Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: lookout on May 15, 2012, 11:43:AM
-
Information gathered from ( BAMBER CCRC -addendum-06-06-2004 doc. )
" A post mortem photograph of Ralph Neville Bamber's right arm,evidencing lacerations caused by fingernails,should have been disclosed by the Prosecuting Authorities to the Applicant as part of their primary disclosure obligation pursuant to section 3( 1 )(a ) Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996,at very least for the Appellate Procedures in 2002.
It follows the failure to do so at the original trial denied the Applicant and his then Learned Counsel,vital missed opportunities at indeed advocating the proposition that the said murders were committed by a third party.
The fingernail lacerations are consistent with a person with fingernails between 5mm-6mm long,since the laceration indentations into the skin are measured.
June Bamber had one such laceration on her arm,which was consistent with a single fingernail indentation into the skin.
There is no mention of such in the post-mortem statement of Professor Vanezis,although it is conceded that the said photograph was indeed amongst the Jury Bundle photographic album.
It is submitted that the discovery of the post-mortem photographs of " Ralph Neville Bamber's " arm,must be constituted as fresh evidence not available to the Defence at either Trial or Appellate proceedings. Had such been available,it would have been included amongst the albums marked " Jury Bundle ",and would by the obvious nature of the said photographs ( even to the untrained eye ) raised serious questions from the Defence.
Compound such failure by the clear failure from Professor Vanezis to have included such in his report/witness statement has for the purpose of these submissions mislead the Court and renders per se the conviction unsafe.
Whoever attacked Ralph Bamber had fingernails at least 5mm-6mm long,and certainly no longer,but positively no shorter. Had the fingernails been shorter,they could not have inflicted the wounds on the right arm and a similar wound on the arm of June Bamber.
There now being the clearest of evidence that not only was there bruising,but lacerations consistent with fingernail indentations----------similar in shape,form,length and diameter in both the arm of June Bamber and Ralph Bamber,and with the knowledge and submission that the Applicant Jeremy Bamber has always maintained short fingernails,the said photograph of Ralph Bamber must be adduced as exculpatory evidence and it follows should be considered as Fresh Evidence in any referral.
-
Perhaps you could explain more about the source, or post the document (or link).
It's worth noting that the post mortem carried out by Dr Vanezis does not conclude that any wounds were caused by fingernails.
This sounds like defence propaganda, or rather a defence or campaign team authored piece?
-
Hi Lookout. I think these are the marks you are on about. You would have thought that this photograph would be important for forensics to look at. Because, it was said that the marks were made by the muzzle of the gun....I doubt that, because there are too many of them....therefore it could well be fingernails...It has been suggest by a few on here that think so.... :)
-
When you crouch your fingers up, they are similar to those marks....with the little finger missing. :)
-
Hi Patti,,,,it is indeed a feasible explanation. During forensic examination,the underneath of the nails wasn't/weren't examined,which I find rather odd. If they were,I haven't seen any such results.
-
NCOH,,,,it was obtained from ( doc ) REGINA. studiolegaleinternazionale.com.bamber.
-
Hi Patti,,,,it is indeed a feasible explanation. During forensic examination,the underneath of the nails wasn't/weren't examined,which I find rather odd. If they were,I haven't seen any such results.
Hi Lookout, the pathologist claimed her hands were clean, i think. This is why a lot of people think she may have cleansed herself afterwards. There is no proof of that of course. The bathroom light upstairs was on, so someone had used it and not turned the light off. Then in the shower room downstairs the shower head was hanging down....AE believes that Jeremy could have showered before he left....
Nothing is straight forward in this case....but there is also a scratch...on his arm. I do think they are fingermarks. I can't see Nevill just leaving his arm there, to be hit by the muzzle end of the gun...Were these marks done prior to death or after...surely they can determine that....:)
-
The other thing is of course if those marks were from a muzzle as opposed to fingernails, there certainly was no silencer on the gun....:)
-
NCOH,,,,it was obtained from ( doc ) REGINA. studiolegaleinternazionale.com.bamber.
Thank you.
That site is linked to Jeremy's former legal representative Giovanni Di Stefano.
Unless the claims can be substantiated in some manner then they are not really worth the paper they are written on (or screen they are typed on :-\ ).
-
Thank you.
That site is linked to Jeremy's former legal representative Giovanni Di Stefano.
Unless the claims can be substantiated in some manner then they are not really worth the paper they are written on (or screen they are typed on :-\ ).
I am sure some crime scientist or crime photographer would be able to tell what the marks are...or give an opinion as they do.. :)
-
I am sure some crime scientist or crime photographer would be able to tell what the marks are...or give an opinion as they do.. :)
I'm sure the pathologist who carried out the post mortems is likely to be the most reliable source of opinion?
Also bearing in mind that at the time the post mortems were carried out, Sheila was the accepted guilty party.
-
Patti,,,,,Had there been any marks,bruises,wounds,cuts,scratches,or any sign of Jeremy having been in a struggle/scuffle,you can bet your bottom dollar that JM would have immediately reported same,as her aim,along with everyone elses was to get him convicted,and at that point,she didn't miss a trick.
-
I'm sure the pathologist who carried out the post mortems is likely to be the most reliable source of opinion?
Also bearing in mind that at the time the post mortems were carried out, Sheila was the accepted guilty party.
He never elaborated on it did he? All I read is that the marks to his arm could have been made from the muzzle of the gun.....if so, why aren't the defence using this photograph as new evidence...as opposed to the burn marks on Nevill's back? :)
-
Patti,,,,,Had there been any marks,bruises,wounds,cuts,scratches,or any sign of Jeremy having been in a struggle/scuffle,you can bet your bottom dollar that JM would have immediately reported same,as her aim,along with everyone elses was to get him convicted,and at that point,she didn't miss a trick.
lookout, i will have to read the Pathologist reports again...No one saw any marks on Jeremy and it was summer time. AE purposely looked and saw nothing. Then again Shelia had no marks on her either....both to me were clean..... :-\
-
He never elaborated on it did he? All I read is that the marks to his arm could have been made from the muzzle of the gun.....if so, why aren't the defence using this photograph as new evidence...as opposed to the burn marks on Nevill's back? :)
The defence aren't using the photograph as new evidence because the claims have not been supported by any tangible piece of evidence or expert opinion.
Dr Vanezis did go into a certain amount of detail as to the shape of the object likely to have caused the wounds, I forget the exact wording but it was something along the lines of 'the edge of a curved linear object'. I don't think he actually suggested the rifle barrel as being the cause, I'd have to look it up to be sure.
-
The defence aren't using the photograph as new evidence because the claims have not been supported by any tangible piece of evidence or expert opinion.
Dr Vanezis did go into a certain amount of detail as to the shape of the object likely to have caused the wounds, I forget the exact wording but it was something along the lines of 'the edge of a curved linear object'. I don't think he actually suggested the rifle barrel as being the cause, I'd have to look it up to be sure.
Of course, if the claims were supported by expert opinion then I suppose it could form part of a future application to the CCRC, depending on exactly how it has been addressed in the past.
-
Patti,,,,,fingernail " jabs " such as the marks on Neville's arm would be more prominent given the age of him,as with those who are older,any,even slight injuries would bruise easier than that of a younger person.
Though his build along with his health would have prevented a worse attack by fingernails.
I would bet that the one wound on June was more prominent. Women with nails like that can,and have done a lot of damage in crime scenes.
Because Sheila's nails were looked after and well manicured,they would by their very nature have been strong and not prone to breaking upon impact/contact,as in a struggle. She was young as well,and what I'm saying is that had she been a lot older,then the nails wouldn't have had the same impact,but would still wound.
Professor Vanezis failed to make a report regarding the lacerations,simply because no examination took place beneath the fingernails.
It was stated that whoever made the lacerations,also carried out the murders.
-
Bamber has been found guilty of dreadful crimes , may he rot in hell for the rest of his miserable life.
Please allow his step sister to rest in peace. ;D
-
Bamber has been found guilty of dreadful crimes , may he rot in hell for the rest of his miserable life.
Please allow his step sister to rest in peace. ;D
I sort of agree with the sentiment, but if you are going to stick around for any length of time then you may wish to display a certain level of tact. People do have a very different view to the one which you have aired.
-
Bamber has been found guilty of dreadful crimes , may he rot in hell for the rest of his miserable life.
Please allow his step sister to rest in peace. ;D
Bollocks... (what a load of)
-
rochford The post I read from Pat H left me somewhat puzzled. Nobody on this forum ever disrespects Sheila (I assume that who he is talking about) and most people have a warm sympathetic feeling for her but it is impossible to discuss this case without talking about all the Bamber family and inspite of discussing the family we all hope they are all resting in peace.
-
Bamber has been found guilty of dreadful crimes , may he rot in hell for the rest of his miserable life.
Please allow his step sister to rest in peace. ;D
Found guilty using tampered evidence and without evidence held under PII that without doubt would have changed the decision of the jury
-
rochford The post I read from Pat H left me somewhat puzzled. Nobody on this forum ever disrespects Sheila (I assume that who he is talking about) and most people have a warm sympathetic feeling for her but it is impossible to discuss this case without talking about all the Bamber family and inspite of discussing the family we all hope they are all resting in peace.
Susan, for the most part you are quite correct, historically, that has unfortunately not always been the case.
-
Well, we can see where this thread is going. ::)
-
It's looking very good for Sam Hallum another miscarriage of justice case
Another massive mistake
-
Hi NewchilledOutHartley I find that sad and not very Christian I have always been taught not to speak ill of the dead and I don,t think I have I sincerely hope not anyway may have said one or two not so nice things about the living which I did regret.
-
Hi NewchilledOutHartley I find that sad and not very Christian I have always been taught not to speak ill of the dead and I don,t think I have I sincerely hope not anyway may have said one or two not so nice things about the living which I did regret.
No, not that I have noticed.
-
rochford The post I read from Pat H left me somewhat puzzled. Nobody on this forum ever disrespects Sheila (I assume that who he is talking about) and most people have a warm sympathetic feeling for her but it is impossible to discuss this case without talking about all the Bamber family and inspite of discussing the family we all hope they are all resting in peace.
Are you for real?!
The forum is hardy respectful of Sheila to claim that she murdered 4 members of her family, including shooting her 2 sons in the head as they slept?!
Then other claims that she may of had an incestuous relationship with Neville.
Do you honestly think that this is affording Sheila respect?!
I've certainly not yet heard anyone say that Sheila murdered 4 members of her family, but she was suffering from serious medical issues, so that excuses her behaviour!
-
Bamber has been found guilty of dreadful crimes , may he rot in hell for the rest of his miserable life.
Please allow his step sister to rest in peace. ;D
Pat H - in accordance with forum rules please introduce yourself in the Foyer section before posting further. Thank you for your coperation.
-
petey Maybe I shall change the wording and say I have never meant to disrespect Sheila and I certainly know nothing about the affair between her and Ralph that is new to me. Not really sure where you are going with this argument but it will not be with me my friend.
-
Are you for real?!
The forum is hardy respectful of Sheila to claim that she murdered 4 members of her family, including shooting her 2 sons in the head as they slept?!
Then other claims that she may of had an incestuous relationship with Neville.
Do you honestly think that this is affording Sheila respect?!
I've certainly not yet heard anyone say that Sheila murdered 4 members of her family, but she was suffering from serious medical issues, so that excuses her behaviour!
Those that believe Sheila was responsible also believe she acted in a psychotic state and was therefore not responsible for her actions. On any view she was a victim in this tragic case. I do not believe anyone has described her as evil or culpable in the ordinary sense.
-
petey Maybe I shall change the wording and say I have never meant to disrespect Sheila and I certainly know nothing about the affair between her and Ralph that is new to me. Not really sure where you are going with this argument but it will not be with me my friend.
I'm not starting an argument merely querying your post that nobody on the forum disrespects Sheila.
I've never mentioned an affair between Sheila and Neville. I'm merely giving examples where forum members have shown disrespect to Sheila.
Given the basis that the vast majority of pro JB supporters probably believe that Sheila turned a gun on her own children and repeatedly shot them dead as they slept in their beds, it is then hard to say that she is treated with the utmost respect on this forum.
-
This forum can be very hit or miss when it coems to respect for Sheila, in my opinion. Most members do post about her respectfully which must be hard if they beleive her to be guilty of a crime that has locked someone else up for 27 years - but often there are posts, quite oftne, that aren't respectful in the slightest.
As for other members of the Bamber family, this forum isn't nice or respectful towards them at all, in my opinion.
-
Those that believe Sheila was responsible also believe she acted in a psychotic state and was therefore not responsible for her actions. On any view she was a victim in this tragic case. I do not believe anyone has described her as evil or culpable in the ordinary sense.
Point taken sorry.
I do still find it hard when on the one hand people want to talk respectfully of Sheila. Then on the other to say that she repeatedly shot dead her own children as they slept. I take the legal defence of diminished responsibility, but Sheila would still have been guilty of manslaughter, making it hard to treat her with the utmost respect.
-
rochford The post I read from Pat H left me somewhat puzzled. Nobody on this forum ever disrespects Sheila (I assume that who he is talking about) and most people have a warm sympathetic feeling for her but it is impossible to discuss this case without talking about all the Bamber family and inspite of discussing the family we all hope they are all resting in peace.
It amazes me that some people who support guilt actually believe that their particular stance on the case, directly equates to 'victims resting in peace'. Metaphorically speaking this may well be true if the guilty culprit is paying the price for their crime. However, it never seems to occur to them that if the person paying the price for the crime didn't commit the crime, their incarceration is hardly likely to induce victims to 'rest in peace'. To me it's a ludicrous notion, other than say for example Keith Bennet / Winnie Johnson type situation.
-
It amazes me that some people who support guilt actually believe that their particular stance on the case, directly equates to 'victims resting in peace'. Metaphorically speaking this may well be true if the guilty culprit is paying the price for their crime. However, it never seems to occur to them that if the person paying the price for the crime didn't commit the crime, their incarceration is hardly likely to induce victims to 'rest in peace'. To me it's a ludicrous notion, other than say for example Keith Bennet / Winnie Johnson type situation.
You shouldn't generalise so much. It's too late for the victims, I'd just like to see the surviving family left in peace.
-
It amazes me that some people who support guilt, somehow believe that their particular stance on the case, directly equates to 'victims resting in peace'. Metaphorically speaking this may very well be true if the guilty culprit is paying the price for their crime. However, it never seems to occur to them that if the person paying the price for the crime didn't commit the crime, their incarceration is hardly likely to induce victims to 'rest in peace'. To me it's a ludicrous notion, other than say for example Keith Bennet / Winnie Johnson type situation.
I think it's an emotive subject and feelings can run high at times. I've never preached the whole 'rest in peace' thing, but then I've never actually attacked Jeremy either.
It goes both ways, there are obviously some pretty nasty things said about Jeremy, which people justify by their belief that he is guilty; but there are also some pretty nasty things said about Sheila and various members of the extended family, justified in their minds in other ways.
There's a certain 'people in glass houses throwing stones' about it, which I can't quite put my finger on.
It's all back to perspectives I guess. :-\
-
You shouldn't generalise so much. It's too late for the victims, I'd just like to see the surviving family left in peace.
I wasn't aware that I was generalising. I was referring to the 'far right' of the guilty camp. I have often stated that the family are victims in the sense that they suffered a grievous loss due to the events of 7th August. My views regarding them being victims in any other sense probably differ greatly from your own views, for numerous reasons already stated on here.
-
You shouldn't generalise so much. It's too late for the victims, I'd just like to see the surviving family left in peace.
I expect that's what the friends and family of the victim feel like about the Simon Hall case
I bet they hate seeing Mrs Hall keeping dragging up the case
-
I expect that's what the friends and family of the victim feel like about the Simon Hall case
I bet they hate seeing Mrs Hall keeping dragging up the case
Any chance we can keep personal attacks off of the forum, particularly when the person in question isn't even a member of this forum?
