's guilt .
-
Has anyone on this forum ever tried reloading a .22 10 round magazine in a hurry?
Slippery little b*****ds are .22 rounds, covered in lead powder and grease..........
First you have to eject the magazine, then you have to open the box of bullets, and feed them in one by one....Slow or what........if anyone thinks they can do it quickly, they had better report to Hereford.
Then you have to refit the magazine, and draw back the breech bolt to insert the first round into the breech and cock the gun........
25 / 26 shots fired............OK..............so who loaded the magazine two or three times?
Was it a silly psychotic girl or someone that didn't have any evidence of lead powder on them at all? (or any spare magazines)
Jack
PS.......A .22 round is anything between .21 and .25...........
-
What in that exchange suggests your conclusion Steve .
It seems to me that you look only for signs of guilt and ignore anything contrary to that opinion .
For instance where Jeremy answers "I don't think so " and then says that this" is another way of saying no " when asked again , I don't see this as evasive .
The questioning was so witless that it would be understandable to answer "I don't think so" in a tone showing contempt for the stupid questions .
Why ask Jeremy how Julie would do something ?
And ambiguity is surely a legitimate response to ambiguous questions .
It can be read anyway you like and is not really suggestive of anything . You cannot really be advancing this as a serious argument towards JB's guilt .
Personally I cannot see anything in that questioning that suggests Jeremy's guilt. Also if indeed the window was "secure" when shut I can't see that it could be "insecure". The question still remains, how did Jeremy get in if he were the murderer. The prosecution never ever did prove that Jeremy got into the house via the window. To my mind it was not enough for the court to believe that he "could" get in via one of the many windows. That to my mind is a silly assumption and should never have been entered into the court records.
-
the court records are full of sily assumptions wich there are no evidence for.
-
Has anyone on this forum ever tried reloading a .22 10 round magazine in a hurry?
Slippery little b*****ds are .22 rounds, covered in lead powder and grease..........
First you have to eject the magazine, then you have to open the box of bullets, and feed them in one by one....Slow or what........if anyone thinks they can do it quickly, they had better report to Hereford.
Then you have to refit the magazine, and draw back the breech bolt to insert the first round into the breech and cock the gun........
25 / 26 shots fired............OK..............so who loaded the magazine two or three times?
Was it a silly psychotic girl or someone that didn't have any evidence of lead powder on them at all? (or any spare magazines)
Jack
Sheila didn't have to fill up the magazine. She could have loaded the rifle one by one. It has never been demonstrated that anyone reloaded the magazine to full capacity. Neither did she have to fight Ralph. One bullet could have incapacitated him if hit in the right place. In fact the gun didn't have to be reloaded very quickly at all.
-
What in that exchange suggests your conclusion Steve .
It seems to me that you look only for signs of guilt and ignore anything contrary to that opinion .
For instance where Jeremy answers "I don't think so " and then says that this" is another way of saying no " when asked again , I don't see this as evasive .
The questioning was so witless that it would be understandable to answer "I don't think so" in a tone showing contempt for the stupid questions .
Why ask Jeremy how Julie would do something ?
And ambiguity is surely a legitimate response to ambiguous questions .
It can be read anyway you like and is not really suggestive of anything . You cannot really be advancing this as a serious argument towards JB's guilt .
The secure windows insecure windows remark rings alarm bells. Of course he's not going to admit that a window could be banged back into position,but he had entered and exited by just such a means at least once since the murders.
-
The secure windows insecure windows remark rings alarm bells. Of course he's not going to admit that a window could be banged back into position,but he had entered and exited by just such a means at least once since the murders.
I don't believe he banged the window back and locked it steve that was never proven. He did use the window to enter after the murders but the reason why is debateable.
-
the only person who would be the killer.
which means Steve must of done it.
-
If we're talking about the Andrew Hunter book draft I have commented on it many times. His method is flawed because he doesn't follow through on much which reminds me of Scott Lomax. To name but a few instances: the silencer mark on Sheila is spotted but not explained,there is no mention of Jeremy having admitted to gaining entry to the White House by means of the bathroom window on several occasions,no mention of the James Richards or Charles Marsden evidence,not to mention the latest from Barbara..
The silencer mark is explained and possible explanations for this are self evident if you have read the full draft .
There is clear evidence that Pargeters' gun with silencer fitted was also present at the farmhouse and much to suggest it was used in the killings .
The silencer mark was on the non fatal wound . The prosecution evidence says that the only opportunity for Sheila's blood to enter the silencer was from a contact shot , thus meaning that she could not have removed the silencer after the fatal contact shot . The new evidence shows that the fatal shot was non contact .
It is not credible anymore to rely on silencer evidence anyway . This is another matter thoroughly dealt with in Hunter's upcoming book and elsewhere . How many silencers do you think police had possession of and do you have any faith in the silencer evidence as presented to the court ?
-
The secure windows insecure windows remark rings alarm bells. Of course he's not going to admit that a window could be banged back into position,but he had entered and exited by just such a means at least once since the murders.
Why does that remark ring alarm bells ? The rest of what you say would be easily provable ( the possibility of the the window being locked from outside that is ) . Was this shown to be possible ?
None of this is substantive enough to infer guilt anyway . I don't get your reasoning it doesn't seem very vigorous .
-
Sheila didn't have to fill up the magazine. She could have loaded the rifle one by one. It has never been demonstrated that anyone reloaded the magazine to full capacity. Neither did she have to fight Ralph. One bullet could have incapacitated him if hit in the right place. In fact the gun didn't have to be reloaded very quickly at all.
Really? And I supposed you have tried that with a semi-auto firearm?
That would mean drawing the breech lever each time to cock the d*mn thing......simliar to a single shot bolt action rifle, but the lever is much smaller than a bolt.......
.......Oh, and where was the empty or half empty ammunition box/es? They are packaged in 10,20,25 & up to 50 depending on the make......
.......and where was the lead powder and bullet lube on her hands and in her fingerprints???
I know..........I bet you or someone suggests she polished them all the day before..........
Jack
-
Really? And I supposed you have tried that with a semi-auto firearm?
That would mean drawing the breech lever each time to cock the d*mn thing......simliar to a single shot bolt action rifle, but the lever is much smaller than a bolt.......
.......Oh, and where was the empty or half empty ammunition box/es? They are packaged in 10,20,25 & up to 50 depending on the make......
.......and where was the lead powder and bullet lube on her hands and in her fingerprints???
I know..........I bet you or someone suggests she polished them all the day before..........
Jack
Why are you so agressive?
-
Makes me wonder too,Grahame. Those who know-----------know too much !
-
Really? And I supposed you have tried that with a semi-auto firearm?
That would mean drawing the breech lever each time to cock the d*mn thing......simliar to a single shot bolt action rifle, but the lever is much smaller than a bolt.......
.......Oh, and where was the empty or half empty ammunition box/es? They are packaged in 10,20,25 & up to 50 depending on the make......
.......and where was the lead powder and bullet lube on her hands and in her fingerprints???
I know..........I bet you or someone suggests she polished them all the day before..........
Jack
Hi Jack I wouldn't suggest Sheila polished anything the day before she died. According
to Pamela Boutflour's statement her sister June Bamber told her Sheila was pretty well
incapable of doing anything that day, very possibly due to her psychotic illness.
The discovery that Sheila's hands/palms were stated to be bloodied surely answers questions
re the claim her hands were clear of heavy lead powder or gun residue. If we know her
hands were bloody but the swabs didn't show various elements of this blood either from these results surely we must query A) were Sheila's hands washed before they were swabbed.
B))Were the hand swabs presented as Sheila's in fact Sheila's?
-
Hi Jack I wouldn't suggest Sheila polished anything the day before she died. According
to Pamela Boutflour's statement her sister June Bamber told her Sheila was pretty well
incapable of doing anything that day, very possibly due to her psychotic illness.
