Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on July 03, 2012, 09:57:AM
-
When the crucial flake of blood was allegedly found inside the baffles of the silencer, it had no soot mingled in it. Yet to be fathomed out is how Sheila's blood managed to get beyond the out rushing gases and firearms residue /soot, without being coated or contaminated by it? I do not believe blood from Sheila was forced back into the silencer by backspatter and that her blood managed to evade all those gases, all that FDR?
-
When the crucial flake of blood was allegedly found inside the baffles of the silencer, it had no soot mingled in it. Yet to be fathomed out is how Sheila's blood managed to get beyond the out rushing gases and firearms residue /soot, without being coated or contaminated by it? I do not believe blood from Sheila was forced back into the silencer by backspatter and that her blood managed to evade all those gases, all that FDR?
Mike I know diddly squat about firearms,,but how often does it have to be " cleaned " after each firing.?
If not cleaned,,would it be as efficient in firing,or would there be any internal damage making a difference to how the bullets are expelled.? I'm assuming that the baffles are some sort of metal which after a " frenzied " non-stop firing,would buckle in the heat.? Also any oil,without replacement,would have evaporated,,always supposing that oil was used.
-
Mike,,John Howards' witness statement in 1985 stated that the flake of blood found in the silencer could have originated from either Robert Boutflour or Sheila as both had the same blood groupings::
A.EAP,BA,AKi,PGM1+HP2-1.
An interesting fact because RB also owned an identical Parker Hale silencer,and that it may well have been his hair that went missing in transit.
-
Mike I know diddly squat about firearms,,but how often does it have to be " cleaned " after each firing.?
If not cleaned,,would it be as efficient in firing,or would there be any internal damage making a difference to how the bullets are expelled.? I'm assuming that the baffles are some sort of metal which after a " frenzied " non-stop firing,would buckle in the heat.? Also any oil,without replacement,would have evaporated,,always supposing that oil was used.
A rifle does not have to be cleaned after each firing. a large number of rounds - certainly hundreds - can be fired before the performance of the rifle could be affected. The metal baffles of the sound moderator would not bucke in the heat of repeated firing. Oil is used to lubricate the working parts of the rifle but the rifle does not require to be oiled after each firing. I hope that helps.
-
Mike,,John Howards' witness statement in 1985 stated that the flake of blood found in the silencer could have originated from either Robert Boutflour or Sheila as both had the same blood groupings::
A.EAP,BA,AKi,PGM1+HP2-1.
An interesting fact because RB also owned an identical Parker Hale silencer,and that it may well have been his hair that went missing in transit.
After Jeremy's trial, Essex police handed two Parker hale silencers back to the relatives, one belonging to David Boutflour, and the other to Robert Woodwis Boutflour. What is so very interesting about these two silencers is how and why they ended up being taken by a police motorcylist to the trial. Why did the prosecution want both these silencers at court, and not the other Parker hale silencer belonging to Anthony Pargeter? It don't make sense police taking control of the two Boutflour silencers, yet for them to ignore the Pargeter silencer that was normally kept at WHF? Something dodgy has been going on with all these silencers. If the jury had known police showed an interest in all these different silencers and that there were three exhibit references purporting to relate to the same silencer, I think the dodgy silencer evidence woild have been rejected by the jury, and thrown out by the trial judge...
-
Mike,,John Howards' witness statement in 1985 stated that the flake of blood found in the silencer could have originated from either Robert Boutflour or Sheila as both had the same blood groupings::
A.EAP,BA,AKi,PGM1+HP2-1.
An interesting fact because RB also owned an identical Parker Hale silencer,and that it may well have been his hair that went missing in transit.
Surely you mean John Walter Hayward (Not Howard) and 1986 not 1985?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=411.0;attach=1216;image)
-
Surely you mean John Walter Hayward (Not Howard) and 1986 not 1985?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=411.0;attach=1216;image
A slip of the tongue. I stand corrected. This was the blood expert,,yes.?
-
A slip of the tongue. I stand corrected. This was the blood expert,,yes.?
He was a Forensic scientist, yes blood analysis formed part of his expertise.
-
As quoted,," The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism,and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood-staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding.
On analysis the blood was found to be human blood,,,but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful.?? ( I question this because if a flake the size of a pin-head can be grouped,why couldn't this ?.)
A " pull-through " on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none. ",unquote.
-
Also absent was the piece of wood which had broken off the stock and which was found on the floor.
Photographs of the damaged rifle too.
Was Nevills' watch ever examined.? That too was on the floor underneath a rug/carpet.I would imagine that was as a result of the embedded nail marks on his arm,that his watch was dragged off.
-
As quoted,," The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism,and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood-staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding.
On analysis the blood was found to be human blood,,,but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful.?? ( I question this because if a flake the size of a pin-head can be grouped,why couldn't this ?.)
A " pull-through " on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none. ",unquote.
The flake wasn't the size of a pin head, it was a 1/4 inch across.
-
The flake wasn't the size of a pin head, it was a 1/4 inch across.
Sorry Bridget,.,but there's no comparison when it comes to splashes of blood on the side of the rifle,,,which must have been more noticeable than a flake,,yet no grouping could be taken.? I don't believe it.
-
Sorry Bridget,.,but there's no comparison when it comes to splashes of blood on the side of the rifle,,,which must have been more noticeable than a flake,,yet no grouping could be taken.? I don't believe it.