I'm not having a dig, just saying, that's all. :-\
-
I expect that's what the friends and family of the victim feel like about the Simon Hall case
I bet they hate seeing Mrs Hall keeping dragging up the case
Well said Jackie, by Jove you've pulled a blinder that one I must say. Sorry hartley, well have to ATD on this one
-
Well said Jackie, by Jove you've pulled a blinder that one I must say. Sorry hartley, well have to ATD on this one
No worries.
-
Which personal attacks
You can't pick and choose which friends and family need to be left in peace or you might as well never fight for what you believe is a MOJ
Thanks Rochy
-
Which personal attacks
You can't pick and choose which friends and family need to be left in peace or you might as well never fight for what you believe is a MOJ
Thanks Rochy
I'm not picking and choosing, I don't know the case at all, but I have heard about the relationship and confrontation you have with another forum.
I strongly believe that you should refrain from antagonising them, rather than giving them more reason to retaliate against you.
But I've agreed to disagree, so let's move on please.
-
You can't pick and choose which friends and family need to be left in peace or you might as well never fight for what you believe is a MOJ
I also think this is a great quote.
-
I expect that's what the friends and family of the victim feel like about the Simon Hall case
I bet they hate seeing Mrs Hall keeping dragging up the case
I'm sure you're right, and I'm sure the same goes for every family in the same position.
-
What relationship? Hartley
Thanks Rochy
-
Which personal attacks
You can't pick and choose which friends and family need to be left in peace or you might as well never fight for what you believe is a MOJ
Thanks Rochy
Of course on an individual basis you can choose. I think JB is guilty and I wish he'd shut up for the sake of his family. It's the state that should be prevented from making such choices.
-
Of course on an individual basis you can choose. I think JB is guilty and I wish he'd shut up for the sake of his family. It's the state that should be prevented from making such choices.
He has no family though Bridget...He has no voice sticking up for him. All Jeremy is doing is fighting for justice...he says he is innocent and, therefore should be heard, it is his right. :)
-
Bridget this forum is full of genuine people who want to get to the truth and you are entitled to your own opinion but I will give up this fight when I see any genuine proof of Jeremys guilt. There isn't any, nothing and In the name of justice I have no intention of seeing someone who is probably innocent rot in prison
-
He has no family though Bridget...He has no voice sticking up for him. All Jeremy is doing is fighting for justice...he says he is innocent and, therefore should be heard, it is his right. :)
I'm not saying he shouldn't, just wish that he wouldn't.
-
Of course on an individual basis you can choose. I think JB is guilty and I wish he'd shut up for the sake of his family. It's the state that should be prevented from making such choices.
His polygraph result aint shutting up for anyone. Not state. Not family. Not guilty camp.
-
His polygraph result aint shutting up for anyone. Not state. Not family. Not guilty camp.
No one seems to be listening though
-
No one seems to be listening though
Exactly Bridget...nail on head... :)
-
No one seems to be listening though
Listening to what? ???
;D
-
Bridget sorry I am listening they must have some credence as why bother with them. As we have said before Bridget we all perceive things differently and if he had failed some people would have said told you he was guilty. Jeremy Kyle believes in them (just having a laugh) We live in a state of democracy and it is our entitlement to have our own opinions.
-
Who said that? ???
;D
:D
-
No one seems to be listening though
Which is completelty irrelevant to the result itself.
If I pass my maths A level with distinction... but The City wont take me on as an apprentice... that doesn't mean I didn't pass my maths A level with distinction.
-
Bridget sorry I am listening they must have some credence as why bother with them. As we have said before Bridget we all perceive things differently and if he had failed some people would have said told you he was guilty. Jeremy Kyle believes in them (just having a laugh) We live in a state of democracy and it is our entitlement to have our own opinions.
Of course we're all entitled to an opinion, mine is that LDs are inaccurate :)
-
Which is completelty irrelevant to the result itself.
If I pass my maths A level with distinction... but The City wont take me on as an apprentice... that doesn't mean I didn't pass my maths A level with distinction.
It's irrelevant in the sense that the test is not recognised by law.
You are right though, if he failed it then I would use it against your argument. ;)
-
His polygraph result aint shutting up for anyone. Not state. Not family. Not guilty camp.
The truth will come out it always does bit by bit, how ever long it takes and thank goodness for the people that keep fighting for what they believe in even though they get
intimidated on a daily basis by bullies and racist thugs
The ccrc have got one hell of a fight on if they think this is going away
-
fair do,s Bridget. I bet you have never heard that expression before.
-
Of course we're all entitled to an opinion, mine is that LDs are inaccurate :)
Yes but you cant say why they are innaccurate or in what context relating to JB they are innaccurate. Well you can, but it either has to be faulty software or?
If you say self deception or manipulation towards the tester, this is not born out in Dr. Egan's 2011 testing of Bamber... which is a bit awkward when attempting to back up such theories re the lie detector test.
-
Exactly >:( >:( >:(
-
Yes but you cant say why they are innaccurate or in what context relating to JB they are innaccurate. Well you can, but it either has to be faulty software or?
If you say self deception or manipulation towards the tester, this is not born out in Dr. Egan's 2011 testing of Bamber... which is a bit awkward when attempting to back up such theories re the lie detector test.
In order for a test to be recognised as accurate and therefore be admissible in court it's accuracy must be assessed. LDTs have never been assessed as being sufficiently accurate. They are, as we know used by some organisations as an aid to assist in identifying those claims (or whatever) which might need further investigation, but are not considered conclusive, even by the organisations that use them.
Similarly, the other tests you refer to - I've asked you before, have these been assessed as accurate, and are they recognised as such and admissable?
-
fair do,s Bridget. I bet you have never heard that expression before.
I have, probably on tv :)
-
In order for a test to be recognised as accurate and therefore be admissible in court it's accuracy must be assessed. LDTs have never been assessed as being sufficiently accurate. They are, as we know used by some organisations as an aid to assist in identifying those claims (or whatever) which might need further investigation, but are not considered conclusive, even by the organisations that use them.
Similarly, the other tests you refer to - I've asked you before, have these been assessed as accurate, and are they recognised as such and admissable?
Admissible for what? They are what they are. Psychological tests administered by a Dr. with a post at Leicester University. Do you think Bamber has said... Oi! Egan! Can you get me some duff tests to show that I'm not a nutter? And while you're at it, can you get a couple of more duff tests to show how I am not manipulative towards you or deceiving my self regarding them murders I done?
http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/psychology/ppl/ve2
-
Admissible for what? They are what they are. Psychological tests administered by a Dr. with a post at Leicester University. Do you think Bamber has said... Oi! Egan! Can you get me some duff tests to show that I'm not a nutter? And while you're at it, can you get a couple of more duff tests to show how I am not manipulative towards you or deceiving my self regarding them murders I done?
http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/psychology/ppl/ve2
Not to worry, after reading elsewhere I see that he was tested for impression management and self deception enhancement by Egan as a part of a catagory assessment in 2011 was it? IM is whether or not he is manipulating other people's impression of him, and SDE is basically whether or not he is 'bigging himself up' if you like. The tests related to his general demeanour at the time, and were not related to whether or not he had deceived himself over the murders as an explanation for his passing the LD test. More smoke and mirrors IMHO.
-
Oh and not that it's relevant, but he was found to be in the low to normal range for those tests, apparently we all do it.
-
The tests related to his general demeanour at the time, and were not related to whether or not he had deceived himself over the murders as an explanation for his passing the LD test. More smoke and mirrors IMHO.
What, so I'm now part of the defence smoke & mirrors campaign? It's me that's linked them. Please show which test should have been administered, in relation to the polygraph, as opposed to the psychological tests, for the purpose of discounting self deception over the murders?
And has he also deceived him self that the original cops at the scene radio'd in the sighting at the window? ???
-
What, so I'm now part of the defence smoke & mirrors campaign? It's me that's linked them. Please show which test should have been administered, in relation to the polygraph, as opposed to the psychological tests, for the purpose of discounting self deception over the murders?
And has he also deceived him self that the original cops at the scene radio'd in the sighting at the window? ???
If the cap fits...
I think a test done at the same time as the LD test and with specific reference to the Q & As given on the test would have been more convincing.
-
If the cap fits...
I think a test done at the same time as the LD test and with specific reference to the Q & As given on the test would have been more convincing.
Well Terry Mullins set up the parameters for the LD test. He, like me and Egan must be fond of getting murderers off the hook. I never realised there was so many of us. Maybe I should set up a support group?
-
Oi! Egan! Can you get me some duff tests to show that I'm not a nutter? And while you're at it, can you get a couple of more duff tests to show how I am not manipulative towards you or deceiving my self regarding them murders I done?
http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/psychology/ppl/ve2
;D ;D
Though, coming from Jeremy, I imagine it would be more along the lines of: I say, Egan, old chap...
-
Well Terry Mullins set up the parameters for the LD test. He, like me and Egan must be fond of getting murderers off the hook. I never realised there was so many of us. Maybe I should set up a support group?
As far as I can tell, Egan's only interest was in whether or not it would be safe to downgrade JBs Cat A status, he makes no comment on guilt or innocence. Interesting that unless I haven't found it yet, JB has only publicised 2 of 3 paragraphs of Egan's 14 page report.
-
I was under the impression that it was Jeremy that had refused to be downgraded from a category A prisoner, due to the fact he still proclaims he is innocent....:)
-
I was under the impression that it was Jeremy that had refused to be downgraded from a category A prisoner, due to the fact he still proclaims he is innocent....:)
I think that is inaccurate. Category has nothing to do with proclaiming innocence.
-
Earlier in the day Mr Blaxland told the court that a miscarriage of justice was brought about by 'a combination of manifestly unreliable identification evidence, the apparent failure of his own alibi, failure by police properly to investigate his alibi and non-disclosure by the prosecution of material that could have supported his case.'
Re the Sam Hallam case note the remarks non-disclosure by the prosecution (Julie Mugford deal to collect money on Jeremys conviction) that could have supported his case
When thousands of documents still held under PII are released and the missing photos etc etc etc Jeremy will be walking out of that appeal court and unlike other murderers trying to get their convictions overturned Jeremy has NO PREVIOUS RECORD OF BEING VIOLENT
Let's hope Simon gets the right result
-
I think that is inaccurate. Category has nothing to do with proclaiming innocence.
Sorry the quote was from Lomax: Lomax writes that Bamber has had several psychological assessments, and has reportedly been found not to have traits suggestive of psychopathy. He remains a Category A prisoner because he has refused to accept his guilt.[17] His lawyers arranged for him to undergo a lie detector test in 2007, which he passed.[18]
-
I will have to ask Neil tomorrow if the common factor in every MOJ is non disclosure of evidence
If the ccrc are reading this it's an absolute joke
-
Sorry the quote was from Lomax: Lomax writes that Bamber has had several psychological assessments, and has reportedly been found not to have traits suggestive of psychopathy. He remains a Category A prisoner because he has refused to accept his guilt.[17] His lawyers arranged for him to undergo a lie detector test in 2007, which he passed.[18]
Hi Patti, what I'm saying is that he wouldn't have to refuse a downgrade in order to continue to protest his innocence - whether they would grant a downgrade without him confessing is a different question :)
-
Patti
Patti if you are talking about Scott Lomax
Scott Lomax is a friend of Jeremys and is up to date with most aspects of the case
-
As far as I can tell, Egan's only interest was in whether or not it would be safe to downgrade JBs Cat A status, he makes no comment on guilt or innocence. Interesting that unless I haven't found it yet, JB has only publicised 2 of 3 paragraphs of Egan's 14 page report.
So does that equate to the only interest in the psychological tests themselves as being whether or not JB should be downgraded? The tests are designed purely for that purpose only... but not to assess self deception in general? Perhaps if we can find the missing paragraph, it will indicate that he is a self deceptive psychopath then? If your argument is that he passed the lie detector test because he deceives him self, then i suggest a psychological test which indicates a lack of self deception is a tad relevant.
Professor Vincent Egan, BSc. (Hons).,Ph.D., D. Clin. Psy. Chartered Clinical Psychologist, Chartered Forensic Psychologist, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, University of Leicester, recently carried out a psychological assessment of Jeremy Bamber for a category A risk assessment review and he stated in his 14 page report:
“Jeremy has been previously assessed using the PCL-R and found non-psychopathic. My own assessment also found he did not meet caseness for clinical psychopathy, or even mild psychopathy.” He goes on to state “He did not meet caseness for any of the personality disorder dimensions.”
It has also been further suggested that Jeremy Bamber has used “Impression Management” to dupe the assessor into believing he has no psychopathy, nevertheless Professor Egan applied further tests to take this into account and noted:
“To examine whether Jeremy was exaggerating how he presented himself, he also completed the BIDR (Paulus, 1998). On this measure Jeremy was within the low-normal range for impression management and self-deception enhancement. These results suggest he was not presenting himself in an excessively anodyne way to bias the assessor.”
Professor Egan comments, “These findings suggest it is hard to sustain the view that Jeremy Bamber is so expert in deceptive self-presentation as to maintain this front for over a variety of different assessors, different assessment instruments and different times”
The assessment concludes with “Dangerous violent persons tend to be angry, alienated, impulsive and out of control, and none of these qualities appear to reflect Mr Bamber. Quite what the motive would be for something like the index offence being carried out by Mr Bamber again is very speculative, as is the proposition in the first place.”
-
“These findings suggest it is hard to sustain the view that Jeremy Bamber is so expert in deceptive self-presentation as to maintain this front for over a variety of different assessors, different assessment instruments and different times”
You will also be aware that our client has been requesting the leave of a number of Home Secretary’s since 1991 to take the polygraph test.
· Did you shoot your family on August 7th 1985? – No
· Did you shoot five members of your family with an Anshutz rifle? No
· Were you present inside the house when they were shot with an Anshutz rifle? No
· Did you shoot your father Neville? – No
· Did you shoot your mother June? – No
· Did you shoot your sister Sheila Caffell? – No
· Did you shoot your twin nephews Daniel and Nicholas? – No
· Did you climb out of a window of your parent’s home after shooting your family? No
· Did you shoot your family in your father’s home? – No
· Did PC Bews radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shootings? – Yes
· Did you pay a professional hit man to shoot your family? – No
-
If your argument is that he passed the lie detector test because he deceives him self, then i suggest a psychological test which indicates a lack of self deception is a tad relevant.
I agree. An interesting thread and well argued, thanks, Rochford and Bridget.
-
Why all the talk of lie detectors?
They are inadmissable in court, jb could take a thousand tests it makes not one iota of difference.
I agree with Bridget, he should shut up, admit what he has done and stop wasting peoples time.
He should spare a thought for what he is putting his family through, they have suffered enough.
Right, how is everyone? All good and well?
-
Why all the talk of lie detectors?
They are inadmissable in court, jb could take a thousand tests it makes not one iota of difference.
I agree with Bridget, he should shut up, admit what he has done and stop wasting peoples time.
He should spare a thought for what he is putting his family through, they have suffered enough.
Right, how is everyone? All good and well?
You sound so sure he is guilty , i guess here in Lincolnshire we are plain dumb not sharing your view given only a fraction of the documents have come to light you must know what the ones witheld contain.
-
Why all the talk of lie detectors?
They are inadmissable in court, jb could take a thousand tests it makes not one iota of difference.
I agree with Bridget, he should shut up, admit what he has done and stop wasting peoples time.
He should spare a thought for what he is putting his family through, they have suffered enough.
Right, how is everyone? All good and well?
Why are you so keen to close down the debate, Sagar? It seems as though these results worry you!
-
You sound so sure he is guilty , i guess here in Lincolnshire we are plain dumb not sharing your view given only a fraction of the documents have come to light you must know what the ones witheld contain.