The discovery that Sheila's hands/palms were stated to be bloodied surely answers questions
re the claim her hands were clear of heavy lead powder or gun residue. If we know her
hands were bloody but the swabs didn't show various elements of this blood either from these results surely we must query A) were Sheila's hands washed before they were swabbed.
B))Were the hand swabs presented as Sheila's in fact Sheila's?
I was being sarcastic.......
But the rest of what you say is in line with what I know of SB/C.........incapable of most things mechanical.
Bullet grease / lube is even more difficult to remove than lead powder, so a general swab of the hands wouldn't remove it..........a thorough wash with strong liquid detergent or medical alcohol might do it.
Jack
-
Maybe there was a jar of Swarfega in the bathroom/kitchen.
-
Why are you so agressive?
Why am I aggressive?..........Sorry if you think it is aggression, but if you can't tell the difference between aggression and annoyance, maybe you shouldn't comment or make silly assumptions........
A .22 (5.5 to 5.6mm) round of the type we are talking about here, is hardly a man-stopper......yes it would hurt a lot, but unless NB took one to the head, it wouldn't drop him to the floor........and even that probably wouldn't (remember Steven Waldorf? How many rounds did he take in the head??).
The Anshutz rifle is intended for vermin, maximum size - a fox and that would need to be an accurate head or heart shot.
Jack
-
Maybe there was a jar of Swarfega in the bathroom/kitchen.
LOL...That's my idea of sarcasm............
Funnily enough, I have got one in the kitchen.
PS....."It was...................the salmon mousse"
-
I sort of replied to your comment about her hands but somehow got it on the thread about the book- I am not good at posting yet :o I don't have a problem with your comments - but unfortunately I believe the crime scene forensics were not carried out properly as at the time they were so convinced about what had happened - it appears that there were at least 20 officers trampling all over the scene moving things and also lots of records are still hidden under PII so how do we know what the truth is . If there was a cover up - as it appears there was ( for example the bible was never shown to the jury as far as I know0 then you have to cover up a lot of things - so for example saying her feet were clean - where as now photos have emerged with blood on them - so how do we KNOW what was on her hands. We don't unfortunately.
-
The silencer mark is explained and possible explanations for this are self evident if you have read the full draft .
There is clear evidence that Pargeters' gun with silencer fitted was also present at the farmhouse and much to suggest it was used in the killings .
The silencer mark was on the non fatal wound . The prosecution evidence says that the only opportunity for Sheila's blood to enter the silencer was from a contact shot , thus meaning that she could not have removed the silencer after the fatal contact shot . The new evidence shows that the fatal shot was non contact .
It is not credible anymore to rely on silencer evidence anyway . This is another matter thoroughly dealt with in Hunter's upcoming book and elsewhere . How many silencers do you think police had possession of and do you have any faith in the silencer evidence as presented to the court ?
The problem the silencer mark throws up is that you're back to Sheila having returned it to the gun cupboard when the blood spatter evidence on the nightie suggests that she lay down in close proximity when both shots were fired.
-
Why does that remark ring alarm bells ? The rest of what you say would be easily provable ( the possibility of the the window being locked from outside that is ) . Was this shown to be possible ?
None of this is substantive enough to infer guilt anyway . I don't get your reasoning it doesn't seem very vigorous .
Why would Jeremy taunt detectives that some windows at White House may have been secure and some insecure after five members of his family had just been killed? How did Julie come up with the idea of anyone entering and leaving by this means if not by Jeremy speculating out loud that this was possible?
-
I was being sarcastic.......
But the rest of what you say is in line with what I know of SB/C.........incapable of most things mechanical.
Bullet grease / lube is even more difficult to remove than lead powder, so a general swab of the hands wouldn't remove it..........a thorough wash with strong liquid detergent or medical alcohol might do it.
Jack
Removal of blood and element residue iron, pottasium, magnesium etc would also
require dedicated removal , it doesn't all disappear with a wipe of a cloth. It would seep and dry
in the lines and folds of the hands. Needs a good scrub to remove.
I did appreciate your sarcasm ;D
-
The problem the silencer mark throws up is that you're back to Sheila having returned it to the gun cupboard when the blood spatter evidence on the nightie suggests that she lay down in close proximity when both shots were fired.
Hi Steve,,Sheila would have had to have lain with her head hanging over the edge of the bed to have got that last shot,unless bullets can turn corners.
I can't yet understand that if someone is on the floor,in a prostrate position,and someone else fires the shot,it wouldn't go upright,,it would go straight through to the back of the neck.
Only if you position yourself in the direction to where the bullet is intended,will you get shots such as Sheila received. In other words,,they were self-inflicted.
-
If Sheila was on the bed, with 1bullet wound in the neck, when she was pronounced dead by Dr Craig, then how comes it that she can be said to have 'self inflicted' the subsequent mortal when there were countless police personnel in the Master Bedroom? We're they the Venetian variety (blind!)?
-
Why am I aggressive?..........Sorry if you think it is aggression, but if you can't tell the difference between aggression and annoyance, maybe you shouldn't comment or make silly assumptions........
A .22 (5.5 to 5.6mm) round of the type we are talking about here, is hardly a man-stopper......yes it would hurt a lot, but unless NB took one to the head, it wouldn't drop him to the floor........and even that probably wouldn't (remember Steven Waldorf? How many rounds did he take in the head??).
The Anshutz rifle is intended for vermin, maximum size - a fox and that would need to be an accurate head or heart shot.
Jack
Why then would any other assassin use a rabbit gun? Why break in and use a .22 if the murderer was intent on killing 5 people? Not suggestive of a third person in my opinion. And please you don't know me so why don't you lighten up a bit and not be so insulting to people you know nothing about?
-
Makes me wonder too,Grahame. Those who know-----------know too much !
Yes lookout. I get that impression as well. ;) We've had no-it-alls on the forum before haven't we. Some people need to pull in their claws. ::)
-
Why then would any other assassin use a rabbit gun? Why break in and use a .22 if the murderer was intent on killing 5 people? Not suggestive of a third person in my opinion. And please you don't know me so why don't you lighten up a bit and not be so insulting to people you know nothing about?
The whole pretext of the murder was that Sheila had picked up the .22 anschutz which had been left lying around by Jeremy after he went to shoot rabbits,though apart from this which may have looked suspicious and Jeremy never expressed regret for so doing it was otherwise a "perfect crime" as he told Julie,because how can you possibly prove your sister did not shoot herself if you also had one hand on the gun..
-
Why then would any other assassin use a rabbit gun? Why break in and use a .22 if the murderer was intent on killing 5 people? Not suggestive of a third person in my opinion. And please you don't know me so why don't you lighten up a bit and not be so insulting to people you know nothing about?
OK...It's lesson time.
1) Firstly I haven't insulted you, so you can get off your high horse straight away.
2) Next, don't lecture me and suggest I know nothing about people when you have just been on here and no doubt many times before with a half brained idea of something you know nothing about, particularly when it happens to be part of my profession.
3) And here's the real lesson.
That rifle appears to be an Anshutz 525 model. It cannot be fired single shot unless A) The bolt is pulled back; the magazine is released; a round inserted into the magazine; the magazine reinserted; the bolt is released forward again....Or, B) the magazine is discarded and an adapter put in it's place.
So it isn't the latter scenario, because it is clearly the magazine in the rifle..........but for it to be the former scenario; it would have taken an eternity to remove the magazine and load a single round 15/16 times (assuming it was full for the first 10 shots)..
..............certainly impossible for SB/C to have done and very improbable for JB to have done.
....................Regardless whether he had been brought up on a farm and around arms and ammunition, it would be the most illogical way of using the rifle......he wasn't exactly combat material was he??
Jack
-
Hi Steve,,Sheila would have had to have lain with her head hanging over the edge of the bed to have got that last shot,unless bullets can turn corners.
