Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Kaldin on February 12, 2011, 04:40:PM
-
It's been said that Sheila's feet were "clean" but I'm not sure what that means. One way or another, Sheila walked into the main bedroom (unless she was carried), and I presume that happened after June was shot. Why then did Sheila not have June's blood on the bottom of her feet? There were spots of blood all over the carpet.
-
It's been said that Sheila's feet were "clean" but I'm not sure what that means. One way or another, Sheila walked into the main bedroom (unless she was carried), and I presume that happened after June was shot. Why then did Sheila not have June's blood on the bottom of her feet? There were spots of blood all over the carpet.
----------------------------------
She did have blood on her feet...
-
It's been said that Sheila's feet were "clean" but I'm not sure what that means. One way or another, Sheila walked into the main bedroom (unless she was carried), and I presume that happened after June was shot. Why then did Sheila not have June's blood on the bottom of her feet? There were spots of blood all over the carpet.
----------------------------------
She did have blood on her feet...
Oh, OK. I thought they didn't find much of anything on her feet.
-
It's been said that Sheila's feet were "clean" but I'm not sure what that means. One way or another, Sheila walked into the main bedroom (unless she was carried), and I presume that happened after June was shot. Why then did Sheila not have June's blood on the bottom of her feet? There were spots of blood all over the carpet.
----------------------------------
She did have blood on her feet...
Oh, OK. I thought they didn't find much of anything on her feet.
Where is it documented that she had blood on her feet?
-
It's been said that Sheila's feet were "clean" but I'm not sure what that means. One way or another, Sheila walked into the main bedroom (unless she was carried), and I presume that happened after June was shot. Why then did Sheila not have June's blood on the bottom of her feet? There were spots of blood all over the carpet.
----------------------------------
She did have blood on her feet...
Oh, OK. I thought they didn't find much of anything on her feet.
Where is it documented that she had blood on her feet?
Is that question for Mike? I haven't seen anything which says she had blood on her feet.
-
It's been said that Sheila's feet were "clean" but I'm not sure what that means. One way or another, Sheila walked into the main bedroom (unless she was carried), and I presume that happened after June was shot. Why then did Sheila not have June's blood on the bottom of her feet? There were spots of blood all over the carpet.
----------------------------------
She did have blood on her feet...
Oh, OK. I thought they didn't find much of anything on her feet.
Where is it documented that she had blood on her feet?
Is that question for Mike? I haven't seen anything which says she had blood on her feet.
Sorry Kaldin, yes that question was directed towards Mike.
I'd read that Sheilas feet were clean but it's unsure if that was before she had been cleaned in readiness for post mortem. Nevertheless I haven't seen anything indicating that she had blood on her feet. Just curious really.
-
It's been said that Sheila's feet were "clean" but I'm not sure what that means. One way or another, Sheila walked into the main bedroom (unless she was carried), and I presume that happened after June was shot. Why then did Sheila not have June's blood on the bottom of her feet? There were spots of blood all over the carpet.
----------------------------------
She did have blood on her feet...
Oh, OK. I thought they didn't find much of anything on her feet.
Where is it documented that she had blood on her feet?
Is that question for Mike? I haven't seen anything which says she had blood on her feet.
Sorry Kaldin, yes that question was directed towards Mike.
I'd read that Sheilas feet were clean but it's unsure if that was before she had been cleaned in readiness for post mortem. Nevertheless I haven't seen anything indicating that she had blood on her feet. Just curious really.
I've seen a statement by one of the police who said her feet were clean. I suppose blood stains might not be obvious unless they looked closely though.
I was also wondering what Sheila was doing in the bedroom round that side of the bed anyway.
-
From the Appeal document.
The deceased's feet were also free from blood staining
-
do you think sheila could have been wearing the socks that were photographed near the body?
-
do you think sheila could have been wearing the socks that were photographed near the body?
I did think they were probably Neville's but it's possible that Sheila was wearing them. I can't see any mention of those socks anywhere else - they didn't seem to be referred to at the trial.
-
and photos of neville are blocked out, so its hard to tell if he was wearing socks at the time of his death,if he was then its very possible that sheila could have been wearing them. from what i can see on the photo of sheila the socks do look heavily stained.
-
and photos of neville are blocked out, so its hard to tell if he was wearing socks at the time of his death,if he was then its very possible that sheila could have been wearing them. from what i can see on the photo of sheila the socks do look heavily stained.
One of the points that the prosecution made at the trial was that Sheila's feet were very clean for someone who had allegedly rampaged through the house shooting her family. If she was not wearing socks I would expect there to have at least been some blood on the bottom of her feet whether she shot her family or not because she would surely have walked over the carpet where June's blood was.
-
i agree kaldin, but she could have been wearing the socks that were photographed at the side of her body, and took them off for some reason before shooting herself, maybe? just a thought.
-
i agree kaldin, but she could have been wearing the socks that were photographed at the side of her body, and took them off for some reason before shooting herself, maybe? just a thought.
She could have. I wonder why the defence didn't suggest that. Perhaps they didn't see the socks.
-
But they had the photo?
The clean feet were always going to be big deal. Preparing for the case they would have thought of that.
Were the washed 'leggings' on the bannisters footless or tights? Were there socks in soak with the bloody underwear?
-
i havent so far read anything about socks being in the bucket with the underwear, but why did ann eaton take them knickers home with her, i find that puzzling.
-
i havent so far read anything about socks being in the bucket with the underwear, but why did ann eaton take them knickers home with her, i find that puzzling.
She took them home? I didn't know that.
-
yes she did, there is mention of it on a police document somewhere.
-
yes she did, there is mention of it on a police document somewhere.
Now that's very weird ....
-
yes she did, there is mention of it on a police document somewhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the contaminated knickers, there was also some other garments inside that same bucket, all soaking together, which Ann Eaton took home in the boot of her car to wash...
There is no actual record of what these other garments were, only a reference to the bucket being found in the Kitchen, next to Ralph Bambers body, a bucket full of cold water with the aforementioned items soaking in them - now my question is this, was there any blood on any of the other garments? If so, were these garments which Sheila had been wearing?
Now, you may think I am jumping the gun so to speak when I draw everyones attention to the fact that there was some sort of a mix up, regarding the exhibit references for nightdresses found upon the victims or at the scene which has been puzzling me for some time, for example:-
Sheila's nightdress - ND/3
June Bambers nightdress - ND/5 and or ND/6?
Since there were only two female victims in this tragedy, why the mix up regarding three nightdresses? Was one originally found soaking in the same bucket of cold water in the kitchen as the contaminated knickers? If so, did that nightdress have any blood upon it? How do we know or how does anybody know that any blood that mixed with all the garments contaminated in that bucket, only originated from the blood contaminated knickers? What if there was a bloodstained nightdress soaking in that bucket of cold water in the kitchen?
Why don't the police make any mention of that bucket or its contents, in the new file SC/786/85?
-
From the Appeal document.
The deceased's feet were also free from blood staining
BLOOD ON SHEILA'S FEET
From www.policeoracle.com/news/Fresh-Appeal-In-1984-Murder-Case%3F_30395.html
Other newly disclosed photographs indicate blood on Sheila's hands and feet. However, at the trial the prosecution claimed her hands and feet were perfectly clean. Summing up, the trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, said: "I have reminded you of the fact – and it is a fact – that when she was found she had no marks of blood on the soles of her feet and no marks of having handled bullets on her hands."
If Sheila had walked over a carpet with blood on it, I would have thought someone would challenge the suggestion that there was no blood on her feet.
-
What words are used for the bucket's contents? Underwear could mean socks...
Was SB wearing knickers when found? Were these clean?
-
In addition to the contaminated knickers, there was also some other garments inside that same bucket, all soaking together, which Ann Eaton took home in the boot of her car to wash...
There is no actual record of what these other garments were, only a reference to the bucket being found in the Kitchen, next to Ralph Bambers body, a bucket full of cold water with the aforementioned items soaking in them - now my question is this, was there any blood on any of the other garments? If so, were these garments which Sheila had been wearing?
Now, you may think I am jumping the gun so to speak when I draw everyones attention to the fact that there was some sort of a mix up, regarding the exhibit references for nightdresses found upon the victims or at the scene which has been puzzling me for some time, for example:-
Sheila's nightdress - ND/3
June Bambers nightdress - ND/5 and or ND/6?