Nice one, Mertol ;D
-
Why all the talk of lie detectors?...it makes not one iota of difference
It certainly makes an iota of difference in my mind.
he should shut up, admit what he has done and stop wasting peoples time.
That would be a bit daft, if he has not done it
He should spare a thought for what he is putting his family through, they have suffered enough.
Or you should spare a thought for what they have put him through
-
Nice one, Mertol ;D
Always on hand to equalize the odds keira..
-
Why are you so keen to close down the debate, Sagar? It seems as though these results worry you!
No not at all choco, i am sure he is guilty afterall he was found guilty in a court of law.
I dont know what is supposedly withheld, does anyone else? But you all seem sure that whatever it is will prove your man innocent, im more than happy to keep the debate going by the way.
Bamber took two kids out and a stunning young woman in her prime. He is where he should be imo.
-
Must dash, need to walk the dogs.
Goodnight.
-
No not at all choco, i am sure he is guilty afterall he was found guilty in a court of law.
I dont know what is supposedly withheld, does anyone else? But you all seem sure that whatever it is will prove your man innocent, im more than happy to keep the debate going by the way.
Bamber took two kids out and a stunning young woman in her prime. He is where he should be imo.
I can judge a person in one sentence i sense from you its simple he is guilty , that be the case i see little on this forum for you perhaps you will find Lambertons site more fitting they share your view , thats where you belong clearly not here.
-
No one but no one is lucky enough to get ALL the questions right. But Jeremy did get them all right. Some people here will settle for nothing less that perfect proof to believe that Jeremy is innocent. Although he was convicted on practically no proof. Some are dishonest and do not want to listen. They think he's guilty and will not change their minds even if there was perfect proof of his innocence.
-
I can judge a person in one sentence i sense from you its simple he is guilty , that be the case i see little on this forum for you perhaps you will find Lambertons site more fitting they share your view , thats where you belong clearly not here.
That's not very nice.
-
Why all the talk of lie detectors?
They are inadmissable in court, jb could take a thousand tests it makes not one iota of difference.
I agree with Bridget, he should shut up, admit what he has done and stop wasting peoples time.
He should spare a thought for what he is putting his family through, they have suffered enough.
Right, how is everyone? All good and well?
Well let's only hope that you don't find yourself convicted of a murder that you did not commit. I bet you wouldn't shut up and admit to it.
-
Well let's only hope that you don't find yourself convicted of a murder that you did not commit. I bet you wouldn't shut up and admit to it.
Excellent point, Bloggs!
-
I can judge a person in one sentence i sense from you its simple he is guilty , that be the case i see little on this forum for you perhaps you will find Lambertons site more fitting they share your view , thats where you belong clearly not here.
This is a forum Mertol, iam entitled to an opinion.
I have been reading this forum for quite a while and just plucked up courage to join.
I think jb is guilty and knew i would be savaged for it, the evidence points to bamber, show me the evidence his sister did it. She was a mild schizophrenic and thats it.
How did she fight with her father and not a mark on her? Please tell me how she managed it.
No gun residue, she shot herself twice, where is the residue?
-
So does that equate to the only interest in the psychological tests themselves as being whether or not JB should be downgraded? The tests are designed purely for that purpose only... but not to assess self deception in general? Perhaps if we can find the missing paragraph, it will indicate that he is a self deceptive psychopath then? If your argument is that he passed the lie detector test because he deceives him self, then i suggest a psychological test which indicates a lack of self deception is a tad relevant.
The tests done in 2011 were to see whether in 2011 his apparent anodyne composure was down to him deceiving either himself or the assessor.
There is another 13 odd pages to the report.
He passed the LD test because LD tests are inaccurate.
-
sagar How did Jeremy fight with his Father he had no marks on him either.
-
This is a forum Mertol, iam entitled to an opinion.I have been reading this forum for quite a while and just plucked up courage to join.
I think jb is guilty and knew i would be savaged for it, the evidence points to bamber, show me the evidence his sister did it. She was a mild schizophrenic and thats it.
How did she fight with her father and not a mark on her? Please tell me how she managed it.
No gun residue, she shot herself twice, where is the residue?
You are entitled to an opinion Sagar and you are entitled to express it freely here. We welcome open debate as that assists all of us.
-
Good morning All,,,,,,does anyone have a copy/video of Jeremy Bambers first televised interview after the murders.? A lot can be gained from these interviews,as in a lot of cases,one can reach a conclusion just by watching their body language and also how they interpret a crime.
I'm sure most of us have studied some of these interviews and possibly made up our minds there and then whether that person appears to be guilty or not.
I remember the Colin Stagg scenario,and saying to myself " poor sod ",it wasn't him.
We've all seen the blubbering " crocodile tears " of some,which immediately tell you,well me,anyway,that they're guilty.
There's a heck of a difference in someone appearing devastated, and being guilty.
-
No not at all choco, i am sure he is guilty afterall he was found guilty in a court of law.
I dont know what is supposedly withheld, does anyone else? But you all seem sure that whatever it is will prove your man innocent, im more than happy to keep the debate going by the way.
Bamber took two kids out and a stunning young woman in her prime. He is where he should be imo.
Hello subject sagar. MOJ's are much much more common than you think. Courts are made up of only fallable humans who can only look at the evidence that is presented to them at the time. Sadly it is all too common that that does not happen. Believe it or not police do lie in order to get a conviction. Also all witnesses are not saints as we may think and there are those whop are for reasons best known to themselves who seem to have mental blocks all because they hate Bamber. Bad karma, very bad.
-
The tests done in 2011 were to see whether in 2011 his apparent anodyne composure was down to him deceiving either himself or the assessor.
There is another 13 odd pages to the report.
He passed the LD test because LD tests are inaccurate.
Hello subject Bridget. May I just say, "WOW!" He passed because the LD test was inaccurate? In spite of the fact that he passed on ALL questions? He must be some kanda superman to do that? Hmm. wonder if you would hold the same argument regarding LD tests if he had "failed"? ::) Now there's a psychological point to ponder. ;)
-
The nature of the crime demanded that someone had to be found and fast , jb was not suspect in the early days , no one can be found guilty of any crime without strong evidence at that, the soul evidence in this case is a silencer that was not found on the day why not ? with up to 20 police officers in the house on the day no one thought to search, and a statement from his recent former partner saying he had planned the whole thing befofehand with no concrete evidence to support her story,for all you know sagar i could have been there that night.
-
Hello subject Bridget. May I just say, "WOW!" He passed because the LD test was inaccurate? In spite of the fact that he passed on ALL questions? He must be some kanda superman to do that? Hmm. wonder if you would hold the same argument regarding LD tests if he had "failed"? ::) Now there's a psychological point to ponder. ;)
Not really, since they are inaccurate it would be equally meaningless. Polygraph machines detect minute physiological changes in a person. The results are then interpreted by the tester. The problem is in the interpretation - there is a huge variation in natural responses both when people are truthful and when they're not, and also across the population. In other words, at one end of the scale you have people who will show little or no physiological change when lying through their teeth, and at the other end, people who show marked responses when truthfully answering what day of the week it is. There are also those who are able to suppress changes in things like heart rate and breathing. Because of this a control test is done prior to the main test, but the end results are still a matter of interpretation, and so fallible. I've read that some studies have found the accuracy of the test as low as 61%, only slightly better than pure chance.
-
Not really, since they are inaccurate it would be equally meaningless. Polygraph machines detect minute physiological changes in a person. The results are then interpreted by the tester. The problem is in the interpretation - there is a huge variation in natural responses both when people are truthful and when they're not, and also across the population. In other words, at one end of the scale you have people who will show little or no physiological change when lying through their teeth, and at the other end, people who show marked responses when truthfully answering what day of the week it is. There are also those who are able to suppress changes in things like heart rate and breathing. Because of this a control test is done prior to the main test, but the end results are still a matter of interpretation, and so fallible. I've read that some studies have found the accuracy of the test as low as 61%, only slightly better than pure chance.
Wow! subject Bridget is that so? So if you were banged up for years in clink for a crime you didn't commit. you would absolutely refuse to take a polygraph test in order to show people that you are telling the truth? I reckon you would be really pissed if you were convicted on the slimmest of evidence and that there were many people saying that you deserve to be where you are?
-
Good morning All,,,,,,does anyone have a copy/video of Jeremy Bambers first televised interview after the murders.? A lot can be gained from these interviews,as in a lot of cases,one can reach a conclusion just by watching their body language and also how they interpret a crime.
I'm sure most of us have studied some of these interviews and possibly made up our minds there and then whether that person appears to be guilty or not.
I remember the Colin Stagg scenario,and saying to myself " poor sod ",it wasn't him.
We've all seen the blubbering " crocodile tears " of some,which immediately tell you,well me,anyway,that they're guilty.
There's a heck of a difference in someone appearing devastated, and being guilty.
Hi Lookout, I don't think there is a video....If there is I would be interested to see it. :)
-
Good morning All,,,,,,does anyone have a copy/video of Jeremy Bambers first televised interview after the murders.? A lot can be gained from these interviews,as in a lot of cases,one can reach a conclusion just by watching their body language and also how they interpret a crime.
I'm sure most of us have studied some of these interviews and possibly made up our minds there and then whether that person appears to be guilty or not.
I remember the Colin Stagg scenario,and saying to myself " poor sod ",it wasn't him.
We've all seen the blubbering " crocodile tears " of some,which immediately tell you,well me,anyway,that they're guilty.
There's a heck of a difference in someone appearing devastated, and being guilty.
Body language? Do you think the original jurors used that instead of looking at the evidence? Well let's spin the bones again folks and see what they tell us this time round. ;D
-
The tests done in 2011 were to see whether in 2011 his apparent anodyne composure was down to him deceiving either himself or the assessor.
There is another 13 odd pages to the report.
He passed the LD test because LD tests are inaccurate.
The doctor is quite clear about what in his professional opinion, the 2011 tests indicate:
“These findings suggest it is hard to sustain the view that Jeremy Bamber is so expert in deceptive self-presentation as to maintain this front for over a variety of different assessors, different assessment instruments and different times”
In my opinion your statement in red above is plain daft. You cannot know this. It is merely your opinion, brought about in part by the inconvenience of an NDI result, in relation to your own views on the case.
I would go further to suggest that in my opinion a lot of people's views on the case have been influenced by third party info, spreading A.E. anecdotes about Jeremy Bamber. A 'clean up' job has been done on any waverers who were there for the taking. But we will never see those anecdotes on the forum.
-
Had the trial been held in the Scottish courts,the verdict would have been " not proven".
There was no mention of " beyond reasonable doubt ",so therefore,Jeremy Bamber should have been released on bail until such times that a concrete verdict was established rather than on circumstantial and hearsay. Somebody was in a hurry to convict him,that's for sure. A crumb of red paint on a moderator which appeared a month later after his first arrest.? Sorry,I don't buy that.
You know why.? Because I don't believe that a moderator was used at all. Unless the ballistics expert knows different,as he/she would have known that a bullet would have had additional marks on it had a moderator been used.
I haven't seen any reference made of this difference.
-
I think jb is guilty and knew i would be savaged for it
Sagar, do you not think this is a bit melodramatic? Chill out.
-
It's amazing when antis on this forum use the argument 'he's guilty because a jury decided he is'
These people cannot come up with reasonable argument that Jeremy Bamber definitely must be guilty
You look at the Sam Hallam case who was convicted by a jury on the weakest of evidence and I don't think that argument should ever be used here when debating miscarriage of justice cases
Juries make mistakes all the time and often because they are prevented from seeing all the evidence that should be available to them
I wonder how those jury members felt last night and what a terrible burden feeling you were responsible for a young man spending some of the best years of his life locked up
Again someone should be held accountable for the withholding of vital evidence that could have saved this young man for seven years of hell
Someone should be hanging their head in shame today
-
Had the trial been held in the Scottish courts,the verdict would have been " not proven".
There was no mention of " beyond reasonable doubt ",so therefore,Jeremy Bamber should have been released on bail until such times that a concrete verdict was established rather than on circumstantial and hearsay. Somebody was in a hurry to convict him,that's for sure. A crumb of red paint on a moderator which appeared a month later after his first arrest.? Sorry,I don't buy that.
You know why.? Because I don't believe that a moderator was used at all. Unless the ballistics expert knows different,as he/she would have known that a bullet would have had additional marks on it had a moderator been used.
I haven't seen any reference made of this difference.
Hello lookout. I believe the gun had no silencer on it and the crimescene if it was as the cops say it was then there is absolutely no evidence that Bamber was there. Let someone show me proof that Bamber was there and I will believe it. But all I have heard is wild paranoid speculation from those who think he is guilty. Show me PROOF. It's no good saying he was "found guilty in a court of law". That it seems is what they fall back on when they can't answer a certain question. The courts of law are a mess and we know it. MOJ's are not just an occasional mistake made by the British justice system. Unfortunately they are remarkably common. And Jeremy Bamber has suffered 27 years of MOJ. It is about time his case was reviewed from the ground up.
-
show me the evidence his sister did it. She was a mild schizophrenic and thats it.
Hi Sagar,
It would be helpful if you would attribute your sources for this claim, as there is much evidence that Sheila had a history of violent and psychotic conduct.
Sheila is documented to have had severe psychotic episodes, during which:
Sheila became so violent that her friend, Freddie, was afraid of her and feared she might harm those in her flat
Freddie feared Sheila might harm her boys.
Sheila accused two doctors of trying to poison her
Sheila hallucinated and heard voices, she believed that God sat opposite her and spoke to her
At times Sheila failed to recognise her family.
Sheila believed that she and her family and boys were possessed by the devil.
Sheila believed her six year old sons might harm and rape her.
Sheila was concerned that she might have sex with her six year olds.
Sheila believed at times that she was a white witch.
Sheila had to be sectioned and forcibly hospitalised.
Care of Sheila's twins was removed from Sheila 95% of the time.
* Freddie's statement, Sheila's psychiatrist's (Dr Ferguson's) statement and Colin Caffell's book provide
verification of the above.
-
Not really, since they are inaccurate it would be equally meaningless.
Bridget. It is so refreshing to see someone stick so firmly to their views even if they had been locked up for years. :) Prison guvernor: "Bridget, we have manaqed to get you a polygraph test so you can show the general public that you are innocent".
Bridget: "No thank you sir they are not accurate I will stay in my cell and shut up and admit to my crime so as to give the family peace at last". ;D
-
The doctor is quite clear about what in his professional opinion, the 2011 tests indicate:
In my opinion your statement in red above is plain daft. You cannot know this. It is merely your opinion, brought about in part by the inconvenience of an NDI result, in relation to your own views on the case.
I would go further to suggest that in my opinion a lot of people's views on the case have been influenced by third party info, spreading A.E. anecdotes about Jeremy Bamber. A 'clean up' job has been done on any waverers who were there for the taking. But we will never see those anecdotes on the forum.
Again, Egan was not commenting on the results of the LD test, all he was saying is that JBs apparent demeanour is not a facade. Why don't you try emailing him and ask what he thinks about LD test if it concerns you?
-
Again, Egan was not commenting on the results of the LD test, all he was saying is that JBs apparent demeanour is not a facade. Why don't you try emailing him and ask what he thinks about LD test if it concerns you?
I will take the LD machine and reverse the contacts and turn it into an electric shock machine. Much more effective in getting to the truth if you ask me. ;)
-
I will take the LD machine and reverse the contacts and turn it into an electric shock machine. Much more effective in getting to the truth if you ask me. ;)
You're probably right.
-
Hi Sagar,
It would be helpful if you would attribute your sources for this claim, as there is much evidence that Sheila had a history of violent and psychotic conduct.
Sheila is documented to have had severe psychotic episodes, during which:
Sheila became so violent that her friend, Freddie, was afraid of her and feared she might harm those in her flat
Freddie feared Sheila might harm her boys.