I can't yet understand that if someone is on the floor,in a prostrate position,and someone else fires the shot,it wouldn't go upright,,it would go straight through to the back of the neck.
Only if you position yourself in the direction to where the bullet is intended,will you get shots such as Sheila received. In other words,,they were self-inflicted.
I think Jeremy panicked with all the bullets he had fired thus far along with the bicycle journey and the influence of the drugs and misplaced the first shot to Sheila,whereupon she was stunned and involuntarily moved her finger to the wound,hence the blood on the hand. I would have thought it would have been the easiest thing in the world to position the second shot so that it killed Sheila instantaneously.
-
OK...It's lesson time.
1) Firstly I haven't insulted you, so you can get off your high horse straight away.
2) Next, don't lecture me and suggest I know nothing about people when you have just been on here and no doubt many times before with a half brained idea of something you know nothing about, particularly when it happens to be part of my profession.
3) And here's the real lesson.
That rifle appears to be an Anshutz 525 model. It cannot be fired single shot unless A) The bolt is pulled back; the magazine is released; a round inserted into the magazine; the magazine reinserted; the bolt is released forward again....Or, B) the magazine is discarded and an adapter put in it's place.
So it isn't the latter scenario, because it is clearly the magazine in the rifle..........but for it to be the former scenario; it would have taken an eternity to remove the magazine and load a single round 15/16 times (assuming it was full for the first 10 shots)..
..............certainly impossible for SB/C to have done and very improbable for JB to have done.
....................Regardless whether he had been brought up on a farm and around arms and ammunition, it would be the most illogical way of using the rifle......he wasn't exactly combat material was he??
Jack
I didn't think it had a bolt, it had a small recoil....which a child could use. No one knows for sure how the magazine was filled up. It was said that after positioning 8 bullets into the magazine the last two were more difficult....I doubt one bullet at time would be sufficient enough to keep to keep 3/2 adults at bay whilst reloading....
Lets not single the sex out here. Both Jeremy and Sheila were brought up on the farm and around guns. I personally find it odd that either of them knew how to use a gun....Its not rocket science.
AE thought Sheila would used a 12 bore and when she found out it was a semi automatic....she said that she would not be able to use it and that a 12 bore would be easier to use...I am not gun expert, but have used a 12 bore which belonged to my father and it was heavy and hard to cock.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Can we attack the post and not the poster please....debating is fun... ;)
-
The whole pretext of the murder was that Sheila had picked up the .22 anschutz which had been left lying around by Jeremy after he went to shoot rabbits,though apart from this which may have looked suspicious and Jeremy never expressed regret for so doing it was otherwise a "perfect crime" as he told Julie,because how can you possibly prove your sister did not shoot herself if you also had one hand on the gun..
Steve I was arguing against a third person at the scene. Surely a third person completely unconnected with Bamber would not know about the gun being left on the settle, let along what other guns were in the house? My argument is, why woulf a third person murderer choose a rabbit gun as it is not exactly the most efficient weapon to be used in an assassin's armoury? The who scene is against the third person theory. It must be either or the other. Either it was Jeremy or it was Sheila.
My original post was that Sheila was quite capable of the murders of 4 family members and with the first magazine she could very well disable everyone in the house and then take her time in loading the gun. She needen't have loaded the magazine fully either. And a so called "fight" with Ralph need not have taken place? Indeed he could have been beaten after he had been disabled. So you see my argument is not so lame as has been suggested and ridiculed by some.
-
I think Jeremy panicked with all the bullets he had fired thus far along with the bicycle journey and the influence of the drugs and misplaced the first shot to Sheila,whereupon she was stunned and involuntarily moved her finger to the wound,hence the blood on the hand. I would have thought it would have been the easiest thing in the world to position the second shot so that it killed Sheila instantaneously.
The rifle would have had to have been on her person to have receieved a shot like that last one ( close proximity ) to have entered the brain.
Blimey,Steve,,Jeremy would have had to have been a contortionist to deliver such a shot.
-
OK...It's lesson time.
1) Firstly I haven't insulted you, so you can get off your high horse straight away.
2) Next, don't lecture me and suggest I know nothing about people when you have just been on here and no doubt many times before with a half brained idea of something you know nothing about, particularly when it happens to be part of my profession.
3) And here's the real lesson.
That rifle appears to be an Anshutz 525 model. It cannot be fired single shot unless A) The bolt is pulled back; the magazine is released; a round inserted into the magazine; the magazine reinserted; the bolt is released forward again....Or, B) the magazine is discarded and an adapter put in it's place.
So it isn't the latter scenario, because it is clearly the magazine in the rifle..........but for it to be the former scenario; it would have taken an eternity to remove the magazine and load a single round 15/16 times (assuming it was full for the first 10 shots)..
..............certainly impossible for SB/C to have done and very improbable for JB to have done.
....................Regardless whether he had been brought up on a farm and around arms and ammunition, it would be the most illogical way of using the rifle......he wasn't exactly combat material was he??
Jack
You're a bit of a dick aren't you. :P
-
You're a bit of a dick aren't you. :P
Now that is being insulting..............
Still I can roll with that sort of thing as I have more knowledge of the subject than you because I know my dick is bigger than yours.
-
Steve I was arguing against a third person at the scene. Surely a third person completely unconnected with Bamber would not know about the gun being left on the settle, let along what other guns were in the house? My argument is, why woulf a third person murderer choose a rabbit gun as it is not exactly the most efficient weapon to be used in an assassin's armoury? The who scene is against the third person theory. It must be either or the other. Either it was Jeremy or it was Sheila.
My original post was that Sheila was quite capable of the murders of 4 family members and with the first magazine she could very well disable everyone in the house and then take her time in loading the gun. She needen't have loaded the magazine fully either. And a so called "fight" with Ralph need not have taken place? Indeed he could have been beaten after he had been disabled. So you see my argument is not so lame as has been suggested and ridiculed by some.
I suppose suspicion would still have to be thrown on Sheila even if Jeremy had engineered a hitman,though one would have thought that he would have provided a better alibi for himself than a purported telephone call to his answerphone.
-
Now that is being insulting..............
Still I can roll with that sort of thing because I know my dick is bigger than yours.
Jack,,are you a cop ?
-
Now that is being insulting..............
Oh sorry. You're a "professional" dick. ;D You won't know what an insult is until you tackle me you little jumped up tyro. I think you ought to delete your account and then join again when you can be a bit more humble, don't you?
-
Jack,,are you a cop ?
That's even more insulting............However, my brother is and he is in Essex Plod.
-
I suppose suspicion would still have to be thrown on Sheila even if Jeremy had engineered a hitman,though one would have thought that he would have provided a better alibi for himself than a purported telephone call to his answerphone.
Yes that does kind of swing the blame his way if the phone call was not genuine? That is probably why I lean more towards Sheila committing the murders and not some "unrelated" hit-man
-
Now that is being insulting..............
Still I can roll with that sort of thing as I have more knowledge of the subject than you because I know my dick is bigger than yours.
Yes I suppose that is true. I can't counter that one. ;D
-
Jack,,are you a cop ?
If he's not he has a very large truncheon ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
-
Oh sorry. You're a "professional" dick. ;D You won't know what an insult is until you tackle me you little jumped up tyro. I think you ought to delete your account and then join again when you can be a bit more humble, don't you?
At least I'm not a useless dick who has obviously been castrated at some stage; otherwise you wouldn't need to try and impose your own lack of importance.
-
Oi you two pack it in.... ::)
-
If he's not he has a very large truncheon ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
I want to make love to her. Not beat her to death. ;D
-
I think Jeremy panicked with all the bullets he had fired thus far along with the bicycle journey and the influence of the drugs and misplaced the first shot to Sheila,whereupon she was stunned and involuntarily moved her finger to the wound,hence the blood on the hand. I would have thought it would have been the easiest thing in the world to position the second shot so that it killed Sheila instantaneously.
