Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on June 16, 2012, 10:34:PM
-
The silencer, hand swab, and scratch marks on the aga, Conspiracy...
They tampered with the Silencer, hand swab and marks made on the aga evidence, so that they could prosecute Jeremy Bamber for these murders...
-
The silencer, hand swab, and scratch marks on the aga, Conspiracy...
They tampered with the Silencer, hand swab and marks made on the aga evidence, so that they could prosecute Jeremy Bamber for these murders...
They went to these lengths so that the prosecution could argue that Sheila could not have loaded bullets into the gun and killed herself, and that the silencer was fitted to the guns barrel when Ralph and Sheila were both killed...
-
They went to these lengths so that the prosecution could argue that Sheila could not have loaded bullets into the gun and killed herself, and that the silencer was fitted to the guns barrel when Ralph and Sheila were both killed...
Totally agree. Some of our counterparts will argue that this was done out of necessity because they had duffed the crime scene in the first instance, i.e. fabrication on the part of EP does not equate to innocence on the part of JB.
Who was the mastermind behind all of this? Was it a collective or did someone in particular drive it all?
-
Totally agree. Some of our counterparts will argue that this was done out of necessity because they had duffed the crime scene in the first instance, i.e. fabrication on the part of EP does not equate to innocence on the part of JB.
Who was the mastermind behind all of this? Was it a collective or did someone in particular drive it all?
If you're counting me as a counterpart that's not my argument. There seem to be perfectly reasonable explanations for all of the issues presented.
-
If you're counting me as a counterpart that's not my argument. There seem to be perfectly reasonable explanations for all of the issues presented.
These reasonable type explanations which could be avsilable are the very reasons why MOJ occur...
Same old excuses used by the agencies of the state and its supporters. According to them its alright to tamper with evidence contained in one file (SC/688/85) and edit the contents of witness statements by the DPP without the witneds even being present, and in some instances it is alright for the DPP to make fresh statements for witneesses without the knowlege of a witness, and it is alright for the police to alter and change exhibit reference details to fool the lab' into examining articles which have previously been rejected at the lab', and it is alright to stage manage a crime scene' to
withhold photographs taken by the police themselves, so that they can pin the blame on someone like Jeremy...
-
I think it is ludicrous to think that Sheila could not use a rifle. Folk say she was too small...She was 5ft 7"...small is about 5ft. A child could have used that rifle, it was light, had a very small recoil and easy to load.
In court they tried to establish that she could not have loaded the rifle for the third time and that the 10th bullet was difficult to load in the magazine....This is not so. The German company tests these rifles and they had never had one complaint about their guns being hard to load. This was never discussed at the trial, so the jury again was not aware of it....So many things the jury were not made aware of.... :) :)
-
I think it is ludicrous to think that Sheila could not use a rifle. Folk say she was too small...She was 5ft 7"...small is about 5ft. A child could have used that rifle, it was light, had a very small recoil and easy to load.
In court they tried to establish that she could not have loaded the rifle for the third time and that the 10th bullet was difficult to load in the magazine....This is not so. The German company tests these rifles and they had never had one complaint about their guns being hard to load. This was never discussed at the trial, so the jury again was not aware of it....So many things the jury were not made aware of.... :) :)
I don't recall anyone saying Sheila was too small to use the rifle. It is her lack of experience or knowledge of guns which is the issue.
The jury were given the opportunity to load the actual magazine themselves, so it doesn't really matter what manufacturers say.
-
I don't recall anyone saying Sheila was too small to use the rifle. It is her lack of experience or knowledge of guns which is the issue.
The jury were given the opportunity to load the actual magazine themselves, so it doesn't really matter what manufacturers say.
Morning Bridget :) No way she lacked experience, she was brought up on a farm surrounded by guns and was a beater. Shelia attended shoots....It's not rocket science how to have used that rifle, a child could have used it...The magazine was easy to load, flick the small recoil and shoot...I could use it. One would only have to see it loaded once and it is something that you would remember.
Were they, where does it say that? Don't forget the rifle was damaged. :) :) :)
-
Morning Bridget :) No way she lacked experience, she was brought up on a farm surrounded by guns and was a beater. Shelia attended shoots....It's not rocket science how to have used that rifle, a child could have used it...The magazine was easy to load, flick the small recoil and shoot...I could use it. One would only have to see it loaded once and it is something that you would remember.
Were they, where does it say that? Don't forget the rifle was damaged. :) :) :)
Being brought up on a farm doesn't make you experienced with guns, and neither does beating.
Read paragraph 224 onwards in the appeal re the loading of the magazine.
-
Being brought up on a farm doesn't make you experienced with guns, and neither does beating.
Read paragraph 224 onwards in the appeal re the loading of the magazine.
I don't need to read it Bridget, because the German company was never contacted in 1986...there was no problems reloading that type of rifle and it was used world wide and still is....
Being brought up on a farm with guns....Bridget does not make you experienced, no, but surely she would have witnessed the use of them...even as a young girl...
When I was about 5 maybe 6 years old, I used to go rabbiting with my dad who had a 12 bore...It was a heavy gun, but today...i could tell you how to use one and would have no problem loading one. I would have no problem with the rifle either....come on be honest, could you load a magazine and insert it into the rifle, flick the recoil and pull the trigger....you only need to see it being loaded once.... :) :) :)
-
Being brought up on a farm doesn't make you experienced with guns, and neither does beating.
Read paragraph 224 onwards in the appeal re the loading of the magazine.
Another thought. She could have washed her hands having already loaded the bullets, therefore she would not have handled them after she had washed them. :) :) It is a possibility
-
I don't need to read it Bridget, because the German company was never contacted in 1986...there was no problems reloading that type of rifle and it was used world wide and still is....
Being brought up on a farm with guns....Bridget does not make you experienced, no, but surely she would have witnessed the use of them...even as a young girl...
When I was about 5 maybe 6 years old, I used to go rabbiting with my dad who had a 12 bore...It was a heavy gun, but today...i could tell you how to use one and would have no problem loading one. I would have no problem with the rifle either....come on be honest, could you load a magazine and insert it into the rifle, flick the recoil and pull the trigger....you only need to see it being loaded once.... :) :) :)
I have never seen a rifle with a magazine loaded and fired, so no, I wouldn't have a clue.
What difference does it make what the german company says? The jury tried it for themselves. If it was easy the jury knew that, if it was difficult the jury knew that - because they tried for themselves with the actual magazine.
-
Another thought. She could have washed her hands having already loaded the bullets, therefore she would not have handled them after she had washed them. :) :) It is a possibility
Yes of course, which is why the defence brought up the issue of ritual cleansing.
-
I have never seen a rifle with a magazine loaded and fired, so no, I wouldn't have a clue.
What difference does it make what the german company says? The jury tried it for themselves. If it was easy the jury knew that, if it was difficult the jury knew that - because they tried for themselves with the actual magazine.
But the argument about the loading of the magazine was not an issue, where does it say that it was difficult to load it? The whole process of that experiment was to tell if hands got dirty...But if she had washed her hands after she had loaded the gun, then there would be no dirt on her hands....
Of course it makes a difference to what the company says.....it is clear there was no problems surrounding the loading of the rifle....this was all made up by the family, it is what they said....The jury was not aware that it was easy, they were told it was difficult to load the 10th bullet and it was equally difficult to have reloaded the said rifle at least twice, which is all poppycock.....it wasn't difficult at all...for if it was it would have shown up in the testing that the said company had made and also there would have been feedback from their customers world wide and there wasn't...... :) :)
-
But the argument about the loading of the magazine was not an issue, where does it say that it was difficult to load it? The whole process of that experiment was to tell if hands got dirty...But if she had washed her hands after she had loaded the gun, then there would be no dirt on her hands....
Of course it makes a difference to what the company says.....it is clear there was no problems surrounding the loading of the rifle....this was all made up by the family, it is what they said....The jury was not aware that it was easy, they were told it was difficult to load the 10th bullet and it was equally difficult to have reloaded the said rifle at least twice, which is all poppycock.....it wasn't difficult at all...for if it was it would have shown up in the testing that the said company had made and also there would have been feedback from their customers world wide and there wasn't...... :) :)
Paragraph 69 of the appeal:
The rifle was a German made Anschutz model 525 .22 self-loading rifle in good working order. Cartridges are loaded into a magazine, which has a capacity of 10. It is, as the jury found when they conducted the exercise themselves, progressively harder to load as the number of cartridges increases. Loading the tenth is exceptionally hard.
-
Paragraph 69 of the appeal:
The rifle was a German made Anschutz model 525 .22 self-loading rifle in good working order. Cartridges are loaded into a magazine, which has a capacity of 10. It is, as the jury found when they conducted the exercise themselves, progressively harder to load as the number of cartridges increases. Loading the tenth is exceptionally hard.
By that time the rifle was damaged. It is not that difficult to load a magazine...just a but more fiddler. It does not alter the fact that she might have washed her hands after she had loaded the magazine....this possibility seems to have been dismissed as highly unlikely....which is wrong to dismiss anything. ;) :o
-
By that time the rifle was damaged. It is not that difficult to load a magazine...just a but more fiddler. It does not alter the fact that she might have washed her hands after she had loaded the magazine....this possibility seems to have been dismissed as highly unlikely....which is wrong to dismiss anything. ;) :o
What difference does it make that the rifle was damaged? The magazine wasn't.
The defence addressed the issue of Sheila washing her hands with their ritualistic cleansing theory. We will never know what weight the jury placed on that theory, but if they dismissed it that was their perogative.
-
Bridget it's time you started looking for the truth instead of keep slapping down every argument Patti ever makes.
You were not there that night and you have no idea what happened but YOU choose to make every negative argument possible.
Your arguments are not strong because they are assumptions and theories.
Wake up and smell the coffee Bridget there is NO EVIDENCE available to proof Jeremy Bamber is guilty.
If you changed your attitude to your laughy jokey side you use on other forums you might be taken seriously instead of your aggressive approach it is very uncomfortable reading.
So proud of you Patti your arguments are very strong for an impartial person in this case
-
What difference does it make that the rifle was damaged? The magazine wasn't.
The defence addressed the issue of Sheila washing her hands with their ritualistic cleansing theory. We will never know what weight the jury placed on that theory, but if they dismissed it that was their perogative.
Who is to say she did load 10 bullets, she may have loaded several at any one time....8 in fact or 7....which is not harder...is it? There is no evidence to say she loaded 10 bullets, like there is no evidence she may have loaded 8....The fact is she may have washed after loading them...both of these suggestions have been dismissed....but both are equally possible...It all boils down to who wins the argument....and what the jury considered... :) :)
-
Who is to say she did load 10 bullets, she may have loaded several at any one time....8 in fact or 7....which is not harder...is it? There is no evidence to say she loaded 10 bullets, like there is no evidence she may have loaded 8....The fact is she may have washed after loading them...both of these suggestions have been dismissed....but both are equally possible...It all boils down to who wins the argument....and what the jury considered... :) :)
The fact is Patti, that these arguments were considered by the jury, and if they dismissed them they were within their rights to do so.
-
Bridget it's time you started looking for the truth instead of keep slapping down every argument Patti ever makes.
You were not there that night and you have no idea what happened but YOU choose to make every negative argument possible.
Your arguments are not strong because they are assumptions and theories.
Wake up and smell the coffee Bridget there is NO EVIDENCE available to proof Jeremy Bamber is guilty.
If you changed your attitude to your laughy jokey side you use on other forums you might be taken seriously instead of your aggressive approach it is very uncomfortable reading.
So proud of you Patti your arguments are very strong for an impartial person in this case
It's OK Jackie, we like a good old argument.....lol X
-
The fact is Patti, that these arguments were considered by the jury, and if they dismissed them they were within their rights to do so.
We don't know if they dismissed them do we? We have no trial transcripts. We can't go on what the 2002 appeal alone says....The original transcripts, we are not privy too. So you can't say they were considered by the jury.... :P
-
Paragraph 69 of the appeal:
The rifle was a German made Anschutz model 525 .22 self-loading rifle in good working order. Cartridges are loaded into a magazine, which has a capacity of 10. It is, as the jury found when they conducted the exercise themselves, progressively harder to load as the number of cartridges increases. Loading the tenth is exceptionally hard.
Although I accept that this was in the Court of Appeal judgement, I am afraid it is simply incorrect. It is not "exceptionally hard" to load the 10th bullet, it is in fact easy. It is true that beyond about the sixth bullet increased pressure from the finger or thumb is required as the spring inside the magazine is depressed. However it is still easy to do - the rifle is designed to be simple to manage and operate.
A further point I have mentioned before is that the magazine does not need to be loaded to full capacity. It is possible that it was reloaded more than twice with 5 or 6 bullets each time. It is also possible to load a single bullet directly into the breach of the rifle, not handling the magazine at all.
-
The fact is Patti, that these arguments were considered by the jury, and if they dismissed them they were within their rights to do so.
What a great opening to bring the jury in, there is not a chance that the jury would have convicted Jeremy Bamber if they had access to all the evidence available
Evidence witheld that Ngb, Simon McKay and Mark Williams-Thomas (experts in their fields) believe prevented Jeremy Bamber getting a fair trial and led to him being wrongly convicted
That poor jury
-
We don't know if they dismissed them do we? We have no trial transcripts. We can't go on what the 2002 appeal alone says....The original transcripts, we are not privy too. So you can't say they were considered by the jury.... :P
Of course they were considered - unless you are suggesting they were all asleep? :)
As I said before, we cannot know what the jury thought of any particular given argument, all we know is that they considered them all and came to a verdict.
-
Although I accept that this was in the Court of Appeal judgement, I am afraid it is simply incorrect. It is not "exceptionally hard" to load the 10th bullet, it is in fact easy. It is true that beyond about the sixth bullet increased pressure from the finger or thumb is required as the spring inside the magazine is depressed. However it is still easy to do - the rifle is designed to be simple to manage and operate.
A further point I have mentioned before is that the magazine does not need to be loaded to full capacity. It is possible that it was reloaded more than twice with 5 or 6 bullets each time. It is also possible to load a single bullet directly into the breach of the rifle, not handling the magazine at all.
Whether you consider it "exceptionally hard" or not, the jury tried it for themselves and so could rely on their own perceptions of how hard it was. They did not have to rely on anyone else's opinion.
-
Whether you consider it "exceptionally hard" or not, the jury tried it for themselves and so could rely on their own perceptions of how hard it was. They did not have to rely on anyone else's opinion.
I accept that, but it is important to recognise that the Court of Appeal's approach to this appeal was unusual in the hostile manner in which they approached the defence case. This in my view is a major factor influencing the CCRC now.
-
I accept that, but it is important to recognise that the Court of Appeal's approach to this appeal was unusual in the hostile manner in which they approached the defence case. This in my view is a major factor influencing the CCRC now.
I'm not sure I would describe it as hostile, but they did seem to be more than a little irritated at the fact that the appellant could introduce grounds of appeal which, in their words, had little merit without those matters having been either referred by the CCRC or with the leave of the court. I agree that that is probably having an affect on the CCRC's decision on referral.
-
Sheila had observed the Anschutz having been reloaded. Indeed,,she had watched Jeremy load the rifle on the eve of her death.
It is inconceivable to believe that Sheila was unable to use a rifle at short range. It must be accepted that Sheila was competent with firearms and was capable of carrying out the murders.
-
Of course they were considered - unless you are suggesting they were all asleep? :)
As I said before, we cannot know what the jury thought of any particular given argument, all we know is that they considered them all and came to a verdict.
The jury aren't scientists, they are not fully trained in forensics, I doubt half the time, the jury understood what was presented to them.
It is just not a case of whether they considered or dismissed the fact the the 10th bullet was hard to load or not....The argument is from my point of view is that they might have also considered that the magazine would have not necessarily been loaded with 10 bullets and she might have washed her hands after loading....it is as simple as that, and anyone would have to consider it....for it is possible....There are two sides here...I can see both......and, to me it is possible, therefore it all becomes meaningless. ;)
-
Sheila had observed the Anschutz having been reloaded. Indeed,,she had watched Jeremy load the rifle on the eve of her death.
It is inconceivable to believe that Sheila was unable to use a rifle at short range. It must be accepted that Sheila was competent with firearms and was capable of carrying out the murders.
I think what has been said is that it's unlikely, clearly it's not impossible.
Why must it be accepted that she was competent? No one ever saw her use one. I saw a John Wayne movie once, does that make me competent? ;)
-
The jury aren't scientists, they are not fully trained in forensics, I doubt half the time, the jury understood what was presented to them.
It is just not a case of whether they considered or dismissed the fact the the 10th bullet was hard to load or not....The argument is from my point of view is that they might have also considered that the magazine would have not necessarily been loaded with 10 bullets and she might have washed her hands after loading....it is as simple as that, and anyone would have to consider it....for it is possible....There are two sides here...I can see both......and, to me it is possible, therefore it becomes meaningless. ;)
And possibly the jury agreed with you, and convicted him on other evidence.
-
I'm not sure I would describe it as hostile, but they did seem to be more than a little irritated at the fact that the appellant could introduce grounds of appeal which, in their words, had little merit without those matters having been either referred by the CCRC or with the leave of the court. I agree that that is probably having an affect on the CCRC's decision on referral.
Bridget Ngb believes the approach was hostile HE IS A VERY EXPERIANCED CRIMINAL BARRISTER if you have more knowledge than him on these matters please feel free to share this knowledge with the forum it would make your OPINIONS sound much stronger
-
And possibly the jury agreed with you, and convicted him on other evidence.
And the other point arising from that, is that if she had washed her hands after loading, then there would be no lead trace on her hand swabs...Think about it! It is possible, with what we have read about residue and that it can be washed off....It bears a good argument in court. I depends how it is put across. I would fight tooth and nail in my corner, to project to them that it is possible and they would have to consider it....sod the judge! lol :) :)
-
And the other point arising from that, is that if she had washed her hands after loading, then there would be no lead trace on her hand swabs...Think about it! It is possible, with what we have read about residue and that it can be washed off....It bears a good argument in court. I depends how it is put across. I would fight tooth and nail in my corner, to project to them that it is possible and they would have to consider it....sod the judge! lol :) :)
It was argued in court :)
-
Yes of course, which is why the defence brought up the issue of ritual cleansing.
Given the gap in time between the first rejected swabs having been dismissed, to the second submission of swabs and given what occurred during that time-frame in respect of the case turning, how do we know that the same swabs were indeed submitted? It seems remarkable, that in a case were EP fully expected the results to show significant levels of GSR, the swabs were conveniently returned without testing, so as to fit perfectly with EP later having to prove the exact opposite of what they hoped to prove with the initial submission?
-
It was argued in court :)
Not by me it wasn't :) Were all possibilities argued? No...... :) :)
Right must attack the hoover and throw the duster around...Hahaha 8)
-
Given the gap in time between the first rejected swabs having been dismissed, to the second submission of swabs and given what occurred during that time-frame in respect of the case turning, how do we know that the same swabs were indeed submitted? It seems remarkable, that in a case were EP fully expected the results to show significant levels of GSR, the swabs were conveniently returned without testing, so as to fit perfectly with EP later having to prove the exact opposite of what they hoped to prove with the initial submission?
Good point Roch... :)
The hand swabs were a farce, they become meaningless, because it can't be proved that they were retaken or that the same swabs were used....... :-\
-
Being brought up on a farm doesn't make you experienced with guns, and neither does beating.
Read paragraph 224 onwards in the appeal re the loading of the magazine.
Hi Patti, I'm pretty sure I have read that shortly before the deaths, Sheila used to sometimes accompany Jeremy when he was shooting on the farm.
-
I think what has been said is that it's unlikely, clearly it's not impossible.
Why must it be accepted that she was competent? No one ever saw her use one. I saw a John Wayne movie once, does that make me competent? ;)
Bridget,,,you may have seen a movie,,,but Sheila was physically shown there and then by Jeremy,,,and doubtless,,once shown how to reload,,would have been competent after a few goes. Let's say,that she felt that she had to get it right.?
-
Given the gap in time between the first rejected swabs having been dismissed, to the second submission of swabs and given what occurred during that time-frame in respect of the case turning, how do we know that the same swabs were indeed submitted? It seems remarkable, that in a case were EP fully expected the results to show significant levels of GSR, the swabs were conveniently returned without testing, so as to fit perfectly with EP later having to prove the exact opposite of what they hoped to prove with the initial submission?
I responded to this but the post seems to have disappeared, or not arrived..
We know that the same swabs were resubmitted because the police said so. Until someone offers a plausible explanation as to why all these police officers and scientists would put their careers, and possibly their freedom on the line in order to convict JB, when they had the perfect suspect in Sheila, I'm not buying any conspiracy theories.
-
Bridget,,,you may have seen a movie,,,but Sheila was physically shown there and then by Jeremy,,,and doubtless,,once shown how to reload,,would have been competent after a few goes. Let's say,that she felt that she had to get it right.?
Says who?
-
If you're counting me as a counterpart that's not my argument. There seem to be perfectly reasonable explanations for all of the issues presented.
I wasn't counting you as a counterpart. Your stance on the case is to place defence arguments under exhaustive rigorous scrutiny. In my opinion, this scrutiny is virtually always targeted in one direction only, toward defence arguments. Your stance is similar to that of Hartley, were EP are given enormous room to maneover and every anomaly relating to the prosecution's case is merely (yet another) benign mistake or product of miscommunication. While I am glad you are on this forum, I feel that if you were carry out an experiment and reverse your rigorous examination towards the prosecution's case, I'd be more satisfied that you were genuinely taking matters seriously, in respect of finding the truth of what took place in the entire episode.
The poster I most had in mind was Nick, followed by Curious Essex.
-
I wasn't counting you as a counterpart. Your stance on the case is to place defence arguments under exhaustive rigorous scrutiny. In my opinion, this scrutiny is virtually always targeted in one direction only, toward defence arguments. Your stance is similar to that of Hartley, were EP are given enormous room to maneover and every anomaly relating to the prosecution's case is merely (yet another) benign mistake or product of miscommunication. While I am glad you are on this forum, I feel that if you were carry out an experiment and reverse your rigorous examination towards the prosecution's case, I'd be more satisfied that you were genuinely taking matters seriously, in respect of finding the truth of what took place in the entire episode.
The poster I most had in mind was Nick, followed by Curious Essex.
In other words, you will not be happy that I am 'genuinely taking matters seriously' until I agree with you. :)
I have always agreed that the investigation was flawed in many many ways. I have also said that the silencer evidence is unlikely to be admissable now because of the chance of innocent contamination. But the more I look into the various defence claims the more I see mountains made out of molehills, baseless theorising and never ending spin. I do not include the Arizona tests in this because I don't yet know enough about them to be able to decide.
-
I responded to this but the post seems to have disappeared, or not arrived..
We know that the same swabs were resubmitted because the police said so. Until someone offers a plausible explanation as to why all these police officers and scientists would put their careers, and possibly their freedom on the line in order to convict JB, when they had the perfect suspect in Sheila, I'm not buying any conspiracy theories.
Your use of the generic term 'conspiracy theories' denigrates what is actually being argued by your fellow forum members on the opposite side of the fence to you. Sorry Bridget but I feel it is disrespectful of you. You've also just confirmed the mould I have set for you with your comment about the police above. Do you not think you are undermining the credibility of your own rigorous approach, by effectively only applying it to one side in this case? You cant swallow what the police say like mother's milk, simply because it's the police who have said it? Furthermore, how would the scientists know whether the same swabs had been submitted anyway?
-
So Bridget how do you feel about the dirty tricks campaigns against genuine legal people fighting to get this conviction overturned
Your stance is Jeremy is definitely guilty, no question and is in the right place for the rest of his life.
You must be disgusted with the antics of these anti Bamber people and no need for it as you think the evidence speaks for itself
I believe the only reason these dirty tricks are being played against the legal people giving up their time to help Jeremy is because these people fear Jeremys case will be referred to the court
Of Appeal
Would you agree Bridget?
-
Your use of the generic term 'conspiracy theories' denigrates what is actually being argued by your fellow forum members on the opposite side of the fence to you. Sorry Bridget but I feel it is disrespectful of you. You've also just confirmed the mould I have set for you with your comment about the police above. Do you not think you are undermining the credibility of your own rigorous approach, by effectively only applying it to one side in this case? You cant swallow what the police say like mother's milk, simply because it's the police who have said it? Furthermore, how would the scientists know whether the same swabs had been submitted anyway?
Excellent post just what I would like to have said
-
In other words, you will not be happy that I am 'genuinely taking matters seriously' until I agree with you. :)
I have always agreed that the investigation was flawed in many many ways. I have also said that the silencer evidence is unlikely to be admissable now because of the chance of innocent contamination. But the more I look into the various defence claims the more I see mountains made out of molehills, baseless theorising and never ending spin. I do not include the Arizona tests in this because I don't yet know enough about them to be able to decide.
Of course you don't have to agree with me. There's fat chance of that is there? :D How many flaws in a case do you want? 20? 50? 100? At which point does the number of flaws become suggestive that the anomalies in the case are in fact not flaws at all?