Sheila accused two doctors of trying to poison her
Sheila hallucinated and heard voices, she believed that God sat opposite her and spoke to her
At times Sheila failed to recognise her family.
Sheila believed that she and her family and boys were possessed by the devil.
Sheila believed her six year old sons might harm and rape her.
Sheila was concerned that she might have sex with her six year olds.
Sheila believed at times that she was a white witch.
Sheila had to be sectioned and forcibly hospitalised.
Care of Sheila's twins was removed from Sheila 95% of the time.
* Freddie's statement, Sheila's psychiatrist's (Dr Ferguson's) statement and Colin Caffell's book provide
verification of the above.
Excellent post Keira......:)
-
Remember what DB said on that documentary its stops here , does it ?
-
Bloggs and son,,,I wholeheartedly agree. The law continues to be an ass.
-
Bloggs and son,,,I wholeheartedly agree. The law continues to be an ass.
North Korean Law will be superiour to British law anyday.
-
Jeremy probably wore gloves, he also had several layers of clothes on.
Shiela had a flimsy nightie on sith no sleeves, not a mark on her.
No gun shot residue found on her either, she shot herself twice after a nice relaxing shower but still none found.
She died where she was found, she hadnt been downstairs at all, no blood down her front.
Sam Hallam. Good luck to him a genuine moj, hence his release.
How many people are involved in this conspiracy to put and keep jb in prison? Anyone ever totted up the numbers?
And bloggs why all the "subject" before posters names?
xxxxxxxxxxx!
Goading Mod'd by Keira
-
North Korean Law will be superiour to British law anyday.
I wouldnt fancy living in North Korea mertol. You may think our justice system stinks, but also remember that you have the freedom to say so .
-
Hi sagar I was just wondering if you missed my earlier post wherein I asked why Jeremy had no marks on his body after it has been suggested he fought with Ralph you did say Sheila had none.
-
Yes susan, i did say he probably wore gloves and he was also wearing several layers.
Now, can you explain to me why no residue was found on sheila? Do you believe sheila was downstairs before the second shot?
-
Jeremy probably wore gloves, he also had several layers of clothes on.
Shiela had a flimsy nightie on sith no sleeves, not a mark on her.
No gun shot residue found on her either, she shot herself twice after a nice relaxing shower but still none found.
She died where she was found, she hadnt been downstairs at all, no blood down her front.
Sam Hallam. Good luck to him a genuine moj, hence his release.
How many people are involved in this conspiracy to put and keep jb in prison? Anyone ever totted up the numbers?
And bloggs why all the "subject" before posters names?
Delusions of grandeur!
Conspiracy is one thing, a failure of law is quite another, the delivery of law lets say, Jeremy probably wore gloves is good but just not good enough, freedom of speech has rules break them and find out its not what you say its who you say it to .
-
Hi sagar I was just wondering if you missed my earlier post wherein I asked why Jeremy had no marks on his body after it has been suggested he fought with Ralph you did say Sheila had none.
That is indeed an interesting question susie. It seems that none of the reasons which prove sheilas innocence seem to count the same for jeremy ........strangely .
-
Hi Maggie Thanks for the reply. People seem to ignore my posts if they don,t like the answer they would have to give.
-
Yes susan, i did say he probably wore gloves and he was also wearing several layers.
Now, can you explain to me why no residue was found on sheila? Do you believe sheila was downstairs before the second shot?
Sagar was he wearing the wetsuit under or over the several layers of clothing?
-
Would you like to answer my questions susan. I answered yours .
-
North Korean Law will be superiour to British law anyday.
Yes Mertol. Only when they will be marching down the Mal towards the Palace that the British will wake up and see what true justice is. ;)
-
Sagar was he wearing the wetsuit under or over the several layers of clothing?
Sagar likewise would you mind answering mine? Thanks.
-
Jeremy probably wore gloves, he also had several layers of clothes on.
Shiela had a flimsy nightie on sith no sleeves, not a mark on her.
No gun shot residue found on her either, she shot herself twice after a nice relaxing shower but still none found.
She died where she was found, she hadnt been downstairs at all, no blood down her front.
Sam Hallam. Good luck to him a genuine moj, hence his release.
How many people are involved in this conspiracy to put and keep jb in prison? Anyone ever totted up the numbers?
And bloggs why all the "subject" before posters names?
Delusions of grandeur!
Yes yes!. That's why they couldn't find any forensic evidence on him and nothing in his house or on his person. Nothing, nothing to connect him to the scene whatsoever...Now why didn't I think of that BRILLIANT scheme of his to avoid detection by the whole of the police force. Just wear gloves and several, maybe up to 20 layers of clothing....Wow! what creative thinking. Now let me see. How will I dispose of so much clothing? I suppose you have undeniable proof of this wild theory of yours do you subject sagar? ::)
-
Yes yes!. That's why they couldn't find any forensic evidence on him and nothing in his house or on his person. Nothing, nothing to connect him to the scene whatsoever...Now why didn't I think of that BRILLIANT scheme of his to avoid detection by the whole of the police force. Just wear gloves and several, maybe up to 20 layers of clothing....Wow! what creative thinking. Now let me see. How will I dispose of so much clothing? I suppose you have undeniable proof of this wild theory of yours do you subject sagar? ::)
Youve both forgotten the wetsuit .
-
Hi sagar I was just wondering if you missed my earlier post wherein I asked why Jeremy had no marks on his body after it has been suggested he fought with Ralph you did say Sheila had none.
Ralph had alread been shot when he was beaten so I doubt that he fought with him. Jeremy was never formally examined.
-
Youve both forgotten the wetsuit .
Nah. He's restricted enough. I'll be surprised he will be able even to pick up the gun, let alone fire it. ;D
-
Wild theories? Really?
The several layers is fact.
There was nothing to connect sheila to the murders either, fact.
If there had been jb wouldnt be in prison now would he?
Care to answer why there was no residue found on sheila? Why there is no blood down her front?
You talk of wild theories, i suggest you read through some of the older posts on here. There is NOTHING to connect sheila to the shootings, nothing. Apart fro
The fact she was a victim of them herself.
So as for wild theories to blame jb i dont think so.
Must dash i have things to do, bye
-
Nah. He's restricted enough. I'll be surprised he will be able even to pick up the gun, let alone fire it. ;D
But bloggs on that bike in August. a sudden heavy downpour would have finished him. He needed the wetsuit. imho
-
Ralph had alread been shot when he was beaten so I doubt that he fought with him. Jeremy was never formally examined.
Aha! you've nailed it once again Bridget. Where are the marks on Sheila? It is obvious she never fought with Ralph.
But Jeremy probably had marks on him because he was never formally examined? Why didn't Sheila have any marks on her? Oh because she never fought Ralph so Jeremy must be guilty.
Why didn't Jeremy have any marks on him? Oh either because he never fought with him because he shot him first. Or he fought with him but was never formally examined.
So what are we left with? Sheila never fought with Ralph and Jeremy never fought with Ralph. From that deduction who was the murderer?
-
Sagar You are now saying Ralph had been shot when Jeremy fought with him so Jeremy would have no marks on him but the same rule must apply to poor Sheila. Jeremy was examined by Julie who the police thought to be a very credible witness. Sagar you cannot adopt the theory that if the cap fits I,ll wear it come now my friend.
-
Wild theories? Really?
The several layers is fact.
There was nothing to connect sheila to the murders either, fact.
If there had been jb wouldnt be in prison now would he?
Care to answer why there was no residue found on sheila? Why there is no blood down her front?
You talk of wild theories, i suggest you read through some of the older posts on here. There is NOTHING to connect sheila to the shootings, nothing. Apart fro
The fact she was a victim of them herself.
So as for wild theories to blame jb i dont think so.
Must dash i have things to do, bye
Ok why was there no residue on Jeremy either? I suppose you have proof of the several layers of clothing that you say are fact? First I've heard of it. Nothing! Nothing whatsoever connected Jeremy to the shootings. NO forensic evidence whatsoever. Show me documented facts of forensic evidence that connected JB with the crime.
FYI I have known the case from its roots and don't need to look at former posts as I know what they say. Simple prejudice keeps JB in gaol and nothing else. That prejudice that believes unfauteringly in a corrupt and imperfect law which has demonstrated though many MOJ's that it is so untrustworthy.
-
Aha! you've nailed it once again Bridget. Where are the marks on Sheila? It is obvious she never fought with Ralph.
But Jeremy probably had marks on him because he was never formally examined? Why didn't Sheila have any marks on her? Oh because she never fought Ralph so Jeremy must be guilty.
Why didn't Jeremy have any marks on him? Oh either because he never fought with him because he shot him first. Or he fought with him but was never formally examined.
So what are we left with? Sheila never fought with Ralph and Jeremy never fought with Ralph. From that deduction why was the murderer?
Because blood of Sheila's type was found in the silencer in the cupboard. Because he confided in Julie. Because he made it either him or Sheila when he called the police. Because Sheila had no blood or other forensic evidence on her that indicates she did it, and unlike him, she had no opportunity to dispose of such evidence. That'll do for starters.
-
But bloggs on that bike in August. a sudden heavy downpour would have finished him. He needed the wetsuit. imho
I'm going to write a book. "Bamber guily camp wildest theories". An everyday story of simple country folk.
-
No marks,,,,no blood on Sheila.
Firstly,Sheila would have relied on the rifle butt in which to render her father incapable, after a good bashing.Don't forget,because of a person's " slight build ",especially in a female, doesn't always mean that they're physically unable to put up a fight with someone stronger providing that they've got some sort of a weapon in which to give a greater impact/injury. Sheila,in view of her unstable condition,would have had the strength of an ox enabling her to deliver the blows on her father that she did.
Nevill,being the gentleman that he was,and confronted by his daughter in her state of mind,was more than likely trying to release the rifle from her without hurting her ( which would account for a lack of marks/bruises,etc on Sheila ),but because Nevill was overpowered by her as she pumped shots into him,he would have finally died.
The blood would have been mopped up by Sheila,using her knickers ( because she was found dead,minus them ) and would have also used the same garment for mopping up any blood,or wiping it from her own body. The knickers were then put into a bucket of water,which by the way was never tested to find out whether it was menstrual blood or otherwise.An important issue that appeared to be overlooked and one which the police seemed dis-interested in. One person who was interested in it was AE,who took the bucket,complete with garment,back to her home. Why was that,I wonder.? It happened to be quite a vital piece of evidence to me. Think about it. By all accounts,it was quite " bloody ",which, could well have been venous blood as opposed to menstrual.
Another fine mess by the Clouseau gang.
-
Because blood of Sheila's type was found in the silencer in the cupboard. Because he confided in Julie. Because he made it either him or Sheila when he called the police. Because Sheila had no blood or other forensic evidence on her that indicates she did it, and unlike him, she had no opportunity to dispose of such evidence. That'll do for starters.
Aha! the blood in the silencer. Now that cracks it surely. Wow! Sheila's blood found inside the silencer that was found by whom? The police? The forensics people?....Oh...of course, by the "family"...Who took it home with them and it was picked up later by a policeman, from their home. Yes that's it.
The trouble with that of course is that there was no one there to back up their claim? I will of course not have to mention that years afterwards that blood evidence was discounted. And the fact that Robert Boutflour had exactly the same blood group. Who was it who said they took the silencer to bits?
Oh I almost forgot about Julie Mugford. The girlfriend he "unwisely" ditched just a few days before she went to the police and of course who had made a deal with the papers for £25,ooo. Hmm a credible witness if ever I saw one. Nicely thought out Bridget. A lawyer could not have done better.......Oh! apparently they didn't. For poor Jeremy was convicted on such shaky evidence I hear?
-
Bridget I an assuming the Aga was a solid fuel operated one looks like that from the pictures Sheila could have burnt blood stained clothes or it has been reported Ann took home (I might add in all innocence) dirty washing from the machine and buckets etc., Where did Jeremy dispose of his blood stained clothes unless he buried them somewhere would he have had time I just don,t know.
-
Aha! the blood in the silencer. Now that cracks it surely. Wow! Sheila's blood found inside the silencer that was found by whom? The police? The forensics people?....Oh...of course, by the "family"...Who took it home with them and it was picked up later by a policeman, from their home. Yes that's it.
The trouble with that of course is that there was no one there to back up their claim? I will of course not have to mention that years afterwards that blood evidence was discounted. And the fact that Robert Boutflour had exactly the same blood group. Who was it who said they took the silencer to bits?
Oh I almost forgot about Julie Mugford. The girlfriend he "unwisely" ditched just a few days before she went to the police and of course who had made a deal with the papers for £25,ooo. Hmm a credible witness if ever I saw one. Nicely thought out Bridget. A lawyer could not have done better.......Oh! apparently they didn't. For poor Jeremy was convicted on such shaky evidence I hear?
Can I suggest you go back and read all the old threads? It's tedious to have to keep going back over the same old ground.
-
Ralph had alread been shot when he was beaten so I doubt that he fought with him. Jeremy was never formally examined.
Come on Bridget surely you can do better than that !! During Mugfords 30 police coaching sessions she never mentioned a single scratch on Jeremy and she would have known wouldn't she Bridget ?
-
Bridget I an assuming the Aga was a solid fuel operated one looks like that from the pictures Sheila could have burnt blood stained clothes or it has been reported Ann took home (I might add in all innocence) dirty washing from the machine and buckets etc., Where did Jeremy dispose of his blood stained clothes unless he buried them somewhere would he have had time I just don,t know.
Hi Susan, yes I think you're right, it was solid fuel, but there's no evidence she did that.
-
It's probably tedious sitting in Full Suuon Prison when you know you are innocent
-
Come on Bridget surely you can do better than that !! During Mugfords 30 police coaching sessions she never mentioned a single scratch on Jeremy and she would have known wouldn't she Bridget ?
As I've already said, Ralph was wounded and probably didn't put up much of a fight. His attacker just stood there and beat the crap out of him with the gun.
-
It's probably tedious sitting in Full Suuon Prison when you know you are innocent
He seems to find plenty to do.
-
Hi bloggs and son any idea where sagar has gone whenever I reply to his posts he disappears it must be the way I tell um.
-
Ralph had alread been shot when he was beaten so I doubt that he fought with him. Jeremy was never formally examined.
I thought the guilty stance you and your friends put forward was Sheila couldn't have done it because she wasn't strong enough to overpower Neville
Are you now saying you accept Neville was badly attacked after he was shot in some kind of rage
-
I thought the guilty stance you and your friends put forward was Sheila couldn't have done it because she wasn't strong enough to overpower Neville
Are you now saying you accept Neville was badly attacked after he was shot in some kind of rage
I have always accepted that.
-
Because blood of Sheila's type was found in the silencer in the cupboard. Because he confided in Julie. Because he made it either him or Sheila when he called the police. Because Sheila had no blood or other forensic evidence on her that indicates she did it, and unlike him, she had no opportunity to dispose of such evidence. That'll do for starters.
But Bridget she had every opoportunity, apart from a shower she also had a washing machine to hand, she may have washed her clothes, she may, as susie suggested burned her clothes in the aga. You can't categorically state she had no means to dispoe of her clothes.
-
As I've already said, Ralph was wounded and probably didn't put up much of a fight. His attacker just stood there and beat the crap out of him with the gun.
So Bridget you accept that Sheila Was strong enough to attack Neville and cause his injuries as he was too week to fight
That's put that argument to bed then
-
But Bridget she had every opoportunity, apart from a shower she also had a washing machine to hand, she may have washed her clothes, she may, as susie suggested burned her clothes in the aga. You can't categorically state she had no means to dispoe of her clothes.
There was only about 20 minutes between the call from JB to the police and them turning up at the farm. If you add on about 10 minutes for JB to faff around looking up the police phone number etc then she had about half an hour to kill everyone, shower, wash her clothes and kill herself. No, I don't buy that theory.