Steve, were you aware that we have a new member who KNOWS that it wouldn't have been possible for Jeremy to do that bike ride along the seawall that night because there was work being done to it, of which his own father was in charge.
-
At least I'm not a useless dick who has obviously been castrated at some stage; otherwise you wouldn't need to try and impose your own lack of importance.
Ok Jack. Let's start again. You're right I'm not that important. Just another member. I apologise and bow to your superior knowledge. ;)
-
I want to make love to her. Not beat her to death. ;D
Schhhhhhhhhhhhhh lol I've been alone for 10 years. Its not done on a Saturday is it?????? Ha! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Oi you two pack it in.... ::)
Yes Maaam ;)
-
Steve, were you aware that we have a new member who KNOWS that it wouldn't have been possible for Jeremy to do that bike ride along the seawall that night because there was work being done to it, of which his own father was in charge.
There were different routes I believe. I'm always a little wary of people who know things for sure in this case..
-
If he's not he has a very large truncheon ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
Has word got out again???
-
Ok Jack. Let's start again. You're right I'm not that important. Just another member. I apologise and bow to your superior knowledge. ;)
If you mean it..........
-
There were different routes I believe. I'm always a little wary of people who know things for sure in this case..
Fine by me....drop by and try my 525 Anshutz and see if you can single fire it.....
Jack.
PS. The sea wall was being repaired in several sections between the point at Osea Road and the Fleet.........it was fairly major works and was a helluva mess. The only thing I am not sure about was it carried out by Essex Rivers Authority (which I think it was) or Anglian Water Authority...my father worked for both and was supervising and recording the projects.
At the time of the incident he commented on the fact that some of the sea wall walk was effectively closed.
-
Fine by me....drop by and try my 525 Anshutz and see if you can single fire it.....
Jack.
I'm all thumbs these days Jack. I would like to meet though. Where do you live and I'll give you a call. Always interested in people who were close to things. My insults are just banter. ;)
-
Has word got out again???
Clearly great things cannot for long remain hidden ;) Jack, would you mind explaining again, for the disbelievers, about the work being carried out on the seawall at that time, which would have prevented Jeremy from using it..............I should have said PLEASE, shouldn't I :)
-
If you mean it..........
Of course I do. I know narthing. Narthing. Always willing to learn something new Jack.
-
Clearly great things cannot for long remain hidden ;) Jack, would you mind explaining again, for the disbelievers, about the work being carried out on the seawall at that time, which would have prevented Jeremy from using it..............I should have said PLEASE, shouldn't I :)
Just done it, a few posts up.
-
Clearly great things cannot for long remain hidden ;) Jack, would you mind explaining again, for the disbelievers, about the work being carried out on the seawall at that time, which would have prevented Jeremy from using it..............I should have said PLEASE, shouldn't I :)
They were probably building it up. I used to live just opposite the sea wall at that time and certain parts were not accessible?
-
I'm all thumbs these days Jack. I would like to meet though. Where do you live and I'll give you a call. Always interested in people who were close to things. My insults are just banter. ;)
That leaves you right open for another insult, if you think about it........... ;D
-
Fine by me....drop by and try my 525 Anshutz and see if you can single fire it.....
Jack.
PS. The sea wall was being repaired in several sections between the point at Osea Road and the Fleet.........it was fairly major works and was a helluva mess. The only thing I am not sure about was it carried out by Essex Rivers Authority (which I think it was) or Anglian Water Authority...my father worked for both and was supervising and recording the projects.
At the time of the incident he commented on the fact that some of the sea wall walk was effectively closed.
Wasn't it possible for cyclists to dismount? It's still my belief Jeremy had been emboldened by the Osea Road robbery and had realized that there was nobody around..
-
That leaves you right open for another insult, if you think about it........... ;D
I'm keen to know who you are Jack. Do you remember L. P. Sampson at Frame Farm a bit before Pages Lane?
-
They were probably building it up. I used to live just opposite the sea wall at that time and certain parts were not accessible?
Well, there you go...........they were laying large areas of raking concrete slabs and concrete blocks on the seaward side which had been breaking up and collapsing.........
...........ultimately a complete waste of money when soemone decided it was a good idea to allow the sea wall to be breached near Bounds Farm in order to create a wetland (or flood plain in other words).
Jack
-
No disrespect to members but this thread is going to go way off topic. The draft is an important document on this forum.
-
Wasn't it possible for cyclists to dismount? It's still my belief Jeremy had been emboldened by the Osea Road robbery and had realized that there was nobody around..
I recall it meant picking your way through mud, cr*p and formwork which was littered across the pathway; plus in several places the pathway was completely blocked by plant etc.
I'm keen to know who you are Jack. Do you remember L. P. Sampson at Frame Farm a bit before Pages Lane?
No, sorry...............
-
Wasn't it possible for cyclists to dismount? It's still my belief Jeremy had been emboldened by the Osea Road robbery and had realized that there was nobody around..
Steve, there are several miles between the caravan site, Jeremy's house and WHF. I fail to see how SURMISING there was "nobody around" in one place would mean there was "nobody around" in others.
-
Steve, there are several miles between the caravan site, Jeremy's house and WHF. I fail to see how SURMISING there was "nobody around" in one place would mean there was "nobody around" in others.
It was August and there would have been many people about. Not sure about that early in the morning though?
-
Steve, there are several miles between the caravan site, Jeremy's house and WHF. I fail to see how SURMISING there was "nobody around" in one place would mean there was "nobody around" in others.
He probably covered his face with a balaclava and was an anonymous person anyway in the vicinity. It's very unlikely that even if someone had seen a person on a bicycle that morning they could have positively identified him.
-
I recall it meant picking your way through mud, cr*p and formwork which was littered across the pathway; plus in several places the pathway was completely blocked by plant etc.
No, sorry...............
Funny you should mention the mud..
-
Funny you should mention the mud..
Oh no! Talk about giving ammo to the enemy.....Hey we're back to the channel 5 documentary again. ;D
-
If it aint about the content of the book draft, can it please be posted elswehere on a more relevant thread? For example a new thread in 'off-topic'.
-
During one of my visits to Andrew Hunters home, he gave me a copy of this photograph;-
-
If it aint about the content of the book draft, can it please be posted elswehere on a more relevant thread? For example a new thread in 'off-topic'.
You forgot the Apostrophe. "ain't". ;D
-
He probably covered his face with a balaclava and was an anonymous person anyway in the vicinity. It's very unlikely that even if someone had seen a person on a bicycle that morning they could have positively identified him.
Steve,,the area at the time sounded to me like a close-knit community one,,where people tended to be quite insular in their surrounds. Who knew every movement,and who was moving about at unearthly hours. I'd imagine that quite a few elderly people lived there,,who for obvious reasons would have to get up in the night,and while they're at it,,slide the curtain back just to look outside. It's all it takes to spot someone going past on a bike and before you know it,,everyone in the neighbourhood knows.So I'd imagine that nothing would have got past the curtain-twitchers.
-
tens of posts are going to have to be removed from this thread in to another thread, if off-topic posts continue. Please stay ON-TOPIC
-
The problem the silencer mark throws up is that you're back to Sheila having returned it to the gun cupboard when the blood spatter evidence on the nightie suggests that she lay down in close proximity when both shots were fired.
Only if you believe the fanciful tale of the silencers discovery as presented by the prosecution . It is not credible anymore to to place any reliability on the silencer evidence and the tale of it's discovery . You are doggedly relying on "facts", which have been utterly discredited , to support your stance.
The silencer being found by the family in the gun cupboard is fiction so there is no problem at all and certainly not one where it has to be explained how Sheila returned the silencer to the cupboard . The silencer wasn't in the cupboard .