-
So Bridget how do you feel about the dirty tricks campaigns against genuine legal people fighting to get this conviction overturned
Your stance is Jeremy is definitely guilty, no question and is in the right place for the rest of his life.
You must be disgusted with the antics of these anti Bamber people and no need for it as you think the evidence speaks for itself
I believe the only reason these dirty tricks are being played against the legal people giving up their time to help Jeremy is because these people fear Jeremys case will be referred to the court
Of Appeal
Would you agree Bridget?
I hope we can stay on a friendly footing but I believe there is some merit in what Jackie is saying. It should be for a court of appeal to review the evidence that has come to light since the last appeal. From the wet blood photos, through to the logs, the truth about how Mugford was brought in to play, managed and handled, the silencer anomalies and the arizona tests. There should be no fear on the part of other people about such a review, to the extent where they feel the need to stick their oar in. I don't know 100% for certain but I suspect there was background interference as recently as the MWT documentary.
-
Your use of the generic term 'conspiracy theories' denigrates what is actually being argued by your fellow forum members on the opposite side of the fence to you. Sorry Bridget but I feel it is disrespectful of you. You've also just confirmed the mould I have set for you with your comment about the police above. Do you not think you are undermining the credibility of your own rigorous approach, by effectively only applying it to one side in this case? You cant swallow what the police say like mother's milk, simply because it's the police who have said it? Furthermore, how would the scientists know whether the same swabs had been submitted anyway?
Whatever way you look at it Roch, most of the defence theories rely at some point on the police falsifying evidence. What would you call it? And it is disingenuous of you to say that I apply it to the theories of all members. It applies to most of Mike's theories, but Patti for one seems to be able to make a good argument without everyone needing to be corrupt.
-
I hope we can stay on a friendly footing but I believe there is some merit in what Jackie is saying. It should be for a court of appeal to review the evidence that has come to light since the last appeal. From the wet blood photos, through to the logs, the truth about how Mugford was brought in to play, managed and handled, the silencer anomalies and the arizona tests. There should be no fear on the part of other people about such a review, to the extent where they feel the need to stick their oar in. I don't know 100% for certain but I suspect there was background interference as recently as the MWT documentary.
I think I have already stated my opinion on what Jackie calls the 'dirty tricks campaign' on at least two occasions.
I agree that the court of appeal should look at those things, if any of them have any merit. There has to be system which filters unmeritous claims otherwise the courts would grind to a halt. I think NGB is right when he says that the CCRC decision has been influenced by the comments of the Appeal court judges in 2002, and I assume that's something which will be dealt with at the JR.
-
Whatever way you look at it Roch, most of the defence theories rely at some point on the police falsifying evidence. What would you call it? And it is disingenuous of you to say that I apply it to the theories of all members. It applies to most of Mike's theories, but Patti for one seems to be able to make a good argument without everyone needing to be corrupt.
But Bridget, are you contesting the fact that police forces from up and down the land have been known on occasion to participate in corruptive practices? Nobody is saying here that every single criminal case is the result of coppers more bent than a nine pound note, fitting people up. But surely you cannot be so naive as to discount that should they have wanted to in 1985 (or needed to), the police had the wherewithal, the expertise and the power to manipulate evidence and prosecution witnesses / officials?
It's not in the realms of fantasy that on the day, colleagues decided to cover for each other. The claims seem to be that what started as covering for each other's backs, then spiraled out of control due to unforeseen events.
-
I think I have already stated my opinion on what Jackie calls the 'dirty tricks campaign' on at least two occasions.
I agree that the court of appeal should look at those things, if any of them have any merit. There has to be system which filters unmeritous claims otherwise the courts would grind to a halt. I think NGB is right when he says that the CCRC decision has been influenced by the comments of the Appeal court judges in 2002, and I assume that's something which will be dealt with at the JR.
That's a fair post.
-
It's not in the realms of fantasy that on the day, colleagues decided to cover for each other. The claims seem to be that what started as covering for each other's backs, then spiraled out of control due to unforeseen events.
Having said that, I realise you favour official explanations for things like 'female downstairs' etc.
-
it is disingenuous of you to say that I apply it to the theories of all members.
I meant that you put defence arguments under the microscope but turn a blind eye to glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution case.
-
But Bridget, are you contesting the fact that police forces from up and down the land have been known on occasion to participate in corruptive practices? Nobody is saying here that every single criminal case is the result of coppers more bent than a nine pound note, fitting people up. But surely you cannot be so naive as to discount that should they have wanted to in 1985 (or needed to), the police had the wherewithal, the expertise and the power to manipulate evidence and prosecution witnesses / officials?
It's not in the realms of fantasy that on the day, colleagues decided to cover for each other. The claims seem to be that what started as covering for each other's backs, then spiraled out of control due to unforeseen events.
Covering each others backs for what though? If Sheila was indeed, running around the house with a gun killing people I'd probably have shot her too.
-
Covering each others backs for what though? If Sheila was indeed, running around the house with a gun killing people I'd probably have shot her too.
Now it is you who are being disingenuous. It is not that simple.
-
I meant that you put defence arguments under the microscope but turn a blind eye to glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution case.
No, I look at those too, I just don't see glaring inconsistencies. I see mistakes, misunderstandings, people who have witnessed the same event remembering things differently, even the same person recounting what they saw years later remembering it differently. All of these things are human nature, and I bear that in mind when reading JBs statements, which are also inconsistent in parts.
-
Now it is you who are being disingenuous. It is not that simple.
Explain it then. What were all those police officers and scientists covering up that was so important that they would risk their carreers and possibly their liberty for?
-
I responded to this but the post seems to have disappeared, or not arrived..
We know that the same swabs were resubmitted because the police said so. Until someone offers a plausible explanation as to why all these police officers and scientists would put their careers, and possibly their freedom on the line in order to convict JB, when they had the perfect suspect in Sheila, I'm not buying any conspiracy theories.
Rejecting the swabs is not a conspiracy theory! Changing documentation is not a conspiracy theory! Bringing a good argument based on evidence or the lack of, is not a conspiracy theory!....It is a consideration of what could have happened instead of the hearsay arguments from the CPS.....
Who in their right mind would just sit back and let the CPS dictate their so called theories, without an argument of other possibilities, within their theory of what might have happened, without concrete proof.........that they were right in the first place. Who is to say they were right? Who are they to say that JB had entered a window? When there is documented evidence and, forensic examination of the widows that clearly show the windows had not been used. There is also documented evidence that those said windows were checked by several officers prior to forensic tests on the 8th of September....are they all liars? :) :) :) :)
-
Explain it then. What were all those police officers and scientists covering up that was so important that they would risk their carreers and possibly their liberty for?
Who has said that 'all those' police officers and scientists have covered something up? It's hardly likely that scientists would be made aware of a Sheila receiving one shot during the raid is it? If you look at the posts from what you might view as the 'conspiracy perspective' it is only handful of officers who are aware of what took place, at least initially, with some officers actually being kept in the dark. Now whether any scientists assisted the police further down the line, in accordance with information they received or requests of any sort, is another matter. That does not make such scientists 'in on' any conspiracy involving Sheila Caffell having died later than the prosecution case asserts does it?
-
Time is one issue that keeps the verdict upheld till this day, part of the work jackie does is to bring this case to the present day part of the reason i joined the forum was because of the things i had seen online , i later found out itwas jackie i think the football ground ones and big poster ones said words , many people today have never heard of jeremy bamber and the reasons are very nearby they are often very simple reasons like they were not born then bridget is in denial like some members who refuses to believe that someone has made a very bad miatake , open up these gates and the evidence will flood in its all there.
-
Bridget explain your problem with Simon McKay who is just doing his job and working on something he is passionate about.
Do you think people should be laughing at something that been written about him that has no bearing on this case or Jeremys innocence or guilt
Us members on this forum do not find that behaviour acceptable and I do not believe anyone responsible for trying to belittle someone like that is responsible enough to take part in debate in public forums
This is a place for serious debate
Bridget you can keep replying to me on the dirty tricks brigade and I will keep asking the question until I get an answer that I find acceptable
I make no apology for standing up for Simon and his capability as Jeremys lawyer
-
Rejecting the swabs is not a conspiracy theory! Changing documentation is not a conspiracy theory!
No, but saying that different swabs were used in the resubmision without the lab's knowledge is.
Bringing a good argument based on evidence or the lack of, is not a conspiracy theory!....It is a consideration of what could have happened instead of the hearsay arguments from the CPS.....
Presenting a case is not evidence at all, let alone hearsay evidence. Good arguments based on evidence are not conspiracy theories I agree, and as I have said, you have made good arguments doing just that.
Who in their right mind would just sit back and let the CPS dictate their so called theories, without an argument of other possibilities, within their theory of what might have happened, without concrete proof.........that they were right in the first place.
Who in their right mind would falsify evidence to frame a live person who can speak up for themselves and spend the next 27 years examining that evidence, when they could have just framed a dead one?
Who is to say they were right?
The jury?
Who are they to say that JB had entered a window? When there is documented evidence and, forensic examination of the widows that clearly show the windows had not been used.
They didn't have to show that he did, it was good enough that he could, and admitted that he could.
There is also documented evidence that those said windows were checked by several officers prior to forensic tests on the 8th of September....are they all liars? :) :) :) :)
Why would they be liars? If they were out to frame Jeremy they would surely have stated that they did find evidence wouldn't they? The fact is that they didn't, and that fact could have been used by the defence if they had wanted to.
-
Who has said that 'all those' police officers and scientists have covered something up? It's hardly likely that scientists would be made aware of a Sheila receiving one shot during the raid is it? If you look at the posts from what you might view as the 'conspiracy perspective' it is only handful of officers who are aware of what took place, at least initially, with some officers actually being kept in the dark. Now whether any scientists assisted the police further down the line, in accordance with information they received or requests of any sort, is another matter. That does not make such scientists 'in on' any conspiracy involving Sheila Caffell having died later than the prosecution case asserts does it?
You are avoiding the question, whether it's a handful of officers or the entire Essex Police force, what are they covering up?
-
Bridget explain your problem with Simon McKay who is just doing his job and working on something he is passionate about.
Do you think people should be laughing at something that been written about him that has no bearing on this case or Jeremys innocence or guilt
Us members on this forum do not find that behaviour acceptable and I do not believe anyone responsible for trying to belittle someone like that is responsible enough to take part in debate in public forums
This is a place for serious debate
Bridget you can keep replying to me on the dirty tricks brigade and I will keep asking the question until I get an answer that I find acceptable
I make no apology for standing up for Simon and his capability as Jeremys lawyer
I have already answered this question twice, I do not intend to do so again.
-
Bridget
Please point me in the direction of where these answers are and I will let you know if they are acceptable to me.
-
Bridget explain your problem with Simon McKay who is just doing his job and working on something he is passionate about.
Do you think people should be laughing at something that been written about him that has no bearing on this case or Jeremys innocence or guilt
Us members on this forum do not find that behaviour acceptable and I do not believe anyone responsible for trying to belittle someone like that is responsible enough to take part in debate in public forums
This is a place for serious debate
Bridget you can keep replying to me on the dirty tricks brigade and I will keep asking the question until I get an answer that I find acceptable
I make no apology for standing up for Simon and his capability as Jeremys lawyer
Jackie, many of us are so pleased that at last Jeremy has a lawyer like Simon McKay, also that he is determined to stick with Jeremy giving him support in this ongoing battle. Jeremy has had such a dreadful time with disappointment after disappoinment and many times when he was totally alone except for Mike. It must be a great boost to him to have such a person of influence so completely on his side. IMHO
-
You are avoiding the question, whether it's a handful of officers or the entire Essex Police force, what are they covering up?
I'm not avoiding any question at all. I'm simply not prepared to oversimplify the raid down to the level that you are attempting to, in order to argue that the circs of Sheila's death / gunshot wounds did not require police to come up with an alternative / sanitised version of events.
-
Who in their right mind would falsify evidence to frame a live person who can speak up for themselves and spend the next 27 years examining that evidence
They hid the evidence, covering their tracks. They even destroyed evidence.
-
Bridget
Please point me in the direction of where these answers are and I will let you know if they are acceptable to me.
Sorry, I'm off out for a bit so you'll have to find them for yourself.
-
They hid the evidence, covering their tracks. They even destroyed evidence.
Covering their tracks for what? And what about the rest of that sentance you quoted - the part where I suggested it would have been easier to frame Sheila?
-
Jackie, many of us are so pleased that at last Jeremy has a lawyer like Simon McKay, also that he is determined to stick with Jeremy giving him support in this ongoing battle. Jeremy has had such a dreadful time with disappointment after disappoinment and many times when he was totally alone except for Mike. It must be a great boost to him to have such a person of influence so completely on his side. IMHO
Yes I am pleased too but I was worried at one time because certain anti Bamber/troublemakers were worried Jeremy could be getting close to having his case referred because of Simons input they decided to publish personal attacks on Simon with much glee.
Not one of those people are the slightest bit interested in justice.
Simon walking out on Jeremy would have had DEVASTATING consequences
-
I think it is ludicrous to think that Sheila could not use a rifle. Folk say she was too small...She was 5ft 7"...small is about 5ft. A child could have used that rifle, it was light, had a very small recoil and easy to load.
In court they tried to establish that she could not have loaded the rifle for the third time and that the 10th bullet was difficult to load in the magazine....This is not so. The German company tests these rifles and they had never had one complaint about their guns being hard to load. This was never discussed at the trial, so the jury again was not aware of it....So many things the jury were not made aware of.... :) :)
The appeal judgement in 2002 stated that the jury themselves were given the opportunity to load the rifle and some had difficulty in doing so. Has anyone here loaded this, or any similar rifle?
-
No, but saying that different swabs were used in the resubmision without the lab's knowledge is.
Could be likely...The lab did not know they had been resubmitted and the police did not put on the new submission that they were a resubmission. In my opinion they were trying to fool the lab
Presenting a case is not evidence at all, let alone hearsay evidence. Good arguments based on evidence are not conspiracy theories I agree, and as I have said, you have made good arguments doing just that.
Thank you ;)
-
Yes I am pleased too but I was worried at one time because certain anti Bamber/troublemakers were worried Jeremy could be getting close to having his case referred because of Simons input they decided to publish personal attacks on Simon with much glee.
Not one of those people are the slightest bit interested in justice.
Simon walking out on Jeremy would have had DEVASTATING consequences
Yes. That is what I would term mudslinging in order to blacken his character and weaken people's confidence in him with the purpose of causinf him to fail with his presentation to the CCRC. You can undermine someone's work by denigrating them. Politicians do it all the time and so do the press.
-
The appeal judgement in 2002 stated that the jury themselves were given the opportunity to load the rifle and some had difficulty in doing so. Has anyone here loaded this, or any similar rifle?
Hi Neil. That is assuming that the magazine was loaded 10 times. You can just load one bullet or 4, 5 6 or 7...which would be easy to load....
When the German company was asked about the difficulties, they replied saying that they had no got any issues regarding the loading of 10 bullets or that it was difficult. The went on to say they had no complaints regarding this and that their guns had been tested prior to sale and there was no problems found...
I do believe the jury did an exercise loading bullets into the rifle, but then that rifle had been damaged....I would not say it was extremely difficult to load but more fiddly than anything.....and if honesty creeps in, although it might be slightly difficult, it would not be impossible....:)
-
The appeal judgement in 2002 stated that the jury themselves were given the opportunity to load the rifle and some had difficulty in doing so. Has anyone here loaded this, or any similar rifle?
NGB has a similar one, and has posted that he doesn't find it difficult at all.
-
Hi Neil. That is assuming that the magazine was loaded 10 times. You can just load one bullet or 4, 5 6 or 7...which would be easy to load....
When the German company was asked about the difficulties, they replied saying that they had no got any issues regarding the loading of 10 bullets or that it was difficult. The went on to say they had no complaints regarding this and that their guns had been tested prior to sale and there was no problems found...
I do believe the jury did an exercise loading bullets into the rifle, but then that rifle had been damaged....I would not say it was extremely difficult to load but more fiddly than anything.....and if honesty creeps in, although it might be slightly difficult, it would not be impossible....:)
No, they loaded cartridges (bullets) into the magazine, which was not damaged.
-
Hi Neil. That is assuming that the magazine was loaded 10 times. You can just load one bullet or 4, 5 6 or 7...which would be easy to load....
When the German company was asked about the difficulties, they replied saying that they had no got any issues regarding the loading of 10 bullets or that it was difficult. The went on to say they had no complaints regarding this and that their guns had been tested prior to sale and there was no problems found...
I do believe the jury did an exercise loading bullets into the rifle, but then that rifle had been damaged....I would not say it was extremely difficult to load but more fiddly than anything.....and if honesty creeps in, although it might be slightly difficult, it would not be impossible....:)
That's very informative, thanks Patti
-
No, they loaded cartridges (bullets) into the magazine, which was not damaged.
I thought you had gone out....lololol No the magazine was not damaged, but the rifle the magazine went into was.....Anyway, how do you know the magazine it's self wasn't damaged?
It's irrelevant Bridget, because even if the bullets were slightly hard, it does not mean it was impossible and if they jury did load the 10th bullet, then Sheila was more capable of loading it than we think....
Eat your dinner....lol :) :) :)
-
I thought you had gone out....lololol No the magazine was not damaged, but the rifle the magazine went into was.....Anyway, how do you know the magazine it's self wasn't damaged?
It's irrelevant Bridget, because even if the bullets were slightly hard, it does not mean it was impossible and if they jury did load the 10th bullet, then Sheila was more capable of loading it than we think....
Eat your dinner....lol :) :) :)
I went out and came back again - gotta keep you on your toes! ;D
Has anyone ever suggested the magazine was damaged? Or that it was impossible?
-
Covering their tracks for what? And what about the rest of that sentence you quoted - the part where I suggested it would have been easier to frame Sheila?
They covered their tracks in relation to the manipulated / hidden evidence. Two appeals occur ed in which the defence did not even know the existence of most of the stuff which has come to light since the 2002 appeal. It's only just come light this year that the case was reviewed as late as the 6Th September and that Taff was backed by the reviewing officer. It's only just come to light that the way the Julie Mugford has portrayed as coming forward is absolute codswallop. It only came to light in approx 2004 that a silencer from the case kept on Taff's desk and used by Whiddon. it's only came to light many years after conviction that special branch ordered the destruction of exhibits. Wet blood photos came to light after 2002 appeal. If bamber is left to uncover wtf took place and hasn't got a clue what to request from the case papers to support his appeal (because he doesn't know what's in the case papers to support his appeals) then he is effectively conducting his quest for appeals blind or at best piecemeal. Logs re female downstairs only came to light in 2004. They have been edited.
I don't understand the point you are making re Sheila. But I certainly don't think the relatives were going to go away, thereby placing EP under extreme pressure. It does seem far fetched that in order to avoid whatever had took place during the raid from being exposed, the lesser of two evils for EP was to frame Bamber, nevertheless, frame bamber is what they did. You may be gullible enough to buy this miraculous silencer find in the cupboard, preferring to take the line the only real argument for the defence is potential contamination. I struggle with it being credible.
-
Brilliant post and can I add again if the family and David Boutflour really wanted this case to END NOW they would be fully supportive of everything being released under PII so there could no longer be any applications to the CCRC.
I don't believe the family will ever canvas for the PII evidence to be released because I think they believe there could be further evidence uncovered that could damage the prosecutions case.
I hope somebody i e preferably Mark gets to ask David Boutflour on camera one day if he supports the release of PII evidence in this case
-
They covered their tracks in relation to the manipulated / hidden evidence. Two appeals occur ed in which the defence did not even know the existence of most of the stuff which has come to light since the 2002 appeal. It's only just come light this year that the case was reviewed as late as the 6Th September and that Taff was backed by the reviewing officer. It's only just come to light that the way the Julie Mugford has portrayed as coming forward is absolute codswallop. It only came to light in approx 2004 that a silencer from the case kept on Taff's desk and used by Whiddon. it's only came to light many years after conviction that special branch ordered the destruction of exhibits. Wet blood photos came to light after 2002 appeal. If bamber is left to uncover wtf took place and hasn't got a clue what to request from the case papers to support his appeal (because he doesn't know what's in the case papers to support his appeals) then he is effectively conducting his quest for appeals blind or at best piecemeal. Logs re female downstairs only came to light in 2004. They have been edited.
I don't understand the point you are making re Sheila. But I certainly don't think the relatives were going to go away, thereby placing EP under extreme pressure. It does seem far fetched that in order to avoid whatever had took place during the raid from being exposed, the lesser of two evils for EP was to frame Bamber, nevertheless, frame bamber is what they did. You may be gullible enough to buy this miraculous silencer find in the cupboard, preferring to take the line the only real argument for the defence is potential contamination. I struggle with it being credible.
Hi Roch
I struggle with the silencer too....Why did they not ring the police from WHF to tell them what they had discovered, why did they not simply leave it there? Why did they take it home and try to screw the end off it? That silencer was cross contaminated in my opinion. It should never have been included in the scenario.....Many years later....no DNA on that silencer from Sheila.????? :) :) :)
-
They covered their tracks in relation to the manipulated / hidden evidence. Two appeals occur ed in which the defence did not even know the existence of most of the stuff which has come to light since the 2002 appeal. It's only just come light this year that the case was reviewed as late as the 6Th September and that Taff was backed by the reviewing officer. It's only just come to light that the way the Julie Mugford has portrayed as coming forward is absolute codswallop. It only came to light in approx 2004 that a silencer from the case kept on Taff's desk and used by Whiddon. it's only came to light many years after conviction that special branch ordered the destruction of exhibits. Wet blood photos came to light after 2002 appeal. If bamber is left to uncover wtf took place and hasn't got a clue what to request from the case papers to support his appeal (because he doesn't know what's in the case papers to support his appeals) then he is effectively conducting his quest for appeals blind or at best piecemeal. Logs re female downstairs only came to light in 2004. They have been edited.
I don't understand the point you are making re Sheila. But I certainly don't think the relatives were going to go away, thereby placing EP under extreme pressure. It does seem far fetched that in order to avoid whatever had took place during the raid from being exposed, the lesser of two evils for EP was to frame Bamber, nevertheless, frame bamber is what they did. You may be gullible enough to buy this miraculous silencer find in the cupboard, preferring to take the line the only real argument for the defence is potential contamination. I struggle with it being credible.
Well that is a rather circular argument isn't it? Why did they need to manipulate evidence in the first place?
I may be gullible? HA! Pots and kettles...
-
Hi Roch
I struggle with the silencer too....Why did they not ring the police from WHF to tell them what they had discovered, why did they not simply leave it there? Why did they take it home and try to screw the end off it? That silencer was cross contaminated in my opinion. It should never have been included in the scenario.....Many years later....no DNA on that silencer from Sheila.????? :) :) :)
There was DNA matching 17 out of 20 markers when compared to Sheila's mother's, so, given the fairly limited range of people whose DNA could possibly be in the silencer, yes Sheila's DNA was in the silencer. The issue at appeal was however, how it got there.
-
Well that is a rather circular argument isn't it? Why did they need to manipulate evidence in the first place?
I may be gullible? HA! Pots and kettles...
I'll be back later. I have some hypothetical questions for you. You may feel they are circular but perhaps that's unavoidable.
-
I'll be back later. I have some hypothetical questions for you. You may feel they are circular but perhaps that's unavoidable.
You're now going to follow your circular answers with circular questions? I can't wait... :(
-
There was DNA matching 17 out of 20 markers when compared to Sheila's mother's, so, given the fairly limited range of people whose DNA could possibly be in the silencer, yes Sheila's DNA was in the silencer. The issue at appeal was however, how it got there.
Not enough markers Bridget to say it belonged to Sheila....It's not enough, I tell ya! :P
-
Not enough markers Bridget to say it belonged to Sheila....It's not enough, I tell ya! :P
Yes Patti, DNA is very particular and much more complicated than most people understand. In many cases it's far from conclusive even today.
-
Not enough markers Bridget to say it belonged to Sheila....It's not enough, I tell ya! :P
lol, so who did it belong to then? Some random relative of hers who just happened to be walking by?
-
Yes Patti, DNA is very particular and much more complicated than most people understand. In many cases it's far from conclusive even today.
If DNA is indestinguishable between two samples then that is proof of that DNA belonging to the said person. To have matches in DNA, unless that DNA is very uncommon, only means that there may be a connection between the two samples. It's hardly proof which should be used as evidence in a court of law.
-
lol, so who did it belong to then? Some random relative of hers who just happened to be walking by?
Doesn't have to be a relative Bridget, anyone can have a certain amount of corresponding DNA.
-
Bridget do you think we are all stupid on here your continued use of lol isn't clever
-
Doesn't have to be a relative Bridget, anyone can have a certain amount of corresponding DNA.
Yes, it comes down to statistical likelihoods which is a known feature of DNA testing.
-
Bridget do you think we are all stupid on here your continued use of lol isn't clever
If you don't like the way I post feel free to put me on ignore.