-
Bridget would you also like to explain how after realizing Jeremy had shot her mother and father and her too beautiful boys Sheila calmly laid on the floor (no sign of a big fight with Jeremy or a badly bruised body) and let Jeremy put two bullets into her neck
Have you got any children Bridget and do you have any idea what someone would be like if their two children have just been shot?
-
Hi bloggs and son any idea where sagar has gone whenever I reply to his posts he disappears it must be the way I tell um.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm going to write a book. "Bamber guily camp wildest theories". An everyday story of simple country folk.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
So Bridget you accept that Sheila Was strong enough to attack Neville and cause his injuries as he was too week to fight
That's put that argument to bed then
No, I accept the fact that Ralph could have been sufficiently weakened so as to allow even someone as slight as Sheila to stand there and beat him. But she had none of his blood on her.
-
Can I suggest you go back and read all the old threads? It's tedious to have to keep going back over the same old ground.
Bridget. I know all the old threads and arguments I am familiar with the case and have know it from its very beginnings.Is what you are really saying is that you cannot answer what I say? For I know the argument is extremely well. I suggest that it was you who introduced the subject of the blood in the silencer and JB's girlfriend? But as soon as you are picked up on it rather than answering it you suggest I go to old threads. I know the old threads. But I am interested in YOUR answer. ;)
-
Hi Susan, yes I think you're right, it was solid fuel, but there's no evidence she did that.
Bridget, there's no evidence she didn't, in fact there is little or no evidence that either Jeremy or Sheila did anything. However from photos it does appear sheila may have died much later than the rest of the family.
-
As I've already said, Ralph was wounded and probably didn't put up much of a fight. His attacker just stood there and beat the crap out of him with the gun.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure Sheila was not in her right mind when she did that though?
-
He seems to find plenty to do.
What would you do if it were you Bridget?
-
Hi bloggs and son any idea where sagar has gone whenever I reply to his posts he disappears it must be the way I tell um.
he/she went "shopping". I hope he/she remembered their Barclaycard?
-
Bridget. I know all the old threads and arguments I am familiar with the case and have know it from its very beginnings.Is what you are really saying is that you cannot answer what I say? For I know the argument is extremely well. I suggest that it was you who introduced the subject of the blood in the silencer and JB's girlfriend? But as soon as you are picked up on it rather than answering it you suggest I go to old threads. I know the old threads. But I am interested in YOUR answer. ;)
What I'm saying is that I have posted my thoughts re the silencer several times before, and I can't be bothered to do it all over again.
-
Hi bloggs and son what a big sigh of relief thought it was something I had said.
-
Bridget, there's no evidence she didn't, in fact there is little or no evidence that either Jeremy or Sheila did anything. However from photos it does appear sheila may have died much later than the rest of the family.
There's no evidence her clothes weren't stolen by aliens either :)
-
What I'm saying is that I have posted my thoughts re the silencer several times before, and I can't be bothered to do it all over again.
Ok. I know what your thoughts on the silencer are. But you still haven't answered my question? You obviously aren't up to date with the forensic findings though? Did you know that Robert Boutflour had the same blood group as Sheila? Did you know that it was allegedly taken to bits by one of the family?
-
Hi bloggs and son just an after thought why do I always tend to think of people like sagar to be male could be a little gentle old lady for all I know.
-
There's no evidence her clothes weren't stolen by aliens either :)
haha ho ho ;D ;D Now your being silly. We all know aliens don't steal clothes.
-
No, I accept the fact that Ralph could have been sufficiently weakened so as to allow even someone as slight as Sheila to stand there and beat him. But she had none of his blood on her.
But Bridget no evidence was ever found of Ralph's blood on Jeremy or any of his posessions, the argument that sheila is innocent because there is no evidence to the contrary but Jeremy is guilty in spite of there being no evidence to prove it is an irrational argument built on dogma.
-
There's no evidence her clothes weren't stolen by aliens either :)
Bridget is there no room for doubt in your mind, how can anyone be absolutey 100% superpositive that they are right. Is there not the slightest thought that JB may be innocent as he claims and if he is havent you any compassion for him?
-
Ok. I know what your thoughts on the silencer are. But you still haven't answered my question? You obviously aren't up to date with the forensic findings though? Did you know that Robert Boutflour had the same blood group as Sheila? Did you know that it was allegedly taken to bits by one of the family?
Yes I know that RB had the same blood group. So do many people. I know it is alleged on this forum that DB took it to bits, but he himself says he didn't.
-
But Bridget no evidence was ever found of Ralph's blood on Jeremy or any of his posessions, the argument that sheila is innocent because there is no evidence to the contrary but Jeremy is guilty in spite of there being no evidence to prove it is an irrational argument built on dogma.
Jeremy had ample opportunity to dispose of his clothes, Sheila didn't.
-
But Bridget no evidence was ever found of Ralph's blood on Jeremy or any of his posessions, the argument that sheila is innocent because there is no evidence to the contrary but Jeremy is guilty in spite of there being no evidence to prove it is an irrational argument built on dogma.
Maggie, I think Bridgets problem is not that all the evidence points to Jeremy. Because none of it does. I think it is just that she thinks he's guilty and refuses to believe he isn't? It's as simple as that. ::)
-
Bridget is there no room for doubt in your mind, how can anyone be absolutey 100% superpositive that they are right. Is there not the slightest thought that JB may be innocent as he claims and if he is havent you any compassion for him?
Since I wasn't there of course I can't 'know' 100%, but I can believe 100%. I've never seen anything that shakes that belief once it's properly scrutinised.
-
Hi Bridget am I right we discussed this earlier and you said maybe aliens took Sheila,s clothes I know you were just kidding because if you had meant it they could have taken Jeremy,s as well. Naughty aliens. Hope you are having a good day with no mishaps.
-
Jeremy had ample opportunity to dispose of his clothes, Sheila didn't.
So on that thought alone you think JB to be guilty? And there's those who say the guilty camp don't have any wild theories? hahahoho ;D Wouldn't it be a simple world if everyone were persuaded by so little evidence?
-
Hi Bridget am I right we discussed this earlier and you said maybe aliens took Sheila,s clothes I know you were just kidding because if you had meant it they could have taken Jeremy,s as well. Naughty aliens. Hope you are having a good day with no mishaps.
Yes we have discussed this before, no mishaps so far!
-
So on that thought alone you think JB to be guilty? And there's those who say the guilty camp don't have any wild theories? hahahoho ;D Wouldn't it be a simple world if everyone were persuaded by so little evidence?
What makes you think my belief relies on that thought alone?
-
Yes I know that RB had the same blood group. So do many people. I know it is alleged on this forum that DB took it to bits, but he himself says he didn't.
So why did you emphasise that it was Sheila's blood in the silencer and not Roberts, seeing that he was their (allegedly) when it was found? Come to think of it we only have the word of those who found the silencer that they did find it. Strange the police didn't find it when they looked? Yet we are supposed to believe the words of an interested party without the corroboration of an independent witness?
Granted it is alleged that DB took it apart and yet he has denied it. But the FACT remains and it is fact that it was handled by different parties before the forensics people eventually got it.
-
So why did you emphasise that it was Sheila's blood in the silencer and not Roberts, seeing that he was their (allegedly) when it was found? Come to think of it we only have the word of those who found the silencer that they did find it. Strange the police didn't find it when they looked? Yet we are supposed to believe the words of an interested party without the corroboration of an independent witness?
Granted it is alleged that DB took it apart and yet he has denied it. But the FACT remains and it is fact that it was handled by different parties before the forensics people eventually got it.
Because Robert wasn't shot.
-
No, I accept the fact that Ralph could have been sufficiently weakened so as to allow even someone as slight as Sheila to stand there and beat him. But she had none of his blood on her.
Of course she didn't, it was in the buckets.
-
What makes you think my belief relies on that thought alone?
Well it must rely upon it in some way even if not in the whole. If you didn't you wouldn't argue about it.
-
Of course she didn't, it was in the buckets.
If you say so :)
-
Well it must rely upon it in some way even if not in the whole. If you didn't you wouldn't argue about it.
Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious.
-
Because Robert wasn't shot.
But he handled the silencer and that alone should have made it inadmissible as evidence. Not only that but modern forensics say the results were inconclusive that it was Sheila's blood. Even if it were it still should have been inadmissible as evidence owing to the circumstances in which it was found. Simply by attaching the silencer to the gun after the event would have contaminated the silencer.
-
Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious.
Well Bridget it was you who was doubting it not me so I just reminded you that it was your argument to begin with. ;D
-
But he handled the silencer and that alone should have made it inadmissible as evidence. Not only that but modern forensics say the results were inconclusive that it was Sheila's blood. Even if it were it still should have been inadmissible as evidence owing to the circumstances in which it was found. Simply by attaching the silencer to the gun after the event would have contaminated the silencer.
I thought you said you'd read my posts re the silencer.
The LCN DNA tests which indicated that Sheila's DNA was present in the silencer were deemed not to be of use to either side, because the tests are extremely sensitive and innocent contamination could have occurred because the silencer was not protected in the way that it would be now. There's no suggestion that the blood found was not of Sheila's type.
-
Well Bridget it was you who was doubting it not me so I just reminded you that it was your argument to begin with. ;D
No, I was correcting your assertion that that was my only argument.
-
Bridget would you also like to explain how after realizing Jeremy had shot her mother and father and her too beautiful boys Sheila calmly laid on the floor (no sign of a big fight with Jeremy or a badly bruised body) and let Jeremy put two bullets into her neckHave you got any children Bridget and do you have any idea what someone would be like if their two children have just been shot?
Bridget you missed my post ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Bridget you missed my post ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Are you sure she knew the boys had been shot?
I believe she was standing when she received the first shot, she then collapsed to the ground and the second shot was easy.
-
Are you sure she knew the boys had been shot?
I believe she was standing when she received the first shot, she then collapsed to the ground and the second shot was easy.
If she was stood up, which I believe she was....then the shooter would have had to have been on their knees with the first shot and more or less on the floor with the 2nd shot.....And she let happen? I doubt it Bridget, no matter how much you look at it....even if she did not know her children were dead, she would hardly stand there and allow someone to take her away from them....:)
-
Its accepted by most people that the twins died first but even if she didnt know they were dead she would have fought like crazy knowing her children could be shot next
Do you seriously think she would have laid calmly down with NO struggle and lett someone aim at her neck twice knowing her babies were most probably the next ones to be killed
It makes no sense that she would calmly lay down to be shot
Nobody who is a mother would do that
Bridget you cannot answer this and its one of the arguements the antis cannot come up with a decent answer
-
If she was stood up, which I believe she was....then the shooter would have had to have been on their knees with the first shot and more or less on the floor with the 2nd shot.....And she let happen? I doubt it Bridget, no matter how much you look at it....even if she did not know her children were dead, she would hardly stand there and allow someone to take her away from them....:)
Why would he need go be kneeling? He can just hold the gun down at an angle.
-
Why would he need go be kneeling? He can just hold the gun down at an angle.
But not with a silencer on Bridget....could he????????? :)
-
But not with a silencer on Bridget....could he????????? :)
I don't see why not?
-
Patti,,,,no silencer. It was being " planted " somewhere until a later date.
-
I don't see why not?
49 inches with silencer fitted....Impossible Bridget. The shooter would have to have been on their knees or very low done an be able to see the positioning of the gun...not something you would be able to do, if the shooter was also stood up....:)
-
Patti,,,,no silencer. It was being " planted " somewhere until a later date.
I agree Lookout, the silencer is the red herring in this case...introduced later...:)
-
I thought you said you'd read my posts re the silencer.
The LCN DNA tests which indicated that Sheila's DNA was present in the silencer were deemed not to be of use to either side, because the tests are extremely sensitive and innocent contamination could have occurred because the silencer was not protected in the way that it would be now. There's no suggestion that the blood found was not of Sheila's type.
But then again that is not what you stated which was Because blood of Sheila's type was found in the silencer in the cupboard
In fact you were quite emphatic about it. Now how you can use both arguments to back up your case eludes me? Either it was Sheila's blood type (emphatic) or it was no use to either side? Sorry Bridget. I'm just trying to figure out where your argument holds water? That which appears to be open to question is in fact a evidence that Jeremy is guilty of murder. I'm afraid you have lost me along the way somewhere? Either it was good enough to convict JB unquestionably? Or it is undetermined and therefore of no use to anybody? Doesn't that somehow exclude the silencer evidence? :)
-
Are you sure she knew the boys had been shot?
I believe she was standing when she received the first shot, she then collapsed to the ground and the second shot was easy.
You "believe"? Does that mean it is only your theory? Oh well no need to counter that one then. Just tack it on the end of my long list of the guilty camp wild theories. ::)
-
If she was stood up, which I believe she was....then the shooter would have had to have been on their knees with the first shot and more or less on the floor with the 2nd shot.....And she let happen? I doubt it Bridget, no matter how much you look at it....even if she did not know her children were dead, she would hardly stand there and allow someone to take her away from them....:)
If she knew her children were killed by someone she would have fought like a she bear. Most women would have done so. But there were no marks on her. That must mean that she fought no one?
-
49 inches with silencer fitted....Impossible Bridget. The shooter would have to have been on their knees or very low done an be able to see the positioning of the gun...not something you would be able to do, if the shooter was also stood up....:)
I still don't see it Patti, he wouldn't have to use the sights, the end of the gun sticking into Sheila's neck would have been no more than two or three foot from his face. Are we talking at cross purposes?
-
But then again that is not what you stated which was In fact you were quite emphatic about it. Now how you can use both arguments to back up your case eludes me? Either it was Sheila's blood type (emphatic) or it was no use to either side? Sorry Bridget. I'm just trying to figure out where your argument holds water? That which appears to be open to question is in fact a evidence that Jeremy is guilty of murder. I'm afraid you have lost me along the way somewhere? Either it was good enough to convict JB unquestionably? Or it is undetermined and therefore of no use to anybody? Doesn't that somehow exclude the silencer evidence? :)
You do understand the difference between DNA and blood groups don't you?
Blood of Sheila's type was found in the silencer. DNA which matched 17 out of 20 of Sheila's natural mother's markers was found in the silencer in around 2002. The DNA evidence was deemed useless because of the reasons I've already explained.
-
You "believe"? Does that mean it is only your theory? Oh well no need to counter that one then. Just tack it on the end of my long list of the guilty camp wild theories. ::)
Well I wasn't there was I - were you?
-
I still don't see it Patti, he wouldn't have to use the sights, the end of the gun sticking into Sheila's neck would have been no more than two or three foot from his face. Are we talking at cross purposes?
Put it this way....Stand up and imagine a 49inch gun under your chin.....You would have to hold the gun position it and shoot it...no need for sights, use the eye.....either way you have to be nearer the ground, given Sheila was only small....:)
-
Well I wasn't there was I - were you?
That's my whole argument actually. I see all these theories spoken as if they are fact and with total confidence that I wonder why they are always taking the mick out of.......erm......Mike? (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused010.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
But if you were to disclose documents to back up your theories? Now that is quite a different matter.
-
I still don't see it Patti, he wouldn't have to use the sights, the end of the gun sticking into Sheila's neck would have been no more than two or three foot from his face. Are we talking at cross purposes?
Put it this way....Stand up and imagine a 49inch gun under your chin.....You would have to hold the gun position it and shoot it...no need for sights, use the eye.....either way you have to be nearer the ground, given Sheila was only small....:)
Remember that she would probably have leaned back slightly, I see no problem with doing that standing up.
-
Again, Egan was not commenting on the results of the LD test, all he was saying is that JBs apparent demeanour is not a facade. Why don't you try emailing him and ask what he thinks about LD test if it concerns you?