Do you believe that EP only ever had one silencer and that this was discovered as laid out by the prosecution ?
-
Only if you believe the fanciful tale of the silencers discovery as presented by the prosecution . It is not credible anymore to to place any reliability on the silencer evidence and the tale of it's discovery . You are doggedly relying on "facts", which have been utterly discredited , to support your stance.
The silencer being found by the family in the gun cupboard is fiction so there is no problem at all and certainly not one where it has to be explained how Sheila returned the silencer to the cupboard . The silencer wasn't in the cupboard .
Do you believe that EP only ever had one silencer and that this was discovered as laid out by the prosecution ?
This is the Andrew Hunter Book Draft thread in which the silencer mark on Sheila's neck is mentioned,it having been noted by two gun enthusiasts in Ewen Smith's Birmingham office some ten years ago. I'm afraid this has to be explained away however much the Defence is squirming on this issue,and to my mind as to many others Mike's assertion that the Police shot Sheila with a Police-issue silencer is incredible.
-
Only if you believe the fanciful tale of the silencers discovery as presented by the prosecution . It is not credible anymore to to place any reliability on the silencer evidence and the tale of it's discovery . You are doggedly relying on "facts", which have been utterly discredited , to support your stance.
The silencer being found by the family in the gun cupboard is fiction so there is no problem at all and certainly not one where it has to be explained how Sheila returned the silencer to the cupboard . The silencer wasn't in the cupboard .
Do you believe that EP only ever had one silencer and that this was discovered as laid out by the prosecution ?
well especaily when the people who found the silencer have been proven to have lied in court about other things.
-
This is the Andrew Hunter Book Draft thread in which the silencer mark on Sheila's neck is mentioned,it having been noted by two gun enthusiasts in Ewen Smith's Birmingham office some ten years ago. I'm afraid this has to be explained away however much the Defence is squirming on this issue,and to my mind as to many others Mike's assertion that the Police shot Sheila with a Police-issue silencer is incredible.
Can you explain why the hand written autopsy repost states clearly that Sheila's hands were blood stained but the typed report says they were clean?
-
Can you explain why the hand written autopsy repost states clearly that Sheila's hands were blood stained but the typed report says they were clean?
I don't know but we've been over this with Caroline.Some of the blood after the first shot got transferred to Sheila's hands after she instinctively tried to staunch the wound.Maybe the swabbing removed the remainder.
-
I don't know but we've been over this with Caroline.Some of the blood after the first shot got transferred to Sheila's hands after she instinctively tried to staunch the wound.Maybe the swabbing removed the remainder.
But putting up a hand to a wound would have been just ONE hand. The written report says "handS".
-
But putting up a hand to a wound would have been just ONE hand. The written report says "handS".
Exactly April. Also surely the proof of manipulation of facts and alteration of a statement from original hand written to final typed copy presented at court must encourage people to wonder if it happened on this occasion how many other times were documents and statements altered. The final typed document from Vanezis original handwritten statement
changed the scenario and was misleading to the jury. The fact that Sheila's hands were free of blood or anything else was simply not true.
-
Exactly April. Also surely the proof of manipulation of facts and alteration of a statement from original hand written to final typed copy presented at court must encourage people to wonder if it happened on this occasion how many other times were documents and statements altered. The final typed document from Vanezis original handwritten statement
changed the scenario and was misleading to the jury. The fact that Sheila's hands were free of blood or anything else was simply not true.
Maggie, there's something here which puzzles me. If this was ANY other crime -and I'm leaving out the Bamber name AND that I believe the foundations of this case to be FAMILY jealousy and greed- and the guilties were presented with the long list of anomalies attached to it, cock ups by the police, alterations to legal documents, evidence discovered and subsequently tossed around before it ever reaches the hands of the police, and several people standing to benefit enormously from a conviction, I'm perfectly convinced that all but one would smell a rat.
-
Maggie, there's something here which puzzles me. If this was ANY other crime -and I'm leaving out the Bamber name AND that I believe the foundations of this case to be FAMILY jealousy and greed- and the guilties were presented with the long list of anomalies attached to it, cock ups by the police, alterations to legal documents, evidence discovered and subsequently tossed around before it ever reaches the hands of the police, and several people standing to benefit enormously from a conviction, I'm perfectly convinced that all but one would smell a rat.
So am I April, surely at least, a wobble and a wonder????
-
Why would Jeremy taunt detectives that some windows at White House may have been secure and some insecure after five members of his family had just been killed? How did Julie come up with the idea of anyone entering and leaving by this means if not by Jeremy speculating out loud that this was possible?
How is this taunting ? I think Julie would have been able to work out herself how to get into a locked house through a window . It isn't rocket science .
What you offer as arguments in favour of JB's guilt are nothing of the sort . Even if Julie did come up with the idea from Jeremy then how does it then follow that Jeremy is guilty .
Julie also came up with the idea of a hitman and of drugging everyone and burning down the house .
-
How is this taunting ? I think Julie would have been able to work out herself how to get into a locked house through a window . It isn't rocket science .
What you offer as arguments in favour of JB's guilt are nothing of the sort . Even if Julie did come up with the idea from Jeremy then how does it then follow that Jeremy is guilty .
Julie also came up with the idea of a hitman and of drugging everyone and burning down the house .
Gringo hello. According to Steve, OR imo, when he has no other explanation, Jeremy TAUNTS :)
-
This is the Andrew Hunter Book Draft thread in which the silencer mark on Sheila's neck is mentioned,it having been noted by two gun enthusiasts in Ewen Smith's Birmingham office some ten years ago. I'm afraid this has to be explained away however much the Defence is squirming on this issue,and to my mind as to many others Mike's assertion that the Police shot Sheila with a Police-issue silencer is incredible.
It has to be explained by the prosecution not the defence . The prosecution claims that the silencer could not be replaced in the cupboard because the fatal shot was a contact shot therefore meaning Sheila could not have replaced it . It was the non fatal shot that was a contact shot though so Sheila could in this scenario have replaced it .
However , this only needs to be explained if the claims of the finding of the silencer are true .
Do you honestly believe that the silencer evidence and trail of handling of said silencer/s is credible ?
-
The question that really needs to be answered is why was the silencer / moderator fitted when the unsilenced rifle would never have been heard from outside the house; while inside, if it was silenced, the clash of the auto breech bolt would have been just as loud as a .22 gunshot to those inside.
-
The question that really needs to be answered is why was the silencer / moderator fitted when the unsilenced rifle would never have been heard from outside the house; while inside, if it was silenced, the clash of the auto breech bolt would have been just as loud as a .22 gunshot to those inside.
Not being gun literate, I couldn't give a concise answer, however, I have ALWAYS questioned the need for it's use in solid house, standing within it's own grounds, situated in a little used lane and well removed from other houses.
-
It has to be explained by the prosecution not the defence . The prosecution claims that the silencer could not be replaced in the cupboard because the fatal shot was a contact shot therefore meaning Sheila could not have replaced it . It was the non fatal shot that was a contact shot though so Sheila could in this scenario have replaced it .
However , this only needs to be explained if the claims of the finding of the silencer are true .
Do you honestly believe that the silencer evidence and trail of handling of said silencer/s is credible ?
Not in the slightest!!
-
The question that really needs to be answered is why was the silencer / moderator fitted when the unsilenced rifle would never have been heard from outside the house; while inside, if it was silenced, the clash of the auto breech bolt would have been just as loud as a .22 gunshot to those inside.
That's why I think the silencer is just a red herring. It never was used in my opinion?
-
I don't know but we've been over this with Caroline.Some of the blood after the first shot got transferred to Sheila's hands after she instinctively tried to staunch the wound.Maybe the swabbing removed the remainder.
Yes we have been over this with me and you keep missing the point. WHY would Vanezis change what he had written in his original notes from hand'S' WERE bloodstained to hands WEREN'T bloodstained??