-
The other forum is well and truly finished nothing left to debate anymore just abuse anyone and everyone, what a disgrace, we don't want to turn this place into a laughing stock. We have serious issues to discuss
No I won't put you on ignore I watch everything you do and I know when someone is genuine about getting to the truth
Maggie makes a great contribution to this forum and shouldn't have her posts laughed at
-
The other forum is well and truly finished nothing left to debate anymore just abuse anyone and everyone, what a disgrace, we don't want to turn this place into a laughing stock. We have serious issues to discuss
No I won't put you on ignore I watch everything you do and I know when someone is genuine about getting to the truth
Maggie makes a great contribution to this forum and shouldn't have her posts laughed at
Good grief. When are you going to learn that it's pointless trying to pick fights with me?
-
I'm just beginning to get a sense of how difficult it was for the jury. Admittedly I'm just back from a very fortified lunch so my concentration levels aren't as sharp as they could be, and whilst I'm not totally thick, I'm totally CONFUSED by the arguements surrrounding the gun and the loading/firing of it.
I know nothing more of guns than having, on maybe five occasions, fired one which has been placed in my hand, and with more good luck than judgement, hit whatever I'd been aiming at. I've never loaded a gun and wouldn't know how to start.
There's a fantastic debate going on, especially between Bridget and Patti, who I suspect has more of us behind her. I can't imagine it was very different in the courtroom. Two eloquent speakers, both making arguements valid to some. There could have been a point when the jury, most of whom probably had little or no working knowledge of guns, could have tossed a coin for the outcome. I wonder how many of their number recalled the trial with total certainty that they'd arrived at the correct decision.
-
Good grief. When are you going to learn that it's pointless trying to pick fights with me?
Bridget
When are you going to learn I don't let people walk all over me or get taken for a ride
Go on the Internet and google the word truth
-
I'm just beginning to get a sense of how difficult it was for the jury. Admittedly I'm just back from a very fortified lunch so my concentration levels aren't as sharp as they could be, and whilst I'm not totally thick, I'm totally CONFUSED by the arguements surrrounding the gun and the loading/firing of it.
I know nothing more of guns than having, on maybe five occasions, fired one which has been placed in my hand, and with more good luck than judgement, hit whatever I'd been aiming at. I've never loaded a gun and wouldn't know how to start.
There's a fantastic debate going on, especially between Bridget and Patti, who I suspect has more of us behind her. I can't imagine it was very different in the courtroom. Two eloquent speakers, both making arguements valid to some. There could have been a point when the jury, most of whom probably had little or no working knowledge of guns, could have tossed a coin for the outcome. I wonder how many of their number recalled the trial with total certainty that they'd arrived at the correct decision.
WHAT????!! I'm going to put that down to your fortified lunch ;D ;D
Patti and I are actually a double act sent to entertain. In truth she agrees with everything I say, she just can't say so because that would spoil the mystery..
-
The other forum is well and truly finished nothing left to debate anymore just abuse anyone and everyone, what a disgrace, we don't want to turn this place into a laughing stock. We have serious issues to discuss
No I won't put you on ignore I watch everything you do and I know when someone is genuine about getting to the truth
Maggie makes a great contribution to this forum and shouldn't have her posts laughed at
Who's laughing at my posts Jackie?
-
You and Patti have made some excellent posts Bridget ;D
-
You and Patti have made some excellent posts Bridget ;D
Thank you Andrea, and welcome :)
-
Thanks Bridget ;D
-
Bridget is laughing at your posts Maggie, very disrespectable
-
Bridget is laughing at your posts Maggie, very disrespectable
Where is she laughing at my posts Jackie?
-
Where is she laughing at my posts Jackie?
I'd like to know that too.
-
Maggie you were discussing DNA with Patti, a serious subject and the lol was over that
Bridget what job do you do then?
Are you an expert on DNA that you think you know better than Patti and Maggie
-
Hi Andrea welcome. Patti and Bridget really enjoy their postings and have both so much information we can learn so much from them.
-
Thanks susan.
-
Maggie you were discussing DNA with Patti, a serious subject and the lol was over that
Bridget what job do you do then?
Are you an expert on DNA that you think you know better than Patti and Maggie
Bridget you seemed to be saying that the DNA found in the silencer matched one of Sheila's relatives enough to state it was Sheila's blood when in fact that cannot be the case, it can only state that it could have been Sheila's but it could have also been someone else's not related to Sheila. That is why I was trying to explain in as simple a way as possible how complicated DNA matching is.
-
Hi Roch
I struggle with the silencer too....Why did they not ring the police from WHF to tell them what they had discovered, why did they not simply leave it there? Why did they take it home and try to screw the end off it? That silencer was cross contaminated in my opinion. It should never have been included in the scenario.....Many years later....no DNA on that silencer from Sheila.????? :) :) :)
Boutflour claimed that they didn't immediately appreciate the significance of the silencer. I think that the silencer evidence is so questionable now, that it ought to be totally disregarded.
Surely, if Jeremy had used the silencer to kill the family, he would have thoroughly cleaned it after use. Perhaps he may have even considered removing it from the house altogether, would anyone have questioned it's whereabouts? Was anyone else aware of it's existence?
I wasn't aware that there was a million pound reward up for grabs! Patti, do you think that any of Jeremy's supporters are motivated by this reward?
-
Is there still a million pound reward? is it actually still up for grabs?
-
H Neil I agree had I been Jeremy and committed the murders I would have removed or cleaned the silencer if he was cunning and devious as some have suggested he would not have been so stupid to leave incriminating evidence behind. Don,t know much about the one million pounds reward was it ever serious I don,t know one of the other experienced posters can answer that for you and Andrea.
-
Bridget you seemed to be saying that the DNA found in the silencer matched one of Sheila's relatives enough to state it was Sheila's blood when in fact that cannot be the case, it can only state that it could have been Sheila's but it could have also been someone else's not related to Sheila. That is why I was trying to explain in as simple a way as possible.
I agree it's only a statistical likelihood that the DNA was from a relative of Sheila's mother, not a definate, but given the small pool of people whose DNA could possibly be in the silencer, who else's would it be? Remember that there were two female profiles found, the other was accepted to have matched June's.
-
Boutflour claimed that they didn't immediately appreciate the significance of the silencer. I think that the silencer evidence is so questionable now, that it ought to be totally disregarded.
Surely, if Jeremy had used the silencer to kill the family, he would have thoroughly cleaned it after use. Perhaps he may have even considered removing it from the house altogether, would anyone have questioned it's whereabouts? Was anyone else aware of it's existence?
I wasn't aware that there was a million pound reward up for grabs! Patti, do you think that any of Jeremy's supporters are motivated by this reward?
Anthony Pargeter (I think it was him) saw the gun with the silencer attached the weekend before, so he might have. Also, had the silencer been found outside of the house there would have been quite a bit of explaining to do, but if he'd have chucked it in the creek the chances of anyone finding it are probably remote.
-
Boutflour claimed that they didn't immediately appreciate the significance of the silencer. I think that the silencer evidence is so questionable now, that it ought to be totally disregarded.
Surely, if Jeremy had used the silencer to kill the family, he would have thoroughly cleaned it after use. Perhaps he may have even considered removing it from the house altogether, would anyone have questioned it's whereabouts? Was anyone else aware of it's existence?
I wasn't aware that there was a million pound reward up for grabs! Patti, do you think that any of Jeremy's supporters are motivated by this reward?
Hi Neil, not sure the money is up for grabs. If you read about the appeal for new information on the JB website...It says something about no funds are available.
I am not in it for the money Neil...I believe in fairness and justice and I don't think it has been delivered in JBs' case....
all the new stuff that has been found recently all add up at the end of the day....it's possible that if there was a retrial, he would be acquitted. :) :)
-
Is there still a million pound reward? is it actually still up for grabs?
I wouldn't have thought that this was about any monetary gain. It certainly wouldn't be as far as I was concerned. This is about justice,,,,seen to be done,,,not money.
-
I agree it's only a statistical likelihood that the DNA was from a relative of Sheila's mother, not a definate, but given the small pool of people whose DNA could possibly be in the silencer, who else's would it be? Remember that there were two female profiles found, the other was accepted to have matched June's.
There were two..one was male and the other was female....but they can't tell it was human....The female DNA found was the most prominent one. Anyway, the whole silencer issue would never stand in court today..... ??? :) :)
-
I agree it's only a statistical likelihood that the DNA was from a relative of Sheila's mother, not a definate, but given the small pool of people whose DNA could possibly be in the silencer, who else's would it be? Remember that there were two female profiles found, the other was accepted to have matched June's.
It is for all that an assumption and even if it was Sheila's blood it's still an assumption that it got into the silencer at the time she was shot. There are far too many assumptions in this case. If its proved the silencer wasn't used Sheila's blood may or may not have been in the silencer but it would have happened due to some other reason we know nothing about and which has no relation to the case.
-
But monetary gain may just tempt someone to come forward, rewadrs are offered all the time for serious crimes.
-
It is for all that an assumption and even if it was Sheila's blood it's still an assumption that it got into the silencer at the time she was shot. There are far too many assumptions in this case. If its proved the silencer wasn't used Sheila's blood may or may not have been in the silencer but it would have happened due to some other reason we know nothing about and which has no relation to the case.
Well that's exactly why it wasn't accepted by the court of appeal.
-
Nothing would give me greater pleasure or fulfillment than to see Jeremy achieve the goal that he's been fighting towards for the past 26 years.
No,,,,money doesn't come into it at all. I'm sure Jeremy wouldn't be concerned about money, the day he's released,( contrary to speculation that he was after his father's money.)
His dream of a " pot noodle " and to hear birds singing could yet come into fruition in the not too distant future,all being well.
-
Hi Neil, not sure the money is up for grabs. If you read about the appeal for new information on the JB website...It says something about no funds are available.
I am not in it for the money Neil...I believe in fairness and justice and I don't think it has been delivered in JBs' case....
all the new stuff that has been found recently all add up at the end of the day....it's possible that if there was a retrial, he would be acquitted. :) :)
Thanks for your reply Patti, I think that your motivation has always been very obvious. I didn't, for one minute, think that you were in it for the money. I hope that I didn't cause offence.
The reason I posed the question was because I had read Mikes 'yes/no' thread, he was asked if the reward had acted as a motivating factor and he replied yes/no.
-
Well that's exactly why it wasn't accepted by the court of appeal.
Indeed but Bridget you were using it as an argument and I was pointing out that it was't a viable argument so I'm glad we agree on that.
-
Indeed but Bridget you were using it as an argument and I was pointing out that it was't a viable argument so I'm glad we agree on that.
I just pointed out it was there, I didn't say it carried any weight. :)
-
Nothing would give me greater pleasure or fulfillment than to see Jeremy achieve the goal that he's been fighting towards for the past 26 years.
No,,,,money doesn't come into it at all. I'm sure Jeremy wouldn't be concerned about money, the day he's released,( contrary to speculation that he was after his father's money.)
His dream of a " pot noodle " and to hear birds singing could yet come into fruition in the not too distant future,all being well.
If money didnt come into it, why did they offer a million pound reward for people to come forward?
-
If money didnt come into it, why did they offer a million pound reward for people to come forward?
I'm speaking from a personal point of view,Andrea.
-
But monetary gain may just tempt someone to come forward, rewadrs are offered all the time for serious crimes.
I quite agree Andrea, you would hope that it might just tempt a bent cop to come forward with something. Unfortunately, I don't think that Jeremy will ever be in a position to offer a substantial reward. On release, I'm not sure that his story will command quite as much money as some believe. I don't suppose that getting any compensation will be an easy exercise either!
-
Have the powers that be stopped compensation?
Iread somewhere, a while ago that they had.
-
Have the powers that be stopped compensation?
Iread somewhere, a while ago that they had.
Oh, that's interesting, I will have to try and find out.
-
Well that's exactly why it wasn't accepted by the court of appeal.
Bridget you don't listen do you, Ngb explained that to you
Listen and learn
-
Have the powers that be stopped compensation?
Iread somewhere, a while ago that they had.
No, they have not stopped compensation. However, it has become more difficult to obtain it.
-
Hi Neil I was told recently by Mat that they had virtually stopped compensation :) but I think if Jeremy was released according to Chochok Eira Jeremy would make a fortune from book deals and a film deal :)
-
No, they have not stopped compensation. However, it has become more difficult to obtain it.
By the time theyv'e taken 27 years bed and board out shouldnt think there'll be much left.
-
By the time theyv'e taken 27 years bed and board out shouldnt think there'll be much left.
He would be likely to receive a considerable sum in compensation even after the deduction for subsistence.
-
Brilliant news although no amount of money will bring his family back or make up for him not having children
I wonder how they work out the compensation for Jeremy not being able to have a family
-
Bridget you don't listen do you, Ngb explained that to you
Listen and learn
I don't believe I have ever discussed the DNA evidence with NGB, and in any case your post makes no sense. Are you sure you're not confused (again)?
-
Hi Neil I was told recently by Mat that they had virtually stopped compensation :) but I think if Jeremy was released according to Chochok Eira Jeremy would make a fortune from book deals and a film deal :)
I did wonder about the film aspect. I'm surprised that a film has not been made before. What is there to stop anyone making a film about the supposed events of hat night?
-
I did wonder about the film aspect. I'm surprised that a film has not been made before. What is there to stop anyone making a film about the supposed events of hat night?
Nothing. However there have been several documentaries about the case. If the conviction is overturned there is likely to be considerable interest in a feature film and anyone making such a film would want to have Jeremy Bamber on board.
-
Brilliant news although no amount of money will bring his family back or make up for him not having children
I wonder how they work out the compensation for Jeremy not being able to have a family
Jackie, do you think they'll deduct the cost of 27 "fully inclusive" years because he was getting it under false pretences!!!!!!!!?
-
I don't believe I have ever discussed the DNA evidence with NGB, and in any case your post makes no sense. Are you sure you're not confused (again)?
Thinks about it Biddy the Appeal Courts ???
-
Biddy the CCRC all looking at the 2002 decision
-
Jackie, do you think they'll deduct the cost of 27 "fully inclusive" years because he was getting it under false pretences!!!!!!!!?
April nothing would surprise me, they change the rules all the time
-
Biddy the CCRC all looking at the 2002 decision
What does that have to do with the DNA evidence?
-
Jackie, do you think they'll deduct the cost of 27 "fully inclusive" years because he was getting it under false pretences!!!!!!!!?
They will April. The Scrounger, thinking he can stay in prison for 27 years for free!!
-
What does 'biddy' mean? It means an old woman up my way.
-
What does 'biddy' mean? It means an old woman up my way.
It means the same here.
-
What does 'biddy' mean? It means an old woman up my way.
Same down here - no doubt Jackie thinks it's funny.
-
I saw someone else call you it last week I thought it was your nickname
-
I saw someone else call you it last week I thought it was your nickname
No you didn't.
-
What does 'biddy' mean? It means an old woman up my way.
Does it I have never heard it before?
-
Current forum tensions aside, at least we've established that 'biddy' means the same thing nationwide.
-
Hi Neil I was told recently by Mat that they had virtually stopped compensation :) but I think if Jeremy was released according to Chochok Eira Jeremy would make a fortune from book deals and a film deal :)
Uhhh. Hey, Susan, are you sure that it was me who said that have stopped it? I remember commenting on compensation but that was in the barry george topic - i said "he'll get it, he has a good team"....I maybe have said that compensation requires a lot more legal hoops holes these days but I don't think I said it was virtually impossible.
However, even if released I don't think Bamber will get compensation.
-
Uhhh. Hey, Susan, are you sure that it was me who said that have stopped it? I remember commenting on compensation but that was in the barry george topic - i said "he'll get it, he has a good team"....I maybe have said that compensation requires a lot more legal hoops holes these days but I don't think I said it was virtually impossible.
However, even if released I don't think Bamber will get compensation.
Why do you think Jeremy wont get compensation mat?
-
Imagine being called disrespectable names that would be terrible wouldn't it.
-
Someone called Simon McKay McChancer
Disgusting
-
Hi Mat maybe you said Jeremy would not get compensation or it was harder to get but I know I discussed it with you it was all to do with the million pounds reward you know how confused I get slap on the wrist if I,m wrong :) :) :)
-
Uhhh. Hey, Susan, are you sure that it was me who said that have stopped it? I remember commenting on compensation but that was in the barry george topic - i said "he'll get it, he has a good team"....I maybe have said that compensation requires a lot more legal hoops holes these days but I don't think I said it was virtually impossible.
However, even if released I don't think Bamber will get compensation.
Hi mat.
I saw it on tv that compensation was going to stop, i think.
Not sure if that applies across the board, regarding moj's, or just under certain circumstances.
-
Someone called Simon McKay McChancer
Disgusting
Sticks & stones? We've all dished it out at some point jack, me included. But we need to try and stay above the belt on here and two wrongs don't make a right.
-
Hi mat.
I saw it on tv that compensation was going to stop, i think.
Not sure if that applies across the board, regarding moj's, or just under certain circumstances.
Compensation has not stopped. The rules are stricter now, that is the only change.
-
Someone called Simon McKay McChancer
Disgusting
Yeha, and you said it was a shame me and Bridget don't have a suicide pact. So I think you're just as bad as whoever called him McChancer. Bored of you taking the moral high ground.
Hi mat.
I saw it on tv that compensation was going to stop, i think.
Not sure if that applies across the board, regarding moj's, or just under certain circumstances.
Oh, that's interesting. I was aware that it was harder to get - but maybe they have decided to completely stop it, I wouldn't be suprised.
Hi Mat maybe you said Jeremy would not get compensation or it was harder to get but I know I discussed it with you it was all to do with the million pounds reward you know how confused I get slap on the wrist if I,m wrong :) :) :)
It's fine, Susan. We did discuss it, I remember. :)
Why do you think Jeremy wont get compensation mat?
Because if he is released, I think it will be because the conviction is 'unsafe' and quashed....not becuase he is found innocent.....so he won't be able to get compensation.
None starter for me though as I don't ever see his release coming.
-
Hi mat.
I saw it on tv that compensation was going to stop, i think.
Not sure if that applies across the board, regarding moj's, or just under certain circumstances.
Wasn't it something along the lines that the person seeking compo has to be shown to be clearly innocent? It appears that simply having your conviction quashed is not enough anymore. That seems odd to me, because if you are innocent until proven guilty, and your guilty verdict is reversed, why are you not innocent?
-
Thats correct, mat. just read something on the Telegraph site about it.
-
Wasn't it something along the lines that the person seeking compo has to be shown to be clearly innocent? It appears that simply having your conviction quashed is not enough anymore. That seems odd to me, because if you are innocent until proven guilty, and your guilty verdict is reversed, why are you not innocent?
Something about redefining what a moj is, Bridget.
I would have to read more about it :)
-
Wasn't it something along the lines that the person seeking compo has to be shown to be clearly innocent? It appears that simply having your conviction quashed is not enough anymore. That seems odd to me, because if you are innocent until proven guilty, and your guilty verdict is reversed, why are you not innocent?
It's complicated isn't it? But most of the time if they have been in prison a long, long time there won't be a re-trial. The conviction is just unsafe, so they get out.
-
Something about redefining what a moj is, Bridget.
I would have to read more about it :)
Welcome back Andrea.
To anyone wondering - I checked and confirmed with Andrea on the other forum to make sure this is her and it is. :)
-
Wasn't it something along the lines that the person seeking compo has to be shown to be clearly innocent? It appears that simply having your conviction quashed is not enough anymore. That seems odd to me, because if you are innocent until proven guilty, and your guilty verdict is reversed, why are you not innocent?
No it is not. The change in the law was thought by some to amount to a requirement to prove innocence, but the courts have recently confirmed that this is not the case. If Jeremy Bamber's convictions are overturned, he will almost certainly receive substantial compensation.
-
No it is not. The change in the law was thought by some to amount to a requirement to prove innocence, but the courts have recently confirmed that this is not the case. If Jeremy Bamber's convictions are overturned, he will almost certainly receive substantial compensation.
It's interesting that you think he'll get compensation. Is this something you've looked into, if I can ask.
-
No it is not. The change in the law was thought by some to amount to a requirement to prove innocence, but the courts have recently confirmed that this is not the case. If Jeremy Bamber's convictions are overturned, he will almost certainly receive substantial compensation.
Oh ok, do you happen to know what case that was?
-
Oh ok, do you happen to know what case that was?
I will look it up tomorrow and post the details.
-
I will look it up tomorrow and post the details.
Thanks.
-
It's interesting that you think he'll get compensation. Is this something you've looked into, if I can ask.
Not in detail, but it is my understanding of how the current law would be applied.
-
Not in detail, but it is my understanding of how the current law would be applied.
Oh, okay. I see. Thanks NGB
-
Wasn't it something along the lines that the person seeking compo has to be shown to be clearly innocent? It appears that simply having your conviction quashed is not enough anymore. That seems odd to me, because if you are innocent until proven guilty, and your guilty verdict is reversed, why are you not innocent?
Bridget,
re 'innocent' as it is used above ... do you mean really innocent or would you consider it as only 'technically innocent'?
-
Hi ngb I am sure compensation is the last thing on Jeremy,s mind just now freedom to walk on the beach and try and make up for all the young years he has lost. :(
-
Hi ngb I am sure compensation is the last thing on Jeremy,s mind just now freedom to walk on the beach and try and make up for all the young years he has lost. :(
I am sure that is right Susan.
-
Bridget,
re 'innocent' as it is used above ... do you mean really innocent or would you consider it as only 'technically innocent'?
I believe they should be treated as if they are really innocent. That doesn't mean that I will personally deep down believe that they are, but I would accept that they are. Put it this way, if JB gets his conviction quashed on some technicality or other I won't begrudge him any compensation he receives.
-
There was DNA matching 17 out of 20 markers when compared to Sheila's mother's, so, given the fairly limited range of people whose DNA could possibly be in the silencer, yes Sheila's DNA was in the silencer. The issue at appeal was however, how it got there.
I thought that Robert Boutflour had the same blood group as Sheila?
-
I believe they should be treated as if they are really innocent. That doesn't mean that I will personally deep down believe that they are, but I would accept that they are. Put it this way, if JB gets his conviction quashed on some technicality or other I won't begrudge him any compensation he receives.
I am learning more about your approach to the case and legal stuff in general. I suppose you are right (regarding conviction quashed etc). The flip side if you take this approach is that conviction sort of equates to definitely guilty.
-
I thought that Robert Boutflour had the same blood group as Sheila?
He did, but DNA is a whole different kettle o fish :)
-
Says who?
That is an intriguing question. Why did Jeremy show Sheila how to load the gun? Was it he who approached her? Or was it she who approached Jeremy?
-
I am learning more about your approach to the case and legal stuff in general. I suppose you are right (regarding conviction quashed etc). The flip side if you take this approach is that conviction sort of equates to definitely guilty.
In the eyes of the law, yes.
-
Doesn't have to be a relative Bridget, anyone can have a certain amount of corresponding DNA.
Has anyone asked themselves why Jeremy wanted the silencer tested again? If he was guilty then surely this would be the last thing that he would have wanted? Abit like the relatives not wanting everything under PII to be released? ::)
-
I am learning more about your approach to the case and legal stuff in general. I suppose you are right (regarding conviction quashed etc). The flip side if you take this approach is that conviction sort of equates to definitely guilty.
Sort of. The system is not infallible, and so there can always be doubt as to guilt. But a person is always innocent until and unless guilt is proven.
-
That is an intriguing question. Why did Jeremy show Sheila how to load the gun? Was it he who approached her? Or was it she who approached Jeremy?
Did he show her how to load the gun?
-
Hi Neil I was told recently by Mat that they had virtually stopped compensation :) but I think if Jeremy was released according to Chochok Eira Jeremy would make a fortune from book deals and a film deal :)
Hello Susan i understand 10 million is the upper limit now .
-
Has anyone asked themselves why Jeremy wanted the silencer tested again? If he was guilty then surely this would be the last thing that he would have wanted? Abit like the relatives not wanting everything under PII to be released? ::)
Grahame, you seem like a smart member. Don't buy into the PII material and the secret folders. The key to the case doesn't sit in the PII - some people have misinterpreted the PII material on here and got it very wrong.
It isn't the case that the police can just put anything they wish under PII - they need to have a reason for it and it goes past the judges first.
-
Hi mertol wow 10million :)
-
You are avoiding the question, whether it's a handful of officers or the entire Essex Police force, what are they covering up?
Bridget, don't you think you are asking the wrong question? Should it be, why are the police covering up by refusing to release that which they have held from both the prosecution and the defence for 27 years?
-
In 1991 the City of London Police, (COLP) undertook an enquiry due to allegations made by Jeremy Bamber to the Police Complaints Authority (now known as the IPCC). The investigation was undertaken to determine whether his allegations of police misconduct in investigating the deaths of his family on 7th August 1985 were meritorious.
2. However COLP was instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to edit any evidence that came under their scrutiny which would incriminate police officers of Essex Police as to a finding that their initial investigation was tainted. Jeremy Bamber was not aware of this until recently.
3. This was due to the Dickinson enquiry (1985-86) and the fact that all evidence that came under scrutiny in that enquiry regarding police misconduct was placed under public interest immunity, (PII).
-
Grahame, you seem like a smart member. Don't buy into the PII material and the secret folders. The key to the case doesn't sit in the PII - some people have misinterpreted the PII material on here and got it very wrong.