What he said was this:
“These findings suggest it is hard to sustain the view that Jeremy Bamber is so expert in deceptive self-presentation as to maintain this front for over a variety of different assessors, different assessment instruments and different times”
Where have I said he was referring specifically to the LD test? He is referring to a range of assessors, different assessment instruments and different times. The LD test was a different assessment instrument, carried out by a different assessor, at a different time.
Maggie, I think Bridgets problem is not that all the evidence points to Jeremy. Because none very little of it does. I think it is just that she thinks he's guilty and refuses to believe he isn't? It's as simple as that.
I agree.
-
Remember that she would probably have leaned back slightly, I see no problem with doing that standing up.
Bridget, If asked you to lean back while I shot you, would you comply? :)
-
What he said was this:
Where have I said he was referring specifically to the LD test? He is referring to a range of assessors, different assessment instruments and different times. The LD test was a different assessment instrument, carried out by a different assessor, at a different time.
I agree.
The word 'instruments' refers to tests - as I said, if you want to know whether his comments included his opinion re the LD test, ask him.
-
Bridget, If asked you to lean back while I shot you, would you comply? :)
No, but if you were standing in front of me with a gun to my throat I would certainly lean back voluntarily.
-
The word 'instruments' refers to tests - as I said, if you want to know whether his comments included his opinion re the LD test, ask him.
You're just being pedantic for the sake of it.
if we take your approach, it is that that he presents a facade of self deception / manipulation, for the purpose of passing LD test / physiological indicators etc... but then reverses the facade for the psychological tests, so that he passes them also?
Who do you think he is? Some kind of Professor Moriarty chamelion?
-
You're just being pedantic for the sake of it.
if we take your approach, it is that that he presents a facade of self deception / manipulation, for the purpose of passing LD test / physiological indicators etc... but then reverses the facade for the psychological tests, so that he passes them also?
Who do you think he is? Some kind of Professor Moriarty chamelion?
No, I think LD tests are inaccurate :)
-
You wouldn't do anything voluntarily if kids were in the house
That would never happen
There would be no reasoning if you were in that position
-
You wouldn't do anything voluntarily if kids were in the house
That would never happen
There would be no reasoning if you were in that position
Ok, maybe voluntarily was the wrong word. More like naturally.
-
No, but if you were standing in front of me with a gun to my throat I would certainly lean back voluntarily.
So then Bridget, you are looking at your attacker, you stand there while he is approaching you with a gun, you can see your mother dead on the floor then you allow that attacker to place that gun under your chin and lean back voluntarily.....
Sorry, but I would have thrown everything I could have, i would have run and fought.....there would be no way I would allow someone to shot me without a fight...:)
-
So then Bridget, you are looking at your attacker, you stand there while he is approaching you with a gun, you can see your mother dead on the floor then you allow that attacker to place that gun under your chin and lean back voluntarily.....
Sorry, but I would have thrown everything I could have, i would have run and fought.....there would be no way I would allow someone to shot me without a fight...:)
I don't think that's so hard to believe, he had a gun and she was terrified. It's natural to lean back away from danger.
-
I don't think that's so hard to believe, he had a gun and she was terrified. It's natural to lean back away from danger.
Well of course it is natural :P....She sat on the bed reading a bible while the rest of her family were being shot, then when it came her turn she leaned back and allowed herself to be shot. Right oh!
I think I will join Susan and have a drink! :o
-
No, I think LD tests are inaccurate :)
I accept we are going round in circles Bridget. The NDI result from the 2007 LD test is not in contradiction to the 2011 Psychological tests. It is complimentary. The argument used to trash the 2007 test is that Bamber has either convinced him self he is not guilty or that the tester is unaware of manipulation on the part of Bamber. Manipulation and self deception are not born out in the 2011 Psychological tests. Furthermore, the Dr. pours scorn on the suggestion that a manipulative Bamber is able to keep up such facades.
It's guilty camp nonsense. Smoke and mirrors, as you might put it.
-
Well of course it is natural :P....She sat on the bed reading a bible while the rest of her family were being shot, then when it came her turn she leaned back and allowed herself to be shot. Right oh!
I think I will join Susan and have a drink! :o
We will never know, but she could have been asleep in her bed whilst the boys were shot, people have said often enough that the rifle is quiet. She could have awoken when the commotion started in the bedroom, or in the kitchen, and went into her parents bedroom and been shot herself.
I'm not suggesting she "allowed" herself to be shot. She could have been backed up against something, like the bed perhaps, and finding herself trapped naturally leaned back. I don't see why that's so difficult to believe.
-
I accept we are going round in circles Bridget. The NDI result from the 2007 LD test is not in contradiction to the 2011 Psychological tests. It is complimentary. The argument used to trash the 2007 test is that Bamber has either convinced him self he is not guilty or that the tester is unaware of manipulation on the part of Bamber. Manipulation and self deception are not born out in the 2011 Psychological tests. Furthermore, the Dr. pours scorn on the suggestion that a manipulative Bamber is able to keep up such facades.
It's guilty camp nonsense. Smoke and mirrors, as you might put it.
Don't confuse other people's arguments with mine. I have no trouble at all in believing that Dr Egan's findings in 2011 were entirely correct, whilst at the same time believing that LD tests are rubbish. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
-
Don't confuse other people's arguments with mine. I have no trouble at all in believing that Dr Egan's findings in 2011 were entirely correct, whilst at the same time believing that LD tests are rubbish. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
Then, what argument are you going to put forward to back up your astounding statement, that the LD test was passed because it was inaccurate?
-
Then, what argument are you going to put forward to back up your astounding statement, that the LD test was passed because it was inaccurate?
He passed, even though he did it.
You can't use Egan's report to support your argument because he was not assessing whether or not JB was being deceptive when taking the test in 2007. If you can get Egan to say that he believes in LD tests and that that was what he was referring to in his 2011 report I'll start listening.
-
He passed, even though he did it.
You can't use Egan's report to support your argument because he was not assessing whether or not JB was being deceptive when taking the test in 2007. If you can get Egan to say that he believes in LD tests and that that was what he was referring to in his 2011 report I'll start listening.
Very weak. And pedantic. it is quite clear what Egan expressed. He is not supportive of Jeremy Bamber presenting with any indicators which would match the index offence he has been convicted of, nor manipulation, nor self deception.
This is complimentary and not contradictory, to an NDI result in the LD.
If he had scored higher for self deception or psychopathy, you know as well as I, that you would be screaming from the roof tops this is why he passed the LD.
-
So then Bridget, you are looking at your attacker, you stand there while he is approaching you with a gun, you can see your mother dead on the floor then you allow that attacker to place that gun under your chin and lean back voluntarily.....
Sorry, but I would have thrown everything I could have, i would have run and fought.....there would be no way I would allow someone to shot me without a fight...:)
Patti
If I take what I have assumed to be your instinctive post above I do get confused if I apply your response and consider Sheila to be the killer.
If one takes your instinctive response and apply it to Nevill. Given Jeremy alleges Nevill identified to him that Sheila was going berserk with the gun. We know Nevill got shot at close range and so must have been faced with his killer which, if Jeremy is telling the truth, would be Sheila in this scenario.
There are a number of clear images of Sheila's body which include bare arms, legs, feet, neck and face etc. Such images are posted on the forum. These images will have been taken within a short time frame of Nevill being killed.
Question
Why does Sheila not have any suggestive wounds of a violent struggle / fight, barring the obvious 'self inflicted' gun shot wounds?
Nevill was 6' 4" and a physically fit farmer.
-
Very weak. And pedantic. it is quite clear what Egan expressed. He is not supportive of Jeremy Bamber presenting with any indicators which would match the index offence he has been convicted of, nor manipulation, nor self deception.
This is complimentary and not contradictory, to an NDI result in the LD.
If he had scored higher for self deception or psychopathy, you know as well as I, that you would be screaming from the roof tops this is why he passed the LD.
No, you're twisting it again. He was not testing for indications of whether or not JB is a murderer, he was assessing whether or not his apparent demeanour was false in order to assist in determining whether or not it would be safe to downgrade his category status. If that were not the case we would have no need for courts and all violent criminals would be Cat A for the entirety of their sentence. Don't you ever wonder what was in the other 13 pages?
-
Very weak. And pedantic. it is quite clear what Egan expressed. He is not supportive of Jeremy Bamber presenting with any indicators which would match the index offence he has been convicted of, nor manipulation, nor self deception.
This is complimentary and not contradictory, to an NDI result in the LD.
If he had scored higher for self deception or psychopathy, you know as well as I, that you would be screaming from the roof tops this is why he passed the LD.
Which company carried out the lie detector tests? Do you know if each answer was given a percentage chance of being accurate? or just a definitive Yes he is telling the truth?
-
If you say so :)
I respectfully do say so, Bridget, because....
AE's statement says that AE found one or two buckets in the area loosely known as the kitchen, containing bloodstained panties and dark coloured (black?) joggers, which also had to be bloodstained, in my view.
These clothes had been left to soak in a bucket/buckets of water because they were bloodstained.
A little dark top and a pair of dark socks could quite easily have been tangled up in those joggers.
-
Which company carried out the lie detector tests? Do you know if each answer was given a percentage chance of being accurate? or just a definitive Yes he is telling the truth?
Tester:
http://www.terrymullins.co.uk/
Instrument company:
http://www.lafayettepolygraph.com/
I cant answer your other question, other than I have read that parameters were set up prior to the test and that result for each question was NDI.
-
I respectfully do say so, Bridget, because....
AE's statement says that AE found one or two buckets in the area loosely known as the kitchen, containing bloodstained panties and dark coloured (black?) joggers, which also had to be bloodstained, in my view.
These clothes had been left to soak in a bucket/buckets of water because they were bloodstained.
A little dark top and a pair of dark socks could quite easily have been tangled up in those joggers.
AE effectively identified the clothes in the bucket/s as Sheila's when she told the police officer who was there at the time that the blood was of menstrual origin, which, AE said, smells differently to other blood.
Voila, we have Sheila's missing clothes!
-
AE effectively identified the clothes in the bucket/s as Sheila's when she told the police officer who was there at the time that the blood was of menstrual origin, which, AE said, smells differently to other blood.
Voila, we have Sheila's missing clothes!
And Sheila's missing clothes were bloodstained!
-
I respectfully do say so, Bridget, because....
AE's statement says that AE found one or two buckets in the area loosely known as the kitchen, containing bloodstained panties and dark coloured (black?) joggers, which also had to be bloodstained, in my view.
These clothes had been left to soak in a bucket/buckets of water because they were bloodstained.
A little dark top and a pair of dark socks could quite easily have been tangled up in those joggers.
For that to work you have to assume there was a top and socks, assume there was blood on them, and then assume the blood was that of the victims. That's a lot of assumptions.
-
Well of course it is natural :P....She sat on the bed reading a bible while the rest of her family were being shot, then when it came her turn she leaned back and allowed herself to be shot. Right oh!
I think I will join Susan and have a drink! :o
I rather think the natural thing for anyone to do if their family were being attacked would be to fight them off, not just standle idly by and watch their children be shot? But there were no marks on Sheila to say she put up a fight of any kind.
-
I accept we are going round in circles Bridget. The NDI result from the 2007 LD test is not in contradiction to the 2011 Psychological tests. It is complimentary. The argument used to trash the 2007 test is that Bamber has either convinced him self he is not guilty or that the tester is unaware of manipulation on the part of Bamber. Manipulation and self deception are not born out in the 2011 Psychological tests. Furthermore, the Dr. pours scorn on the suggestion that a manipulative Bamber is able to keep up such facades.
It's guilty camp nonsense. Smoke and mirrors, as you might put it.
Another wild argument by the guilty party. You can't get by their unreasoning behaviour can you? ;D
-
ChochokEira Yes I agree Sheila,s clothes could have been in the buckets which Ann took home thinking it was menstrual blood would not think it would smell any different especially if in water as it would be really diluted. I wonder if anyone ever asked Jeremy what Sheila was wearing when he left that fateful night.It would be interesting to know.
-
ChochokEira Yes I agree Sheila,s clothes could have been in the buckets which Ann took home thinking it was menstrual blood would not think it would smell any different especially if in water as it would be really diluted. I wonder if anyone ever asked Jeremy what Sheila was wearing when he left that fateful night.It would be interesting to know.
I was just wondering the same.
-
He passed, even though he did it.
You can't use Egan's report to support your argument because he was not assessing whether or not JB was being deceptive when taking the test in 2007. If you can get Egan to say that he believes in LD tests and that that was what he was referring to in his 2011 report I'll start listening.
"o judgment thou art fled to brutish beasts And men have lost their reason". (William Shakespeare)
-
For that to work you have to assume there was a top and socks, assume there was blood on them, and then assume the blood was that of the victims. That's a lot of assumptions.
Yes assumptions and not a shred of evidence to show he is guilty and no violent past and NO prison or youth offender convictions
I bet there's not many potential MOJ cases where the person convicted has no previous convictions for violence
-
For that to work you have to assume there was a top and socks, assume there was blood on them, and then assume the blood was that of the victims. That's a lot of assumptions.
I do not believe I've assuming anything regarding the panties and joggers in the bucket/s, as AE stated in her statement that the contents of this bucket/these buckets smelled of blood.
-
Bridget, do you agree...
That if Egan had scored Bamber more highly for psychopathy, self deception or manipulation and therefore issued a report conclusion different to the one he did, you would have used such an assessment to argue that this is probably the reason why he managed to pass his LD?
I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you would...
-
I do not believe I've assuming anything regarding the panties and joggers in the bucket/s, as AE stated in her statement that the contents of this bucket/these buckets smelled of blood.
I didn't say you were making assumptions regarding the knickers and joggers though did I? And getting caught out with your period is a perfectly reasonable explanation for those.
-
Patti
If I take what I have assumed to be your instinctive post above I do get confused if I apply your response and consider Sheila to be the killer.
If one takes your instinctive response and apply it to Nevill. Given Jeremy alleges Nevill identified to him that Sheila was going berserk with the gun. We know Nevill got shot at close range and so must have been faced with his killer which, if Jeremy is telling the truth, would be Sheila in this scenario.
There are a number of clear images of Sheila's body which include bare arms, legs, feet, neck and face etc. Such images are posted on the forum. These images will have been taken within a short time frame of Nevill being killed.
Question
Why does Sheila not have any suggestive wounds of a violent struggle / fight, barring the obvious 'self inflicted' gun shot wounds?
Nevill was 6' 4" and a physically fit farmer.
Now apply the same reasoning to Jeremy. No marks. No forensic evidence. Nothing to connect him to the crime except his ex girlfriend who tried to strangle him and who made a deal with a national rag.
-
Chochok Eira I thought I had read that a pair of joggers were hanging over the banister at the top of the stairs maybe they were clean. I do agree with you about the clothes in the bucket joggers can be sometimes just like thick tights and not bulky at all.
-
I do not believe I've assuming anything regarding the panties and joggers in the bucket/s, as AE stated in her statement that the contents of this bucket/these buckets smelled of blood.
AE qualified this statement by referring to this blood as menstrual blood, but I believe that AE was mistaken about this.
In my experience, the amount of blood staining that you might get with menstrual blood is minimal and the same is true of the smell of this menstrual blood once items stained with it are soaked in a bucket/buckets of water.
Menstrual blood does have a distinctive, hormonal scent to it (sorry about this, chaps), the hormonal content, however, and the menstrual blood are washed out and highly diluted once items stained with this are soaked in water.
The effect of this dilution is to remove any smell that the bloodstained areas might previously have had.
-
Patti
If I take what I have assumed to be your instinctive post above I do get confused if I apply your response and consider Sheila to be the killer.
If one takes your instinctive response and apply it to Nevill. Given Jeremy alleges Nevill identified to him that Sheila was going berserk with the gun. We know Nevill got shot at close range and so must have been faced with his killer which, if Jeremy is telling the truth, would be Sheila in this scenario.