Since there were only two female victims in this tragedy, why the mix up regarding three nightdresses? Was one originally found soaking in the same bucket of cold water in the kitchen as the contaminated knickers? If so, did that nightdress have any blood upon it? How do we know or how does anybody know that any blood that mixed with all the garments contaminated in that bucket, only originated from the blood contaminated knickers? What if there was a bloodstained nightdress soaking in that bucket of cold water in the kitchen?
Why don't the police make any mention of that bucket or its contents, in the new file SC/786/85?
I'm afraid I only read your first sentence and had to reply. ;D
Are you saying that Ann Eaton took the stuff she found in a bucket home with her to wash? Five of her relatives were dead - gunned down in a hail of bullets, there was blood everywhere, and she was concerned about washing some items she found in a bucket? Items that none of them would wear again.
I'd like to hear more about this. Is there a statement from her about it somewhere?
-
Strangely, I can see why she took them. Shock and grief and a need to make things 'right and normal' might be the answer. I'd like to think myself clean and tidy, but when my friend with OCD visits it's a hoot watching her try to take control of someone else's environment. Sad too.
I'm more bothered by what was in the bucket. Contaminated knickers and... Perhaps AE remembers?
And was 'contaminated' the police term? Avoiding the word blood?
Or macho response to unclean! :-[
-
More to the point, why would Sheila leave her knickers soaking in a bucket of water? That's quite odd as well.
-
In addition to the contaminated knickers, there was also some other garments inside that same bucket, all soaking together, which Ann Eaton took home in the boot of her car to wash...
There is no actual record of what these other garments were, only a reference to the bucket being found in the Kitchen, next to Ralph Bambers body, a bucket full of cold water with the aforementioned items soaking in them - now my question is this, was there any blood on any of the other garments? If so, were these garments which Sheila had been wearing?
Now, you may think I am jumping the gun so to speak when I draw everyones attention to the fact that there was some sort of a mix up, regarding the exhibit references for nightdresses found upon the victims or at the scene which has been puzzling me for some time, for example:-
Sheila's nightdress - ND/3
June Bambers nightdress - ND/5 and or ND/6?
Since there were only two female victims in this tragedy, why the mix up regarding three nightdresses? Was one originally found soaking in the same bucket of cold water in the kitchen as the contaminated knickers? If so, did that nightdress have any blood upon it? How do we know or how does anybody know that any blood that mixed with all the garments contaminated in that bucket, only originated from the blood contaminated knickers? What if there was a bloodstained nightdress soaking in that bucket of cold water in the kitchen?
Why don't the police make any mention of that bucket or its contents, in the new file SC/786/85?
I'm afraid I only read your first sentence and had to reply. ;D
Are you saying that Ann Eaton took the stuff she found in a bucket home with her to wash? Five of her relatives were dead - gunned down in a hail of bullets, there was blood everywhere, and she was concerned about washing some items she found in a bucket? Items that none of them would wear again.
I'd like to hear more about this. Is there a statement from her about it somewhere?
--------------------------------
Yes, some where, she took the lot home and washed it all...
-
I find a lot of this stuff quite bizarre ...
-
sheila was mestruating at the time of the murders, i guess she was caught short by her period, hence the knickers soaking in a bucket. when she was found she wasnt wearing any knickers.
-
sheila was mestruating at the time of the murders, i guess she was caught short by her period, hence the knickers soaking in a bucket. when she was found she wasnt wearing any knickers.
I know that, but I still think it's bizarre to leave them in a bucket of water in the kitchen.
-
there is mention also on the sleuthing site of conversation and a police officer. anne eaton says "menstrualblood smells different doesnt it" officer replies "well you make sure you tell the that in court if your asked" im sure mike could locate the document for us to see?
-
there is mention also on the sleuthing site of conversation and a police officer. anne eaton says "menstrualblood smells different doesnt it" officer replies "well you make sure you tell the that in court if your asked" im sure mike could locate the document for us to see?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Ann Eaton spoke about this when COLP interviewed her in 1991 - she said that the defense would probably try to suggest that the silencer had been deliberately contaminated with the blood from the knickers which she had taken away from whf, and how she had told DCS Ainsley that she could tell the difference between ordinary blood, and menstrual blood because of the smell, to which Ainsley is supposed to have said to her something along the lines "you remember to say that in the witness box if you are asked about it"...
Yes, I will try to locate that document for viewing...
-
thanks mike
-
Doesn't menstrual blood test differently? High oestrogens (I think) mean it can be ascertained to be female blood, amongst other things. Similiar to pregnancy urine.
or have I been watching too much CSI?
-
menstrual blood does test differently yes, not sure if its down to oestrogen or whatever, sounds about right though :)
-
She did have blood on her feet...
Where is the evidence that this was the case?
-
I just read part of the appeal document again, and it states quite clearly that there was no blood on the soles of Sheila's feet. That went against Jeremy quite a lot. I just don't get it. There should have been blood on the soles of her feet if she walked into the main bedroom - regardless of whether she shot herself or someone else shot her.
-
It's been said that Sheila's feet were "clean" but I'm not sure what that means. One way or another, Sheila walked into the main bedroom (unless she was carried), and I presume that happened after June was shot. Why then did Sheila not have June's blood on the bottom of her feet? There were spots of blood all over the carpet.
----------------------------------
She did have blood on her feet...
Come on Mike, fair's fair - substantiate this, or at least say "I believe she did".
The statement "she did have" does little to add to your credibility. I know it's just a quick one liner and possibly not intended to sound so absolute, but it can be read that way.
When someone says "I believe alien life might be possible' it sounds like a sensible though.
When someone says "Aliens exist" it has a habit of sounding like a nutter (even if they do!).
-
i agree kaldin, but she could have been wearing the socks that were photographed at the side of her body, and took them off for some reason before shooting herself, maybe? just a thought.
She could have. I wonder why the defence didn't suggest that. Perhaps they didn't see the socks.
-----------------------------------
Correct, photographs which show socks close to Sheila's body was not disclosed to defense, and neither was any photograph showing bible in situ against the upper outer right arm...
Some spots of blood were found to be resent upon the socks which turned out to be AK 2-1, same blood group as June Bamber...
-
i agree kaldin, but she could have been wearing the socks that were photographed at the side of her body, and took them off for some reason before shooting herself, maybe? just a thought.
She could have. I wonder why the defence didn't suggest that. Perhaps they didn't see the socks.
-----------------------------------
Correct, photographs which show socks close to Sheila's body was not disclosed to defense, and neither was any photograph showing bible in situ against the upper outer right arm...
Some spots of blood were found to be resent upon the socks which turned out to be AK 2-1, same blood group as June Bamber...
So which picture of Sheila did the jury see then? They must have seen something surely.
Was the blood on the soles of the socks? If so, that might suggest that Sheila was wearing them. If it was not on the soles, then it could have dripped there, although I still have no idea why June went round that side of the bed.
-
Let us not assume that Sheila walked into mother's bedroom after shootings.
I'd have to recheck the layout of the house, but for all we know Sheila may have moved into that bedroom to discover what the commotion (shooting) was... and entered by the other door (close to where she was found) in which case - there'd be no blood.
It's also possible that a number of people were woken up by movement in the house (or not even asleep).
I think however that it's 'reasonable' to expect very small traces of blood on her feet had she walked around the house having shot people.
However, with a carpeted surface, it's quite possible to stand on a spot of blood and it be wiped off (as a matter of course during movement). So - forensic inspection might reveal blood, but visual inspection not. We are not talking pools of blood (for the large part), but splashes in SOME areas.
Certainly soles of the feet with blood would indicate treading in blood, but at the top of the feet, either spillage of her own blood or spatter from a victim.
Here is my theory:
1) If you shoot somebody no blood will appear on the soles of your feet (they're touching the ground), but it's reasonably likely you may get splatter from the victim falling on them.
2) If the spatter distribution is wide enough you 'might' tread in some as you walk away from the victim (but from the limited photographic evidence on here, the spatter wasn't particularly over a wide area)
3) Even IF you trod in some, it would not be a pool of blood, but a number of droplets, which, having walked further over clean carpet is highly likely to wipe off the sole (trace elements my be found, but visually remain clean).
4) There's no particular evidence to suggest that the killer had reason to return to the vacinity of a victim (thus treading in their blood) - they might well (and quite probably would) have moved away from the victim and onto the next. Thus minimising (unintentionally) the possibility of blood on the soles.