It isn't the case that the police can just put anything they wish under PII - they need to have a reason for it and it goes past the judges first.
What do you think could be held under PII, mat?.
-
lol, so who did it belong to then? Some random relative of hers who just happened to be walking by?
Perhaps some relative who believed JB to be a murderer and just wanted to make sure he went down? As I said Robert Boutflour had the same blood group as Sheila.
-
Bridget, don't you think you are asking the wrong question? Should it be, why are the police covering up by refusing to release that which they have held from both the prosecution and the defence for 27 years?
No I don't think so. In order for them to cover stuff up (if that's what is happening) then they must have a reason. I appreciate the fact that someone will say "we don't know what they're covering up since they're covering it up" but I just can't think of anything at all that it could be. Does that make sense? It did when I wrote it ;)
-
Has anyone asked themselves why Jeremy wanted the silencer tested again? If he was guilty then surely this would be the last thing that he would have wanted? Abit like the relatives not wanting everything under PII to be released? ::)
He didn't, the prosecution took it upon themselves to do so in order to respond to Websters expert opinion for the defence at the 2002 appeal.
Your comment regarding what the 'relatives' want, is unfounded, it may or may not be the case, but as far as I am aware, they have not shared any such view, either for or against. I guess the closest thing to it is Davids comments at the end of the recently aired documentary.
-
Perhaps some relative who believed JB to be a murderer and just wanted to make sure he went down? As I said Robert Boutflour had the same blood group as Sheila.
Sheila was adopted. We're taking about DNA, not blood.
-
What do you think could be held under PII, mat?.
Mike posted the list not too long ago, although I think there were a couple of things left off it. There are a few statements under PII as well as detials/pictures of the twins.
Nothing that would get Jeremy out of jail immediately which has been suggested on this board a good few times.
-
Mike posted the list not too long ago, although I think there were a couple of things left off it. There are a few statements under PII as well as detials/pictures of the twins.
Nothing that would get Jeremy out of jail immediately which has been suggested on this board a good few times.
Ok, thanks, mat. :)
-
He didn't, the prosecution took it upon themselves to do so in order to respond to Websters expert opinion for the defence at the 2002 appeal.
Your comment regarding what the 'relatives' want, is unfounded, it may or may not be the case, but as far as I am aware, they have not shared any such view, either for or against. I guess the closest thing to it is Davids comments at the end of the recently aired documentary.
Hi Harts ;)
-
Mike posted the list not too long ago, although I think there were a couple of things left off it. There are a few statements under PII as well as detials/pictures of the twins.
Nothing that would get Jeremy out of jail immediately which has been suggested on this board a good few times.
Did he? An actual list as in a document or just things he thinks are held?
-
I believe it was a document. Looked like a scan.
-
Hi Harts ;)
Hey :)
-
I believe it was a document. Looked like a scan.
I don't remember that, and I didn't think there was such a list, point me at it if you come across it again will you?
-
Yeah, I'll have a look for you now. :)
-
No I don't think so. In order for them to cover stuff up (if that's what is happening) then they must have a reason. I appreciate the fact that someone will say "we don't know what they're covering up since they're covering it up" but I just can't think of anything at all that it could be. Does that make sense? It did when I wrote it ;)
No it doesn't make sense about the PII because there is NO justifiable reason recent evidence regarding Julie Mugford should have been witheld
It was
-
No it doesn't make sense about the PII because there is NO justifiable reason recent evidence regarding Julie Mugford should have been witheld
It was
Recent? lol... Oh jackie..
I don't remember that, and I didn't think there was such a list, point me at it if you come across it again will you?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2689.msg87047.html#msg87047
-
No it doesn't make sense about the PII because there is NO justifiable reason recent evidence regarding Julie Mugford should have been witheld
It was
What was?
-
Recent? lol... Oh jackie..
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2689.msg87047.html#msg87047
Thanks Mat. Any idea what "Missing schedules and files edited under PII" actually means, or what any of those references refer to?
-
However COLP was instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to edit any evidence that came under their scrutiny which would incriminate police officers of Essex Police as to a finding that their initial investigation was tainted. Jeremy Bamber was not aware of this until recently.
3. This was due to the Dickinson enquiry (1985-86) and the fact that all evidence that came under scrutiny in that enquiry regarding police misconduct was placed under public interest immunity, (PII).
-
Thanks Mat. Any idea what "Missing schedules and files edited under PII" actually means, or what any of those references refer to?
At one time, yes. But right now I couldn't say what they were and be 100% sure.. but there were numerous meetings after the murders and the schedules that are missing pertain to them, the minutes of the meetings, what was said, who was present.
Some of the files that are posted openly have had parts taken out under PII too - which is what the editing under PII means.
Mike will be able to say what each number pertains to though - but it would be a lot of work.
-
Bridget this is what you wrote
No I don't think so. In order for them to cover stuff up (if that's what is happening) then they must have a reason. I appreciate the fact that someone will say "we don't know what they're covering up since they're covering it up" but I just can't think of anything at all that it could be. Does that make sense? It did when I wrote it
Why were the real facts surrounding Julie Mugford covered up
-
Bridget this is what you wrote
No I don't think so. In order for them to cover stuff up (if that's what is happening) then they must have a reason. I appreciate the fact that someone will say "we don't know what they're covering up since they're covering it up" but I just can't think of anything at all that it could be. Does that make sense? It did when I wrote it
Why were the real facts surrounding Julie Mugford covered up
I have no idea what 'real facts' you are referring to, hence my question to you, what was held under PII?
-
Yes Mat very recently uncovered
Keep up
-
Bridget this is what you wrote
No I don't think so. In order for them to cover stuff up (if that's what is happening) then they must have a reason. I appreciate the fact that someone will say "we don't know what they're covering up since they're covering it up" but I just can't think of anything at all that it could be. Does that make sense? It did when I wrote it
Why were the real facts surrounding Julie Mugford covered up
I think that unless this 'new' evidence is able to be disclosed to the forum (pun intended), then I'm not sure it should be used to back up an argument. Having said that, I fully understand why the defence team might want to keep their cards hidden.
-
Yes Mat very recently uncovered
Keep up
I refuse to beleive you're close enough to the defence to know anything that isn't already known. the official campaign team have cut their contact with you - so the defence I don't believe tell you anything.
And any JM evidence would have been used in the CCRC appeals.
-
Hartley which comment do you mean?
Can you remember the exact words?
Do you mean ' it stops now' ?
But it wouldn't would it, I am sure there will be more new evidence to start a new investigation
-
I have no idea what 'real facts' you are referring to, hence my question to you, what was held under PII?
CPS file on her. And the fact she was arrested, prior to her supposedly having come forward to 'unburden' her self. Some of this is from the 2011 lever arch files, I think.
-
Thank you Rochy
-
CPS file on her. And the fact she was arrested, prior to her supposedly having come forward to 'unburden' her self. Some of this is from the 2011 lever arch files, I think.
I haven't seen it Roch, unless you mean that letter that was published?
-
I refuse to beleive you're close enough to the defence to know anything that isn't already known. the official campaign team have cut their contact with you - so the defence I don't believe tell you anything.
And any JM evidence would have been used in the CCRC appeals.
Mat & jackie, civility between you is appreciated.
-
CPS file on her. And the fact she was arrested, prior to her supposedly having come forward to 'unburden' her self. Some of this is from the 2011 lever arch files, I think.
But that isn't new and the defence haven't attempted to use this becuase they know it wouldn't do them any good.
Mat & jackie, civility between you is appreciated.
Civility is fine. As long as it is is comnig both ways.
-
Mat please do not make out you know anything about my friendship with Simon McKay
-
Mat please do not make out you know anything about my friendship with Simon McKay
Oh, I'm not. I understand you're the reason he's working the Bamber case.
-
I haven't seen it Roch, unless you mean that letter that was published?
The defence have not released the paperwork relating to the discovery of her arrest. The letters regarding immunity were in the guardian, I think there was quite a few letters. The document referencing the CPS file is in Bamber Twitpics in the archive. I will find it and provide a link on this post. The defence have not seen the CPS file (I think - unless that's were the letters came from?).
-
Hartley which comment do you mean?
Can you remember the exact words?
Do you mean ' it stops now' ?
But it wouldn't would it, I am sure there will be more new evidence to start a new investigation
Yes, that was the comment.
It seems that this is somehow being twisted into meaning that the relatives are against disclosure of material held under PII. All I'm saying is that they have not aired that view, to say otherwise is simply untrue, regardless how many times it gets repeated.
-
By the time theyv'e taken 27 years bed and board out shouldnt think there'll be much left.
I'd sue the arses off them.
-
The defence have not released the paperwork relating to the discovery of her arrest. The letters regarding immunity were in the guardian, I think there was quite a few letters. The document referencing the CPS file is in Bamber Twitpics in the archive. I will find it and provide a link on this post. The defence have not seen the CPS file (I think - unless that's were the letters came from?).
Is an immunity deal really that much of a shock though? It's almost to be expected. It wasn't a deal of "Tell us what we want to hear adn you'll be okay" but more of "tell the truth and you'll be okay."
Yes, that was the comment.
It seems that this is somehow being twisted into meaning that the relatives are against disclosure of material held under PII. All I'm saying is that they have not aired that view, to say otherwise is simply untrue, regardless how many times it gets repeated.
The relatives campaign to keep this material under PII! They don't want it released because it shwos they set Jeremy up! They were in on it with the police! With Julie! with the arms team! The medical examiner! the doctors............I'm joking. ;D ;D
-
I refuse to beleive you're close enough to the defence to know anything that isn't already known. the official campaign team have cut their contact with you - so the defence I don't believe tell you anything.
Mat you wrote the above but you have no idea do you?
Any conversations between me and Simon have always been and will continue to be in the strictest of confidence
Sorry to disappoint you
-
Is an immunity deal really that much of a shock though? It's almost to be expected. It wasn't a deal of "Tell us what we want to hear adn you'll be okay" but more of "tell the truth and you'll be okay
Here's another slant...
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2832.195.html#lastPost
-
I refuse to beleive you're close enough to the defence to know anything that isn't already known. the official campaign team have cut their contact with you - so the defence I don't believe tell you anything.
Mat you wrote the above but you have no idea do you?
Any conversations between me and Simon have always been and will continue to be in the strictest of confidence
Sorry to disappoint you
Does it matter?
-
I refuse to beleive you're close enough to the defence to know anything that isn't already known. the official campaign team have cut their contact with you - so the defence I don't believe tell you anything.
Mat you wrote the above but you have no idea do you?
Any conversations between me and Simon have always been and will continue to be in the strictest of confidence
Sorry to disappoint you
I've no interest, Jackie.
Here's another slant...
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2832.195.html#lastPost
thanks, Roch
-
Yeha, and you said it was a shame me and Bridget don't have a suicide pact. So I think you're just as bad as whoever called him McChancer. Bored of you taking the moral high ground.
I don't think Jackie is taking the moral high ground Mat. I just think she is sick and tired of those on the other forum calling her all kinds of names and then coming over here only to be mocked by the same people here? Personally I can see her point. There are some taking the piss and then are being praised by Lamberton for getting one over on us here? That's all I'm going to say on the matter. ;)
-
Could we return to the topic and refrain from posting about personality issues. Thank you.
-
I don't think Jackie is taking the moral high ground Mat. I just think she is sick and tired of those on the other forum calling her all kinds of names and then coming over here only to be mocked by the same people here? Personally I can see her point. There are some taking the piss and then are being praised by Lamberton for getting one over on us here? That's all I'm going to say on the matter. ;)
I've discussed this with another dual member today. I don't want to say anything further on the open forum. I don't think anybody will be able to 'control' the other forum. It's the nature of the beast I'm afraid.
-
He did, but DNA is a whole different kettle o fish :)
But they didn't have a complete profile anyway.
-
I am talking about the topic and PII
-
Did he show her how to load the gun?
Didn't one of the relatives say they saw him showing her?
-
Hartley I am interested and you bought it up
-
Didn't one of the relatives say they saw him showing her?
Yes, RB wasn't it?
-
it was June.
-
He didn't, the prosecution took it upon themselves to do so in order to respond to Websters expert opinion for the defence at the 2002 appeal.
Your comment regarding what the 'relatives' want, is unfounded, it may or may not be the case, but as far as I am aware, they have not shared any such view, either for or against. I guess the closest thing to it is Davids comments at the end of the recently aired documentary.
But surely that was what the appeal was based on. To prove that it was not Sheila's blood in the silencer?
-
Sheila was adopted. We're taking about DNA, not blood.
But as I said before, in the original trial the evidence was based upon Sheila's blood group. That was long before DNA was being used in court cases.
-
Mike posted the list not too long ago, although I think there were a couple of things left off it. There are a few statements under PII as well as detials/pictures of the twins.
Nothing that would get Jeremy out of jail immediately which has been suggested on this board a good few times.
Have you seen these document Mat?
-
But as I said before, in the original trial the evidence was based upon Sheila's blood group. That was long before DNA was being used in court cases.
Yes, but the one ground referred for appeal was DNA evidence.
-
Hartley I am interested and you bought it up
Brought what up?
Any chance you could use the quote button? It's sometimes difficult to follow you otherwise.
-
immunity ? a posh name for a bribe.
-
it was June.
June said she'd seen JB teaching Sheila to use the rifle?
-
June said she'd seen JB teaching Sheila to use the rifle?
And Sheila did not walk away ? now that is interesting.
-
June said she'd seen JB teaching Sheila to use the rifle?
Bridget, do you think that in a suspicious environment where RB and AE have convinced themselves that JB is guilty, there is at least a danger of over-interpretation or misinterpretation of his past actions / verbal statements? They take on a sinister bent, where previously there had not been one.
-
June said she'd seen JB teaching Sheila to use the rifle?
yes that's right, bridget.
-
Yes, RB wasn't it?
Yes but what I am asking is was it Jeremy who wanted to show her how to load it. Or was it Sheila who asked Jeremy if he could show her how to load it. It makes all the difference.
-
June said she'd seen JB teaching Sheila to use the rifle?
Robert Boutflour stated that Jeremy had tried to teach Sheila how to use a rifle in front of June and Pamela.
I can't remember if it is in one of his statements or his 'diary', probaly the diary.
-
Why did you remove that post Rochy, I know they are your mates
That's disgraceful
I didn't remove a post but possibly would have done if I'd seen it. I'm not sure what you mean about mates. I've probably argued with the people you are referring to. Things are rarely black & white with me.
-
Yes, but the one ground referred for appeal was DNA evidence.
Yes and as I said before, it was not a complete profile and so it was ruled "inconclusive". So we are left with the findings of the original trial which did not take into account, (obviously because their minds were predisposed into thinking it was Sheila's blood) that it could actually have been Rober Boutflours blood? If the relatives did interfere with the silencer and there are grounds to believing that they did, then there was a very real possibility either by accident or by design that it was RB's blood.
-
Yes and as I said before, it was not a complete profile and so it was ruled "inconclusive". So we are left with the findings of the original trial which did not take into account, (obviously because their minds were predisposed into thinking it was Sheila's blood) that it could actually have been Rober Boutflours blood? If the relatives did interfere with the silencer and there are grounds to believing that they did, then there was a very real possibility either by accident or by design that it was RB's blood.
Well said Grahame.
-
June said she'd seen JB teaching Sheila to use the rifle?
But did she ASK him to teach here? Are we only told half the story here?
-
Yes and as I said before, it was not a complete profile and so it was ruled "inconclusive". So we are left with the findings of the original trial which did not take into account, (obviously because their minds were predisposed into thinking it was Sheila's blood) that it could actually have been Rober Boutflours blood? If the relatives did interfere with the silencer and there are grounds to believing that they did, then there was a very real possibility either by accident or by design that it was RB's blood.
Ok, I think we're actually arguing the same point.
-
Robert Boutflour stated that Jeremy had tried to teach Sheila how to use a rifle in front of June and Pamela.
I can't remember if it is in one of his statements or his 'diary', probaly the diary.
So what do you think was the purpose of him trying to teach Sheila if he was going to kill them all himself anyway?
-
Ok, I think we're actually arguing the same point.
Yes but what about my question? ::)
-
So what do you think was the purpose of him trying to teach Sheila if he was going to kill them all himself anyway?
Then he could tell the police that sheila knew how to use a gun, because he showed her?
-
Ok, I think we're actually arguing the same point.
Which is?
-
Then he could tell the police that sheila knew how to use a gun, because he showed her?
Did you see my question to Bridget further back? It's relevant to this, imo.
-
Bridget, do you think that in a suspicious environment where RB and AE have convinced themselves that JB is guilty, there is at least a danger of over-interpretation or misinterpretation of his past actions / verbal statements? They take on a sinister bent, where previously there had not been one.
Yes, I would have to say that both of their statements / diaries display a level of suspicion over some things which probably wasn't justified.
-
Then he could tell the police that sheila knew how to use a gun, because he showed her?
But David Boutflour confessed reluctantly. Oops, I'll change that. David Boutflour, prompted by the defence counsel suddenly remembered that Sheila had been on a shoot with some of the family in Scotland a while back.
-
Bridget, do you think that in a suspicious environment where RB and AE have convinced themselves that JB is guilty, there is at least a danger of over-interpretation or misinterpretation of his past actions / verbal statements? They take on a sinister bent, where previously there had not been one.
Excellent points, Rocky!
-
Bridget, do you think that in a suspicious environment where RB and AE have convinced themselves that JB is guilty, there is at least a danger of over-interpretation or misinterpretation of his past actions / verbal statements? They take on a sinister bent, where previously there had not been one.
I see what you mean, roch.
But regardless, he still did show her. Whatever his motives, if any.
-
But David Boutflour confessed reluctantly. Oops, I'll change that. David Boutflour, prompted by the defence counsel suddenly remembered that Sheila had been on a shoot with some of the family in Scotland a while back.
He did, Grahame, good point.
-
But David Boutflour confessed reluctantly. Oops, I'll change that. David Boutflour, prompted by the defence counsel suddenly remembered that Sheila had been on a shoot with some of the family in Scotland a while back.
She went as a beater, didnt she?
-
Which is?
That the DNA found in the silencer which matched 17 out of 20 markers for Sheila's mother was not of use to either the prosecution or the defence because of the potential for innocent contamination.
-
She went as a beater, didnt she?
She was photographed with a gun - using it?
-
Yes, I would have to say that both of their statements / diaries display a level of suspicion over some things which probably wasn't justified.
Thanks. It could be completely innocent regarding 'Jeremy showed her how to use the rifle'. Remember, upon being informed everyone is dead, Jeremy does not blame Sheila. He blames the raid team.
-
She went as a beater, didnt she?
No, she went as a guest but did not shoot. This was a weekend away almost 9 years prior to the murders.
-
No, she went as a guest but did not shoot. This was a weekend away almost 9 years prior to the murders.
I'm attributing JB's official site as the source of my information, Bridget, what's your source?
-
I'm attributing JB's official site as the source of my information, Bridget, what's your source?
I can't remember now, RB's statements maybe? We discussed this a couple of weeks ago.
-
I can't remember now, RB's statements maybe? We discussed this a couple of weeks ago.
From JB's official website:
"Myths: Sheila Caffell didn’t know how to fire a gun"
"Sheila grew up on a farm where there were a number of guns around the house every day. There is absolutely no question that she was familiar with firearms and had been out with shooting parties. Just because she knew how to load and fire a gun does not make her a good shot. The family were all killed at close range, the furthest shot away was 3 feet, she couldn’t have missed.
David Boutflour and Peter Eaton both stated at trial and later in statements that they saw Sheila with a gun."
-
She was photographed with a gun - using it?
I don't think so, holding it maybe. Have you seen the picture?
-
Does the .org site yield anything on this?
-
I don't think so, holding it maybe. Have you seen the picture?
See my quote above from the official website.
-
"She [Sheila] had also been away shooting in Scotland with David Boutflour and Peter Eaton as they detailed in documents"
JB's Official website
-
I don't think so, holding it maybe. Have you seen the picture?
I think she is with Colin in the photograph...:)
-
No, she went as a guest but did not shoot. This was a weekend away almost 9 years prior to the murders.
She must have been very young then?
-
I think she is with Colin in the photograph...:)
Thanks, Patti, do you know where there is a copy of this?
-
From JB's official website:
"Myths: Sheila Caffell didn’t know how to fire a gun"
"Sheila grew up on a farm where there were a number of guns around the house every day. There is absolutely no question that she was familiar with firearms and had been out with shooting parties. Just because she knew how to load and fire a gun does not make her a good shot. The family were all killed at close range, the furthest shot away was 3 feet, she couldn’t have missed.
David Boutflour and Peter Eaton both stated at trial and later in statements that they saw Sheila with a gun."
Do you know where these statements are now Keira?
-
Thanks, Patti, do you know where there is a copy of this?
You wont be able to upload it ;D
-
Do you know where these statements are now Keira?
No, Mike will probably know. Perhaps ask him when he's back from hols, Grahame?
-
See my quote above from the official website.
With a gun, or shooting a gun? How does the fact that she may or may not have held a shotgun for a picture 9 years previously assist with the theory that she was familiar with the rifle purchased in 1985?
-
Thanks, Patti, do you know where there is a copy of this?
Hi Keira, to be honest I haven't seen it....I'm not sure if Colin mentions it in his book...I have read it somewhere...a statement maybe. :) :)
-
With a gun, or shooting a gun? How does the fact that she may or may not have held a shotgun for a picture 9 years previously assist with the theory that she was familiar with the rifle purchased in 1985?
Good point.
-
Hi Keira, to be honest I haven't seen it....I'm not sure if Colin mentions it in his book...I have read it somewhere...a statement maybe. :) :)
I've read it somewhere too, wish I could recall where.
-
With a gun, or shooting a gun? How does the fact that she may or may not have held a shotgun for a picture 9 years previously assist with the theory that she was familiar with the rifle purchased in 1985?
Bridget look on you tube, the rifle is so easy to use. Also look at the new evidence documentary and you will see how easy it is too load and use....I wouldn't tell you lies about it...But when I watched it once, I would be confident to load it, flick the recoil and pull the trigger....All this talk about not being able to use that rifle is poppycock......she was 27 years old. She had been around guns all off her childhood life....it's ludicrous to suggest she had no idea how to use them.... :) :)
-
With a gun, or shooting a gun? How does the fact that she may or may not have held a shotgun for a picture 9 years previously assist with the theory that she was familiar with the rifle purchased in 1985?
The logic is that most people brought up on farms are familiar with guns anyway. Wel all those I know are anyway and for the life of me I can't see why some of the family were making out she was ignorant of such things when it was all part of daily life on a farm and still is?
-
link to click here
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWN1FEdlh5dUdRWkNfR0prdUJVclFldw/edit?pli=1
-
Bridget look on you tube, the rifle is so easy to use. Also look at the new evidence documentary and you will see how easy it is too load and use....I wouldn't tell you lies about it...But when I watched it once, I would be confident to load it, flick the recoil and pull the trigger....All this talk about not being able to use that rifle is poppycock......she was 27 years old. She had been around guns all off her childhood life....it's ludicrous to suggest she had no idea how to use them.... :) :)
They are all making out that this little rifle was difficult to use, just because a few farm ignorant folk in the jury couldn't do it?
-
link to click here
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWN1FEdlh5dUdRWkNfR0prdUJVclFldw/edit?pli=1
Thanks, Elphick!
-
They are all making out that this little rifle was difficult to use, just because a few farm ignorant folk in the jury couldn't do it?
I know nothing about guns, but from what I've seen with my untrained eye, it does look very easy to use.
-
link to click here
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWN1FEdlh5dUdRWkNfR0prdUJVclFldw/edit?pli=1
That is where I read it....Well done elphick for finding that...:)
-
They are all making out that this little rifle was difficult to use, just because a few farm ignorant folk in the jury couldn't do it?
And, as the official website states:
"The family were all killed at close range, the furthest shot away was 3 feet, she couldn’t have missed."
-
link to click here
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWN1FEdlh5dUdRWkNfR0prdUJVclFldw/edit?pli=1
Thanks for that link elphick
-
They are all making out that this little rifle was difficult to use, just because a few farm ignorant folk in the jury couldn't do it?
Hey G....your posts have been fantastic tonight. I can't use a remote control, but I could use that rifle... :) :) :)
-
That is where I read it....Well done elphick for finding that...:)
For some reason I thought I'd also seen a picture of Sheila on the shooting holiday holding a gun. But then I probably made that up.
-
For some reason I thought I'd also seen a picture of Sheila on the shooting holiday holding a gun. But then I probably made that up.
;D ;D
-
Hey G....your posts have been fantastic tonight. I can't use a remote control, but I could use that rifle... :) :) :)
I've enjoyed reading grahame's posts in general of late. And yours Patti.
-
I've enjoyed reading grahame's posts in general of late. And yours Patti.
So have yours Roch.....excellent! :) :) :) :)
-
;D ;D
Has anyone seen one? Joking aside?
-
I've enjoyed reading grahame's posts in general of late. And yours Patti.
I second that
-
So have yours Roch.....excellent! :) :) :) :)
I second this too. In fact, we've recently had some excellent posts from many members. The standard of debate seems to have gone up by a notch. Good posts everyone!