There are a number of clear images of Sheila's body which include bare arms, legs, feet, neck and face etc. Such images are posted on the forum. These images will have been taken within a short time frame of Nevill being killed.
Question
Why does Sheila not have any suggestive wounds of a violent struggle / fight, barring the obvious 'self inflicted' gun shot wounds?
Nevill was 6' 4" and a physically fit farmer.
Well perhaps it happened like Bridget suggested? Ralph had alread been shot when he was beaten so I doubt that he fought with him....
So the guilty camp have two arguments so if one doesn't work then they can fall back onto the other one. Two more wild theories from them. ::) ;D
-
Chochok Eira I thought I had read that a pair of joggers were hanging over the banister at the top of the stairs maybe they were clean. I do agree with you about the clothes in the bucket joggers can be sometimes just like thick tights and not bulky at all.
I stand to be corrected on this, Susan, but I believe the clothing hanging over the bannister looked more like tights than joggers.
-
I didn't say you were making assumptions regarding the knickers and joggers though did I? And getting caught out with your period is a perfectly reasonable explanation for those.
Why on earth would you come to the conclusion that the clothes in the bucket had menstrual blood on them?
Oh Anne Eaton said so
Egap did her own test a couple of weeks ago and came to the conclusion you wouldn't be able to tell where the blood came from there is a good chance it came from Neville
Bridget is wasn't tested was it
Anne had taken it home like the silencer got taken home
-
Bridget, do you agree...
That if Egan had scored Bamber more highly for psychopathy, self deception or manipulation and therefore issued a report conclusion different to the one he did, you would have used such an assessment to argue that this is probably the reason why he managed to pass his LD?
I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you would...
Roch, honestly, I do believe LD tests are pretty much hokum. I don't believe anything Egan said was intended to be supportive of the LD test. If JB had scored more highly on Egan's test I would not be linking it with the LD test. I'll give you this though, I think that JBs willingness to do the test at all says more about his belief in his innocence than the test itself does. I still think he was an idiot to take it though.
-
For that to work you have to assume there was a top and socks, assume there was blood on them, and then assume the blood was that of the victims. That's a lot of assumptions.
So why else would someone cold soak their clothes instead of just putting them straight into the washing machine?
-
Why on earth would you come to the conclusion that the clothes in the bucket had menstrual blood on them?
Oh Anne Eaton said so
Egap did her own test a couple of weeks ago and came to the conclusion you wouldn't be able to tell where the blood came from there is a good chance it came from Neville
Bridget is wasn't tested was it
Anne had taken it home like the silencer got taken home
I would think you would be able to tell if it was a period type mishap just by looking at the knickers, depending on what colour they were.
-
So why else would someone cold soak their clothes instead of just putting them straight into the washing machine?
There was blood on them, it was late and washing machines are noisy.
-
Roch, honestly, I do believe LD tests are pretty much hokum. I don't believe anything Egan said was intended to be supportive of the LD test. If JB had scored more highly on Egan's test I would not be linking it with the LD test. I'll give you this though, I think that JBs willingness to do the test at all says more about his belief in his innocence than the test itself does. I still think he was an idiot to take it though.
Why do you think that Bridget?
-
AE qualified this statement by referring to this blood as menstrual blood, but I believe that AE was mistaken about this.
In my experience, the amount of blood staining that you might get with menstrual blood is minimal and the same is true of the smell of this menstrual blood once items stained with it are soaked in a bucket/buckets of water.
Menstrual blood does have a distinctive, hormonal scent to it (sorry about this, chaps), the hormonal content, however, and the menstrual blood are washed out and highly diluted once items stained with this are soaked in water.
The effect of this dilution is to remove any smell that the bloodstained areas might previously have had.
As the blood that AE detected in the bucket/s, by its scent, cannot have been menstrual blood, this begs the question of what exactly was the origin of this blood that AE could smell on the clothes steeping in the bucket/s?
And why was there so much of this blood in the bucket/s that, despite the bloodstained clothing being steeped in water and the blood being diluted by this, AE could still smell it?
-
There was blood on them, it was late and washing machines are noisy.
So you accept that the items of clothing were put into the bucket late at night then and not earlier in the evening?
-
Why do you think that Bridget?
Because whether he was guilty or innocent a failed test would have finished his campaign, because of the number of people out there who do have faith in LD tests.
-
So you accept that the items of clothing were put into the bucket late at night then and not earlier in the evening?
Probably around the time she went to bed would be my guess.
-
As the blood that AE detected in the bucket/s, by its scent, cannot have been menstrual blood, this begs the question of what exactly was the origin of this blood that AE could smell on the clothes steeping in the bucket/s?
And why was there so much of this blood in the bucket/s that, despite the bloodstained clothing being steeped in water and the blood being diluted by this, AE could still smell it?
Why can't it have been menstrual blood?
-
Chochok Eira Clothes soaking in buckets of water would not have any different smell than ordinary blood the water would have diluted the blood it seems to me that even if some of it was menstrual blood not all of it would have been and indeed could have come from June or Ralph. We shall never know will we.
-
Because whether he was guilty or innocent a failed test would have finished his campaign, because of the number of people out there who do have faith in LD tests.
Don't you think they would rather take your approach and just say that LD tests are inaccurate?
-
Hi Bridget Some of it could have been but maybe not all.
-
Don't you think they would rather take your approach and just say that LD tests are inaccurate?
Who do you mean by "they"?
-
There was blood on them, it was late and washing machines are noisy.
WHF is a large, period house with many rooms and was built to stand for centuries. It has three staircases and walls around one foot thick. I believe the washing machine was in or near the back kitchen ( a sort of storeroom and utility area) and well away from the living and sleeping areas. No one would have been disturbed by the sound of that washing machine, in my opinion.
This suggests, doesn't it, that there were reasons other than the noise of the washing machine for soaking those clothes in a bucket or buckets of water rather than just popping them into the machine and washing them?
Everyone hates having buckets of clothes soaking in their kitchen or storeroom, they're a mess and accidents waiting to happen. The sole reason anyone soaks clothes is because they have to, because these clothes are so badly engorged with staining that they require pre-soaking.
As AE stated that the clothes smelled of blood and soaking is solely used to remove staining, this has to be the answer: those clothes were sufficiently stained - with blood - to require pre-soaking to loosen the stains.
The clothes were also so badly stained that AE could detect the smell of blood on them even after the blood was highly diluted by soaking.
Perhaps AE and the officer could even see that blood because the water in the bucket/s was tinged red or straw coloured by it?
-
Roch, honestly, I do believe LD tests are pretty much hokum. I don't believe anything Egan said was intended to be supportive of the LD test. If JB had scored more highly on Egan's test I would not be linking it with the LD test. I'll give you this though, I think that JBs willingness to do the test at all says more about his belief in his innocence than the test itself does. I still think he was an idiot to take it though.
I'm giving up trying to crack you for now. I will return to have another crack soon no doubt :)
-
Why can't it have been menstrual blood?
Bridget, sorry to first ask you an embarrassing question, but have you ever soaked any items stained with menstrual blood?
-
I'm giving up trying to crack you for now. I will return to have another crack soon no doubt :)
Lol, I'll be waiting... :)
-
Chochok Eira Clothes soaking in buckets of water would not have any different smell than ordinary blood the water would have diluted the blood it seems to me that even if some of it was menstrual blood not all of it would have been and indeed could have come from June or Ralph. We shall never know will we.
I believe we can determine what this blood was, Susan, as AE could smell that it was blood and clothing with menstrual blood stains that's steeped in water does not smell of blood.
-
WHF is a large, period house with many rooms and was built to stand for centuries. It has three staircases and walls around one foot thick. I believe the washing machine was in or near the back kitchen ( a sort of storeroom and utility area) and well away from the living and sleeping areas. No one would have been disturbed by the sound of that washing machine, in my opinion.
This suggests, doesn't it, that there were reasons other than the noise of the washing machine for soaking those clothes in a bucket or buckets of water rather than just popping them into the machine and washing them?
Everyone hates having buckets of clothes soaking in their kitchen or storeroom, they're a mess and accidents waiting to happen. The sole reason anyone soaks clothes is because they have to, because these clothes are so badly engorged with staining that they require pre-soaking.
As AE stated that the clothes smelled of blood and soaking is solely used to remove staining, this has to be the answer: those clothes were sufficiently stained - with blood - to require pre-soaking to loosen the stains.
The clothes were also so badly stained that AE could detect the smell of blood on them even after the blood was highly diluted by soaking.
Perhaps AE and the officer could even see that blood because the water in the bucket/s was tinged red or straw coloured by it?
Judging by the photos and the number of guns laying around this does not appear to be a family particularly concerned by mess or accidents waiting to happen.
Maybe she didn't have enough washing to make up a load? I think it was quite normal then to soak items stained with blood anyway, remember that they didn't have things like Vanish then.
Bridget, sorry to first ask you an embarrassing question, but have you ever soaked any items stained with menstrual blood?
Probably, although I'd be more likely to just throw them away. I certainly can't recall sniffing them though ;)
-
Who do you mean by "they"?
Because you said this Because whether he was guilty or innocent a failed test would have finished his campaign, because of the number of people out there who do have faith in LD tests.
Thus implying that there are many more believe in LD tests that those who do not? Doesn't that put you in the minority? And if in the minority then it must mean that many many more must believe that they are mostly right surely?
-
remember that they didn't have things like Vanish then.
Hahaha you make it sound like the last century ;D ;D ;D..........Oh! :-\ It was the last century. :-[
-
Because you said this Thus implying that there are many more believe in LD tests that those who do not? Doesn't that put you in the minority? And if in the minority then it must mean that many many more must believe that they are mostly right surely?
Nothing I said implies that many more believe than don't, and why is that even relevant, it's not as if we get to vote on whether he gets out is it? Clearly there are plenty of people who do believe in them, otherwise Jeremy Kyle would be out of a job.
-
Nothing I said implies that many more believe than don't, and why is that even relevant, it's not as if we get to vote on whether he gets out is it? Clearly there are plenty of people who do believe in them, otherwise Jeremy Kyle would be out of a job.
But of course you are not so gullible as the many to believe that they are reliable. ;)
-
Hahaha you make it sound like the last century ;D ;D ;D..........Oh! :-\ It was the last century. :-[
Didnt we have vanish in 1985 i have a feeling we did. Its been around a long time. I think it strange that a sophisticared london girl like sheila would be putting knickers in a bucket to soak. It sounds wrong.imo
-
But of course you are not so gullible as the many to believe that they are reliable. ;)
Clearly not, and thankfully, neither are the courts.
-
Maggie,it's usually those type of girls who are the worst offenders at that which you described,as they wait for others to do their dirty work
as in hiring house-keepers and maids. They're the untidiest knowing that someone will " pick up after them ".
-
As the blood that AE detected in the bucket/s, by its scent, cannot have been menstrual blood, this begs the question of what exactly was the origin of this blood that AE could smell on the clothes steeping in the bucket/s?
And why was there so much of this blood in the bucket/s that, despite the bloodstained clothing being steeped in water and the blood being diluted by this, AE could still smell it?
Perhaps she was a bloodhound in her former life (excuse the pun)!
For her to claim to 'know' the origin of this blood is extremely bizarre, however.
Just more potential evidence that was destroyed.
-
It was venous blood,which you can smell,so it's obvious that clothing was used to mop up the thick blood,for it to leave a smell. The bedroom rug was saturated,but that was burned 3 days later.
-
I believe we can determine what this blood was, Susan, as AE could smell that it was blood and clothing with menstrual blood stains that's steeped in water does not smell of blood.
Facial wounds etc bleed profusely and could be responsible for the amount of blood there appeared to be in the buckets. ,
-
Judging by the photos and the number of guns laying around this does not appear to be a family particularly concerned by mess or accidents waiting to happen.
No one, in my experience, no matter how tidy or untidy, soaks clothes unless they absolutely have to because no one wants buckets of water slopping all over the place.
Maybe she didn't have enough washing to make up a load? I think it was quite normal then to soak items stained with blood anyway, remember that they didn't have things like Vanish then.
Once clothes are soaking, you have to wash them as soon as possible, say, the next day, don't you? Considersatins such as sufficient clothes to make up a load are entirely secondary once buckets of water are slopping about on your work surface or you're tripping over buckets on the floor. It's all so horribly evocative of those vile, ecologically ethical terry nappies too, isn't it? That's if you used these.
Probably, although I'd be more likely to just throw them away. I certainly can't recall sniffing them though ;)
Can I take it that the above reply means yes? Because you would recall the smell if was as strong smelling as the clothes in the bucket that AE came across, wouldn't you?
So, you agree that clothing stained with menstrual blood, once steeped in water - so that the hormonal content is washed out and the hormones and blood are highly diluted - does not smell of blood.
I am not suggesting that AE sniffed the water and contents of the bucket/s. Under the circumstances, indeed in any circumstances, that's the last thing anyone would want to do.
What I am suggesting is that it would be fair to conclude, wouldn't it, that as AE would not actively sniff the bucket/s and contents, that the smell of the contents of the bucket/s was presenting itself to her?
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the contents of the bucket/s was/were quite high.
-
Nothing I said implies that many more believe than don't, and why is that even relevant, it's not as if we get to vote on whether he gets out is it? Clearly there are plenty of people who do believe in them, otherwise Jeremy Kyle would be out of a job.
Yes like these people believe in them
Police trial lie detector tests on suspected sex offenders
Hertfordshire force hails success of polygraphs in assessing risk to children of 25 'low-level' sexual offenders
Association of Chief Police Officers says use of polygraph tests in UK is at a very early stage
guardian.co.uk, Sat 31 Dec 2011 11.12 GMT
Suspected sex offenders have been targeted with lie detector tests in a police trial to gauge the risk they pose to the public.
Hertfordshire police has been using polygraphs, which monitor heart rate, brain activity, sweating and blood pressure, during questioning to help decide whether to charge suspects.
The force confirmed it had completed a successful pilot scheme in November in which 25 "low level" sex offenders were tested. Many were found to pose a higher risk to children than previously estimated. A further 12-month trial is expected to start in April.
Of the 10 offenders tested in April, six revealed more serious offending. Testing ended so further inquiries could take place, according to the Times. Of the other four, two revealed offences, thus passing the test, and received cautions and attended a sexual offender treatment programme.
The last two made disclosures and passed the test but refused to admit the offences when interviewed later. Their cases went to court. All four were placed on the sex offenders register.
Of the 15 offenders tested in November, eight failed while six passed. One was caught trying to beat the polygraph, breathing erratically and talking slowly.
Detective Chief Inspector Glen Channer, head of Hertfordshire's child protection unit, said the polygraph was an "added weapon in our armoury of investigative techniques". He said the tests were carried out by accredited practitioners in a scientific environment and were not relied upon on their own.
Hertfordshire police said : "The testing is undertaken ahead of any charges being brought and involves specialist officers from the constabulary's paedophile unit working with an expert who conducts the test on first-time offenders who have volunteered to co-operate with police. Evidence elicited during the examinations is not admissible at court."
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) cautioned that the tests were at a very early stage. A spokesman said: "Polygraph techniques are complex and are by no means a single solution to solving crimes, potentially offering in certain circumstances an additional tool to structured interrogation.
"These initial trials are in their very early stages and we will follow their progress, working with chief officers across the country to provide further guidance if necessary.
"Whether these techniques are adopted elsewhere in the country is a matter for individual chief constables."
-
ChochokEira Yes I agree Sheila,s clothes could have been in the buckets which Ann took home thinking it was menstrual blood would not think it would smell any different especially if in water as it would be really diluted. I wonder if anyone ever asked Jeremy what Sheila was wearing when he left that fateful night.It would be interesting to know.
That's a very good question. Who could ask him?
-
At the end of the day there were two pairs of green knickers with blood on them left soaking in a bucket. In the other bucket was a pair of jogging bottoms. Both buckets were in the kitchen area.