Indeed, regardless of the identity of the killer (Jeremy or Sheila) IF one argues that you'd expect to see blood on the soles, then one must logically conclude you'd expect to see bloodied footprint traces also.
I do not (to my knowledge) know of any such findings.
-
You think she might have gone to the main bedroom via the boys' room? I guess she could have done that. That opens up new possibilities.
-
Blood does cling, though. If Sheila had at any time walked through wet blood, I would expect to find traces, however small. But if she had shot anyone in front of her, I would also expect blood spatter on her feet or legs.
-
Blood does cling, though. If Sheila had at any time walked through wet blood, I would expect to find traces, however small. But if she had shot anyone in front of her, I would also expect blood spatter on her feet or legs.
Yes, I agree which is why I said visually, they may appear clean, but forensically less likely.
Even so:
1) IF it's agreed that the killer would be likely to tread in blood, then one must also agree that bloodied footprints ought to exist. Where is the evidence to support any being looked for, let alone being found?
People can't have it both ways on this theory. Blood on the soles = blood transferred via footsteps. Find the footsteps and you prove it was stood in. This is just as true for Jeremy as for Sheila.
Otherwise, the killer managed not to tread in any (quite possible IMO), and therefore Sheila's clean soles don't add to, or detract from anything.
-
Hmmm, hot post. This might be an unimportant point, but can we at least lose that pair of socks from the equation? I think that they were Ralph's, and added proof that he had got undressed and got into bed, as usual, on that night.
-
If he changed as usual, where was his shirt?
-
On the back of a chair?
-
if you look pretty carefully at the photos of sheila with the socks lying beside her, there were TWO photos taken (with her hand moved between photos.)
Now, the hand was moved for the purposed of being able to photograph the inside of her arm (which otherwise wouldn't be captured by the camera, so let's not question this aspect of the photos).....
Anyway, I draw your attention to the actual socks:
1) The socks appear to have slightly different levels of staining on them between photos - either a trick of light, absorpsion of still wet blood? or some other issue.
2) They do appear to be heavily stained.
This aspect holds some grounds for intrigue, not least because other blood stains around the socks are consistent with spatter (numerous tiny droplets), and yet the socks themselves have an entirely different form of staining. This MIGHT be due to different material between carpet and socks, but still, the socks (to my mind) look very bloodied (assuming the stains are blood, and not just creases/other stains).
If we assume they are bloody stains, how did they come to be so stained?
-
TBM, I have looked very carefully at all images on this forum, but I don't recall seeing any marks on those socks. I'll look again. I might be gone for some time (!).
-
TBM, I have looked very carefully at all images on this forum, but I don't recall seeing any marks on those socks. I'll look again. I might be gone for some time (!).
See above, I've attached
-
Oh, sorry. You've posted images of the socks. But I'm still not seeing what you're seeing. Just socks.
-
Oh, sorry. You've posted images of the socks. But I'm still not seeing what you're seeing. Just socks.
Look at the socks, they look to have stains (unless it's a very strange pattern).
Let's for a moment, assume they are blood stains. I'm wondering why the stains are more 'liquid' and spread out than those on the carpet (droplets).
Also. I'm asking why the stains differ between the photos, but the blood stains on the carpet are precisely the same. The socks don't appear to have been disturbed to any significant degree between the photos.
-
But I am seeing a "positioned" body, with straight legs and (although not in these images) outstretched feet, as though Sheila had been lifted and then placed on the floor. And, of course, re-positioned arm, hand, gun and hem of nightdress.
-
But I am seeing a "positioned" body, with straight legs and (although not in these images) outstretched feet, as though Sheila had been lifted and then placed on the floor. And, of course, re-positioned arm, hand, gun and hem of nightdress.
The socks are in shot (not on her feet) by her side/hip... they are clearly in view lying on the carpet
-
Yes, yes, I see an old farmer's pair of socks discarded when he got into bed. I'm married to an old farmer. Sadly, I also see that Sheila's legs have at some point been opened and pulled slightly apart (check out the position of her knees). Why?
-
Yes, yes, I see an old farmer's pair of socks discarded when he got into bed. I'm married to an old farmer. Sadly, I also see that Sheila's legs have at some point been opened and pulled slightly apart (check out the position of her knees). Why?
Can you not see the difference in staining between the two shots? or even the staining at all?
It's quite clear. I (personally) do not believe that to be a pattern in the socks, it's highly irregular in form.
As to the position of legs - the first and second shots are taken from slightly different vantage points (see butt of gun for best illustation of the angle issue, but also her feet might well have been moved in order to bag them (she had bags place over and tied around each foot). Although I do find the notion of doing this between both shots a little unlikely.
-
Having looked again at the legs, it's clear that the change in angle of the camera is actually fairly significant. At first glance it looks like it's not moved very much at all, but when you look as the butt of the gun, and the shadows at the side of her knees, there's quite a big angle difference.
If you look at the legs below the knee, it absolutely DOES look like they've widened, but I think if they have, this is grossly exaggerated by the change in angle and the difference in how much can be seen below the knee...
Still, it's fairly convincing they they moved apart a little, which needs explaining
-
No, TBM, there is a big difference in those two images. The gun has certainly been moved, Sheila's hand has obviously been moved, her legs are more apart and the weight of the gun now rests on the hem of the nightdress. And the bible, to me, is a massive clue. Possibly the police checked for vital signs and disturbed the scene, but then tried to recreate it in a clumsy way. But, putting it simply, you wouldn't get away with it now.
-
Wherever Sheila died, in my opinion, was not on the far side of Ralph and June's bed. Her body had been lifted and placed, then the gun and bible positioned.
-
Wherever Sheila died, in my opinion, was not on the far side of Ralph and June's bed. Her body had been lifted and placed, then the gun and bible positioned.
--------------------
I agree with tis - I saw a photograph of Sheila on the bed, which EP are deliberately withholding under pii...
-
You're all missing the point -
Forget the body for the moment - it's about the socks...
why the differences in staining?
Now we can turn to the body:
The bible is hardly touched, the gun has moved a little, but it's the nozzle end that's been disturbed, and the legs have parted a little. The hand movement was credibly explained in court (in order to reveal the underside of the arm and staining on the dress).
What's making the scene look a LOT different is the angle of the camera, and the gun butt best reveals this problem.... the bible's hardly touched (if at all) neither is the butt end of the gun or her skirt, legs below the knee do appear to have parted.
Anyway, back to the Sheila's feet.....
1) Why do the socks have a different staining pattern to that of the carpet?
Different materials? one is splatter, one is treading? it's not a stain but the pattern in the sock?
2) Why do the socks have a different staining pattern between photos?
Blood was still wet and therefore still being absorbed? Trick of light from the camera?
3) And why there? right by her side? pure coincidence that she didn't fall on top of them, but fell almost perfectly parallel with the bed?
-
I don't think the gun has been moved. Judging from the view of the side of the bed and of the bible, you can tell that the angle of each shot is different. But the the gun itself is in the same place in relation to each part of the body in both photos. Only the arm is in a different place, as far as I can judge; I don't think the legs have been moved, I think they just appear further apart below the knee due to the angle and perhaps a slightly fuller view of them in the second picture.
-
I don't think the gun has been moved. Judging from the view of the side of the bed and of the bible, you can tell that the angle of each shot is different. But the the gun itself is in the same place in relation to each part of the body in both photos. Only the arm is in a different place, as far as I can judge; I don't think the legs have been moved, I think they just appear further apart below the knee due to the angle and perhaps a slightly fuller view of them in the second picture.
Largely I agree, I think the barrel end of the gun might have moved a little judging from the angle to the neck, but the butt end hasn't. As you say, the alignment of objects in relation to body parts is all correct, but the legs parting does look like they've widened (in my opinion), but the angle change is causing a lot distortion due to perspective.
In the other thread, someone's superimposed one shot on top of the other and jumped to far too many conclusions... they've not factored in ANY perspective change .... shoddy work!
-
In the other thread, someone's superimposed one shot on top of the other and jumped to far too many conclusions... they've not factored in ANY perspective change .... shoddy work!
Absolutely.
(I see what you mean about the barrel too).
-
I think it's hardly likely that someone would take their socks off before killing themselves, but if Sheila didn't kill herself, hasn't anyone thought that the socks could have been used on the killers hands (as to leave no fingerprints).
-
I think it's hardly likely that someone would take their socks off before killing themselves, but if Sheila didn't kill herself, hasn't anyone thought that the socks could have been used on the killers hands (as to leave no fingerprints).