-
Reloading and firing a carabina anschutz .22
"It has been postulated by the prosecution that it would have been difficult for Sheila to load and fire the weapon. Most of us do not realize exactly how easy the gun was to fire, and that it could be fired accurately at close range. All the deceased were shot within less than 4 feet. The picture to the right is a photograph of the actual gun which Sheila used to kill the family.
We suggest that you take a look at the video below of rifle fire. The gun is not the same as the one used in the tragedies, but it is a more modern, similar self loading Anshuttz.22 rifle. (This rifle has telescopic sights attached but the one at White House Farm did not). Notice how quiet the weapon is and how easy it is to load the magazine in the bottom and fire continuously. It is possible that while Sheila reloaded the rifle it gave Nevill time to get to the phone? Imagine the gun being fired not in a rage like the one on the video, but in a house where there are furnishings to absorb the noise. Also notice in the video that the man loads the 4 bullets into the magazine and it takes him 8 seconds, so it would have taken Sheila just over 20 seconds to fully reload the rifle that is if she did fully reload it each time."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWHIi9J1DL8&feature=player_embedded
(From JB's official website)
-
Grahame has excelled himself with certain posts,,,such as the Monastery thread,,,though it's true to say that I've enjoyed,,and learned from,a lot of other posters too.Well done y'all.
-
Reloading and firing a carabina anschutz .22
"It has been postulated by the prosecution that it would have been difficult for Sheila to load and fire the weapon. Most of us do not realize exactly how easy the gun was to fire, and that it could be fired accurately at close range. All the deceased were shot within less than 4 feet. The picture to the right is a photograph of the actual gun which Sheila used to kill the family.
We suggest that you take a look at the video below of rifle fire. The gun is not the same as the one used in the tragedies, but it is a more modern, similar self loading Anshuttz.22 rifle. (This rifle has telescopic sights attached but the one at White House Farm did not). Notice how quiet the weapon is and how easy it is to load the magazine in the bottom and fire continuously. It is possible that while Sheila reloaded the rifle it gave Nevill time to get to the phone? Imagine the gun being fired not in a rage like the one on the video, but in a house where there are furnishings to absorb the noise. Also notice in the video that the man loads the 4 bullets into the magazine and it takes him 8 seconds, so it would have taken Sheila just over 20 seconds to fully reload the rifle that is if she did fully reload it each time."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWHIi9J1DL8&feature=player_embedded
(From JB's official website)
Now looking at that film can you see just how little residue would have come from the gun? See how long the gun is? Now a .22 pistol would be different because of the short barrel. And quite honestly there would be more residue from a cap gun than from this. And a cap gun would sound louder as well. I think I've put videos of this kind of gun before. But not many people took much notice. I do hope they notice this one. Recall also that Sheila already had a full magazine to start off with.
-
Now looking at that film can you see just how little residue would have come from the gun? See how long the gun is? Now a .22 pistol would be different because of the short barrel. And quite honestly there would be more residue from a cap gun than from this. And a cap gun would sound louder as well. I think I've put videos of this kind of gun before. But not many people took much notice. I do hope they notice this one. Recall also that Sheila already had a full magazine to start off with.
Good point. I didn't look at this. Are you saying that there would be less residue because of the length of the rifle?
-
Good point. I didn't look at this. Are you saying that there would be less residue because of the length of the rifle?
Yes. Most of the residue comes from the end of the barrel. This was seen in that every victim had gun residue on them. There is of course a smaller amount of residue that is emitted when the shell case is ejected. The question is how much? But I've always held (though of course there is no way of proving it except from the showerhead on the floor of the bathroom) that Sheila must have washed her hands at some point? I cannot see that anyone, the prosecution and the defence went out of their way to establish as to whether this was possible? I don't believe that it was explored very thoroughly?
-
I have a issue with this , if we are saying residue as in powder ? if so after 4 of the family killed just leaving Sheila say she washed herself , im not saying anything yet as to this image of sheila on the bed but if its true then there could only be residue from a new 1 shot or discharge, can perspiration play a part here ?
-
"When the firing pin of a firearm strikes the primer of a cartridge the primer compound ignites sending a flame into the cartridge case. Gunpowder in the cartridge case starts to burn, causing it to change from a solid material to a gas. This change creates pressure within the cartridge, which in turn forces the bullet down the barrel and down range. Pressure building behind the bullet is released when the bullet exits the muzzle of the firearm.
The bullet acts like the cork in a shook up Champagne bottle. When the bullet exits the muzzle, pressure behind it blows the gunshot residues out of the firearm's barrel under high velocity. The residues are expelled from the barrel in a smoky cone shaped pattern.
The further gunshot residues travel from the muzzle, the broader and less concentrated the pattern becomes. Because the various elements included in gunshot residues are very small and lack mass they lose their energy rapidly.
Gunshot residues can also be emitted from other areas of a firearm. As you can see in the above image, gunshot residue is escaping from the barrel/cylinder gap of the revolver.
The muzzle-to-garment distance can vary considerably depending on the firearm and type of ammunition being used. Short-barreled firearms and lower velocity cartridges will not normally expel residues as far as a high velocity rifle. At shorter distances however, they may deposit greater concentrations of gunshot residues. Also, gunpowder can come in several forms such as ball, flake, disc, and others. Ball powder being spherical in shape is more aerodynamic than say a particle of flake gunpowder and as a result will travel farther. A number of other variables can influence the amount of gunshot residues that may reach a target; therefore, it is essential that the firearm and ammunition used in the shooting incident be recovered.
Gunshot residues emitted from the muzzle will travel out to distances of approximately 3 and 5 feet in most firearms but in some cases can travel even greater distances. At the 3-5 foot range the gunshot residues may only consist of a few trace particles and make determining the firing distance difficult if not impossible.
As the firearm gets closer to its target the residue concentrations increase and the actual size or diameter to the pattern gets smaller. At around 18-24 inches most firearms will start to deposit considerable concentrations of gunshot residues that may or may not be visible to the eye.
At distances of less than around 12 inches heavy concentrations of visible gunshot residues will normally be deposited."
-
"When the muzzle of the firearm gets next to or is in contact with the target, hot gases escaping from the muzzle at high velocity will typically rip, tear, shred, and/or melt the material of the target. A very intense deposit of gunshot residues will be found around the margins of a contact or near contact entrance hole.
There have actually been cases where a hard contact gunshot (muzzle pressed hard against the victim) caused the residues to blow through the wound tract in the victim and be deposited around the inside of the exit hole of the victim's clothing.
Gunshot residue is normally a combination of gunpowder residues and lead residues. I say normally because some newer ammunition is virtually lead-free. More and more ammunition manufacturers are using lead free or low lead propellants because of the toxicity of lead.
Gunpowder residue can contain unburned gunpowder particles, partially burned gunpowder particles or the carbonaceous soot from completely burned gunpowder. The image below show a bullet hole surrounded by gunpowder particulate residue
Modern smokeless gunpowder, and black powder, contains nitrate compounds. Black powder normally contains a combination of potassium nitrate (75%), charcoal (15%), and sulfur (10%). Smokeless powders can either be single based or double based. Single based gunpowder will contain nitrocellulose (cellulose hexanitrate) as its main ingredient. Double based gunpowder contains nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin (glyceral trinitrate) as its base. Some triple-based powders are also now available.
When either of these types of gunpowder burns the residue left behind will be in the form of a nitrite-based compound. Nitrite particles when emitted from the muzzle of a firearm will strike a nearby target and either be imbedded in the target's surface or leave a deposit of nitrite residue.
Lead residues will be in a vaporous or particulate form and can come from a couple sources within a discharged cartridge. The most common source is the primer. Primers are used to start the ignition process in cartridges and commonly contain lead styphnate, barium nitrate, and antimony sulfide compounds. However, some newer primer compounds are being used that are lead and/or barium free.
Cartridges containing lead based primers, when ignited, produce a vaporous cloud of residue that is expelled from the muzzle of the firearm. Additional vaporous lead residues can be produced when the hot gases pushing a lead bullet down a barrel melt lead from the base of the bullet.
A third form of lead residue will be in a particulate form. Particulate lead residue comes from minute lead particles that are shaved from the sides of a lead bullet as it travels down the barrel. Lead particulate has more mass than vaporous lead and travels greater distances. Also, gunpowder particles can be coated by the vaporous lead residues and leave what appears to be a lead particulate deposit upon striking the target."
Complicated, isn't it?
http://www.firearmsid.com/a_distancegsr.htm
-
"The amount of lead residue emitted from a gun can vary slightly from shot to shot. Fouling in the barrel from previous shots can slightly increase the amount of lead residue emitted from one shot to the next.
As described above, gunshot residue can be deposited on articles of clothing when in close proximity to a discharged firearm. But will it stay there? In most cases the answer is yes.
The various elements contained in gunshot residue are not readily water soluble and clothing left exposed to the elements will not usually diminish the residue deposits. Other factors such as heavy bleeding and rough handling of the garment can cover up or dislodge some residues. This has to be taken into consideration when conducting all such examinations. The garments must be promptly collected, allowed to air dry, and packaged in a way that will minimize contamination.
The clothing submitted to the laboratory will be examined to determine if a pattern of gunshot residue is present and there are a number of examinations conducted to aid in this determination. Click next below to learn more."
-
With a gun, or shooting a gun? How does the fact that she may or may not have held a shotgun for a picture 9 years previously assist with the theory that she was familiar with the rifle purchased in 1985?
And a good enough aim to hit people with every bullet and not miss.
-
And a good enough aim to hit people with every bullet and not miss.
As I've posted elsewhere, the official website states:
"The family were all killed at close range, the furthest shot away was 3 feet, she couldn’t have missed."
-
We must remember that not all the shots were on target, to kill immediately. The risk of shots like that could is that the shooter risked being over took. The shots were all over the place. I doubt anyone could have missed at such close range. Like Keira said most were very close shots, but when you actually look, the shots were, shoulders, legs, arms and head. Not nice...none of it... :(
-
For some reason I thought I'd also seen a picture of Sheila on the shooting holiday holding a gun. But then I probably made that up.
embarrassingly, having given this some thought, i think i had seen a picture of Kate Middleton rather than Sheila. Sorry.
-
Bridget look on you tube, the rifle is so easy to use. Also look at the new evidence documentary and you will see how easy it is too load and use....I wouldn't tell you lies about it...But when I watched it once, I would be confident to load it, flick the recoil and pull the trigger....All this talk about not being able to use that rifle is poppycock......she was 27 years old. She had been around guns all off her childhood life....it's ludicrous to suggest she had no idea how to use them.... :) :)
I think you are twisting what was said about Sheila and guns. The point has never been that it was impossible for her to have used the gun. It was that she was unfamiliar with guns and therefore unlikely to have chosen to use one, and unlikely to have been able to use one so proficiently and without getting overpowered. Remember also that she is said to have had poor co-ordination, which would make loading the magazine and refitting it to the rifle more difficult for her than for you and I.
What does 'flick the recoil' mean?
-
We must remember that not all the shots were on target, to kill immediately. The risk of shots like that could is that the shooter risked being over took. The shots were all over the place. I doubt anyone could have missed at such close range. Like Keira said most were very close shots, but when you actually look, the shots were, shoulders, legs, arms and head. Not nice...none of it... :(
Hi Patti,,,,yes,the shots were typical of a frenzied and disturbed person,,,and because the rifle was only for use on small animals,,,Sheila would have known that, and unless she literally " pumped " the bullets out, it wouldn't have had the desired effect.
P.S.Notice that " mental " problems have come to the fore,thank goodness. Though we've advanced with treatments,medications,etc,still not enough is done to research the subject. It still remains a " hidden " illness simply because it isn't visible like most illnesses and a lot of people are suffering in silence,particularly new mums,who after the birth of their babies are sometimes too busy or pre-occupied to recognise the changes that they're going through. Symptoms if left can lead to more serious problems,as in Sheila's case,so start "treating themselves " with various substances to " feel better ".
It's not their faults because they can't understand what's going on in their bodies.
-
Hi lookout I agree the shots fired that night at WHF were frenzied shots from a person totally out of control a premeditated murdered would have used a shotgun one shot to the head would have been enough. I don,t think for one moment the murders were planned at all they happened because something sparked something off in the mind of the perpetrator of these horrendous murders.
-
As I've posted elsewhere, the official website states:
"The family were all killed at close range, the furthest shot away was 3 feet, she couldn’t have missed."
Plus shots in the arms of the victims that have been interpreted as hits and meant to terrorise or torture the victims may be misinterpreted and should rather be viewed as "misses"?
-
I think you are twisting what was said about Sheila and guns. The point has never been that it was impossible for her to have used the gun. It was that she was unfamiliar with guns and therefore unlikely to have chosen to use one, and unlikely to have been able to use one so proficiently and without getting overpowered. Remember also that she is said to have had poor co-ordination, which would make loading the magazine and refitting it to the rifle more difficult for her than for you and I.
What does 'flick the recoil' mean?
Recoil is what you get when you fire a gun. But there would be hardly if any recoil with a .22 pistol or rifle. I've fired a .22 pistol and I hardly noticed any recoil. You are more likely to get recoil from a .22 pistol. It is only as you get to the higher calibre guns that you tend to get significant recoil.
-
Recoil is what you get when you fire a gun. But there would be hardly if any recoil with a .22 pistol or rifle. I've fired a .22 pistol and I hardly noticed any recoil. You are more likely to get recoil from a .22 pistol. It is only as you get to the higher calibre guns that you tend to get significant recoil.
I know what recoil is, I was just wondering what 'flick the recoil' means?
-
Hi lookout I agree the shots fired that night at WHF were frenzied shots from a person totally out of control a premeditated murdered would have used a shotgun one shot to the head would have been enough. I don,t think for one moment the murders were planned at all they happened because something sparked something off in the mind of the perpetrator of these horrendous murders.
Hi Susan,,you're quite right. No way was it pre-meditated. In part,there were random and mis-fired shots,,just like someone who was let loose with a rifle.
I still can't help feeling for that poor sick girl,because she obviously didn't realise at the time what she was doing. A victim of her own illness. One can't imagine what was going on in her mind.
-
It should,by rights,have been an open and shut case.
-
Hi lookout I agree the shots fired that night at WHF were frenzied shots from a person totally out of control a premeditated murdered would have used a shotgun one shot to the head would have been enough. I don,t think for one moment the murders were planned at all they happened because something sparked something off in the mind of the perpetrator of these horrendous murders.
I'm not sure if a shotgun would be the chosen weapon of an assassin? But I would think that they would have used a larger calibre weapon because a .22 would not effect a clean kill of a human being unless strategically placed? These wounds on all the victims were headshots. But it is unsure if those headshots were delivered before the body shots or after, except of course in the case of the twins? Which shots were all to the head and suggest overkill as if someone wanted to make sure they were dead so as to spare their suffering? Italics mine as it is only a suggestion.
-
Hi lookout I have to agree with you I think sadly poor Sheila was a very troubled individual and as much as a victim as anyone :(
-
I'm not sure if a shotgun would be the chosen weapon of an assassin? But I would think that they would have used a larger calibre weapon because a .22 would not effect a clean kill of a human being unless strategically placed? These wounds on all the victims were headshots. But it is unsure if those headshots were delivered before the body shots or after, except of course in the case of the twins? Which shots were all to the head and suggest overkill as if someone wanted to make sure they were dead so as to spare their suffering? Italics mine as it is only a suggestion.
Would a mother who wanted to spare their child from suffering shoot him 3 times in the face? Speculative I know, but that's a sticking point for me.
-
Hi lookout I have to agree with you I think sadly poor Sheila was a very troubled individual and as much as a victim as anyone :(
Hi Susan,,,indeed she was a victim,the same as Jeremy is right now,a victim of a miscarriage of justice.
-
Would a mother who wanted to spare their child from suffering shoot him 3 times in the face? Speculative I know, but that's a sticking point for me.
Bridget,,,mothers in distress like Sheila was,are more than capable of cruelty and murder. It's been made quite clear over the years,the abject cruelty that's been committed on children by parents,,but particularly the mothers.
-
Would a mother who wanted to spare their child from suffering shoot him 3 times in the face? Speculative I know, but that's a sticking point for me.
I agree Bridget. But you must admit it was the most shocking crime that shook essex to the core at the time. I should think there can only be speculation? That's why I typed it out in italics. Who is to know what people (indeed even ourselves) are capable of? I see some of the most disturbing crimes committed every year in this country and sometimes I have to ask myself, "How could these people do such things?" If Sheila was responsible she must have been a very disturbed woman. That is the only way we can explain such a thing. Certainly the person responsible was not in a normal state of mind at the time, that's for sure.
-
Hi lookout it is so sad as like you I feel Jeremy is innocent and to have lost your whole family and be accused of murdering them and serving a lifetime prison sentence I cannot find words to describe what he has suffered. He must be a very strong person to endure it and still be fighting. :(
-
Bridget,,,mothers in distress like Sheila was,are more than capable of cruelty and murder. It's been made quite clear over the years,the abject cruelty that's been committed on children by parents,,but particularly the mothers.
What evidence is there that Sheila had ever been cruel to her children? Neglected them to some extent possibly, but committed abject cruelty? I just don't buy the 'mother in distress' thing.
-
What evidence is there that Sheila had ever been cruel to her children? Neglected them to some extent possibly, but committed abject cruelty? I just don't buy the 'mother in distress' thing.
Bridget,,,women such as Sheila " just snap " and are out of control. This may have " seemed " out of character for Sheila,but the raw truth is that when women like her,erupt,yes,,they're more than capable of doing anything. Anyone who can put their hand through a window such as Sheila had once done,has got to be sick of mind. All the internal destruction that Sheila carried out was what she would possibly have done towards her family. Throwing pots and pans,etc,even Colin,her husband had to call a halt on her unpredictable " tantrums ",because he feared for his life and that of the twins. As did her friend,Freddie,who was scared of Sheila.
Sorry,,,,but men scared of a woman.? There has to be something radically wrong. Sheila may have been " slightly built ",but at the same time,she was as strong as an ox,,as are a lot of people who are mentally sick.
-
Plus shots in the arms of the victims that have been interpreted as hits and meant to terrorise or torture the victims may be misinterpreted and should rather be viewed as "misses"?
Very good point
-
Bridget,,,women such as Sheila " just snap " and are out of control. This may have " seemed " out of character for Sheila,but the raw truth is that when women like her,erupt,yes,,they're more than capable of doing anything. Anyone who can put their hand through a window such as Sheila had once done,has got to be sick of mind. All the internal destruction that Sheila carried out was what she would possibly have done towards her family. Throwing pots and pans,etc,even Colin,her husband had to call a halt on her unpredictable " tantrums ",because he feared for his life and that of the twins. As did her friend,Freddie,who was scared of Sheila.
Sorry,,,,but men scared of a woman.? There has to be something radically wrong. Sheila may have been " slightly built ",but at the same time,she was as strong as an ox,,as are a lot of people who are mentally sick.
Don't take this the wrong way but I find your use of the phrase "women like her" and pretty much all of your post quite distasteful. You know nothing about her other than what has been said in a few statements selectively posted on a pro JB forum. That said, you are entitled to your opinion, because that is all it is, and I'm not going to argue with you over it.
-
Bridget,,,mothers in distress like Sheila was,are more than capable of cruelty and murder. It's been made quite clear over the years,the abject cruelty that's been committed on children by parents,,but particularly the mothers.
Surely lookout distressed mothers who kill their children are il and in a way beyond our understanding see their actions as actually 'saving' their children.
-
What evidence is there that Sheila had ever been cruel to her children? Neglected them to some extent possibly, but committed abject cruelty? I just don't buy the 'mother in distress' thing.
Bridget,please read up about these women who are mentally unstable and what they are capable of doing.
They are wild,believe you me. I've seen it,,I've worked with them. Read about the use of paraldehyde on violent patients.
Sheila did have a tendency to be violent. The night of the murders was an example when she killed her children. If she couldn't continue to look after them,,nobody else was going to do.
Probably if that night of carnage hadn't have occurred,,then it's quite possible that she,herself would at some point have committed suicide. It's known amongst schizophrenics,,and their lives in any case,are usually short-lived.
Hormonal imbalance has got a lot to answer for,,as in an over-active thyroid which in itself causes anxiety and if not treated can cause a lot of problems. This too is something that can be brought on by pregnancy, but symptoms can be sketchy,but a blood test can define this,then treatment can begin.
My belief is that Dr Ferguson neither knew enough,nor did enough to curtail Sheila's illness.
Rather an endocrinologist first off,then if all else failed,psychiatry,or both.
-
Bridget,please read up about these women who are mentally unstable and what they are capable of doing.
They are wild,believe you me. I've seen it,,I've worked with them. Read about the use of paraldehyde on violent patients.
Sheila did have a tendency to be violent. The night of the murders was an example when she killed her children. If she couldn't continue to look after them,,nobody else was going to do.
Probably if that night of carnage hadn't have occurred,,then it's quite possible that she,herself would at some point have committed suicide. It's known amongst schizophrenics,,and their lives in any case,are usually short-lived.
Hormonal imbalance has got a lot to answer for,,as in an over-active thyroid which in itself causes anxiety and if not treated can cause a lot of problems. This too is something that can be brought on by pregnancy, but symptoms can be sketchy,but a blood test can define this,then treatment can begin.
My belief is that Dr Ferguson neither knew enough,nor did enough to curtail Sheila's illness.
Rather an endocrinologist first off,then if all else failed,psychiatry,or both.
Sorry but this is nothing but speculative generalisation. Anyone working in the mental health field will know that every patient needs to be individually assessed by a professional. The idea that you can diagnose Sheila as being one of "these women" 27 years later using nothing but a bunch of 3rd party statements and decide that her own doctor was wrong is probably the most mental thing about this subject. But as I said, 'm not going to argue about it so please carry on.
-
A few years back,a man was running through the street wielding a Samurai sword.Police were called to the man and he was treated as/like a criminal.He had schizophrenia but had missed his medication ( something familiar with schizophrenics ) the man's family said he was normally a gentle and innoffensive person who wouldn't harm anyone.
Police should have extra training in the field of mental illnesses among the public and should be able to spot the difference in someone who is either mentally ill,or a diabetic in a " hypo " state ( who can lash out ) instead of being over-zealous with a taser,or just being over-zealous.
-
Hi lookout
T is a fact that one of the main side effects of schizophrenia is suicide. Sheila was a very sick woman as you state. Sheila had possibly suffered from the early symptoms of schizophrenia since the onset of puberty. Why do people keep questioning her ability to have a massive psychotic episode and kill everyone in range? It happens less often than it could if scizophrenics were more often in a situation with guns and ammo lying around.
-
Don't take this the wrong way but I find your use of the phrase "women like her" and pretty much all of your post quite distasteful. You know nothing about her other than what has been said in a few statements selectively posted on a pro JB forum. That said, you are entitled to your opinion, because that is all it is, and I'm not going to argue with you over it.
Well,Bridget,,,I don't understand how you can find a post " distasteful " when it is a fact about " women who kill their children ".If you read that as well perhaps you'll have more of an understanding yourself on why they do it,,but sadly,it's a known fact,,and there are,and have been a lot of women " like Sheila was " with an uncontrollable psychiatric illness,,made worse by the ingestion of cannabis ( which it is said causes schizophrenia ) These are facts of life,Bridget. Unpleasant I know but firm facts.
As I'd already pointed out on another thread,that mental illness was again being brought to the fore,,as even since 1985,,,still not enough is known because it's not always a visible illness.
-
Sorry but this is nothing but speculative generalisation. Anyone working in the mental health field will know that every patient needs to be individually assessed by a professional. The idea that you can diagnose Sheila as being one of "these women" 27 years later using nothing but a bunch of 3rd party statements and decide that her own doctor was wrong is probably the most mental thing about this subject. But as I said, 'm not going to argue about it so please carry on.
Bridget Are you qualified in psychiatry or do you work in Mental Health in another capacity?
-
Bridget Are you qualified in psychiatry or do you work in Mental Health in another capacity?
No. If you do, do you agree that it is not possible to diagnose someone who died 27 years ago solely by reference to statements selected to discredit that person?
-
Since the original trial, has any significant new evidence, regarding Shelia's medical condition, come to light?
For example, revelations about medication she was or wasn't taking. Has this ever formed part of an appeal?
-
What I meant by " women like Sheila " ,was to point out that looking at Sheila's photo,you wouldn't suspect that anything was amiss,which is the same as a lot of women like her,,,,slim,,,attractive,,,,a family,,,but behind that facade lies something that none of us can predict if we don't know that person,,until something happens that appears to be " out of character ". Then the disbelief kicks in.
It's all too easy to be in denial that women can be so cruel,,but there you have it. Unless you've worked among such women,then you have no concept of their behaviour.
-
No. If you do, do you agree that it is not possible to diagnose someone who died 27 years ago solely by reference to statements selected to discredit that person?