-
it could possibly have just been a mistake the to words are easy to get mixed up.
-
it could possibly have just been a mistake the to words are easy to get mixed up.
He didn't use the words 'were' and 'weren't' I used them to make the point.
His hand written notes state "Nicotine stains R hand both hands not contaminated apart from
bloodstains"
His statement reads "Her palms and the fingers were not contaminated with blood"
He also stated in his written notes that the stain on her nightdress was transferred from her palm but in his typed statement, this changes to 'from wrists'
-
are well thats not so easy to get mixed up.
-
During one of my visits to Andrew Hunters home, he gave me a copy of this photograph;-
At this stage, Andrew and myself were discussing how the original 6 man raid team managed to get into the main kitchen with the two chairs and Ralph's body blocking their path of entry...
-
How is this taunting ? I think Julie would have been able to work out herself how to get into a locked house through a window . It isn't rocket science .
What you offer as arguments in favour of JB's guilt are nothing of the sort . Even if Julie did come up with the idea from Jeremy then how does it then follow that Jeremy is guilty .
Julie also came up with the idea of a hitman and of drugging everyone and burning down the house .
No,when Julie realized that the investigation was changing from four murders and a suicide to Jeremy being the sole perpetrator the last thing she needs is to add the detail of the hitman which was obviously an attempt by Jeremy to deflect opprobrium from his person. It has been said of Julie that her statement contained nothing which she could not have garnered from the newspaper reporting of the case,but the hitman story and the remark about the glove which came off in the struggle with Nevill prove to my mind that Julie was reporting a story which she had first been told by Jeremy.
-
It has to be explained by the prosecution not the defence . The prosecution claims that the silencer could not be replaced in the cupboard because the fatal shot was a contact shot therefore meaning Sheila could not have replaced it . It was the non fatal shot that was a contact shot though so Sheila could in this scenario have replaced it .
However , this only needs to be explained if the claims of the finding of the silencer are true .
Do you honestly believe that the silencer evidence and trail of handling of said silencer/s is credible ?
We are constantly being told by the Defence that Jeremy had three adults to control in the house that morning,yet when it comes to contemplating that Jeremy may have used a silencer hands go up amongst the Jeremy supporters and perish the thought that one was used..
-
No,when Julie realized that the investigation was changing from four murders and a suicide to Jeremy being the sole perpetrator the last thing she needs is to add the detail of the hitman which was obviously an attempt by Jeremy to deflect opprobrium from his person. It has been said of Julie that her statement contained nothing which she could not have garnered from the newspaper reporting of the case,but the hitman story and the remark about the glove which came off in the struggle with Nevill prove to my mind that Julie was reporting a story which she had first been told by Jeremy.
Now this suggestion does not sit well with me and to my mind is just illogical. To blame her lie on Jeremy lying to her when we only have her word for suggesting that there was a hit-man? Nothing from anybody else at all. Even the so called hit-man denies it.
How on earth can you suggest that it was Jeremy that was lying and not Mugford herself? Indeed if anything this lie is an indication that her whole statement was spurious.
-
We are constantly being told by the Defence that Jeremy had three adults to control in the house that morning,yet when it comes to contemplating that Jeremy may have used a silencer hands go up amongst the Jeremy supporters and perish the thought that one was used..
Told by the defence? It's a fact!! What does the silencer have to do with having three adults to control?
-
We are constantly being told by the Defence that Jeremy had three adults to control in the house that morning,yet when it comes to contemplating that Jeremy may have used a silencer hands go up amongst the Jeremy supporters and perish the thought that one was used..
So you don't find suspicious the discovery of a silencer in a cupboard, several days after the police had apparently searched it, by those who stood to make the most from Jeremy's conviction? Added to which we now have in our midst, a poster who seems to have more knowledge of firearms than the rest of us put together, and he has said for very much more erudite reasons that I, that the use of a silencer would have been as advantageous as one loaf of bread in a famine.
-
Now this suggestion does not sit well with me and to my mind is just illogical. To blame her lie on Jeremy lying to her when we only have her word for suggesting that there was a hit-man? Nothing from anybody else at all. Even the so called hit-man denies it.
How on earth can you suggest that it was Jeremy that was lying and not Mugford herself? Indeed if anything this lie is an indication that her whole statement was spurious.
You have to take the timeline into consideration before you peruse the hitman detail in Julie's statement. Here is a 21 year-old student(20 at the time of murders,19 when they met) under the influence of Jeremy,one may say besotted,going along with every word he says maybe at the expense of her better judgement. The murders occur and the official verdict is four murders and a suicide from the Head of Essex Police DCI Taff Jones no less,who is shooing away the powerful,landed relatives from his office,let alone an outsider like Julie with her story in her mind. She quizzes Jeremy about the murders like a dog with a bone,and Jeremy makes up the first thing which comes into his head about a hitman,though does admit to being the instigator,which totally destroys any love or respect Julie once held for him. She finally realizes he's a sociopath at Blazer's Restaurant,Blackheath where Jeremy admits he "feels nothing for them..maybe there is something wrong with me.." and coupled with the relatives' suspicions Julie determines on telling what she knows..
-
Steve,,was JM still under the influence of Jeremy when she collected her £25,000 ? Bull.
-
Told by the defence? It's a fact!! What does the silencer have to do with having three adults to control?
I would have thought that given Nevill was mistrustful of Jeremy after Osea Road and June was known to be a light sleeper it would give Jeremy more an element of surprise..
-
You have to take the timeline into consideration before you peruse the hitman detail in Julie's statement. Here is a 21 year-old student(20 at the time of murders,19 when they met) under the influence of Jeremy,one may say besotted,going along with every word he says maybe at the expense of her better judgement. The murders occur and the official verdict is four murders and a suicide from the Head of Essex Police DCI Taff Jones no less,who is shooing away the powerful,landed relatives from his office,let alone an outsider like Julie with her story in her mind. She quizzes Jeremy about the murders like a dog with a bone,and Jeremy makes up the first thing which comes into his head about a hitman,though does admit to being the instigator,which totally destroys any love or respect Julie once held for him. She finally realizes he's a sociopath at Blazer's Restaurant,Blackheath where Jeremy admits he "feels nothing for them..maybe there is something wrong with me.." and coupled with the relatives' suspicions Julie determines on telling what she knows..
Yeah. Here we have a very savvy, streetwise student who earns extra money by working in a winebar. A bright girl who had probably sussed Jeremy out long before he noticed her. She saw him as being a good catch and clung like a leech. She proves herself more than capable of acting both illegally AND immorally during the course of their relationship and that APART from supposedly being privy to his plans. She also shows herself to be quite devoid of compassion when she has NO understanding that to feel NOTHING after an emotional trauma is reasonable, but I suppose it served as an excuse and salved her conscience when she went to the police.
-
Yes we have been over this with me and you keep missing the point. WHY would Vanezis change what he had written in his original notes from hand'S' WERE bloodstained to hands WEREN'T bloodstained??
I can see one of the hands in that by now infamous photograph and there appear to be droplets of blood but otherwise her hands do look clean and perfectly manicured to boot,as commented upon by Police at the time.
-
So you don't find suspicious the discovery of a silencer in a cupboard, several days after the police had apparently searched it, by those who stood to make the most from Jeremy's conviction? Added to which we now have in our midst, a poster who seems to have more knowledge of firearms than the rest of us put together, and he has said for very much more erudite reasons that I, that the use of a silencer would have been as advantageous as one loaf of bread in a famine.
He also stated that the rifle would be difficult to use discharging one bullet at a time.
-
He also stated that the rifle would be difficult to use discharging one bullet at a time.
The silencer has little to do with the discharging of ammunition.