That's true Elizabeth, and whilst it's not something I put much faith in, there is SOME evidence that killings of this nature can be slightly ritualistic and people do stuff, like quoting from the bible, dressing a certain way, writing on the wall etc etc.
In the grand scheme of things, it's hardly likely anybody would kill 5 members of their family, but that happened.
For the record, I don't think she wore socks and took them off. But I am curious about how those socks are stained, and how they came to bee stained IF they weren't worn by anybody prior to the bloodshed. And if they were worn, they why removed?
Unfortunately my query is based on the assumption they are stained. The photographs might be just showing creases, or an irregular pattern.
-
I see your point, TBM, regarding killings of this nature often being ritualistic. Some great posts, by the way! Always interesting to read :).
-
prof bernard knight gave evidence for the defence at the trial, and said the lack of blood staining could have been due to sheila having ritualisticaly cleaned her self before turning the gun on herself.
-
prof bernard knight gave evidence for the defence at the trial, and said the lack of blood staining could have been due to sheila having ritualisticaly cleaned her self before turning the gun on herself.
He did.
And it was largely discounted. Not saying that was right or wrong, it was simply discounted as 'unlikely'
-
as is usually the case!! wonder why they thought it unlikely? its not unheard of, people cleaning themselves before suicide. Re prof bernard knight: is he quite a distinguished and respected pathologist with yrs of experience?
-
as is usually the case!! wonder why they thought it unlikely? its not unheard of, people cleaning themselves before suicide. Re prof bernard knight: is he quite a distinguished and respected pathologist with yrs of experience?
Well to be honest, such ritual killings are rare, and there are more who just kill 'en masse' than do so in a ritualistic manner... but SOME have been known to do it (which is all he really said).
There was no evidence that she'd exhibited ritualistic tendencies previously either (as many who kill in a ritualistic manner do have prior to killing).
COULD sheila have washed? yes
COULD sheila have have finished the ironing before she committed suicide? yes
I suppose she could have done the killings, had a shower, shot herself twice and hoped her hair would dry, or avoided getting her hair wet, managed to dry towels, or drip dried ... I dunno, all in all it was considered unlikely, esp if the evidence was pointing to Jeremy. And that's where it gets messy. Once the evidence points to Jeremy, 'other' scenarios start to become less likely. If the evidence favoured Sheila being the killer, then the shower scenario becomes more likely.
See what I mean?
The whole bible thing too... it's either further evidence of a ritual of some sort, or it bolsters the 'made to look ritualistic' theory. But if you've gone to the trouble to wash, and place a bible strategically by your side, do you then kill yourself in a quite awkward position, and do you attempt to do so with a gun/silencer combination that doesn't really work well (not easy to pull the trigger)?
-
Once the spots of June's blood on the bedroom carpet had dried they could be walked on. The carpet would speed up the drying process.
-
Once the spots of June's blood on the bedroom carpet had dried they could be walked on. The carpet would speed up the drying process.
I question the whole clean feet thing too.
IF they are saying she really should have had bloodied soles (fair argument maybe) then even if she didn't do it, somebody did... so wouldn't THEY be expected to have bloodies soles too?.... and if so - where's the analysis of bloodied footprints or transfer of blood via the killer's feet.
It's no use saying Sheila's feet SHOULD have had blood on if she did it - 'cos that means the real killer should have too.
And regardless of all that, I'm just not convinced that her soles had to be showing blood for her to be the killer. IF she was wandering around for a few hours or even 30 minutes after killing the others, she'd have to have stood in a pool of wet blood, or wet spots. A lot of the spatter was droplets, and those could wipe off the feet from walking on carpet, couldn't they? (or am I the only one who thinks this?)
-
Once the spots of June's blood on the bedroom carpet had dried they could be walked on. The carpet would speed up the drying process.
I question the whole clean feet thing too.
IF they are saying she really should have had bloodied soles (fair argument maybe) then even if she didn't do it, somebody did... so wouldn't THEY be expected to have bloodies soles too?.... and if so - where's the analysis of bloodied footprints or transfer of blood via the killer's feet.
It's no use saying Sheila's feet SHOULD have had blood on if she did it - 'cos that means the real killer should have too.
And regardless of all that, I'm just not convinced that her soles had to be showing blood for her to be the killer. IF she was wandering around for a few hours or even 30 minutes after killing the others, she'd have to have stood in a pool of wet blood, or wet spots. A lot of the spatter was droplets, and those could wipe off the feet from walking on carpet, couldn't they? (or am I the only one who thinks this?)
Quite.
And it was lame argument from the prosecution albeit one which they clearly believed a jury might accept. I would like to know what JB's defence said in response to the argument - if anything; were they really that poor?
-
I don't think the gun has been moved. Judging from the view of the side of the bed and of the bible, you can tell that the angle of each shot is different. But the the gun itself is in the same place in relation to each part of the body in both photos. Only the arm is in a different place, as far as I can judge; I don't think the legs have been moved, I think they just appear further apart below the knee due to the angle and perhaps a slightly fuller view of them in the second picture.
-------------------------------------
Gun was moved as shown in other images:-
Also note that the end of the rifles barrel was placed in a contact position with Sheila's neck / throat an that at this stage it could have been contaminated with her DNA (which subsequently got transferred into the silencer when it was inadvertently screwed onto the guns barrel)...
-
Be gentle with me i'm new to this ::)
I would be inclined to believe that the dark marks on the socks are shadows due to the the dark spots being different in each picture. I may be wrong, where these socks not taken by police and analyse?
-
Be gentle with me i'm new to this ::)
I would be inclined to believe that the dark marks on the socks are shadows due to the the dark spots being different in each picture. I may be wrong, where these socks not taken by police and analyse?
Morning.
I agree with you. I don't think you can tell from a photo if the socks have blood or marks on them. I don't know if they were analysed properly.
-
If the marks where in the same place on each picture i'd be inclined to say they where stained by something (blood being one possibility) but thats not to say there isn't blood on the socks its just that i don't think we can tell by the picture. Access to the original police documents might clear this up, does anyone know if the details of all of the police anaylisis reports have been release to the defence or are all or some of these held under PII?
-
Socks aside for a moment.........What I am having trouble with is could someone carry out such a violent bloodbath,shooting people at close range etc and appear not to be covered in the victims blood? Sheilas nightdress seems to me to look a little too clean.(just an observation).
-
Socks aside for a moment.........What I am having trouble with is could someone carry out such a violent bloodbath,shooting people at close range etc and appear not to be covered in the victims blood? Sheilas nightdress seems to me to look a little too clean.(just an observation).
Well yes. I'm sure the prosecution pointed that out as well.
-
Dont get me wrong,I think it is perfectly plausible that Sheila could have been responsible.Especially considering how mentally ill she had become.Its just that since digesting all the information on this forum,IMO there doesnt seem to be alot of evidence pointing that way.I am still going with the "third party" is responsible scenario :-X
-
How does the third party being responsible fit with the alleged call that Neville makes to tell Jeremy that Sheila has the gun?
Either that call doesn't happen or the third party manages to get in the house without Neville knowing that he or she is there and then that third party manages to get the gun off Sheila and proceed with the murders AND escape from the house despite the house being covered by police from around 3.50am.
-
How does the third party being responsible fit with the alleged call that Neville makes to tell Jeremy that Sheila has the gun?
Either that call doesn't happen or the third party manages to get in the house without Neville knowing that he or she is there and then that third party manages to get the gun off Sheila and proceed with the murders AND escape from the house despite the house being covered by police from around 3.50am.
And they managed to get Nevill to phone Jeremy and try to get him over to the house by telling him that his sister has gone mad with a gun.
Doesn't make much sense does it?
First of all, they wouldn't say that because anyone with any sense would not go over there if they thought they might get shot. Secondly, Nevill wouldn't get his son over there knowing that he might be shot as well.
-
I have considered all of this. Ralph could of have been made to make the call to Jeremy in order to get him to come to the house.If someone was after JB he could have been suspicious,hence his worried call to JM and the reason he took so long to get to whf,allowing the police to arrive before him.Sounds far feched I know,but entirely possible.
-
I have considered all of this. Ralph could of have been made to make the call to Jeremy in order to get him to come to the house.If someone was after JB he could have been suspicious,hence his worried call to JM and the reason he took so long to get to whf,allowing the police to arrive before him.Sounds far feched I know,but entirely possible.