Bridget, I dont see any of these comments discreditting Sheila. Schizophrenia is an illness. Mental health illnesses are just illnesses of the brain. Many people see it as someting to be ashamed of but is no different than cancer or other long term chronic illness. The symptoms are as clear for schizophrenia are as documented as any other illness. Sheila had exhibited hese symptoms in the past, therefore she was capable of a massive psychotic attack. I think lookout who was a peactising psychiatric nurse during the 80s is well aware of the signs and symptoms and the massive dangers of scizophrenics failing to take their medication.
-
What I meant by " women like Sheila " ,was to point out that looking at Sheila's photo,you wouldn't suspect that anything was amiss,which is the same as a lot of women like her,,,,slim,,,attractive,,,,a family,,,but behind that facade lies something that none of us can predict if we don't know that person,,until something happens that appears to be " out of character ". Then the disbelief kicks in.
It's all too easy to be in denial that women can be so cruel,,but there you have it. Unless you've worked among such women,then you have no concept of their behaviour.
lookout someone in my family was diagnosed as a scizophrenic at about 20. when he attempted suicide. He was a highly intelligent,goodlooking young man. From that time he just couldnt function in the world at all. He was given to massive terrifying rages. No one would ever have suspected. of course this was late 60s and was only referred to in whispers.
-
No. If you do, do you agree that it is not possible to diagnose someone who died 27 years ago solely by reference to statements selected to discredit that person?
Bridget,,nobody is discrediting Sheila at all. It's your misinterpretation of a described illness that she suffered. Nobody has more sympathy for these people more than myself having worked in that field of nursing. Methinks it's more of a " selective " approach in your case.
-
Bridget, I dont see any of these comments discreditting Sheila. Schizophrenia is an illness. Mental health illnesses are just illnesses of the brain. Many people see it as someting to be ashamed of but is no different than cancer or other long term chronic illness. The symptoms are as clear for schizophrenia are as documented as any other illness. Sheila had exhibited hese symptoms in the past, therefore she was capable of a massive psychotic attack. I think lookout who was a peactising psychiatric nurse during the 80s is well aware of the signs and symptoms and the massive dangers of scizophrenics failing to take their medication.
Hi Maggie, I am not saying that Sheila is discredited because she suffered a mental illness, but that the statements have been selected in order to highlight it and make it more than it was.
With all due respect to lookout, I prefer the opinion of Sheila's doctor, who knew her and had the opportunity to assess her properly.
Did Sheila fail to take her medication? As far as I remember she was receiving Haliperidol by injection, do you mean the other one?
-
Bridget,,nobody is discrediting Sheila at all. It's your misinterpretation of a described illness that she suffered. Nobody has more sympathy for these people more than myself having worked in that field of nursing. Methinks it's more of a " selective " approach in your case.
Strange, because my criticism of you is the exact opposite. You seem to want to tar everyone with the same brush. That's forums for you I suppose :)
-
Strange, because my criticism of you is the exact opposite. You seem to want to tar everyone with the same brush. That's forums for you I suppose :)
Too much tar and not enough brushes. :D
-
lookout someone in my family was diagnosed as a scizophrenic at about 20. when he attempted suicide. He was a highly intelligent,goodlooking young man. From that time he just couldnt function in the world at all. He was given to massive terrifying rages. No one would ever have suspected.
Sorry to hear about that Maggie. I have every sympathy for people who have any kind of mental illness as you can't see it ( like a broken limb ) and it can strike anyone at any time. It is a frustrating illness to the patient,also a frightening one as they don't understand what's happening to them. Some of them are very angry people and it takes a lot of understanding of how they feel,,,and tons of patience.
With Sheila,,,nobody understood,and that is the sad part. There didn't appear to be any programme in which to wean her off drugs,but instead she was given anti-psychotics that would have had adverse effects on whatever " hard drug " she was taking.
-
Strange, because my criticism of you is the exact opposite. You seem to want to tar everyone with the same brush. That's forums for you I suppose :)
What do you mean.? " Tar everyone with the same brush.".?
-
Sorry to hear about that Maggie. I have every sympathy for people who have any kind of mental illness as you can't see it ( like a broken limb ) and it can strike anyone at any time. It is a frustrating illness to the patient,also a frightening one as they don't understand what's happening to them. Some of them are very angry people and it takes a lot of understanding of how they feel,,,and tons of patience.
With Sheila,,,nobody understood,and that is the sad part. There didn't appear to be any programme in which to wean her off drugs,but instead she was given anti-psychotics that would have had adverse effects on whatever " hard drug " she was taking.
There were no traces of hard drugs in her blood, only canabis from a few days previous.
-
Hi Maggie, I am not saying that Sheila is discredited because she suffered a mental illness, but that the statements have been selected in order to highlight it and make it more than it was.
With all due respect to lookout, I prefer the opinion of Sheila's doctor, who knew her and had the opportunity to assess her properly.
Did Sheila fail to take her medication? As far as I remember she was receiving Haliperidol by injection, do you mean the other one?
Trouble is bridget schizophrenia wasnt really understood even in the 80s and it was all a bit hit and miss. Remember schizophrenics were still kept in locked wards at that time. Sheila had insisted on halving her injection dose just before the deaths. Also I dont think the pm showed all her drugs she was prescribed in her body. As these drugs would in laymans terms be described as 'to dumb her down' it would appear to be a very dangrrous situation. Of course,without all those accesible guns and ammo it would have been much more difficult to cause such havoc.
-
What do you mean.? " Tar everyone with the same brush.".?
Are you not familiar with the phrase, or are you asking why I said it?
-
Trouble is bridget schizophrenia wasnt really understood even in the 80s and it was all a bit hit and miss. Remember schizophrenics were still kept in locked wards at that time. Sheila had insisted on halving her injection dose just before the deaths. Also I dont think the pm showed all her drugs she was prescribed in her body. As these drugs would in laymans terms be described as 'to dumb her down' it would appear to be a very dangrrous situation. Of course,without all those accesible guns and ammo it would have been much more difficult to cause such havoc.
I assume the halving of the dose was agreed and monitored by her doctor though.
Even taking Sheila out of the equation I've always thought it odd that there were guns etc lying around with 6 year olds in the house. I accept that this was probably the norm in the average working farmhouse, but the kids hadn't been brought up in that environment. It's easy to criticise after the fact I suppose.
-
In case you didn't understand,Bridget,,I was using Sheila as an example of how a mental illness strikes,,,and it matters not about wealth and good looks. There is no way that I would decry her in any way.
-
There were no traces of hard drugs in her blood, only cannabis from a few days previous.
Was skunk around in the 1980s. Its now the most common cannabis but is classed as a class A drug in holland and has very little bearing on original'hashish' . Skunk can cause mental illness and psychotic episodes in people without any underlining mental illness.Sheila woudh have been highly susceptible to this.imho
-
I assume the halving of the dose was agreed and monitored by her doctor though.
Even taking Sheila out of the equation I've always thought it odd that there were guns etc lying around with 6 year olds in the house. I accept that this was probably the norm in the average working farmhouse, but the kids hadn't been brought up in that environment. It's easy to criticise after the fact I suppose.
-
Was skunk around in the 1980s. Its now the most common cannabis but is classed as a class A drug in holland and has very little bearing on original'hashish' . Skunk can cause mental illness and psychotic episodes in people without any underlining mental illness.Sheila woudh have been highly susceptible to this.imho
I don't recall it being around, but couldn't say for sure. Drugs have never been my scene.
-
I assume the halving of the dose was agreed and monitored by her doctor though.
Even taking Sheila out of the equation I've always thought it odd that there were guns etc lying around with 6 year olds in the house. I accept that this was probably the norm in the average working farmhouse, but the kids hadn't been brought up in that environment. It's easy to criticise after the fact I suppose.
Well I'm sorry,,but I didn't agree with her doctor for reducing her medication.The worst thing he could have done. They're not always right.
No,,it wasn't the wisest thing to have guns around the place with children,,,and they weren't always locked in the cabinet,but as you say,that goes with the territory.
-
Bridget that is a massive and sudden drop in medication which should be lowered extremely slowly over a long period of time. Her dr was a local GP who wouldnt have much if any knowledge of such a specialised field. I believe Sheila requested the drop because of the side effects. If she was adamant half a dose was maybe thought to be better than nothing but he couldnt force her to take medication she didnt want. The family wouldnt be aware of the dNgers. I know it was no doubt the norm to be so casual with guns but they were the real culprit in my opinion.
-
Even taking Sheila out of the equation I've always thought it odd that there were guns etc lying around with 6 year olds in the house. I accept that this was probably the norm in the average working farmhouse, but the kids hadn't been brought up in that environment. It's easy to criticise after the fact I suppose.
I guess that's the thing isn't it, we can all go back and pick faults after the event.
I'm not sure that the level of care and safety for the firearms in the house was unusually lax for the era, although I admittedly have nothing to offer as a comparison.
-
I don't recall it being around, but couldn't say for sure. Drugs have never been my scene.
No but have had experience of someone taking it...its the nastiest stuff. Hard to find if it was around in Wealthier parts of London at that time.
-
I guess that's the thing isn't it, we can all go back and pick faults after the event.
I'm not sure that the level of care and safety for the firearms in the house was unusually lax for the era, although I admittedly have nothing to offer as a comparison.
Um not picking holes or laying blame at anyones door but it has to be true. Without guns to hand the damage must have been greatly reduced.imho
-
Um not picking holes or laying blame at anyones door but it has to be true. Without guns to hand the damage must have been greatly reduced.imho
Yes, but they'd be overrun with rabbits. ;)
You are of course correct though, if there were no guns on the premises then it wouldn't have occurred as it did. It must surely be the case that a large proportion of gun crimes are committed on a farm or with firearms associated with a farm.
-
Um not picking holes or laying blame at anyones door but it has to be true. Without guns to hand the damage must have been greatly reduced.imho
When I was applying for a shotgun licence the police said that one of the reasons for the requirement for a locked cabinet was to prevent an intruder using my own gun against me. That said, I can see why if guns are used on a daily basis it would be irritating to keep having to retrieve them from a locked cabinet.
-
When I was applying for a shotgun licence the police said that one of the reasons for the requirement for a locked cabinet was to prevent an intruder using my own gun against me. That said, I can see why if guns are used on a daily basis it would be irritating to keep having to retrieve them from a locked cabinet.
I'm only repeating what I've read elsewhere, but I understood that a locked cabinet only became a requirement a couple of years later, 1987 I think, or just after, following the Hungerford Massacre.
-
I'm only repeating what I've read elsewhere, but I understood that a locked cabinet only became a requirement a couple of years later, 1987 I think, or just after, following the Hungerford Massacre.
Again, I may be wrong, but I also understand that ammunition does not need to be stored in a locked cabinet, although it's obviously common sense to do so.
-
I'm only repeating what I've read elsewhere, but I understood that a locked cabinet only became a requirement a couple of years later, 1987 I think, or just after, following the Hungerford Massacre.
It varied Hartley, depending upon where you lived. In the 1970s and 80s I was based in London and the Metropolitan Police required a BS fixed safe. At the same time my father in Scotland was not required to have a safe at all, even for a firearm (rifle) as well as a shotgun.
-
It varied Hartley, depending upon where you lived. In the 1970s and 80s I was based in London and the Metropolitan Police required a BS fixed safe. At the same time my father in Scotland was not required to have a safe at all, even for a firearm (rifle) as well as a shotgun.
Dictated by the local police force I guess?
-
Again, I may be wrong, but I also understand that ammunition does not need to be stored in a locked cabinet, although it's obviously common sense to do so.
You are correct Hartley, it does not need to be stored in a safe although it should be kept safely. The main fear of the police is not accidents in the home but weapons and ammunition being stolen. Normally shotgun cartridges are not stored in a safe as usually a large quantity is held and that is bulky. Typically rifle ammunition is stored in a safe.
-
Dictated by the local police force I guess?
Yes. Now all police forces require weapons to be stored in a safe or secure gunroom.
-
Again, I may be wrong, but I also understand that ammunition does not need to be stored in a locked cabinet, although it's obviously common sense to do so.
It was a long time ago now but I think you are right. I would have been applying in around the early 90's I think and yes, my gun was kept in the secure cabinet and the cartridges were in another cupboard.
-
Hartley
Have you had a banter/argument with Patti, I think you will enjoy it
-
I seem to recall a discussion a while back on the forum, which suggested that the .22 ammunition discovered on the kitchen sideboard (as allegedly left there by Jeremy the previous evening), was dangerous to the twins.
The argument was that they were dangerous and if Jeremy had left them out, then Nevill would have put them away due to the danger they posed to the children.
I guess what we're saying (and what I recall NGB saying at the time), was that the loose bullets would not have posed much of a risk to the children, and therefore it is quite plausible that Nevill would not have put them away?
-
I seem to recall a discussion a while back on the forum, which suggested that the .22 ammunition discovered on the kitchen sideboard (as allegedly left there by Jeremy the previous evening), was dangerous to the twins.
The argument was that they were dangerous and if Jeremy had left them out, then Nevill would have put them away due to the danger they posed to the children.
I guess what we're saying (and what I recall NGB saying at the time), was that the loose bullets would not have posed much of a risk to the children, and therefore it is quite plausible that Nevill would not have put them away?
I suppose eating them probably wouldn't be too good for you - but most 6 year olds are past that :)
Minus the gun I don't know what danger they might be, what happens if you put them in the Aga?
-
I suppose eating them probably wouldn't be too good for you - but most 6 year olds are past that :)
Minus the gun I don't know what danger they might be, what happens if you put them in the Aga?
I'm not sure they should be eaten whether cooked or not. ;D
-
I'm not sure they should be eaten whether cooked or not. ;D
Ha ha!
-
Hartley
Have you had a banter/argument with Patti, I think you will enjoy it
I don't understand your interest, but yes Patti and I have participated in many forum discussions in the past.
-
I seem to recall a discussion a while back on the forum, which suggested that the .22 ammunition discovered on the kitchen sideboard (as allegedly left there by Jeremy the previous evening), was dangerous to the twins.
The argument was that they were dangerous and if Jeremy had left them out, then Nevill would have put them away due to the danger they posed to the children.
I guess what we're saying (and what I recall NGB saying at the time), was that the loose bullets would not have posed much of a risk to the children, and therefore it is quite plausible that Nevill would not have put them away?
Yes, that is what I said a few months ago. Separate from the rifle, the .22 ammunition is not dangerous. Mind you, I seem to recall that Grahame responded talking about a prank at school, where a .22 round was placed in a vice and was then struck with a hammer on the detonator. It exploded and a piece of metal hit someone in the neck causing a minor injury. I suppose almost anything can be dangerous if handled in a stupid way.
I would not consider it irresponsible, even now, for someone to leave ammunition on a kitchen table even if 6 year old children were in the house. I do not believe Nevill would necessarily have cleared the ammunition away. The attitude towards shotguns and rifles is a different matter. Standards were far more lax in the mid 1980s, but now it is accepted good practice (and in fact a legal requirement) that all weapons should be kept safely stored when not in use.
-
Yes, that is what I said a few months ago. Separate from the rifle, the .22 ammunition is not dangerous. Mind you, I seem to recall that Grahame responded talking about a prank at school, where a .22 round was placed in a vice and was then struck with a hammer on the detonator. It exploded and a piece of metal hit someone in the neck causing a minor injury. I suppose almost anything can be dangerous if handled in a stupid way.
Yes of course, there is no substitute for common sense.
I would not consider it irresponsible, even now, for someone to leave ammunition on a kitchen table even if 6 year old children were in the house. I do not believe Nevill would necessarily have cleared the ammunition away. The attitude towards shotguns and rifles is a different matter. Standards were far more lax in the mid 1980s, but now it is accepted good practice (and in fact a legal requirement) that all weapons should be kept safely stored when not in use.
I think the point that I am trying to put across, is that the storage of firearms at WHF, was not unusually lax for the mid 80's. Or at least that is what I have so far concluded.
-
Yes of course, there is no substitute for common sense.
I think the point that I am trying to put across, is that the storage of firearms at WHF, was not unusually lax for the mid 80's. Or at least that is what I have so far concluded.
I'm sure your'e right Hartley and I'm not trying to say otherwise, or blame anyone. However, I am saying that if it was Sheila who shot the family, it would have been unlikely, in my opinion,that she would have coldly aquired the gun and shot them. The fact that she lost it and the guns were at hand would have been the reason for the carnage. We have no idea whether Sheila was attacking the other people in the house for some reason or in fact if she believed she was defending herself....such is the nature ofschizophrenia.imho
-
I'm sure your'e right Hartley and I'm not trying to say otherwise, or blame anyone. However, I am saying that if it was Sheila who shot the family, it would have been unlikely, in my opinion,that she would have coldly aquired the gun and shot them. The fact that she lost it and the guns were at hand would have been the reason for the carnage. We have no idea whether Sheila was attacking the other people in the house for some reason or in fact if she believed she was defending herself....such is the nature ofschizophrenia.imho
I never suggested that you did or were Maggie. ;)
-
I never suggested that you did or were Maggie. ;)
I know Hartley. ;D
-
Yes of course, there is no substitute for common sense.
I think the point that I am trying to put across, is that the storage of firearms at WHF, was not unusually lax for the mid 80's. Or at least that is what I have so far concluded.
I agree with you.
-
I would not consider it irresponsible, even now, for someone to leave ammunition on a kitchen table even if 6 year old children were in the house. I do not believe Nevill would necessarily have cleared the ammunition away. The attitude towards shotguns and rifles is a different matter. Standards were far more lax in the mid 1980s, but now it is accepted good practice (and in fact a legal requirement) that all weapons should be kept safely stored when not in use.
Also I would imagine ngb, that the boys would have been taught not to touch the guns and ammunition and have been expected to obey. I would imagine that was also the way it was as Sheila and Jeremy grew up at the farm.
-
Also I would imagine ngb, that the boys would have been taught not to touch the guns and ammunition and have been expected to obey. I would imagine that was also the way it was as Sheila and Jeremy grew up at the farm.
I believe you are probably correct Maggie.
-
I know Hartley. ;D
Sheila's mental health and it's possible affect on Sheila if she was responsible, is a very tricky subject really, even more so for me as it's one that I have absolutely no knowledge of, so I will not pretend to.
However, as far as I can see, there is nothing which indicates that her mental health had any effect on her actions that night. I understand that statistics, profiling and previous similar cases, may indicate a possibility that a certain action was caused by her illness, but it does not indicate that it did happen.
So with that in mind, we have to revert back to evidence, which is an ongoing endless debate, on this forum at least.
Although don't get me wrong, I do understand exactly where you are coming from and heck, you never know, you might be spot on, maybe that's exactly what did happen, but I also think that even if evidence did surface which indicates that Sheila was responsible, any theories about her mental health being the cause, would still remain just that, a theory, a good theory, maybe even a probable theory, but a theory none the less.
Obviously from the prosecution side of things, the mental health seed was sown by a guilty Jeremy trying to frame his adopted sister, as was his leaving a loaded rifle out in an easily accessible location. If that was the case then we don't know where the rifle was left at all, my personal opinion is that the whole rabbit shooting incident was made up.
I've rambled a bit there, but hopefully it still makes sense. :-\
-
So much of this case is supposition Hartley, I certainly don't know the answers. I can only keep an open mind and consider the possibilities.
-
So much of this case is supposition Hartley, I certainly don't know the answers. I can only keep an open mind and consider the possibilities.
Yes and there is nothing wrong with that at all. ;)
-
Hi ComeOnEngland I agree with you about the theory of Jeremy shooting rabbits was not kosher I think this was done by Jeremy to try and impress Ralph as I have read Jeremy did not like shooting animals and Ralph called him a Nancy Boy but it was not done for any obscure reasons I just don,t think I could be wrong that Jeremy had the cunning in him to leave the loaded rifle out to plant the seed in Sheila,s head to shoot her family.
-
Hi ComeOnEngland I agree with you about the theory of Jeremy shooting rabbits was not kosher I think this was done by Jeremy to try and impress Ralph as I have read Jeremy did not like shooting animals and Ralph called him a Nancy Boy but it was not done for any obscure reasons I just don,t think I could be wrong that Jeremy had the cunning in him to leave the loaded rifle out to plant the seed in Sheila,s head to shoot her family.
That's not what I'm suggesting at all lol.
-
ComeOnEngland Sorry I misunderstood. I was agreeing with you that it was not Jeremy,s intention to shoot rabbits forgive the rambling outwith that :) :) :)
-
Don't take this the wrong way but I find your use of the phrase "women like her" and pretty much all of your post quite distasteful. You know nothing about her other than what has been said in a few statements selectively posted on a pro JB forum. That said, you are entitled to your opinion, because that is all it is, and I'm not going to argue with you over it.
With all due respect Bridget, but I think she got most of that from Colin's book and not just from thios forum? Of course there is nothing to stop you adding balance to it and give the other side of her character. That is of course if you know about her?
-
Grahame,,,I haven't got Colin's book,,it was purely speculative from my own point of view,,,but if what I've already stated is written in his book,then I'm nearer the truth than I thought.
-
ComeOnEngland Sorry I misunderstood. I was agreeing with you that it was not Jeremy,s intention to shoot rabbits forgive the rambling outwith that :) :) :)
As I said, that is not what I was suggesting, there was nothing to agree or disagree with. But never mind.
-
Don't take this the wrong way but I find your use of the phrase "women like her" and pretty much all of your post quite distasteful. You know nothing about her other than what has been said in a few statements selectively posted on a pro JB forum. That said, you are entitled to your opinion, because that is all it is, and I'm not going to argue with you over it.
Very wise Bridget. :)
EDIT:
Oh, and I agree, I also find it quite distasteful, but despite the original intentions, such posts simply reflect badly on the author and nothing more (In my speculative opinion).
-
With all due respect Bridget, but I think she got most of that from Colin's book and not just from thios forum? Of course there is nothing to stop you adding balance to it and give the other side of her character. That is of course if you know about her?
Grahame,,,I haven't got Colin's book,,it was purely speculative from my own point of view,,,but if what I've already stated is written in his book,then I'm nearer the truth than I thought.
Oops. ;D
-
And.?
-
And.?
Don't worry, I'm just easily amused. ;)
-
ComeOnEngland never mind as you say as I have got to the stage I don,t know anymore what anyone is suggesting put it down to me having a bad day ;) ;)
-
ComeOnEngland never mind as you say as I have got to the stage I don,t know anymore what anyone is suggesting put it down to me having a bad day ;) ;)
Now I'm feeling left out, why can't I be the one having a bad day? ;)
-
ComeOnEngland I think you are too sensible and cheerful to have a bad day ;) ;) ;)
-
ComeOnEngland I think you are too sensible and cheerful to have a bad day ;) ;) ;)
Oh I have my moments, I can assure you. :-[
-
You can say that again,Hartley.
-
ComeOnEngland Hartley I have thought of a way that you too can have a bad day. I can keep sending you my stupid silly irrelevant ridiculous waste of time posts which are responding to nothing anyone says and you will think Oh not her again ;) ;) ;) I have only just realised you are Hartley how dumb is that :) :) :)
-
ComeOnEngland Hartley I have thought of a way that you too can have a bad day. I can keep sending you my stupid silly irrelevant ridiculous waste of time posts which are responding to nothing anyone says and you will think Oh not her again ;) ;) ;) I have only just realised you are Hartley how dumb is that :) :) :)
;D :D ;D ;D
-
I think you are twisting what was said about Sheila and guns. The point has never been that it was impossible for her to have used the gun. It was that she was unfamiliar with guns and therefore unlikely to have chosen to use one, and unlikely to have been able to use one so proficiently and without getting overpowered. Remember also that she is said to have had poor co-ordination, which would make loading the magazine and refitting it to the rifle more difficult for her than for you and I.
What does 'flick the recoil' mean?
Hi Bridget. That is an assumption by yourself and others that she was unfamiliar with guns and that she may have been unlikely to have chosen one....It is not unlikely at all....like I have said she was brought up with guns, it more likely than unlikely that she would be able to use a gun.
I don't think I am twisting words Bridget, I am merely pointing out that there is another possibility, which can't be disregarded....
How do you know she had co-ordination difficulties at that time of the murders? :) :)
-
ComeOnEngland Hartley I have thought of a way that you too can have a bad day. I can keep sending you my stupid silly irrelevant ridiculous waste of time posts which are responding to nothing anyone says and you will think Oh not her again ;) ;) ;) I have only just realised you are Hartley how dumb is that :) :) :)
What are we agreeing to now? ;D
-
Sheila's mental health and it's possible affect on Sheila if she was responsible, is a very tricky subject really, even more so for me as it's one that I have absolutely no knowledge of, so I will not pretend to.
However, as far as I can see, there is nothing which indicates that her mental health had any effect on her actions that night. I understand that statistics, profiling and previous similar cases, may indicate a possibility that a certain action was caused by her illness, but it does not indicate that it did happen.
So with that in mind, we have to revert back to evidence, which is an ongoing endless debate, on this forum at least.
Although don't get me wrong, I do understand exactly where you are coming from and heck, you never know, you might be spot on, maybe that's exactly what did happen, but I also think that even if evidence did surface which indicates that Sheila was responsible, any theories about her mental health being the cause, would still remain just that, a theory, a good theory, maybe even a probable theory, but a theory none the less.