It does't matter what type of blood it was, the fact is that the evidence was taken and thrown away....by AE who admits there was blood on them.
Could be vital evidence, might not of been....
She saved the contents of a hoover bag, but throw away blood stained clothing....:)
-
That's a very good question. Who could ask him?
It is a good question and we know who can ask Jeremy, NGB!
-
At the end of the day there were two pairs of green knickers with blood on them left soaking in a bucket. In the other bucket was a pair of jogging bottoms. Both buckets were in the kitchen area.
It does't matter what type of blood it was, the fact is that the evidence was taken and thrown away....by AE who admits there was blood on them.
Could be vital evidence, might not of been....
She saved the contents of a hoover bag, but throw away blood stained clothing....:)
Once again though it comes down to dreadfully inept policing, doesn't it, to appalling negligence and failure to follow the police's own standard investigatory and evidence gathering procedures, time after time? The Keystone Cops strike again.
EP manipulated, edited, contaminated and destroyed evidence left, right and centre in this case, evidence that should have been carefully gathered and meticulously examined. Evidence that was vital for Jeremy Bamber's defence to properly defend Jeremy and for everyone involved in this case to reached a considered and true opinion of just what did happen at WHF on 7th August 1985.
-
Didnt we have vanish in 1985 i have a feeling we did. Its been around a long time. I think it strange that a sophisticared london girl like sheila would be putting knickers in a bucket to soak. It sounds wrong.imo
Seems any girl wouldn't like that sort of thing on display for everyone to see? More likely she would have washed them out immediately and then have secreted them away into the washing machine? Just my thoughts on the matter, that's all.
-
Seems any girl wouldn't like that sort of thing on display for everyone to see? More likely she would have washed them out immediately and then have secreted them away into the washing machine? Just my thoughts on the matter, that's all.
Couldnt have put it better myself bloggsy
-
Once again though it comes down to dreadfully inept policing, doesn't it, to appalling negligence and failure to follow the police's own standard investigatory and evidence gathering procedures, time after time? The Keystone Cops strike again.
EP manipulated, edited, contaminated and destroyed evidence left, right and centre in this case, evidence that should have been carefully gathered and meticulously examined. Evidence that was vital for Jeremy Bamber's defence to properly defend Jeremy and for everyone involved in this case to reached a considered and true opinion of just what did happen at WHF on 7th August 1985.
All true, Keira.
Yet, from the start EP must have believed that Sheila was responsible? They should have, however, gathered evidence for all eventualities.
You would think policing had improved since 1985 and, hopefully, in a lot of forces it has, but this latest case of Sam Hallam makes me despair.
-
All true, Keira.
Yet, from the start EP must have believed that Sheila was responsible? They should have, however, gathered evidence for all eventualities.
You would think policing had improved since 1985 and, hopefully, in a lot of forces it has, but this latest case of Sam Hallam makes me despair.
it would appear not standards have declined in those days when you called the police you got to the police station thesedays its some moron who does not know Christmas from Pancake Tuesday.
-
Too right,Mertol22.
-
No one, in my experience, no matter how tidy or untidy, soaks clothes unless they absolutely have to because no one wants buckets of water slopping all over the place.
And yet we know that people did, and probably still do.
Once clothes are soaking, you have to wash them as soon as possible, say, the next day, don't you? Considersatins such as sufficient clothes to make up a load are entirely secondary once buckets of water are slopping about on your work surface or you're tripping over buckets on the floor.
Perhaps she knew that there were other clothes to wash, perhaps in the boys room, and she didn't want to disturb them - just a thought.
Can I take it that the above reply means yes? Because you would recall the smell if was as strong smelling as the clothes in the bucket that AE came across, wouldn't you?
So, you agree that clothing stained with menstrual blood, once steeped in water - so that the hormonal content is washed out and the hormones and blood are highly diluted - does not smell of blood.
I am not suggesting that AE sniffed the water and contents of the bucket/s. Under the circumstances, indeed in any circumstances, that's the last thing anyone would want to do.
What I am suggesting is that it would be fair to conclude, wouldn't it, that as AE would not actively sniff the bucket/s and contents, that the smell of the contents of the bucket/s was presenting itself to her?
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the contents of the bucket/s was/were quite high.
So you are using the fact that AE could smell blood to promote the theory that there must have been heavily bloodstained clothing worn by Sheila when she killed her family, including a top and socks which have never been mentioned, in the buckets? If so, why were her knickers in there? They wouldn't have been blood stained if she was wearing the joggers.
Sticking to the facts, it is far more plausible that Sheila discovered that she'd had an accident late in the evening, and put her knickers and joggers in to soak intending to wash them the next day. Because of the tragedy the clothes remained in the bucket for a considerable period of time and the smell arose when the water was disturbed, probably by Ann tipping it out.
-
Yes like these people believe in them
Police trial lie detector tests on suspected sex offenders
Hertfordshire force hails success of polygraphs in assessing risk to children of 25 'low-level' sexual offenders
Association of Chief Police Officers says use of polygraph tests in UK is at a very early stage
guardian.co.uk, Sat 31 Dec 2011 11.12 GMT
Suspected sex offenders have been targeted with lie detector tests in a police trial to gauge the risk they pose to the public.
Hertfordshire police has been using polygraphs, which monitor heart rate, brain activity, sweating and blood pressure, during questioning to help decide whether to charge suspects.
The force confirmed it had completed a successful pilot scheme in November in which 25 "low level" sex offenders were tested. Many were found to pose a higher risk to children than previously estimated. A further 12-month trial is expected to start in April.
Of the 10 offenders tested in April, six revealed more serious offending. Testing ended so further inquiries could take place, according to the Times. Of the other four, two revealed offences, thus passing the test, and received cautions and attended a sexual offender treatment programme.
The last two made disclosures and passed the test but refused to admit the offences when interviewed later. Their cases went to court. All four were placed on the sex offenders register.
Of the 15 offenders tested in November, eight failed while six passed. One was caught trying to beat the polygraph, breathing erratically and talking slowly.
Detective Chief Inspector Glen Channer, head of Hertfordshire's child protection unit, said the polygraph was an "added weapon in our armoury of investigative techniques". He said the tests were carried out by accredited practitioners in a scientific environment and were not relied upon on their own.
Hertfordshire police said : "The testing is undertaken ahead of any charges being brought and involves specialist officers from the constabulary's paedophile unit working with an expert who conducts the test on first-time offenders who have volunteered to co-operate with police. Evidence elicited during the examinations is not admissible at court."
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) cautioned that the tests were at a very early stage. A spokesman said: "Polygraph techniques are complex and are by no means a single solution to solving crimes, potentially offering in certain circumstances an additional tool to structured interrogation.
"These initial trials are in their very early stages and we will follow their progress, working with chief officers across the country to provide further guidance if necessary.
"Whether these techniques are adopted elsewhere in the country is a matter for individual chief constables."
Let's look at that a little more closely:
25 known offenders were tested, 10 in April and 15 in November last year.
Of the 10 tested in April, 6 were found by the test to have committed more serious offences, further investigation were made but they don't say what the results of those investigations were. The other 4 admitted further offences, presumably because they watch too much Jeremy Kyle.
Of the 15 tested in November 8 failed and 6 passed so.... what?
It seems to me that the only benefit the trial of the LD test highlights is the fact that some people can be scared into admitting things.
See also:
He said the tests were carried out by accredited practitioners in a scientific environment and were not relied upon on their own.
-
Good Morning Bridget I have on many occasions put clothes to steep in cold water as it is said the cold water loosens the stains and they will wash out easier when put in the washing machine I have applied this to coffee stains and many others. I would never turn on a washing machine for just one or two items it is not good for the machine or my electric bill try and get a full load but I must add the bucket would be left in the laundry room not on the kitchen table. :)
-
I still maintain that this clothing was used for " mopping-up " purposes.
-
Hi lookout I think the panties maybe menstrual blood but the other clothing no for her to need so much clothing she must have been hemorrhaging. I have been given to understand two buckets of clothes soaking were found so what was the purpose of two she would only need one for her panties. :) :) ;D
-
Hi lookout I think the panties maybe menstrual blood but the other clothing no for her to need so much clothing she must have been hemorrhaging. I have been given to understand two buckets of clothes soaking were found so what was the purpose of two she would only need one for her panties. :) :) ;D
The fact that the clothes were soaking in two buckets probably means a lot of clothes that needed soaking for some reason? Also the fact that these clothes were soaking could mean that she also bathed herself after she took them off?
-
bloggs and son then put on her clean nightie maybe at that stage she knew she was going to sleep. I think I read Sheila was very fastidious about cleanliness. :) ;) :D
-
Oh yes,poor Sheila was cleaning up as she went. The floor,her feet,hands,etc,as she'd have had far more blood on her person than was discovered. But why were the damn things removed.?
-
Hi lookout why indeed were things removed I assume some know the answer to that question I certainly don,t but I can have my own private thoughts. 8) Tell Patti she is responsible for pushing me over the edge with the aliens and Bridget of course.
-
Morning Susan :)
-
Hi lookout why indeed were things removed I assume some know the answer to that question I certainly don,t but I can have my own private thoughts. 8) Tell Patti she is responsible for pushing me over the edge with the aliens and Bridget of course.
I told you before. Aliens don't steal human's clothes. They are far too big for them.
-
bloggs and son you are quite wrong some aliens are very big well they are humans undercover as aliens get my point.
-
bloggs and son you are quite wrong some aliens are very big well they are humans undercover as aliens get my point.
And there was a funny hunched figure seen skulking from the farm that night. ???
-
bloggs and son My point exactly maybe he stole the clothes Bridget said aliens but we all know they are only on my computer thanks to Bridget and Patti. Infact I see a complete row of them staring at me.
-
Bloggs and son,,,,the " hunched figure " would have been part of the drop of drugs at the farm,by plane of course,in the middle of the night. This little gem came from Roland,Anthony Pargeter's half-brother. Who also confessed in his statement,his own involvement with drugs plus a convoluted account of visiting a psychic,and her telling him a tale of three hit-men who killed the family. ( written with tongue-in-cheek.)
-
Hi lookout this is a new one on me it is amazing the knowledge I am acquiring on this forum aliens drugs ;) ;)drop what next men in white coats (just kidding) :D
-
Susan,who needs aliens when there's a family like this lot.? The oddfellows.
-
Hi lookout sorry for being so dim but who are the oddfellows? ???
-
This alien is going out with friends for a meal at 6pm....Hope there are plenty of metal knives....hahahahahah
-
Bloggs and son,,,,the " hunched figure " would have been part of the drop of drugs at the farm,by plane of course,in the middle of the night. This little gem came from Roland,Anthony Pargeter's half-brother. Who also confessed in his statement,his own involvement with drugs plus a convoluted account of visiting a psychic,and her telling him a tale of three hit-men who killed the family. ( written with tongue-in-cheek.)
You may jest? ;) But I've heard stories just like that one. But you know what keeps niggling me? It is the words of Ann Eaton when she "wondered why Jeremy wasn't among the dead?". Would that be your first thought if your family were murdered? Would you not rather expect her to say, "Oh no! Is Jeremy alright?" Or then again why be surprised at all? Since he lived somewhere else and not at the farm. Very strange words indeed don't you think?
-
Yes,Bloggs,they are odd words,which could be taken either way,pro or anti.
AE doesn't strike me as asking after anyone's health,least of all JB's.
-
My first thought would be "Thank god he is alright" not go round with a notebook and pen, collecting untoward comments, to use in "I'm going to prove you did it"
Why did she ask for black flowers for Sheila if she thought JB had committed the crimes?
-
You may jest? ;) But I've heard stories just like that one. But you know what keeps niggling me? It is the words of Ann Eaton when she "wondered why Jeremy wasn't among the dead?". Would that be your first thought if your family were murdered? Would you not rather expect her to say, "Oh no! Is Jeremy alright?" Or then again why be surprised at all? Since he lived somewhere else and not at the farm. Very strange words indeed don't you think?
I agree, very strange words.
Jeremy didn't live at WHF so why would she expect him to be dead too?
-
You may jest? ;) But I've heard stories just like that one. But you know what keeps niggling me? It is the words of Ann Eaton when she "wondered why Jeremy wasn't among the dead?". Would that be your first thought if your family were murdered? Would you not rather expect her to say, "Oh no! Is Jeremy alright?" Or then again why be surprised at all? Since he lived somewhere else and not at the farm. Very strange words indeed don't you think?
I find this comment an odd one too. Why should Jeremy be 'among the dead' when he didn't live there any longer.
-
If only Jeremy were dead too, then...
-
If only Jeremy were dead too, then...
.......as she rubs hands with glee, thinking of all that lovely lolly!!!!!! SORRY, SORRY. Can't imagine what made me think that.
-
AE knew that Jeremy was at WHF that day,visiting,but to all intents and purposes,he left the farmhouse at 10pm that night. I think it was AE who was having a phone conversation with June while Jeremy was there,so she'd have naturally known. AE might have thought that JB was staying.
-
AE knew that Jeremy was at WHF that day,visiting,but to all intents and purposes,he left the farmhouse at 10pm that night. I think it was AE who was having a phone conversation with June while Jeremy was there,so she'd have naturally known. AE might have thought that JB was staying.
No AE did not have a phone conversation with June. Even Chelsea had more shots on target. :P
-
Hi lookout I believe it was June,s sister who was on the phone that night as usual can,t remember her name.
-
Thanks Susan. I knew someone was on the phone to June,but never sure who the caller was.
Perhaps Hartley will know.
-
Thanks Susan. I knew someone was on the phone to June,but never sure who the caller was.
Perhaps Hartley will know.
June's sister Pamela.
-
Thankyou,NGB. Much appreciated.
-
Thanks Susan. I knew someone was on the phone to June,but never sure who the caller was.
Perhaps Hartley will know.
Hi Lookout....Barbara Wilson phoned earlier that night and said she thought Nevill was sharp with her. Pam rang about 10pm and she spoke to Shelia, but could only get a yes and no out of her, then she suddenly went to bed according to June.
PB goes on to say that they had made arrangements for June, Sheila and the children to visit her on the Thursday and they also spoke about concerns in the family, but, she did not elaborate on them in her statement and she was never asked about it either as far as I am aware....:)
I think Pam said the conversation lasted about 20 minutes or so...
-
Yes,Patti,,,the conversation was slightly " heated " at times. It would have helped knowing what it was all about really,though I'm not in the habit myself of either listening in to phone-calls,nor asking about their content,but in this case it may have thrown light on why Nevill was sharp,,,,,or perhaps that could have been the way he was. That as well I can relate to.
-
· Did you shoot your family on August 7th 1985? – No
· Did you shoot five members of your family with an Anshutz rifle? No
· Were you present inside the house when they were shot with an Anshutz rifle? No
· Did you shoot your father Neville? – No
· Did you shoot your mother June? – No
· Did you shoot your sister Sheila Caffell? – No
· Did you shoot your twin nephews Daniel and Nicholas? – No
· Did you climb out of a window of your parent’s home after shooting your family? No
· Did you shoot your family in your father’s home? – No
· Did PC Bews radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shootings? – Yes
· Did you pay a professional hit man to shoot your family? – No
Didn't they ask any control questions then? ::)
-
Didn't they ask any control questions then? ::)
I think that's what setting up parameters means.
-
Didn't they ask any control questions then? ::)
Yes bob.
1. have you ever seen a badgler.
2. What places do badglers haunt.
3.Can you recognise an escalator in the London undetground.
Sorry I apologise for being really silly I do lnow it is very serious.
-
Yes bob.
1. have you ever seen a badgler.
2. What places do badglers haunt.
3.Can you recognise an escalator in the London undetground.
Sorry I apologise for being really silly I do lnow it is very serious.
;D ;D