Why would Nevill want Jeremy to come to the house knowing that someone wanted to kill him?
-
He may have had a gun pointed to the back of his neck and had no choice in making the call.Its possible that he put up a struggle in order not to have to do it but in the end had no choice.
-
He may have had a gun pointed to the back of his neck and had no choice in making the call.Its possible that he put up a struggle in order not to have to do it but in the end had no choice.
Well the theoretical assassin didn't bother to wait for Jeremy did he? Not only did he not wait, he also killed two small boys in their beds.
-
And managed to escape despite the police being outside and the speculation that there was someone alive and seen in the window & someone that the police were in conversation with inside the farm at 5.25. The assassin also didn't make a good job of killing Sheila as she walked upstairs afterwards (when I assume that the assassin was gone)
-
Whoever we think may have been responsible - there are always flaws in the theory!
-
The trouble with the third party is that although it would suggest that Jeremy didn't do it, all his focus and evidence points us to Sheila and eliminates a third party therefore.
-
The trouble with the third party is that although it would suggest that Jeremy didn't do it, all his focus and evidence points us to Sheila and eliminates a third party therefore.
Correct. Would an assassin bother making it look as if Sheila killed herself?
-
If he had paid someone to do it,then he WOULD want the evidence to point to Sheila would he not?
-
If he had paid someone to do it,then he WOULD want the evidence to point to Sheila would he not?
Well if he had paid then the assassin didn't do a good job since she was still alive at 7.30am, someone was still alive and standing near a window after 3.45am and someone was being spoken to in the house at 5.25am
I guess it really comes down to sentencing, what would be the sentence be for hiring a contract killer?
Jeremy could of course also tell us who he hired and sometime in the last 26 years that person might have been caught?
-
If he had paid someone to do it,then he WOULD want the evidence to point to Sheila would he not?
Jeremy? Yes of course, but I was talking about a theoretical third party who was not paid by Jeremy.
-
Sorry Kaldin. I have been considering the third party theory whether friend or foe of JB. I must admit that I am more with the hitman theory.I realise it was no profession style contract killing but........you get what you pay for I suppose!
-
Sorry Kaldin. I have been considering the third party theory whether friend or foe of JB. I must admit that I am more with the hitman theory.I realise it was no profession style contract killing but........you get what you pay for I suppose!
Was there any evidence that Jeremy paid anyone anyway? He had a whole month to do so.
-
Paul. The repercussions are more severe for a person that hires a contract killer than for the person that actually carries out the murder.JB would never admit to hiring a hitman!
-
Paul. The repercussions are more severe for a person that hires a contract killer than for the person that actually carries out the murder.JB would never admit to hiring a hitman!
According to Julie Mugford, that's exactly what Jeremy did - or said he did.
That part of her story is more bizarre than any of it.
-
JBs bank accounts were checked but no unusual transactions were found.However,he was known to have been selling drugs so therefore should have had some ready cash laying around.How much money was it again that JB took from the safe at whf? Where he left an IOU for the secretary?
-
Can anyone remember the amount of money that Jeremy "borrowed" from the safe at whf after the murders? I believe it was £1k. If so,then that is very suspicious!
-
Can anyone remember the amount of money that Jeremy "borrowed" from the safe at whf after the murders? I believe it was £1k. If so,then that is very suspicious!
I don't remember anything about that I'm afraid. There was the burglay at the caravan park in March - is that what you mean?
-
No,not the robbery.This was after the murders.JB borrowed money from the safe and left an IOU for the secretary.She accused him of stealing the money,but later handed the IOU to the police.
-
No,not the robbery.This was after the murders.JB borrowed money from the safe and left an IOU for the secretary.She accused him of stealing the money,but later handed the IOU to the police.
Interesting - I haven't heard about that at all.
-
Paul. The repercussions are more severe for a person that hires a contract killer than for the person that actually carries out the murder.JB would never admit to hiring a hitman!
According to Julie Mugford, that's exactly what Jeremy did - or said he did.
That part of her story is more bizarre than any of it.
Not if it is true - in part.
A theory -
In my mind, and as previously posted, I can believe in the third party, but only with JB's knowledge.
Having explained to the hitman how to get in the house undetected, JB leaves the loaded gun out for him in the hope that 10 bullets (possibly 11) can kill them all or the hitman also brings his own .22 gun.
Because we do not know the actual start positions of two of the people killed (SC and Ralph) it is difficult to determine what actually happened in each of the rooms, but a wounded Ralph is eventually lead to the kitchen to be killed near the phone. Realising this Ralph puts up a final fight, but sadly to no avail.
The hitman eventually kills all, and makes it look like SC committed suicide to deceive the police, basically what JB was eventually convicted off.
JB is waiting at Goldhanger to receive a call from the hitman to say the deed was done. the hitman leaves the phone of the hook. JB then calls the police later about a "made up" call from his father etc..
This would go someway to explaining the lack of marks on both JB and SC, why JB could appear calm whilst with the police, the battering of Ralph, the clinical murder of the twins, and the final overkill in the dispatching of the adults.
JB can convincingly claim he was not at whf during the murders.
JB then tests JM by telling her what happened and the name of the hitman (to make her feel more complicit); however JB did not disclose the correct name of the hitman.
JB had friends (I don't know how psychotic) that he could have paid with drugs cash and that person has subsequently "disappeared".
JB could not / cannot disclose a third party as it would do his original / current predicament no good, intstead he is relying on the possible position that he was not actually at whf during the murders.
(IMO)
-
Paul. The repercussions are more severe for a person that hires a contract killer than for the person that actually carries out the murder.JB would never admit to hiring a hitman!
According to Julie Mugford, that's exactly what Jeremy did - or said he did.
That part of her story is more bizarre than any of it.
Not if it is true - in part.
A theory -
In my mind, and as previously posted, I can believe in the third party, but only with JB's knowledge.
Having explained to the hitman how to get in the house undetected, JB leaves the loaded gun out for him in the hope that 10 bullets (possibly 11) can kill them all or the hitman also brings his own .22 gun.
Because we do not know the actual start positions of two of the people killed (SC and Ralph) it is difficult to determine what actually happened in each of the rooms, but a wounded Ralph is eventually lead to the kitchen to be killed near the phone. Realising this Ralph puts up a final fight, but sadly to no avail.
The hitman eventually kills all, and makes it look like SC committed suicide to deceive the police, basically what JB was eventually convicted off.
JB is waiting at Goldhanger to receive a call from the hitman to say the deed was done. the hitman leaves the phone of the hook. JB then calls the police later about a "made up" call from his father etc..
This would go someway to explaining the lack of marks on both JB and SC, why JB could appear calm whilst with the police, the battering of Ralph, the clinical murder of the twins, and the final overkill in the dispatching of the adults.
JB can convincingly claim he was not at whf during the murders.
JB then tests JM by telling her what happened and the name of the hitman (to make her feel more complicit); however JB did not disclose the correct name of the hitman.
JB had friends (I don't know how psychotic) that he could have paid with drugs cash and that person has subsequently "disappeared".
JB could not / cannot disclose a third party as it would do his original / current predicament no good, intstead he is relying on the possible position that he was not actually at whf during the murders.
(IMO)
It's possible.
In that case, was the plan always to get Nevill into the kitchen or was that bit a mistake? That raises the issue of why the bedroom telephone was in the kitchen again, and how long it had been there.
Jeremy might have left the gun out but he couldn't be sure that Nevill wouldn't put it away.
If that's what happened, Jeremy must have been a bit fed up that BT couldn't confirm that there had been a call from the farm to his house.
When did the hitman tell Jeremy what had happened? Jeremy allegedly told Julie all about it on the evening of 7th August.
-
Newbury1.............I am inclined to go with a lot of your theory.The only problem I am having is why everyone sustained so many shots apart from Sheila.Im wondering if she could have possible slept through most of it and perhaps got awoken and went into the main bedroom where she sustained her first shot,hence the reason she was "so clean". If she was the last one to be killed,she may not have sustained as many shots because by this time the killer may have got edgy and wanted to flee the scene?
-
Paul. The repercussions are more severe for a person that hires a contract killer than for the person that actually carries out the murder.JB would never admit to hiring a hitman!
According to Julie Mugford, that's exactly what Jeremy did - or said he did.
That part of her story is more bizarre than any of it.
Not if it is true - in part.