Obviously from the prosecution side of things, the mental health seed was sown by a guilty Jeremy trying to frame his adopted sister, as was his leaving a loaded rifle out in an easily accessible location. If that was the case then we don't know where the rifle was left at all, my personal opinion is that the whole rabbit shooting incident was made up.
I've rambled a bit there, but hopefully it still makes sense. :-\
Hi Hartley, welcome back, I admire your post.
But, Is it not a theory that JB walked approximately 4 miles in a wetsuit, entered the house through a window, picked up the gun, murdered his family, made it look like his sister, faked a call to himself, got out through a window, grabbed his mother bike and peddled all the way home through the fields, got showered at home, rang the police at Whitham, rang JM and told her all went well, rang the police at Chelmsford saying he had a call from his father, met the police at WHF and, was calm for 4 hours?
The other theory is...Sheila who had a mental condition, hated her mother, hated WHF, had been told by Colin that he had another woman, was told to take a holiday, was told she might be better living closer to home, picked up a gun in anger, shot her family, then killed herself. Sorry for using her illness, but it has to be considered. I could go on but I find it unfair....... :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Hartley, welcome back, I admire your post.
But, Is it not a theory that JB walked approximately 4 miles in a wetsuit, entered the house through a window, picked up the gun, murdered his family, made it look like his sister, faked a call to himself, got out through a window, grabbed his mother bike and peddled all the way home through the fields, got showered at home, rang the police at Whitham, rang JM and told her all went well, rang the police at Chelmsford saying he had a call from his father, met the police at WHF and, was calm for 4 hours?
The other theory is...Sheila who had a mental condition, hated her mother, hated WHF, had been told by Colin that he had another woman, was told to take a holiday, was told she might be better living closer to home, picked up a gun in anger, shot her family, then killed herself. Sorry for using her illness, but it has to be considered. I could go on but I find it unfair....... :) :) :) :)
Well that's the never ending debate I alluded to. ;)
-
ComeOnEngland we are agreeing that on the whole my posts are a total waste of time and I have now realised you are Hartley bit slow but got it in the end. :)
-
ComeOnEngland we are agreeing that on the whole my posts are a total waste of time and I have now realised you are Hartley bit slow but got it in the end. :)
Hey Susan, You matter kiddo....Not sure what you are on about, come you Yorkshire lassie... :) :) :) ;D ;D
-
ComeOnEngland we are agreeing that on the whole my posts are a total waste of time and I have now realised you are Hartley bit slow but got it in the end. :)
Who is Hartley and what did you/we get in the end? I can do inane. ;D
-
Hi Patti I sent poor Hartley a reply to his post today and on reflection I think I replied to somebody elses post but he has just had a laugh to himself and probably thinks I am a Yorkshire Fruitcake :) ;) ;)
-
Hi Patti I sent poor Hartley a reply to his post today and on reflection I think I replied to somebody elses post but he has just had a laugh to himself and probably thinks I am a Yorkshire Fruitcake :) ;) ;)
Tis good to laugh at least once a day.... ??? ???
-
When I was applying for a shotgun licence the police said that one of the reasons for the requirement for a locked cabinet was to prevent an intruder using my own gun against me. That said, I can see why if guns are used on a daily basis it would be irritating to keep having to retrieve them from a locked cabinet.
Now what would you want with a shotgun Bridget? :)
-
ComeOnEngland Susan is not difficult to confuse :)
-
Hi Patti Bridget is awaiting in the wings ready to pounce be prepared. :) :)
-
I suppose eating them probably wouldn't be too good for you - but most 6 year olds are past that :)
Minus the gun I don't know what danger they might be, what happens if you put them in the Aga?
Yes I was thinking about that as well. Very tempting for kids to see what they would do if they threw them on the fire. Very dangerous.
-
Yes, that is what I said a few months ago. Separate from the rifle, the .22 ammunition is not dangerous. Mind you, I seem to recall that Grahame responded talking about a prank at school, where a .22 round was placed in a vice and was then struck with a hammer on the detonator. It exploded and a piece of metal hit someone in the neck causing a minor injury. I suppose almost anything can be dangerous if handled in a stupid way.
I would not consider it irresponsible, even now, for someone to leave ammunition on a kitchen table even if 6 year old children were in the house. I do not believe Nevill would necessarily have cleared the ammunition away. The attitude towards shotguns and rifles is a different matter. Standards were far more lax in the mid 1980s, but now it is accepted good practice (and in fact a legal requirement) that all weapons should be kept safely stored when not in use.
The boy who put the thing in the vice got the worst injury. He got sent to the headmaster for six of the best. :(
-
Yes I was thinking about that as well. Very tempting for kids to see what they would do if they threw them on the fire. Very dangerous.
Grahame, I think those little boys would have watched their Ps and Qs whilst they were with their Bamber grandparents. I also feel it likely that they would have picked up on Sheila's tension when they were there. I imagine that being with Colin's parents was a much happier and freer experience.
-
Oops. ;D
Have you read Colin's book?
-
Don't worry, I'm just easily amused. ;)
Wow! Hartley. Its just like you to take all the blame. ::)
-
ComeOnEngland I think you are too sensible and cheerful to have a bad day ;) ;) ;)
Wha'...cough cough cough....excuse me while I choke on my buscuit. :-\
-
Grahame you and ComeOnEngland should do a double act as Comedians you might make a few bob :) :) :)
-
Hi Bridget. That is an assumption by yourself and others that she was unfamiliar with guns and that she may have been unlikely to have chosen one....It is not unlikely at all....like I have said she was brought up with guns, it more likely than unlikely that she would be able to use a gun.
I don't think I am twisting words Bridget, I am merely pointing out that there is another possibility, which can't be disregarded....
How do you know she had co-ordination difficulties at that time of the murders? :) :)
She's only going by the words of one of the family who themselves hadn't seen Sheila for some time. That person who originally said that was only guessing herself. Don't forget that the doctor had just halved her medication. I have seen my friend's boy (who is a schizophrenic) when the doctor had just tried halving his medication. He went absolutely crazy and picked a fight with his own father. It took a long time to get him under control.
Really some people who don't think that Sheila was responsible seem to build her up to be some kind of sweet harmless angel, in spite of testimonies from both Colin and Freddy to the contrary. I read some of the cheesy stuff written on here about her by some and nearly gag. Nobody's that innocent and couple that with her illness then at times it is very likely that she behaved like a devil. That is not putting Sheila down. It is looking at human nature with pure common sense and human nature twisted by her acute schizophrenia.
-
She's only going by the words of one of the family who themselves hadn't seen Sheila for some time. That person who originally said that was only guessing herself. Don't forget that the doctor had just halved her medication. I have seen my friend's boy (who is a schizophrenic) when the doctor had just tried halving his medication. He went absolutely crazy and picked a fight with his own father. It took a long time to get him under control.
Really some people who don't think that Sheila was responsible seem to build her up to be some kind of sweet harmless angel, in spite of testimonies from both Colin and Freddy to the contrary. I read some of the cheesy stuff written on here about her by some and nearly gag. Nobody's that innocent and couple that with her illness then at times it is very likely that she behaved like a devil. That is not putting Sheila down. It is looking at human nature with pure common sense and human nature twisted by her acute schizophrenia.
I agree with this greatly. Sheila, although I believe innocent of murder, was a troubled soul and certianly no angel.
-
I agree with this greatly. Sheila, although I believe innocent of murder, was a troubled soul and certianly no angel.
I see Mat as a person with common sense. :)
-
I agree with this greatly. Sheila, although I believe innocent of murder, was a troubled soul and certianly no angel.
Nobody is suggesting she was.
-
Nobody is suggesting she was.
Not now, but a lot of the innocent members tend to get/give the impression that she didn't have her own problems, I'm sure she did. But she isn't a killer.
-
She's only going by the words of one of the family who themselves hadn't seen Sheila for some time. That person who originally said that was only guessing herself. Don't forget that the doctor had just halved her medication. I have seen my friend's boy (who is a schizophrenic) when the doctor had just tried halving his medication. He went absolutely crazy and picked a fight with his own father. It took a long time to get him under control.
Really some people who don't think that Sheila was responsible seem to build her up to be some kind of sweet harmless angel, in spite of testimonies from both Colin and Freddy to the contrary. I read some of the cheesy stuff written on here about her by some and nearly gag. Nobody's that innocent and couple that with her illness then at times it is very likely that she behaved like a devil. That is not putting Sheila down. It is looking at human nature with pure common sense and human nature twisted by her acute schizophrenia.
Well said Grahame. In all fairness I don't think the family new much about Sheila after she left home at the age of 17 and, rarely saw her, for she lived in London.
Colin reveals such a lot doesn't he Grahame. I wonder what happened to Freddie? :) :) :)
-
Not now, but a lot of the innocent members tend to get/give the impression that she didn't have her own problems, I'm sure she did. But she isn't a killer.
How do you know that mat. Thats a very positive statement.
-
How do you know that mat. Thats a very positive statement.
It's misleading, Mags, many of the JB is innocents have great sympathy for Sheila and don't condemn her in any way.
-
How do you know that mat. Thats a very positive statement.
Just a belief from what I've seen some people say. I was just agreeing with Grahame's post.
-
Not now, but a lot of the innocent members tend to get/give the impression that she didn't have her own problems, I'm sure she did. But she isn't a killer.
No it doesn't mat. Just like it doesn't make JB a killer, because he knew how to get into WHF.
If you look at from a criminologists' point of view and how one would profile all the family..Sheila would be the main suspect. It had to be someone completely insane to have committed those murders....
If you stood June up from her place of death and stood Shelia up, they would be facing each other at the bottom of the bed.....If you also look at the back spatter on the floor it all goes Sheila's way....
Where is Bridget? lol :) :) :)
-
No it doesn't mat. Just like it doesn't make JB a killer, because he knew how to get into WHF.
If you look at from a criminologists' point of view and how one would profile all the family..Sheila would be the main suspect. It had to be someone completely insane to have committed those murders....
If you stood June up from her place of death and stood Shelia up, they would be facing each other at the bottom of the bed.....If you also look at the back spatter on the floor it all goes Sheila's way....
Where is Bridget? lol :) :) :)
Good points, Patti
-
No it doesn't mat. Just like it doesn't make JB a killer, because he knew how to get into WHF.
If you look at from a criminologists' point of view and how one would profile all the family..Sheila would be the main suspect. It had to be someone completely insane to have committed those murders....
If you stood June up from her place of death and stood Shelia up, they would be facing each other at the bottom of the bed.....If you also look at the back spatter on the floor it all goes Sheila's way....
Where is Bridget? lol :) :) :)
Yes, with Sheila's medical history it wouldn't be hard to convince people she was guilty.
-
Hi Bridget. That is an assumption by yourself and others that she was unfamiliar with guns and that she may have been unlikely to have chosen one....It is not unlikely at all....like I have said she was brought up with guns, it more likely than unlikely that she would be able to use a gun.
I don't think I am twisting words Bridget, I am merely pointing out that there is another possibility, which can't be disregarded....
How do you know she had co-ordination difficulties at that time of the murders? :) :)
I think if a member of my family was accused of going beserk with a gun I would be entitled to have an opinion over whether that was likely, based on my experience of their experience of guns. This family did no different.
I didn't say you were twisting words, or if I did I didn't mean to. What I meant was that you were twisting the theory into something which it never was, i.e. that it would have been impossible for Sheila to have used the gun.
I read Ann Eaton's comment regarding her co-ordination as being general, not specific to a particular time.
Is your day getting any better yet? :)
-
Good points, Patti
Something else I noticed and that there were no blood from the wound of JB from the shot between her eyes on the floor. Yet there is a blood stain on the door from her shoulder.....I can't quite work that out, because blood would shoot out profusely from a head wound. Unless the blood on her nightie was still wet when she fell back.... :) :) :)
-
Something else I noticed and that there were no blood from the wound of JB from the shot between her eyes on the floor. Yet there is a blood stain on the door from her shoulder.....I can't quite work that out, because blood would shoot out profusely from a head wound. Unless the blood on her nightie was still wet when she fell back.... :) :) :)
Another good point. I'm trying to find your post that mentions Sheila's alleged lack of coordination, Patti..
-
No it doesn't mat. Just like it doesn't make JB a killer, because he knew how to get into WHF.
If you look at from a criminologists' point of view and how one would profile all the family..Sheila would be the main suspect. It had to be someone completely insane to have committed those murders....
If you stood June up from her place of death and stood Shelia up, they would be facing each other at the bottom of the bed.....If you also look at the back spatter on the floor it all goes Sheila's way....
Where is Bridget? lol :) :) :)
Bridget is here, just trying to work out where June and Sheila standing facing each other takes us...
-
I think if a member of my family was accused of going beserk with a gun I would be entitled to have an opinion over whether that was likely, based on my experience of their experience of guns. This family did no different.
I didn't say you were twisting words, or if I did I didn't mean to. What I meant was that you were twisting the theory into something which it never was, i.e. that it would have been impossible for Sheila to have used the gun.
I read Ann Eaton's comment regarding her co-ordination as being general, not specific to a particular time.
Is your day getting any better yet? :)
No, it is not getting better and who invited you here....hahahahah
Sheila, was at boarding school, she also left home at the age of 17....The extended family did not know her well....they hardly saw her. You have no argument Bridget, your losing it.....hahahaha :o
-
Hi Bridget. That is an assumption by yourself and others that she was unfamiliar with guns and that she may have been unlikely to have chosen one....It is not unlikely at all....like I have said she was brought up with guns, it more likely than unlikely that she would be able to use a gun.
I don't think I am twisting words Bridget, I am merely pointing out that there is another possibility, which can't be disregarded....
How do you know she had co-ordination difficulties at that time of the murders? :) :)
That's a very good question
Why didn't Sheila's London friends, extensively interviewed by Claire Powell, mention Sheila having lack of coordination problems?
-
Bridget is here, just trying to work out where June and Sheila standing facing each other takes us...
Well, if you stand them both up, they would be looking at each other...would they not? both being at the bottom of the bed.....I'm just saying! 8)
-
No, it is not getting better and who invited you here....hahahahah
Sheila, was at boarding school, she also left home at the age of 17....The extended family did not know her well....they hardly saw her. You have no argument Bridget, your losing it.....hahahaha :o
Did they have guns at her boarding school?
-
Well, if you stand them both up, they would be looking at each other...would they not? both being at the bottom of the bed.....I'm just saying! 8)
Just saying what lol
-
Not now, but a lot of the innocent members tend to get/give the impression that she didn't have her own problems, I'm sure she did. But she isn't a killer.
I would rather say it is some of those who think JB is guilty who say all the cheesy things about Sheila being so innocent.
-
It's misleading, Mags, many of the JB is innocents have great sympathy for Sheila and don't condemn her in any way.
I feel sorry for Sheila, she had a dreadful illness to contend with. She must have felt so lost and alone. She should never be condemned if she was the killer because she would have been totally out of control.
-
I feel sorry for Sheila, she had a dreadful illness to contend with. She must have felt so lost and alone. She should never be condemned if she was the killer because she would have been totally out of control.
I feel the same about the poor girl, she was such a lovely girl, what a tragic waste of her life and of the lives of her family.
-
Did they have guns at her boarding school?
No, but she went home in the holidays, where they had guns.... >:(
-
Just saying what lol
Having read SL'S book, he seem to think that JB was running away, heading for the door. I don't think she was. I think she was going the opposite way. The answer will come to me, I am working on it...I have thoughts, but would rather keep them to my self....and let you ponder! ;D
-
Bridget is here, just trying to work out where June and Sheila standing facing each other takes us...
So what is your theory as to how Sheila got into her parent's room Bridget?
-
Did they have guns at her boarding school?
Yeah! Haven't you seen the movie called "IF"? ;D
-
Yeah! Haven't you seen the movie called "IF"? ;D
I remember that Grahame. Dyou remember the music.....Missa Luba? Did you understand what was going on back in the day?
-
That's a very good question
Why didn't Sheila's London friends, extensively interviewed by Claire Powell, mention Sheila having lack of coordination problems?
And why didn't Sheila's close friend, Freddie mention her alleged lack of coordination, or her ex-husband, Colin?
-
And why didn't Sheila's close friend, Freddie mention her alleged lack of coordination, or her ex-husband, Colin?
Her coordination must have been good enough to paint her nails,hands and feet and put her makeup on.
-
Her coordination must have been good enough to paint her nails,hands and feet and put her makeup on.
Exactly, Mags! Sheila's make up and nails were flawless.
-
Having read SL'S book, he seem to think that JB was running away, heading for the door. I don't think she was. I think she was going the opposite way. The answer will come to me, I am working on it...I have thoughts, but would rather keep them to my self....and let you ponder! ;D
Was she perhaps trying to get to the twins' bedroom to help them?
Hard to tell, but she had been shot already in bed and managed to get up, then faced her killer.
-
No, but she went home in the holidays, where they had guns.... >:(
Exactly. ;D
-
So what is your theory as to how Sheila got into her parent's room Bridget?
I think she was awoken at some point, possibly during the altercation with Ralph, and went into her parents' bedroom to see what the commotion was.
-
I think she was awoken at some point, possibly during the altercation with Ralph, and went into her parents' bedroom to see what the commotion was.
Do you believe Nevill fought with the killer in the main bedroom, Bridget?
-
I think she was awoken at some point, possibly during the altercation with Ralph, and went into her parents' bedroom to see what the commotion was.
And then what did she do?
-
Do you believe Nevill fought with the killer in the main bedroom, Bridget?
I don't think so, although I suppose he could have.
-
And then what did she do?
That's anyone's guess - hid?
-
I don't think so, although I suppose he could have.
So by 'altercation' you're suggesting that they there was a noisy argument between Nevill and the killer?
-
So by 'altercation' you're suggesting that they there was a noisy argument between Nevill and the killer?
Not necessarily an argument, when the shooting started in there there would probably have been shouting and screaming. Perhaps altercation was the wrong word.
-
That's anyone's guess - hid?
Hid?!
Whilst her children were in the house? She'd have gone crazy and gone to them!
-
Hid?!
Whilst her children were in the house? She'd have gone crazy and gone to them!
Maybe she was on her way back out of the room when the killer appeared in the doorway - maybe she was heading back for the other door to try to get to them that way - as I said - it's anyone's guess.
-
That's anyone's guess - hid?
Beyond contemplation, isn't it? Unthinkable madness. If you were in that position, God forbid, what do you think you might do and where might you go, if anywhere?
-
Maybe she was on her way back out of the room when the killer appeared in the doorway - maybe she was heading back for the other door to try to get to them that way - as I said - it's anyone's guess.
After the killer had gone downstairs to reload and shot Nevill downstairs?
-
Hid?!
Whilst her children were in the house? She'd have gone crazy and gone to them!
That would be a woman's first instinct, I believe.
-
Maybe she was on her way back out of the room when the killer appeared in the doorway - maybe she was heading back for the other door to try to get to them that way - as I said - it's anyone's guess.
This contradicts what you said here:
"I think she was awoken at some point, possibly during the altercation with Ralph, and went into her parents' bedroom to see what the commotion was."
-
After the killer had gone downstairs to reload and shot Nevill downstairs?
Those bullets scattered around on the dresser seems to be an indication that the killer was in a hurry in loading the gun perhaps?
-
Those bullets scattered around on the dresser seems to be an indication that the killer was in a hurry in loading the gun perhaps?
A mad panic
-
This contradicts what you said here:
"I think she was awoken at some point, possibly during the altercation with Ralph, and went into her parents' bedroom to see what the commotion was."
Why?
-
I'd like to now if the adjoining door was open when the raid team entered the main bedroom? It si bugging me... :-\ :-\ :-\
-
I'd like to now if the adjoining door was open when the raid team entered the main bedroom? It si bugging me... :-\ :-\ :-\
I was wondering that too.
-
I'd like to now if the adjoining door was open when the raid team entered the main bedroom? It si bugging me... :-\ :-\ :-\
Me too.
-
What do you think it would tell us if it was?
-
What do you think it would tell us if it was?
Actually when you think about it it wouldn't really tell anything, although you would think it may. The door could have been left open anyway as it was a way to the twins room. Anyone who shot the twins may have come into the main bedroom that way or vice versa. Don't really see it would suggest anything specific. imho
-
Why?
Because first you she could have gone to the parents' bedroom as commotion was coming from there and then you said she was backing out as the killer was in the doorway (adjoining room?) which means commotion wasn't in parents' room.
-
Actually when you think about it it wouldn't really tell anything, although you would think it may. The door could have been left open anyway as it was a way to the twins room. Anyone who shot the twins may have come into the main bedroom that way or vice versa. Don't really see it would suggest anything specific. imho
Hi maggie. I am not 100% sure, but I think the adjoining room from the twins room was blocked with a dresser or something. The Box room in-between the main room and the twins room it where PC Jeaps might have seen a rifle leaning up against the window. It would make sense if that door was open, it means it was used during the murders. If it was closed...then?????? I think PC Collins would know...but his statement is missing....X
Anyway I am off to bed.....got to be up early, but I am trying to get the day off.... ??? ??? :) :)
-
Because first you she could have gone to the parents' bedroom as commotion was coming from there and then you said she was backing out as the killer was in the doorway (adjoining room?) which means commotion wasn't in parents' room.
It could have been in the parents room, or downstairs. Either way I think it would have been natural for Sheila to go to her fathers room when it woke her.
-
Evening, bridget ;D
-
Evening, bridget ;D
Evening Andrea :)
-
Hi maggie. I am not 100% sure, but I think the adjoining room from the twins room was blocked with a dresser or something. The Box room in-between the main room and the twins room it where PC Jeaps might have seen a rifle leaning up against the window. It would make sense if that door was open, it means it was used during the murders. If it was closed...then?????? I think PC Collins would know...but his statement is missing....X
Anyway I am off to bed.....got to be up early, but I am trying to get the day off.... ??? ??? :) :)
Sorry Pats, had forgotten about that goddam rifle.
-
It could have been in the parents room, or downstairs. Either way I think it would have been natural for Sheila to go to her fathers room when it woke her.
I wonder Bridget tho, how did she get shot the way she did in this scenario. At what point did she lie down?
-
I wonder Bridget tho, how did she get shot the way she did in this scenario. At what point did she lie down?
If I had to guess it would be after the first shot, but it's just a guess, I admit.
-
I wonder Bridget tho, how did she get shot the way she did in this scenario. At what point did she lie down?
The only ones who were shot accurately were the twins and Sheila. The twins were probably asleep. And Sheila was not moving, but very still and obviously not asleep, unless she was in the habit of sleeping on the floor. Both June and Ralph were moving about which explains the many shots to their bodies.
But Sheila was lying still. Now you must ask yourself, why was that. Can you REALLY believe that a person, any person would lie still and calmly let someone shoot them? Of course not. It is bordering on the ridiculous to even suggest it. So what do some do? They have to speculate and make up silly stories, like "she was drugged" or "she was scared stiff". Just think of it a moment. Her children had been killed. Her parents had been murdered. Can you honestly believe that she would submit to someone who told her to lie down and shoot herself? It is a silly scenario. It is much more logical to believe that she shot herself. The simplest explanation is generally the right one.
-
The only ones who were shot accurately were the twins and Sheila. The twins were probably asleep. And Sheila was not moving, but very still and obviously not asleep, unless she was in the habit of sleeping on the floor. Both June and Ralph were moving about which explains the many shots to their bodies.
But Sheila was lying still. Now you must ask yourself, why was that. Can you REALLY believe that a person, any person would lie still and calmly let someone shoot them? Of course not. It is bordering on the ridiculous to even suggest it. So what some do? They have to speculate and make up silly stories, like "she was drugged" or "she was scared stiff". Just think of it a moment. Her children had been killed. Her parents had been murdered. Can you honestly believe that she would submit to someone who told her to lie down and shoot herself? It is a silly scenario. It is much more logical to believe that she shot herself. The simplest explanation is generally the right one.
I totally agree, it belies belief that Sheila would not have fought off a someone who had just killed her parents and her boys and who was now about to kill her. Yet where are the defensive wounds? She had none. Great post, Grahame.
-
Who's saying that Ralph and June were killed before Sheila? Why does she have to have been last. Sheila could have been forced into that room at gun point and made to get down, who wouldn't if they had a gun pointing at them.
Jeremy holds Ralph, June and Sheila in there and when Sheila is down he shoots her. Ralph and June freak - they get fired at. Ralph makes it out of the room.
-
Who's saying that Ralph and June were killed before Sheila? Why does she have to have been last. Sheila could have been forced into that room at gun point and made to get down, who wouldn't if they had a gun pointing at them.
Jeremy holds Ralph, June and Sheila in there and when Sheila is down he shoots her. Ralph and June freak - they get fired at. Ralph makes it out of the room.
The lack of RM and Lividity say it. Look at the photos.
-
The lack of RM and Lividity say it. Look at the photos.
You're telling me to LOOK at a PHOTO for RM?
-
Even if Sheila was killed last, who is to say she knew that the twins had been killed? She could have been following orders - get down on the floor and I'll leave the twins alone - worried that if she made too much noise, the twins would get up and come investigate.
It's all just theories.