-
I can see one of the hands in that by now infamous photograph and there appear to be droplets of blood but otherwise her hands do look clean and perfectly manicured to boot,as commented upon by Police at the time.
Steve, surely you can reason enough to work out we have two statements supposedly written by the same man. Each statement tells of the same post mortem. You would imagine the first handwritten statement which stated her hands were bloodied was true therefore the typed 'copy' must have been doctored, surely you cannot believe Dr Vanezis lied in his original statement??
-
Steve, surely you can reason enough to work out we have two statements supposedly written by the same man. Each statement tells of the same post mortem. You would imagine the first handwritten statement which stated her hands were bloodied was true therefore the typed 'copy' must have been doctored, surely you cannot believe Dr Vanezis lied in his original statement??
They were bloodied only in that she touched her neck when Jeremy shot her unawares.
-
They were bloodied only in that she touched her neck when Jeremy shot her unawares.
That may very likely account for one hand, not two and how would it be possible for anyone to be UNAWARE of the person standing in front of them?
-
They were bloodied only in that she touched her neck when Jeremy shot her unawares.
OMG Steve that is not the point and you know this vrry well. :'( :'(
-
I can see one of the hands in that by now infamous photograph and there appear to be droplets of blood but otherwise her hands do look clean and perfectly manicured to boot,as commented upon by Police at the time.
How does your answer have anything to do with the question?
-
How does your answer have anything to do with the question?
Let me take a guess. He has no credible response so he goes off at an INcredible tangent. Does that sound close? :D :D :D
-
I don't see it as a crucial point. We don't know where the blood spatter went,nobody has an explanation for the triangular-shaped bloodstain and her nightie looks as if she was lying down for both shots and not running around hiding from Police as has been alleged to account for the silencer mark among other things.
-
They were bloodied only in that she touched her neck when Jeremy shot her unawares.
That's new. It had always been denied that her palms were bloodied up until this point in time. Now as it has been explained that they were in fact bloodied. The senario has been changed in order to incorporate that fact. As usual.
-
Let me add something..........because from what I see here there are a lot of confused and irrelevant thoughts...........so this will add to it.........
The photo that shows SB/C laying with the rifle parallel to her body is very interesting..........
.....blood tracks clearly running around her arms and around her neck..........yet the huge area of blood bteween her right breast and arm has clearly run downwards and it appears that it did this in a considerable gush..
IMO, she was standing during one shot at least, probably both........then while she expired on the floor 'loose' blood continued to run, enough to cause the other tracks.........
Someone laid the gun on her.
Jack
-
Let me add something..........because from what I see here there are a lot of confused and irrelevant thoughts...........so this will add to it.........
The photo that shows SB/C laying with the rifle parallel to her body is very interesting..........
.....blood tracks clearly running around her arms and around her neck..........yet the huge area of blood bteween her right breast and arm has clearly run downwards and it appears that it did this in a considerable gush..
IMO, she was standing during one shot at least, probably both........then while she expired on the floor 'loose' blood continued to run, enough to cause the other tracks.........
Someone laid the gun on her.
Jack
The pathologist said she was either knelt down, sat down or leaned to her right side and this is why the blood congealed under her right side. I don't think she was standing because the blood would go straight to gravity point and there is no evidence to support that. But, there is blood falling towards her right side which confirms she was in a leaning position to her right side at some point.... :D :D :D :D
-
I don't see it as a crucial point. We don't know where the blood spatter went,nobody has an explanation for the triangular-shaped bloodstain and her nightie looks as if she was lying down for both shots and not running around hiding from Police as has been alleged to account for the silencer mark among other things.
You don't see it as crucial that the coroner CHANGED the findings written in his initial notes (written on the day of the autopsy) to when he made a statement (in September AFTER Jeremy is implicated)? You don't think that's crucial? In this instance Steve, it matters not if there was blood on her hands it's the fact that the coroner CHANGED his initial findings!! Lots of things might change if the focus of an investigation changes but NOT such details as were changed by Vanezis!! I know you can see the point, you're just doing what you usually do - putting your fingers in your ears and chanting the same mantra over and over in the hope it will go away. Do you now what to answer the question that was asked? Not the one you want to answer!!
-
You don't see it as crucial that the coroner CHANGED the findings written in his initial notes (written on the day of the autopsy) to when he made a statement (in September AFTER Jeremy is implicated)? You don't think that's crucial? In this instance Steve, it matters not if there was blood on her hands it's the fact that the coroner CHANGED his initial findings!! Lots of things might change if the focus of an investigation changes but NOT such details as were changed by Vanezis!! I know you can see the point, you're just doing what you usually do - putting your fingers in your ears and chanting the same mantra over and over in the hope it will go away. Do you now what to answer the question that was asked? Not the one you want to answer!!
Anyone can see that in the photograph Sheila has blood on the hand. It's probably more of a cock-up than conspiracy and is similar to someone in the control room writing "one dead male and one dead female in the kitchen"(which I see has been dredged up again),or Dr. Ian Craig not confirming a time of death or even seeing the two shots on Sheila. It's incompetence and happens day-in day-out in real life,trust me.
-
Some questions about the draft book
It states that there was a fire in the grounds of WHF within a few days of items ( which obviously later would have been of forensic interest) not taking into account whether the family requested this - would this have been a normal action even in a murder suicide situation? Surely it would still be a standard procedure to piece together what had happened taking all available evidence into account?
Also is it true that the original paper file went missing in a burglary?
In the reports on the deaths were there any estimated times of deaths?
There is a time line in the draft book that mentions the police going in and confirmation of deaths then SOCO - but where does the "training exercise " come into it and who would have authorised that and at one time? Is that something that would have happened normally in such a sensitive situation , especially with children involved?
-
Some questions about the draft book
It states that there was a fire in the grounds of WHF within a few days of items ( which obviously later would have been of forensic interest) not taking into account whether the family requested this - would this have been a normal action even in a murder suicide situation? Surely it would still be a standard procedure to piece together what had happened taking all available evidence into account?
Also is it true that the original paper file went missing in a burglary?
In the reports on the deaths were there any estimated times of deaths?
There is a time line in the draft book that mentions the police going in and confirmation of deaths then SOCO - but where does the "training exercise " come into it and who would have authorised that and at one time? Is that something that would have happened normally in such a sensitive situation , especially with children involved?
Jansus we are all a little weary when an old topic comes up with the pace of life it is today and winter approaching;it's nothing personal and Mike will kindly point you in the right direction I'm sure,but if you take time to browse the old threads you will find what you're looking for.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2673.45
-
thank you for link. :)
Apologies for making you weary. that's the problems with us newbies - trying to find our way round a lot of information. I will try and read and not ask questions. ::)
-
thank you for link. :)
Apologies for making you weary. that's the problems with us newbies - trying to find our way round a lot of information. I will try and read and not ask questions. ::)
Go on. Make him weary. ;D
-
thank you for link. :)
Apologies for making you weary. that's the problems with us newbies - trying to find our way round a lot of information. I will try and read and not ask questions. ::)
It is fine to ask questions - we all do it!
-
It is fine to ask questions - we all do it!
I agree with Alias don't worry about asking Jansus we are always happy to help newbies ;D.
-
Some questions about the draft book
It states that there was a fire in the grounds of WHF within a few days of items ( which obviously later would have been of forensic interest) not taking into account whether the family requested this - would this have been a normal action even in a murder suicide situation? Surely it would still be a standard procedure to piece together what had happened taking all available evidence into account?
Also is it true that the original paper file went missing in a burglary?
In the reports on the deaths were there any estimated times of deaths?
There is a time line in the draft book that mentions the police going in and confirmation of deaths then SOCO - but where does the "training exercise " come into it and who would have authorised that and at one time? Is that something that would have happened normally in such a sensitive situation , especially with children involved?
Hi jansus . Regarding the fire I am sure you are correct that it would not be standard procedure . The interpretation of this depends on your stance or application of reason .