A theory -
In my mind, and as previously posted, I can believe in the third party, but only with JB's knowledge.
Having explained to the hitman how to get in the house undetected, JB leaves the loaded gun out for him in the hope that 10 bullets (possibly 11) can kill them all or the hitman also brings his own .22 gun.
Because we do not know the actual start positions of two of the people killed (SC and Ralph) it is difficult to determine what actually happened in each of the rooms, but a wounded Ralph is eventually lead to the kitchen to be killed near the phone. Realising this Ralph puts up a final fight, but sadly to no avail.
The hitman eventually kills all, and makes it look like SC committed suicide to deceive the police, basically what JB was eventually convicted off.
JB is waiting at Goldhanger to receive a call from the hitman to say the deed was done. the hitman leaves the phone of the hook. JB then calls the police later about a "made up" call from his father etc..
This would go someway to explaining the lack of marks on both JB and SC, why JB could appear calm whilst with the police, the battering of Ralph, the clinical murder of the twins, and the final overkill in the dispatching of the adults.
JB can convincingly claim he was not at whf during the murders.
JB then tests JM by telling her what happened and the name of the hitman (to make her feel more complicit); however JB did not disclose the correct name of the hitman.
JB had friends (I don't know how psychotic) that he could have paid with drugs cash and that person has subsequently "disappeared".
JB could not / cannot disclose a third party as it would do his original / current predicament no good, intstead he is relying on the possible position that he was not actually at whf during the murders.
(IMO)
It's possible.
1) In that case, was the plan always to get Nevill into the kitchen or was that bit a mistake? That raises the issue of why the bedroom telephone was in the kitchen again, and how long it had been there.
2) Jeremy might have left the gun out but he couldn't be sure that Nevill wouldn't put it away.
3) If that's what happened, Jeremy must have been a bit fed up that BT couldn't confirm that there had been a call from the farm to his house.
4) When did the hitman tell Jeremy what had happened? Jeremy allegedly told Julie all about it on the evening of 7th August.
Yes kaldin, as we have seen a lot is possible :o
1) The idea (IMO) was to get (force) Ralph near a phone to help corroborate the call Ralph is alleged to have made to JB.
2) We do not actually know where the bamber rifle was left, just JB's word! JB may have hidden it?
3) JB miscalculated!
4) IF JM is to be believed JB could have called with "tonight's the night" between 3.00am and 3.25am (as we know this call time has never been pinpointed). I think the hitman could have made the call to JB on the phone in the kitchen, using gloves, after dispatching all, and left the phone of the hook, which could have happenned just before or well before JB called the police at 3.26/3.36am (the "just before" with the hope of the telephone call being recorded the "well before" either with knowledge a call is not recorded or a gamble that a call is not recorded.
I know this sounds simple, but the idea was that when the police entered whf they would see Ralph in the kitchen near the phone, thus supporting JB's story!
-
If JB hired a hitman would he not have created a better alibi for himself, maybe gone and stayed at his girlfriends or gone to a party/ public place?
-
If JB hired a hitman would he not have created a better alibi for himself, maybe gone and stayed at his girlfriends or gone to a party/ public place?
You would have thought so wouldnt you.But if it was all a "bit last minute" kind of thing,then maybe he just presumed that the alibi of his car being on the driveway all night and the "alleged phonecall from Ralph" might just have been enough.After-all, the whole thing did not look to be very organized did it.
-
Newbury1.............I am inclined to go with a lot of your theory.The only problem I am having is why everyone sustained so many shots apart from Sheila.I'm wondering if she could have possible slept through most of it and perhaps got awoken and went into the main bedroom where she sustained her first shot,hence the reason she was "so clean". If she was the last one to be killed,she may not have sustained as many shots because by this time the killer may have got edgy and wanted to flee the scene?
Hi Chelmsey,
Th amount of shots to most were, in my mind, overkill shots, mainly to the head, the more random ones to effect a more scatter approach that SC would do - but not one missed!
This problem also relates to JB doing it, basically all I have done is replaced most of the JB guilty story with a hitman, as this sort of supports those points I have made earlier.
If SC had gone into a "mental health moment" either before or whilst witnessing the slaughter, she could have "frozen" with what was going on, almost being manipulated (forced) by the killer to stay quiet. The killer then instructing her into a prone position on the bed/floor to kill her (after all, this was the JB guilty scenario presented to the jury)
I appreciate their is a lot of my own speculation here, and it was a JB or SC thing at court, but I believe the police having been fooled by the McDonald Story (set up by JB to show JM as a liar should she go to the police) and having no other hitman leads it was easier for the police to pursue a JB guilty story as they felt they had enough to go on (and win) with this.
-
If JB hired a hitman would he not have created a better alibi for himself, maybe gone and stayed at his girlfriends or gone to a party/ public place?
Maybe not if JB thought the call from whf by the hitman would be recorded and JB miscalculted. A recorded call from whf would have gone along way to give him the alibi.
I am coming from the angle that some of the best laid plans can go slightly wrong (or completely).
-
Well this is the thing! The courts were led to believe that it could have been only Sheila or JB.A third party being ruled out because of the alleged phone call from Ralph to JB. JB would need to point the finger of suspicion toward Sheila either way.If he had indeed hired a hitman (and not a very good one at that) then he would still have been deemed responsible for the murders.
-
Paul. The repercussions are more severe for a person that hires a contract killer than for the person that actually carries out the murder.JB would never admit to hiring a hitman!
According to Julie Mugford, that's exactly what Jeremy did - or said he did.
That part of her story is more bizarre than any of it.
Not if it is true - in part.
A theory -
In my mind, and as previously posted, I can believe in the third party, but only with JB's knowledge.
Having explained to the hitman how to get in the house undetected, JB leaves the loaded gun out for him in the hope that 10 bullets (possibly 11) can kill them all or the hitman also brings his own .22 gun.
Because we do not know the actual start positions of two of the people killed (SC and Ralph) it is difficult to determine what actually happened in each of the rooms, but a wounded Ralph is eventually lead to the kitchen to be killed near the phone. Realising this Ralph puts up a final fight, but sadly to no avail.
The hitman eventually kills all, and makes it look like SC committed suicide to deceive the police, basically what JB was eventually convicted off.
JB is waiting at Goldhanger to receive a call from the hitman to say the deed was done. the hitman leaves the phone of the hook. JB then calls the police later about a "made up" call from his father etc..
This would go someway to explaining the lack of marks on both JB and SC, why JB could appear calm whilst with the police, the battering of Ralph, the clinical murder of the twins, and the final overkill in the dispatching of the adults.
JB can convincingly claim he was not at whf during the murders.
JB then tests JM by telling her what happened and the name of the hitman (to make her feel more complicit); however JB did not disclose the correct name of the hitman.
JB had friends (I don't know how psychotic) that he could have paid with drugs cash and that person has subsequently "disappeared".
JB could not / cannot disclose a third party as it would do his original / current predicament no good, intstead he is relying on the possible position that he was not actually at whf during the murders.
(IMO)
It's possible.
1) In that case, was the plan always to get Nevill into the kitchen or was that bit a mistake? That raises the issue of why the bedroom telephone was in the kitchen again, and how long it had been there.
2) Jeremy might have left the gun out but he couldn't be sure that Nevill wouldn't put it away.
3) If that's what happened, Jeremy must have been a bit fed up that BT couldn't confirm that there had been a call from the farm to his house.
4) When did the hitman tell Jeremy what had happened? Jeremy allegedly told Julie all about it on the evening of 7th August.
Yes kaldin, as we have seen a lot is possible :o
1) The idea (IMO) was to get (force) Ralph near a phone to help corroborate the call Ralph is alleged to have made to JB.
2) We do not actually know where the bamber rifle was left, just JB's word! JB may have hidden it?
3) JB miscalculated!
4) IF JM is to be believed JB could have called with "tonight's the night" between 3.00am and 3.25am (as we know this call time has never been pinpointed). I think the hitman could have made the call to JB on the phone in the kitchen, using gloves, after dispatching all, and left the phone of the hook, which could have happenned just before or well before JB called the police at 3.26/3.36am (the "just before" with the hope of the telephone call being recorded the "well before" either with knowledge a call is not recorded or a gamble that a call is not recorded.
I know this sounds simple, but the idea was that when the police entered whf they would see Ralph in the kitchen near the phone, thus supporting JB's story!