-
Maybe Sheilas mental health caused her to react in a way which would seem unusual, we keep being told how unpredictable her behaviour could have been, maybe she became placid and dosile rather than being enraged, particularly if she had witnessed her children being murdered.
Junes blood was also found under Sheilas body on the carpet.
-
You're telling me to LOOK at a PHOTO for RM?
Yes. Nevill's position: RM
June's lividity
Sheila - body and arms moved between different photos: no or minimal RM
- little or no lividity
-
You're telling me to LOOK at a PHOTO for RM?
The blood on Sheila's neck is still running and is not cracked which it probably would be if it had dried. Why take photos if they can't be relied on?
-
The blood on Sheila's neck is still running and is not cracked which it probably would be if it had dried. Why take photos if they can't be relied on?
Thank you, Grahame, good point
-
The only ones who were shot accurately were the twins and Sheila. The twins were probably asleep. And Sheila was not moving, but very still and obviously not asleep, unless she was in the habit of sleeping on the floor. Both June and Ralph were moving about which explains the many shots to their bodies.
But Sheila was lying still. Now you must ask yourself, why was that. Can you REALLY believe that a person, any person would lie still and calmly let someone shoot them? Of course not. It is bordering on the ridiculous to even suggest it. So what do some do? They have to speculate and make up silly stories, like "she was drugged" or "she was scared stiff". Just think of it a moment. Her children had been killed. Her parents had been murdered. Can you honestly believe that she would submit to someone who told her to lie down and shoot herself? It is a silly scenario. It is much more logical to believe that she shot herself. The simplest explanation is generally the right one.
Out of al that I would take 'the simplest scenario is usually the right one'
-
Yes. Nevill's position: RM
June's lividity
Sheila - body and arms moved between different photos: no or minimal RM
- little or no lividity
Also, the description of Sheila by one of the officers, something along the lines of:
her skin was as white as marble
-
The blood on Sheila's neck is still running and is not cracked which it probably would be if it had dried. Why take photos if they can't be relied on?
It's not 'running' though. And people have said it looks wet, it could be the flash. Don't forget we're looking at scans on a PC screen.
-
Even if Sheila was killed last, who is to say she knew that the twins had been killed? She could have been following orders - get down on the floor and I'll leave the twins alone - worried that if she made too much noise, the twins would get up and come investigate.
It's all just theories.
Read the crime scene Mat. Those who were fighting for their lives are shot many times. Those who were passive are still. There is absolutely no indication that anyone else was there at all. No clues. Nothing.
-
It's not 'running' though. And people have said it looks wet, it could be the flash. Don't forget we're looking at scans on a PC screen.
Now that is an excellent point. The poor resolution of the photos is a serious issue here too. So I can see where you're coming from.
However, as the original, high resolution photos clarified issues like this one in favour of the prosecution, why were a substantial number of these withheld?
-
It's not 'running' though. And people have said it looks wet, it could be the flash. Don't forget we're looking at scans on a PC screen.
You cannot get away from it. That blood looks wet to most people who look at it. Blood goes dull when dried and flattens out.
-
You cannot get away from it. That blood looks wet to most people who look at it. Blood goes dull when dried and flattens out.
The blood doesn't look wet to me it looks shiny.
-
The blood doesn't look wet to me it looks shiny.
It looks wet to me.
-
The blood doesn't look wet to me it looks shiny.
Well if it was dry it would look flat.
-
Well if it was dry it would look flat.
I agree, it does look thick.
But I read somewhere when she was moved, blood seeped from her mouth or her nose.
-
Ralphs blood was wet.
-
The only ones who were shot accurately were the twins and Sheila. The twins were probably asleep. And Sheila was not moving, but very still and obviously not asleep, unless she was in the habit of sleeping on the floor. Both June and Ralph were moving about which explains the many shots to their bodies.
But Sheila was lying still. Now you must ask yourself, why was that. Can you REALLY believe that a person, any person would lie still and calmly let someone shoot them? Of course not. It is bordering on the ridiculous to even suggest it. So what do some do? They have to speculate and make up silly stories, like "she was drugged" or "she was scared stiff". Just think of it a moment. Her children had been killed. Her parents had been murdered. Can you honestly believe that she would submit to someone who told her to lie down and shoot herself? It is a silly scenario. It is much more logical to believe that she shot herself. The simplest explanation is generally the right one.
Brilliant post Grahame, pure logic. :) :) :)
-
Hi Grahame just read your posts and it makes total sense and makes all the other theories seem quite ridiculous.
-
Brilliant post Grahame, pure logic. :) :) :)
I also go along with that too,Grahame.
In March 1985 when Sheila was admitted to St Andrews Hospital,she'd suffered a severe mental breakdown. A friend was left traumatised after one of Sheila's violent outbursts.
Sheila had been taking cocaine quite frequently that year. She was released from hospital after just 3 weeks and her release raised concerns over the idea that Sheila was capable of murdering her children and had mentioned having suicidal thoughts.
I would be interested in seeing her medical records from this particular time in her life,,,and would also be interested to see who'd voiced their concerns too.
Her medication was powerful stuff,and coupled with cannabis as well as cocaine,makes for a very volatile cocktail. If anyone reads about schizophrenia and cannabis,,it'll give you the clear answer as to who was responsible for the murders and also for Sheila's own suicide.
Her medication too,is worth reading about,,,its effects and what the results are if missed or suddenly reduced ( as Dr Ferguson had done,,and is a very dangerous move as it should be reduced gradually )
Anafranil.
Haloperidol.
Procyclidine.
-
Ralphs blood was wet.
I agree with this. It'd be appropriate to compare the 'wet blood' hi-resolution pictures of Sheila with similarly hi-resolution pictures of the other victims in order to understand whether Sheila's blood was 'wetter' than the others.
-
The only ones who were shot accurately were the twins and Sheila. The twins were probably asleep. And Sheila was not moving, but very still and obviously not asleep, unless she was in the habit of sleeping on the floor. Both June and Ralph were moving about which explains the many shots to their bodies.
But Sheila was lying still. Now you must ask yourself, why was that. Can you REALLY believe that a person, any person would lie still and calmly let someone shoot them? Of course not. It is bordering on the ridiculous to even suggest it. So what do some do? They have to speculate and make up silly stories, like "she was drugged" or "she was scared stiff". Just think of it a moment. Her children had been killed. Her parents had been murdered. Can you honestly believe that she would submit to someone who told her to lie down and shoot herself? It is a silly scenario. It is much more logical to believe that she shot herself. The simplest explanation is generally the right one.
Might this suggest that an altercation between Neville and June, over what?, and which may or not have included a gun, is a totally separate incident from that between Sheila and her boys?
-
Hi Grahame just read your posts and it makes total sense and makes all the other theories seem quite ridiculous.
Hi Susan,,,when you understand mental illness,,there's no theory about the case. It's cut and dried.
Cannabis alone taken over a long period can,and does have devastating effects on the brain on its own,without other medication. Given Sheila's state of mind,she probably " heard voices " in her head,,,which does happen,urging her on to carry out certain acts of violence. Her thoughts too were very irrational, about her twins,regarding incestuous acts.
Sheila was very very sick,a victim herself of a very cruel illness.
-
Might this suggest that an altercation between Neville and June, over what?, and which may or not have included a gun, is a totally separate incident from that between Sheila and her boys?
Hi April,,whichever way you look at this case,,nobody else was involved.
-
The blood doesn't look wet to me it looks shiny.
Mat,,blood from anyone whose been dead for over two hours doesn't look wet,,nor shiny,,for obvious reasons. It also has a " browny hue " as well,,,not a fresh red colour.
-
If I had to guess it would be after the first shot, but it's just a guess, I admit.
Did the post mortem report anything about bruising on the back of her head if she fell onto the hard floor I wonder?
-
I agree, it does look thick.
But I read somewhere when she was moved, blood seeped from her mouth or her nose.
That that might happen if as you say, she was moved? But of course the cops deny this?
-
Ralphs blood was wet.
How do you know? Have you got or seen a colour picture of him?
-
Hi lookout I know very little about mental illness but I do know cannabis can affect your behaviour and I am sure all the prescribed drugs would have had an affect especially when the dose was reduced Sheila obviously had mental problems the fact she was admitted to hospital we shall never know what was going on in her head. Poor Sheila.
-
Hi Susan,,,when you understand mental illness,,there's no theory about the case. It's cut and dried.
Cannabis alone taken over a long period can,and does have devastating effects on the brain on its own,without other medication. Given Sheila's state of mind,she probably " heard voices " in her head,,,which does happen,urging her on to carry out certain acts of violence. Her thoughts too were very irrational, about her twins,regarding incestuous acts.
Sheila was very very sick,a victim herself of a very cruel illness.
Lookout, hi and goodmorning. All you say is absolutely correct, but supposing on that night Sheila is not so ill that she can't take on the implications for herself and her boys without her parents. She may have hated her mother, but she was totally dependent on her. She may have resented her mother's influence on her boys, but it didn't stop her taking them to the farm.
I suppose it's within the realms of possibility that a third person, other than Sheila was responsible for what happened to June and Neville, the discovery of which could have been the reason for killing her boys and herself?
-
Lookout, hi and goodmorning. All you say is absolutely correct, but supposing on that night Sheila is not so ill that she can't take on the implications for herself and her boys without her parents. She may have hated her mother, but she was totally dependent on her. She may have resented her mother's influence on her boys, but it didn't stop her taking them to the farm.
I suppose it's within the realms of possibility that a third person, other than Sheila was responsible for what happened to June and Neville, the discovery of which could have been the reason for killing her boys and herself?
Hi April,,which would mean that if there was a third person,,there's a psychopath around,and it certainly isn't Jeremy,,though Sheila herself was more than able to have acted alone. Because Sheila had previously halved her dose of Haloperidol because of the side-effects,,she may have had " more control " in her actions. Had she lived,,the lesser dose would have had adverse effects and made her more violent.This is why it's never advisable to suddenly reduce medication.
I'm going to look up the effects of a lower dose as opposed to the the dose prescribed. I think it was 200mg,halved to 100mg.
All medication has side-effects no matter what symptoms they're prescribed for and it varies from person to person as you know.
I wouldn't have said that Sheila was a slightly-built person either,,,though in spite of a person's build,,she'd have had the strength of an ox.
-
Hi April,,which would mean that if there was a third person,,there's a psychopath around,and it certainly isn't Jeremy,,though Sheila herself was more than able to have acted alone. Because Sheila had previously halved her dose of Haloperidol because of the side-effects,,she may have had " more control " in her actions. Had she lived,,the lesser dose would have had adverse effects and made her more violent.This is why it's never advisable to suddenly reduce medication.
I'm going to look up the effects of a lower dose as opposed to the the dose prescribed. I think it was 200mg,halved to 100mg.
All medication has side-effects no matter what symptoms they're prescribed for and it varies from person to person as you know.
I wouldn't have said that Sheila was a slightly-built person either,,,though in spite of a person's build,,she'd have had the strength of an ox.
That's what I've been saying all the time lookout, but people don't believe me, even though I have seen this kind of strength in a mentally sick person myself. But folk just throw it aside and dismiss it. It probably is an indication that such folk haven't had any experience with people with mental illness. Also it always seems to happen when a patient's medication has either been changed, or reduced. Doctors are experimenting with different drugs and doses all the time.
-
That's what I've been saying all the time lookout, but people don't believe me, even though I have seen this kind of strength in a mentally sick person myself. But folk just throw it aside and dismiss it. It probably is an indication that such folk haven't had any experience with people with mental illness. Also it always seems to happen when a patient's medication has either been changed, or reduced. Doctors are experimenting with different drugs and doses all the time.
Grahame,,I've had hands-on experience with mentally sick patients,,and also felt their wrath too.
No cutlery or crockery on that ward. Their unpredictability is mind-blowing.
I remember " a sweet old lady " who was always trying to escape,,,and boy,could she run. She was in her 70's at the time,but still mustered up the strength to belt over fields while 3 of us young ones gave chase,,and I swear that if we hadn't have caught her,,she'd have still been running.
Needless to say,,we were scratched,bitten and kicked. It took 3 of us Grahame and she was an old woman.
-
Hi All
I have just been reading both Freddie's statements. He is clear when he says that Sheila had not got a co-ordination problem.
The other thing that jumps out at me in that statement is the phone call she had made to her friend Tara apologising for the religious book her mother had dropped of to her. Suddenly the phone goes dead (where have I heard that before) This sends Sheila over the edge and she becomes angry and Freddie becomes frightened, not only for Sheila but for himself.
When Freddie contacted Sheila's mother in law he noticed that it aggravated the situation more. Could this have been the case on the 7th August?
Despite the poor man's efforts, to get Sheila help that day and all through the night....Two doctors were turned away, for Sheila refused their help. He also says he phoned Nevill up to aks him to come over, but he could not till, the following day.
Freddie touches on the accident, where one of the twins falls out of a taxi on return home from WHF. He says Sheila blamed herself, for she was not watching what the twins were doing, she was thinking about what her mother had told her....
He says through the night she would become violent and aggressive, then suddenly stop, comb her hair and look calm and into space, then suddenly she would start again and this went on through the night....He fetched a her neighbour in to help him......Who is this neighbour, where are their statements?
sadly she was admitted to hospital for several months....He last saw her at a party before she went to WHF....He had heard the news when he went to check her apartment from reporters....Sheila had asked him to do this while she was away..... :)
-
Grahame,,I've had hands-on experience with mentally sick patients,,and also felt their wrath too.
No cutlery or crockery on that ward. Their unpredictability is mind-blowing.
I remember " a sweet old lady " who was always trying to escape,,,and boy,could she run. She was in her 70's at the time,but still mustered up the strength to belt over fields while 3 of us young ones gave chase,,and I swear that if we hadn't have caught her,,she'd have still been running.
Needless to say,,we were scratched,bitten and kicked. It took 3 of us Grahame and she was an old woman.
I agree with both you and Grahame Lookout. When an adrenalin strikes in normal people it gives strength, that is not normally seen in that person.
I'm not sure if the defence had expert witnesses surrounding her illness and her medication other than her doctors......In 2012 this would have been a consideration... :) :)
-
That's what I've been saying all the time lookout, but people don't believe me, even though I have seen this kind of strength in a mentally sick person myself. But folk just throw it aside and dismiss it. It probably is an indication that such folk haven't had any experience with people with mental illness. Also it always seems to happen when a patient's medication has either been changed, or reduced. Doctors are experimenting with different drugs and doses all the time.
Also,,Grahame,,,despite Nevill's build and size,,he still had to phone for Jeremy to help restrain Sheila when she was having one of her " bouts ". Why would a chap,the size of Nevill want assistance in calming down his daughter.? Lots of questions,,but I'm afraid,,,no answers.
-
I agree with both you and Grahame Lookout. When an adrenalin strikes in normal people it gives strength, that is not normally seen in that person.
I'm not sure if the defence had expert witnesses surrounding her illness and her medication other than her doctors......In 2012 this would have been a consideration... :) :)
Hi Patti,,if that trial was today,,it would be a whole different ball-game and Jeremy wouldn't be charged with anything.
-
I wouldn't have said that Sheila was a slightly-built person either
She was 5' 7.5" and weighed 8.5 stone, which gives her a BMI in the underweight category.
-
She was 5' 7.5" and weighed 8.5 stone, which gives her a BMI in the underweight category.
Bob,,,weight doesn't come into it when someone's running amok with a rifle. That's their protection and it doesn't make any difference if you're facing a 20 stone man. Once you have control of a firearm,,nobody is going to argue with you,regardless of the size of the offender.
-
I personally would think that Sheila may possibly have threatened the family with a rifle before that fateful night judging by the varying reports/statements from the phone call which read " she's got the gun ".
The gun.-----------In other words,, to my mind, she's done that before,and this is why Nevill's had to phone Jeremy in past months. There's a big difference in saying " the gun " and " a gun ".
-
Bob,,,weight doesn't come into it when someone's running amok with a rifle. That's their protection and it doesn't make any difference if you're facing a 20 stone man. Once you have control of a firearm,,nobody is going to argue with you,regardless of the size of the offender.
Oh yes. Silly me.
-
Oh yes. Silly me.
That's alright,Bob.We're allowed to be silly every now and again. Though I don't expect that you're silly at all.
-
Also,,Grahame,,,despite Nevill's build and size,,he still had to phone for Jeremy to help restrain Sheila when she was having one of her " bouts ". Why would a chap,the size of Nevill want assistance in calming down his daughter.? Lots of questions,,but I'm afraid,,,no answers.
That's because they had it planted in their minds to blame Jeremy.
-
She was 5' 7.5" and weighed 8.5 stone, which gives her a BMI in the underweight category.
But her father still had to call Jeremy on occasions in order to help him restrain her.
-
That's alright,Bob.We're allowed to be silly every now and again. Though I don't expect that you're silly at all.
Bob's not silly at all. He was just being silly when he said "silly me". ;D
-
Hi Patti
I was reading through some back posts yesterday eve and clocked one of yours where the German manufactured gun was supposedly difficult to load on max bullets. Can you imagine the Germans producing naff stuff? All these things are tested to perfection before being manufactured. Love them or hate them everything they do is done well. Bet they win Euro 2012 too!
I spend a considerable amount of my working week, repairing German manufactured goods!
Admittedly, more time is spent on French products!
Oh, and by the way, England will win Euro 2012.......maybe!
-
Hi Grahame
Are there records showing that Nevill had previously called JB for assistance?
I think someone posted something here. I think it was in one of the statements somewhere?
-
But her father still had to call Jeremy on occasions in order to help him restrain her.
Grahame, is this documented? It must be worded differently if it is referred to in documentation (?)
-
Grahame, is this documented? It must be worded differently if it is referred to in documentation (?)
As I said before I think someone posted it somewhere. Not sure where? It might be a document or it may have been from a book?
-
As I said before I think someone posted it somewhere. Not sure where? It might be a document or it may have been from a book?
I can't find where is is posted yet. Perhaps you should treat this as fiction until I can establish where it came from?
-
I also go along with that too,Grahame.
In March 1985 when Sheila was admitted to St Andrews Hospital,she'd suffered a severe mental breakdown. A friend was left traumatised after one of Sheila's violent outbursts.
Sheila had been taking cocaine quite frequently that year. She was released from hospital after just 3 weeks and her release raised concerns over the idea that Sheila was capable of murdering her children and had mentioned having suicidal thoughts.I would be interested in seeing her medical records from this particular time in her life,,,and would also be interested to see who'd voiced their concerns too.
Her medication was powerful stuff,and coupled with cannabis as well as cocaine,makes for a very volatile cocktail. If anyone reads about schizophrenia and cannabis,,it'll give you the clear answer as to who was responsible for the murders and also for Sheila's own suicide.
Her medication too,is worth reading about,,,its effects and what the results are if missed or suddenly reduced ( as Dr Ferguson had done,,and is a very dangerous move as it should be reduced gradually )
Anafranil.
Haloperidol.
Procyclidine.
A thought provoking post, Lookout. Can I ask where the information in the section highlighted above above comes from? Was Freddie the friend who was traumatised?
-
I'd like to now if the adjoining door was open when the raid team entered the main bedroom? It si bugging me... :-\ :-\ :-\
Hi Patti, not that this is in any way conclusive, but I would suggest that the door was actually closed, the reason I say that is because of paragraph No. 143 of the 'Dicknson Report', which indicates the bible was possibly moved by the raid team opening that door when searching the house.
See here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5963;image
Hi maggie. I am not 100% sure, but I think the adjoining room from the twins room was blocked with a dresser or something. The Box room in-between the main room and the twins room it where PC Jeaps might have seen a rifle leaning up against the window. It would make sense if that door was open, it means it was used during the murders. If it was closed...then?????? I think PC Collins would know...but his statement is missing....X
Anyway I am off to bed.....got to be up early, but I am trying to get the day off.... ??? ??? :) :)
Again this also isn't in any way conclusive, but I would suggest that the box room was not blocked off by a dresser (I'm not sure where you have got that from? ). The reason I say that is because in paragraph No. 146 of the 'Dickinson Report' the twins room is described as leading from the main bedroom via a communicating box room, if the box room was blocked off, then I don't believe it could be described in this manner.
See here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5964;image
________________________________________________________
The door to the box room in question can be seen on the floor plan located here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4069;image
And here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4070;image
Note the step between the box room and the twins room (maybe that is what you thought indicated it being blocked off? ), as it happens the 'UP ARROW' is the wrong way around, you actually step up into the box room from the twins room.
Another potential note of interest which I posted a couple of days ago but seems to have been deleted for some reason (or at least I can't find it any more),anyway, there is glazing either side of the twins room door from the landing, from about waist height up to the door head, this gives natural daylight to the landing when all the doors are closed. It's an original feature, although I suppose there could have been curtains blocking the view from the landing into the twins room, perhaps it's not of interest at all.
Also the sewing room door is glazed which also provides natural light to the landing. The sewing room is the small room between the main bedroom and Sheilas room.
-
Hi Patti, not that this is in any way conclusive, but I would suggest that the door was actually closed, the reason I say that is because of paragraph No. 143 of the 'Dicknson Report', which indicates the bible was possibly moved by the raid team opening that door when searching the house.
He only says it is possible. The report does not say it was closed nor open... :)
See here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5963;image
Again this also isn't in any way conclusive, but I would suggest that the box room was not blocked off by a dresser (I'm not sure where you have got that from? ). The reason I say that is because in paragraph No. 146 of the 'Dickinson Report' the twins room is described as leading from the main bedroom via a communicating box room, if the box room was blocked off, then I don't believe it could be described in this manner.
Thank you for that. I had noticed on the plans that a direct line was drawn across the tread of the doorway and I have read it somewhere about a piece of furniture in front of it, it could be from Colin's book...
If you look at the plans it clearly looks like the door is blocked of....it has a direct line
See here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5964;image
________________________________________________________
The door to the box room in question can be seen on the floor plan located here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4069;image
And here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4070;image
Note the step between the box room and the twins room (maybe that is what you thought indicated it being blocked off? ), as it happens the 'UP ARROW' is the wrong way around, you actually step up into the box room from the twins room. Aww It is a step...thank you again. :)
Another potential note of interest which I posted a couple of days ago but seems to have been deleted for some reason (or at least I can't find it any more),anyway, there is glazing either side of the twins room door from the landing, from about waist height up to the door head, this gives natural daylight to the landing when all the doors are closed. It's an original feature, although I suppose there could have been curtains blocking the view from the landing into the twins room, perhaps it's not of interest at all.
To me this is interesting. Maybe the house had an extension at some point and was left in for that purpose... :) :) :) :) I'd be interested to know if there were curtains there? This might also be significant, because the twins bedroom light might not have been on at the time of the murders. The lights they could have seen from outside, could have been from the corridor/landing lights... :)
Also the sewing room door is glazed which also provides natural light to the landing. The sewing room is the small room between the main bedroom and Sheilas room. Yep I know that...Thank you...
Thank you Hartley :) :) :) :)
I think it is important to know if that door was open Hartley. For it tells us it was being used during the time of the murders. :) :) :)
-
Thank you Hartley :) :) :) :)
I think it is important to know if that door was open Hartley. For it tells us it was being used during the time of the murders. :) :) :)
No worries. :)
For the reasons given above, I think it was closed, also that the bible is on top of blood stains on the carpet which do not seem to match the stains on the bible. But as you say, it's as much of a guess as anything else.
Collins statement may clear it up, you are right, feel free to ask Mike for it, he doesn't seem to take my requests. ;)
-
No worries. :)
For the reasons given above, I think it was closed, also that the bible is on top of blood stains on the carpet which do not seem to match the stains on the bible. But as you say, it's as much of a guess as anything else.
Collins statement may clear it up, you are right, feel free to ask Mike for it, he doesn't seem to take my requests. ;)
Hi There.
In all fairness we can't assume it was open or closed. It could well answer the fact as to why Sheila had clean feet....for even if she had walked through the main bedroom door, to the other side of the bedroom, surely it would have been likely she would have got blood on her feet from the spatter of blood from her mother.
The bible....well, she was shot twice Hartley. The blood on the floor could be from the 1st shot. If you look closely at the bible when it opens up, there is what I would call an impression matching on both sides...again this could have been from the first shot, but it is clear the bible was closed whilst the blood on the pages were still wet....
I'd also like to see the stains underneath the bible....There appears to be a distinctive mark...as if something had rested on the carpet...could be the gun, you know the bit that sticks out at the end of the muzzle....all guess work....but all possibilities.. :) :) :) :)
Yes let's have the statement from Collins.... 8)
-
I think this is the closest I have seen in regards to what PC Collins said: It is interesting none the less.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWNGRlMzZlMmItN2Q0My00ZTYyLTkzZmEtMTkyNWZjMjcwNGY0/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
Hope it opens OK.... ???
-
I think this is the closest I have seen in regards to what PC Collins said: It is interesting none the less.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWNGRlMzZlMmItN2Q0My00ZTYyLTkzZmEtMTkyNWZjMjcwNGY0/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
Hope it opens OK.... ???
Yes it did Patti. Absolutely nothing to implicate Jeremy. Who was it who said that whatever happens later, the answer is usually the first thought one has.