As far as the guilters are concerned the fire was at Jeremy's request and this is supposed evidence of his cunning.
Those of the innocent camp see it as EP covering up the evidence of their bungling .
It is quite unbelievable that EP would burn evidence at the request of a possible suspect . If it is true that some officers already suspected Jeremy then surely this request would have set off alarm bells . It also would not qualify as very cunning if, in order to cover up your crime, you need the police to destroy evidence at your request .
The original file was according to EP stolen from a loft with nothing else taken , a highly implausible tale .
No times of death were recorded for any of the victims although possibly there were in the original "implausibly stolen file" .
I do not recall who authorised the training exercise but I am sure you will dig it out . :)
-
Morning gringo, Off the top of his head, with the dilemma caused by the shooting, during the Entry Assault on one of the occupants of WHF, the O/C of the Operation (none other than DCSUPER G Harris of EP 'Operations'), would have seen it as to his benefit, to 'saturate the Crime Scene' with unsubstantiated, indeed unnecessary Personnel.
This would have been ratified by the Chief Constable.
The only time, as far as I am aware, that the CC has come into the equation in this sad saga, is when he has luncheon with RWB(& his two Offspring), in his private dining suite at EP HQ, on the Monday immediately following successful prosecution of JB.
-
Didn't stop them from scoffing a slap-up meal then ? Jeremy made do with a bacon butty and a bit of cheese off the trap ( on the morning of the tragedy ),,as he mainly dined with his parents at WHF. Even that detail was twisted.
-
In reality, Lookout, it's more a question of what wasn't twisted (i.e. STITCHED UP,to use the phrase as I remember you coined).
When Essex Police called the 'Training Exercise' for Informatives, could it be said that it was for DIS-Informatives, or MIS-Informatives?
Here's hoping that they will be 'hoist by there own petard'.
-
In reality, Lookout, it's more a question of what wasn't twisted (i.e. STITCHED UP,to use the phrase as I remember you coined).
When Essex Police called the 'Training Exercise' for Informatives, could it be said that it was for DIS-Informatives, or MIS-Informatives?
Here's hoping that they will be 'hoist by there own petard'.
They'll be that alright,Campion. One of these days they'll meet themselves coming back. I think they're all in for a rude awakening at some point.
-
Thank you all for taking the time to reply. Just very difficult to get my head round someone authorising a training session with those poor children still in the house. And the burning of evidence . The whole way it was handled seems so disrespectful. And yet some of those police that entered the house must have been extremely traumatised themselves by what had happened.
-
Morning gringo, Off the top of his head, with the dilemma caused by the shooting, during the Entry Assault on one of the occupants of WHF, the O/C of the Operation (none other than DCSUPER G Harris of EP 'Operations'), would have seen it as to his benefit, to 'saturate the Crime Scene' with unsubstantiated, indeed unnecessary Personnel.
This would have been ratified by the Chief Constable.
The only time, as far as I am aware, that the CC has come into the equation in this sad saga, is when he has luncheon with RWB(& his two Offspring), in his private dining suite at EP HQ, on the Monday immediately following successful prosecution of JB.
Evening Campion , thanks for that . I concur that something unexpected occurred during the entry to WHF .
Whilst it is a commonly held perception that the investigation by EP was poor , I am not convinced that this was an oversight . As you observe , it would be beneficial to EP to "muddy the waters" if something had gone wrong with the raid which must never be found out .
It is known that the relatives were suspicious because of inconsistencies in the findings of EP . It does not require the largest leap of faith to realise that it would be in the interests of EP to use these inconsistencies against Jeremy rather than admit to a truth which would be extremely damaging to them, not only as an organisation but also to certain police officers .
Admitting bungling would be less damaging than the alternative .
This also helps to explain why no-one has ever come forward and "come clean" . There is no way that anyone can come forward without admitting serious offences themselves (perjury, perverting the course of justice to name two ) .
-
Evening Campion , thanks for that . I concur that something unexpected occurred during the entry to WHF .
Whilst it is a commonly held perception that the investigation by EP was poor , I am not convinced that this was an oversight . As you observe , it would be beneficial to EP to "muddy the waters" if something had gone wrong with the raid which must never be found out .
It is known that the relatives were suspicious because of inconsistencies in the findings of EP . It does not require the largest leap of faith to realise that it would be in the interests of EP to use these inconsistencies against Jeremy rather than admit to a truth which would be extremely damaging to them not only as an organisation but also to certain police officers .
Admitting bungling would be less damaging than the alternative .
This also helps to explain why no-one has ever come forward and "come clean" . There is no way that anyone can come forward without admitting serious offences themselves (perjury, perverting the course of justice to name two ) .
Ann Eaton was taking notes of Jeremy´s actions already on the morning of the murders, so at least she was suspicious from get go - or whatever it was she was...
-
Ann Eaton was taking notes of Jeremy´s actions already on the morning of the murders, so at least she was suspicious from get go - or whatever it was she was...
Hi Alias , this is true but her suspicions were quite likely informed by what she was being told by EP officers at the scene . EP were already quite possibly having to give a false picture to cover their own part in events that morning .
With the relatives suspicions raised because of the inconsistencies it is possible that the best course of action was judged to be pinning it on Jeremy . The alternative being admitting what happened in their bungled raid .
-
DS 'Stan' Jones had already found and taken possession of a sound moderator (SBJ/1) on the morning of 7th August 1985, along with three other exhibits, SBJ/2, SBJ/3, and SBJ/4. The police and the prosecuting authorities have gone out of their way to conceal evidence of the seizure of these four exhibits that morning by DS Jones. This included the silencer (SBJ/1) which was later examined at the lab' by Glenis Howard, on the 13th August 1985, a silencer (SBJ/1) which had blood upon it...
This (SBJ/1) silencer cannot be the same silencer found in the gun cupboard in the downstairs office by David Boutflour (DRB/1) on 10th August 1985, or the 11th September 1985, because DS Jones already had possession of it (SBJ/1) from the morning of 7th August 1985. So, if Boutflour did find a silencer (DRB/1) in the gun cupboard, on either 10th August, or 11th September 1985, and it had blood upon it, and inside uit, that got there during the incident under investigation, it means there were two different silencers with blood on them, or inside them, and at least only one (DRB/1) with red paint from the aga surround upon it...
Bear this in mind...
How could two different sound moderators (SBJ/1 and DRB/1) both have blood upon them that got there during the shootings of the family, if this was only a one gun crime?
The same silencer cannot have been found for the first time, on the 7th August 1985 (SBJ/1), the 10th August 1985, or the 11th September 1985 (DRB/1). Moreover, what happened to the signed exhibit label bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1, which was signed by DI Cook and Glenis Howard, at the lab' on 13th August 1985, when Cook took silencer SBJ/1 for her to examine?
Key to unlocking this case, is gathering all the information regarding the seizure of the four exhibits, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, by DS 'Stan' Jones from the scene on 7th August 1985, tracking the movement of all these exhibits, and pondering over the possible reasons why no other police officer in the entire investigation (SC/786/85) refers to the seizure, find or retention of the silencer (SBJ/1) by DS Jones at the scene on the morning of the shootings, and why the exhibits officers do not list this particular silencer by its reference (SBJ/1) in any exhibits register, despite mentioning the other three (SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4)?
Someone has clearly gone out of their way to try to hide and conceal the fact that DS Jones took possession of a bloodied silencer (SBJ/1) on the morning of the shootings, and that this silencer (could not have been the same silencer (DRB/1)allegedly found later by David Boutflour...
-
The Andrew Hunter Book Draft resuscitated.
-
Before the man himself needs resuscitating------saying that, I hope he's okay.
-
There's quite a lot of water gone under the bridge since he began writing it.
-
A pity Mike is not going to realease a book. But at least Andrew Hunter might be.