Re no. 1 - In that case, wouldn't it have more sense for the phone to have been in the bedroom? That's why I asked before who moved it and why and when. It's a bit risky to make someone go to the kitchen isn't it?
2, 3, 4 are fine. ;D
-
Kaldin,I dont know how true it is,but in SLs book it states that there were usually 4 phones in the house but a recent lighning strike had broken 2 of them.Therefore the phone usually kept in the bedroom was now being used in the kitchen and there was also a phone in the upstairs office.The one in the upstairs office was described as being a push button type phone with a last number re-dial facility.
-
You would have thought so wouldnt you.But if it was all a "bit last minute" kind of thing,then maybe he just presumed that the alibi of his car being on the driveway all night and the "alleged phonecall from Ralph" might just have been enough.After-all, the whole thing did not look to be very organized did it.
Even if it was last minute, i think he would have gotten as far away from the house as possible or made sure there where plenty of people around him to give him an alibi!
-
Paul. The repercussions are more severe for a person that hires a contract killer than for the person that actually carries out the murder.JB would never admit to hiring a hitman!
According to Julie Mugford, that's exactly what Jeremy did - or said he did.
That part of her story is more bizarre than any of it.
Not if it is true - in part.
A theory -
In my mind, and as previously posted, I can believe in the third party, but only with JB's knowledge.
Having explained to the hitman how to get in the house undetected, JB leaves the loaded gun out for him in the hope that 10 bullets (possibly 11) can kill them all or the hitman also brings his own .22 gun.
Because we do not know the actual start positions of two of the people killed (SC and Ralph) it is difficult to determine what actually happened in each of the rooms, but a wounded Ralph is eventually lead to the kitchen to be killed near the phone. Realising this Ralph puts up a final fight, but sadly to no avail.
The hitman eventually kills all, and makes it look like SC committed suicide to deceive the police, basically what JB was eventually convicted off.
JB is waiting at Goldhanger to receive a call from the hitman to say the deed was done. the hitman leaves the phone of the hook. JB then calls the police later about a "made up" call from his father etc..
This would go someway to explaining the lack of marks on both JB and SC, why JB could appear calm whilst with the police, the battering of Ralph, the clinical murder of the twins, and the final overkill in the dispatching of the adults.
JB can convincingly claim he was not at whf during the murders.
JB then tests JM by telling her what happened and the name of the hitman (to make her feel more complicit); however JB did not disclose the correct name of the hitman.
JB had friends (I don't know how psychotic) that he could have paid with drugs cash and that person has subsequently "disappeared".
JB could not / cannot disclose a third party as it would do his original / current predicament no good, intstead he is relying on the possible position that he was not actually at whf during the murders.
(IMO)
It's possible.
1) In that case, was the plan always to get Nevill into the kitchen or was that bit a mistake? That raises the issue of why the bedroom telephone was in the kitchen again, and how long it had been there.
2) Jeremy might have left the gun out but he couldn't be sure that Nevill wouldn't put it away.
3) If that's what happened, Jeremy must have been a bit fed up that BT couldn't confirm that there had been a call from the farm to his house.
4) When did the hitman tell Jeremy what had happened? Jeremy allegedly told Julie all about it on the evening of 7th August.
Yes kaldin, as we have seen a lot is possible :o
1) The idea (IMO) was to get (force) Ralph near a phone to help corroborate the call Ralph is alleged to have made to JB.
2) We do not actually know where the bamber rifle was left, just JB's word! JB may have hidden it?
3) JB miscalculated!
4) IF JM is to be believed JB could have called with "tonight's the night" between 3.00am and 3.25am (as we know this call time has never been pinpointed). I think the hitman could have made the call to JB on the phone in the kitchen, using gloves, after dispatching all, and left the phone of the hook, which could have happenned just before or well before JB called the police at 3.26/3.36am (the "just before" with the hope of the telephone call being recorded the "well before" either with knowledge a call is not recorded or a gamble that a call is not recorded.
I know this sounds simple, but the idea was that when the police entered whf they would see Ralph in the kitchen near the phone, thus supporting JB's story!
Re no. 1 - In that case, wouldn't it have more sense for the phone to have been in the bedroom? That's why I asked before who moved it and why and when. It's a bit risky to make someone go to the kitchen isn't it?
2, 3, 4 are fine. ;D
1) The phone was already in the kitchen and that's where Ralph was killed. It was easier to force Ralph there and we don't' know where from really (same as JB story - we are not 100% sure where Ralph was when the shooting started are we?).
-
Kaldin,I dont know how true it is,but in SLs book it states that there were usually 4 phones in the house but a recent lighning strike had broken 2 of them.Therefore the phone usually kept in the bedroom was now being used in the kitchen and there was also a phone in the upstairs office.The one in the upstairs office was described as being a push button type phone with a last number re-dial facility.
Hmmmm. I haven't seen that corroborated anywhere else. I've also read that the one with the redial facility was broken and had been sent for repair - it was a cordless one which was usually kept in the kitchen.
-
Kaldin,I dont know how true it is,but in SLs book it states that there were usually 4 phones in the house but a recent lighning strike had broken 2 of them.Therefore the phone usually kept in the bedroom was now being used in the kitchen and there was also a phone in the upstairs office.The one in the upstairs office was described as being a push button type phone with a last number re-dial facility.
Hmmmm. I haven't seen that corroborated anywhere else. I've also read that the one with the redial facility was broken and had been sent for repair - it was a cordless one which was usually kept in the kitchen.
yes,the details about the telephones are quite different with regards to the 2002 appeal information.But it does seem certain that the bedroom telephone was being used in the kitchen at that time.
-
Kaldin,I dont know how true it is,but in SLs book it states that there were usually 4 phones in the house but a recent lighning strike had broken 2 of them.Therefore the phone usually kept in the bedroom was now being used in the kitchen and there was also a phone in the upstairs office.The one in the upstairs office was described as being a push button type phone with a last number re-dial facility.
Hmmmm. I haven't seen that corroborated anywhere else. I've also read that the one with the redial facility was broken and had been sent for repair - it was a cordless one which was usually kept in the kitchen.
yes,the details about the telephones are quite different with regards to the 2002 appeal information.But it does seem certain that the bedroom telephone was being used in the kitchen at that time.
Well it was in the kitchen certainly. What I don't know is who put it there and when. It's very convenient for the killer that there was no phone in the bedroom at the time isn't it?
-
Even if it was last minute, i think he would have gotten as far away from the house as possible or made sure there where plenty of people around him to give him an alibi!
Unless that was impossible as he was running around whf with a gun.
Alternatively if he is innocent, then an alibi, whether needed or not, could not be planned.
-
Well it was in the kitchen certainly. What I don't know is who put it there and when. It's very convenient for the killer that there was no phone in the bedroom at the time isn't it?
Yes that's something which there hasn't been to much discussion over. The bedroom phone was in the kitchen (the one left of the hook). But wasn't there another phone in the kitchen hidden under some files/papers?
-
Even if it was last minute, i think he would have gotten as far away from the house as possible or made sure there where plenty of people around him to give him an alibi!
Unless that was impossible as he was running around whf with a gun.
Alternatively if he is innocent, then an alibi, whether needed or not, could not be planned.
Well yes - it's difficult to organise an alibi when you're running around shooting people.
-
Well it was in the kitchen certainly. What I don't know is who put it there and when. It's very convenient for the killer that there was no phone in the bedroom at the time isn't it?
Yes that's something which there hasn't been to much discussion over. The bedroom phone was in the kitchen (the one left of the hook). But wasn't there another phone in the kitchen hidden under some files/papers?
It was reported that it was under some magazines. Whether it was "hidden" is another matter. I suspect the house wasn't habitually tidy anyway.
-
Well it was in the kitchen certainly. What I don't know is who put it there and when. It's very convenient for the killer that there was no phone in the bedroom at the time isn't it?
Yes that's something which there hasn't been to much discussion over. The bedroom phone was in the kitchen (the one left of the hook). But wasn't there another phone in the kitchen hidden under some files/papers?
It was reported that it was under some magazines. Whether it was "hidden" is another matter. I suspect the house wasn't habitually tidy anyway.
Yes sorry didn't mean to imply that someone had hidden it, I just meant that it was hidden from view.
But why would the other phone have been put in the kitchen if one was already there?
-
Well it was in the kitchen certainly. What I don't know is who put it there and when. It's very convenient for the killer that there was no phone in the bedroom at the time isn't it?
Yes that's something which there hasn't been to much discussion over. The bedroom phone was in the kitchen (the one left of the hook). But wasn't there another phone in the kitchen hidden under some files/papers?
It was reported that it was under some magazines. Whether it was "hidden" is another matter. I suspect the house wasn't habitually tidy anyway.
Yes sorry didn't mean to imply that someone had hidden it, I just meant that it was hidden from view.
But why would the other phone have been put in the kitchen if one was already there?
Well now you're asking the right question. I don't know the answer. I've read that Jeremy said the kitchen phone was broken but someone else denied that. I can't remember where I saw that - sorry.
The point is - the phone was removed from the bedroom, and that would prevent anyone phoning from there. Convenient eh?
-
Well now you're asking the right question. I don't know the answer. I've read that Jeremy said the kitchen phone was broken but someone else denied that. I can't remember where I saw that - sorry.
The point is - the phone was removed from the bedroom, and that would prevent anyone phoning from there. Convenient eh?
Reading through the 2002 Appeal Judgement again, there always were two phones in the kitchen, the hidden one mentioned above and the the cordless one which was sent off to repair.
Why they need two in the kitchen and why the bedroom one was brought down I don't know.
-
Yes,I have always regarded that as odd.A telephone sent away for repair? I have never known anyone to do that as they are pretty cheap to replace?
-
Yes,I have always regarded that as odd.A telephone sent away for repair? I have never known anyone to do that as they are pretty cheap to replace?
Yes. I don't bother having phones fixed, I just get a new one. Perhaps it was different then though.
-
a cordless phone may have been expensive back then.
-
Moving/hiding phones shows signs of premeditation. If Sheila suddenly "snapped," it's doubtful (in my opinion) that she could have done this without one of her parents questioning what she was doing when she should have been in bed. If the family (plus dog) were settled for the night, I find it hard to imagine Sheila moving about the house, unplugging a phone and hiding it.
-
I'm not sure it's so strange that a wireless phone was in the kitchen with a normal one.
I can remember my parents having such a system around that era.
A fixed line and a wireless one in the bedroom, on a cradle on the wall (as was the fashion then). Often that phone would be in the bedroom charging at night, and brought down to the main room during the day... IF the Bambers tended to use the kitchen a lot, it's not so crazy that the phone was there in case anybody wanted to answer the phone, then disappear into a quieter room.
And, it doesn't look like their home was particularly 'tidy' (by many people's standards).
I'm not saying it sounds like a common situation, but not so strange either.
And, if I remember rightly at my parents, if you unplugged the phone cable from the socket, the phone would 'chirp' once (can't say that the Bamber's would).
If Bamber moved the phone downstairs the previous day, it's pure luck it remained there I'd suggest. So I can't really think he'd hide it to stop it being used during the murders.
Was Nevill heading for the phone when he went downstairs? rather than following the killer?
Wireless phones had telescopic aerials back then, anybody remember them? ;-)
-
I think that Ralph probably WAS going downstairs, either to use the phone or even, possibly, to escape and go for help. How can any of us know what we'd do in such a desperate situation?
-
To say JB couldnt have been moving phones around,setting things up so to speak.........well I certainly disagree with that.He was at the farm all evening,had supper with the family and didnt leave for home until between 9.30 and 10.00pm!
-
I'm not saying he couldn't... I'm just saying it leaves a LOT to chance
What if the gun he left had been put away? or even put in a place where it wasn't to be found usually?
Or if the phone had been found and moved back upstairs?
I just don't know... however it happened, it seems a lot went to plan, but a few things didn't
-
There was not much if any blood found on the soles of June Bambers feet, which is consistent with the claim that there was little or no blood on the soles of Sheila's feet, so what significance if any, can be attached to this?
-
There was not much if any blood found on the soles of June Bambers feet, which is consistent with the claim that there was little or no blood on the soles of Sheila's feet, so what significance if any, can be attached to this?
a lot
people (in this case the prosecution) are trying to have it both ways... sheila's feet were clean, so was 'innocent' - because any moving around the house would end up with them standing in blood etc etc...
Well, ok, maybe June didn't move over the entire house, but IF she stood and walked around a room where at least one person (herself) had been shot, two people shot (fairly likely) or even THREE (less likely , but possible), then surely SHE should have the same blood on her feet that the prosecution are claiming.
Even if not on June's feet, as I've stated in earlier posts:
IF the prosecution claim that sheila ought to have blood on her feet if she's a murderer, then it also stands that Jeremy should have had blood on his feet as the murderer.
Now of course, they couldn't swap his feet / shoes etc (cos they screwed up), but you can reasonably assume some bloodied footprints should show up... or did Jeremy hover?
I don't like this aspect of the prosecution's case... it's not wrong, but it's not applied equally.
-
The cordless phone (with last call facility) was faulty and sent back to the manufacturer two days before. Have asked before, but no-one seems to know/have responded as to who found the fault or returned the phone.
Likewise, its return. Can't find any documentation as to the nature of the eventual repair.
This was given as the reason the bedroom phone was bought downstairs. A fortunate coincidence for whoever did the shooting upstairs.
Presumably, the phone hidden under clutter was either faulty or forgotten.
Re blood spatter etc
If Sheila is the killer, we have to accept the 'washing' theory, then wonder about the evidence in respect of the shower/bath, towels, clothes etc.
We all accept that blood analysis is radically different now - in the UK specialist courses weren't on offer until 1988 - but I guesstimate that the initial 'suicide/murder' interpretation resulted in less analysis being undertaken than was the norm for 'murder' back then.
-
Sheila was described as being "very clean". Ann Eaton described in her statement that the shower had been used as the shower head wasnt put back in its usual position.In her usual suspicious manner,she speculated whether Jeremy had used it to wash the blood off himself but I doubt very much he would have casually done that at the scene of the murders.If Sheila had got "caught short" that day with her period,then it would have IMO been likely that she would have took a shower,putting her smalls in soak etc.I dont know if it is just me,but alot of women prefer to sleep in pjs as opposed to a nightdress when they have they period.As a kind of safety feeling against leakage if you know what I mean? Which leads me again back to the item of clothing hanging on the bannisters!
-
Sheila was described as being "very clean". Ann Eaton described in her statement that the shower had been used as the shower head wasnt put back in its usual position.In her usual suspicious manner,she speculated whether Jeremy had used it to wash the blood off himself but I doubt very much he would have casually done that at the scene of the murders.If Sheila had got "caught short" that day with her period,then it would have IMO been likely that she would have took a shower,putting her smalls in soak etc.I dont know if it is just me,but alot of women prefer to sleep in pjs as opposed to a nightdress when they have they period.As a kind of safety feeling against leakage if you know what I mean? Which leads me again back to the item of clothing hanging on the bannisters!
I agree, though trying to remember if PJs were as common for women back in 85? I'm guessing they were, but all my memories are of nightdresses.
Having spent ages looking at the 'garment' on the bannisters, I am fairly sure that they are tights rather than leggings.
I can go with the washing/redressing theory to a point - there's plenty of cases that evidence women putting together their 'best self' before committing suicide. Do if Sheila carried out the killings then carefully washed and re-dressed, why not put on a pair of knickers? The two things do not sit comfortably together.
-
There was a towel found in the kitchen. It was on top of neville's blood therefore put there after Neville's death. Not by police because Neville's blood would be dry by that time. Could it have been Shiela drying herself after washing??
What kind of hit man would kill 5 people including 2 children for 2000 pounds??? That's way too cheap. Not that I know anything about hitmen. If it were more, where did Jeremy get that kind of cash? I think the hitman theory is a red herring.
-
There was a towel found in the kitchen. It was on top of neville's blood therefore put there after Neville's death. Not by police because Neville's blood would be dry by that time. Could it have been Shiela drying herself after washing??
What kind of hit man would kill 5 people including 2 children for 2000 pounds??? That's way too cheap. Not that I know anything about hitmen. If it were more, where did Jeremy get that kind of cash? I think the hitman theory is a red herring.
That is interesting about the towel! Though there were said to be things drying over the aga and it could have been pulled down from there.Do you know,for the first time ever,Im almost convinced that JB did not do it.No disrespect to him but IMO he comes across as too gutless.
-
The towel couldn't have been pulled down by Neville as it was on top of a pool of his blood.
-
Not by police because Neville's blood would be dry by that time.
It doessn't follow that the police didn't put it there.