Again, it's your choice not to believe the experts. Whose blood do you think it was and why would they need to cover it up?
-
Again, it's your choice not to believe the experts. Whose blood do you think it was and why would they need to cover it up?
Bridget,,so far as I can gather,,it was June who was covered in blood,,literally from head to toe ( sadly ),,so I'm assuming that's where all the blood came from,,,starting from the kitchen and ending upstairs in the bedroom. Whereas Nevill was in the same place from whence he'd entered.
-
Bridget,,so far as I can gather,,it was June who was covered in blood,,literally from head to toe ( sadly ),,so I'm assuming that's where all the blood came from,,,starting from the kitchen and ending upstairs in the bedroom. Whereas Nevill was in the same place from whence he'd entered.
So you're saying it was June's blood on the rifle? It's possible, but what difference would it make if it was?
-
Sorry Bridget,.,but there's no comparison when it comes to splashes of blood on the side of the rifle,,,which must have been more noticeable than a flake,,yet no grouping could be taken.? I don't believe it.
Hi Lookout. :)
I think the method they used in 1985/86 of grouping the blood is outdated. The only thing they could really identify at the time was a certain blood group and that was group O which could belong to half the Country at the time...This is where the prosecution examination now become weak, with modern methods of DNA.....of which there is no DNA in the silencer that belongs to Sheila.
I think DNA was taken from Sheila's birth mother and Pamela B. But, the tests are inconclusive, there are not enough DNA markers to identify that Sheila's DNA is on the silencer. There was of course one male and female DNA found....but, that again was inconclusive evidence to suggest that that it belonged to Sheila....Nevill or June......As it stands, it would not hold up in court, the evidence is not strong enough for a conviction......in my eyes that is....lol :) :) :)
-
Hi Lookout. :)
I think the method they used in 1985/86 of grouping the blood is outdated. The only thing they could really identify at the time was a certain blood group and that was group O which could belong to half the Country at the time...This is where the prosecution examination now become weak, with modern methods of DNA.....of which there is no DNA in the silencer that belongs to Sheila.
I think DNA was taken from Sheila's birth mother and Pamela B. But, the tests are inconclusive, there are not enough DNA markers to identify that Sheila's DNA is on the silencer. There was of course one male and female DNA found....but, that again was inconclusive evidence to suggest that that it belonged to Sheila....Nevill or June......As it stands, it would not hold up in court, the evidence is not strong enough for a conviction......in my eyes that is....lol :) :) :)
The DNA evidence didn't stand up in court, the Court of Appeal threw it out.
They tested for 5 different blood grouping systems, the ABO test is just one of them. One of the 5 tests was inconclusive, but based on the other 4 I think I read that 13% of the population have the same 4 groups as Sheila.
-
The DNA evidence didn't stand up in court, the Court of Appeal threw it out.
They tested for 5 different blood grouping systems, the ABO test is just one of them. One of the 5 tests was inconclusive, but based on the other 4 I think I read that 13% of the population have the same 4 groups as Sheila.
That was 2002 Bridget....10 years ago....Lets bring this back to court and see how it falls...eh? with a jury! :) :) :)
-
That was 2002 Bridget....10 years ago....Lets bring this back to court and see how it falls...eh? with a jury! :) :) :)
No, the DNA tests were in 2002, the blood grouping tests were in 1986.
-
No, the DNA tests were in 2002, the blood grouping tests were in 1986.
I am on about the appeal Bridget it was 2002....What blood evidence? There is none! In a court of today, you would lose the battle...whether the appeal failed or not, I am on about today in a court of law...with a good defence JB would walk free.... :) :) :)
-
I am on about the appeal Bridget it was 2002....What blood evidence? There is none! In a court of today, you would lose the battle...whether the appeal failed or not, I am on about today in a court of law...with a good defence JB would walk free.... :) :) :)
I was referring to this comment of yours:
The only thing they could really identify at the time was a certain blood group and that was group O which could belong to half the Country at the time.
Of course there's blood evidence. ::)
-
I was referring to this comment of yours:
Of course there's blood evidence. ::)
Which is? :P :P :P
-
Which is? :P :P :P
The blood in the silencer...
-
The blood in the silencer...
And? ;)
-
The blood in the silencer...
The blood.
A mixture of Junes' and Nevills',,along with Sheila/RB,,(who both had the same blood group).
I'd have said it was a difficult result to define the true owner,,so not a true result. Contaminated anyway.
-
And? ;)
And what?
-
The blood.
A mixture of Junes' and Nevills',,along with Sheila/RB,,(who both had the same blood group).
I'd have said it was a difficult result to define the true owner,,so not a true result. Contaminated anyway.
Contaminated by what?
-
After Jeremy's trial, Essex police handed two Parker hale silencers back to the relatives, one belonging to David Boutflour, and the other to Robert Woodwis Boutflour. What is so very interesting about these two silencers is how and why they ended up being taken by a police motorcylist to the trial. Why did the prosecution want both these silencers at court, and not the other Parker hale silencer belonging to Anthony Pargeter? It don't make sense police taking control of the two Boutflour silencers, yet for them to ignore the Pargeter silencer that was normally kept at WHF? Something dodgy has been going on with all these silencers. If the jury had known police showed an interest in all these different silencers and that there were three exhibit references purporting to relate to the same silencer, I think the dodgy silencer evidence woild have been rejected by the jury, and thrown out by the trial judge...
You seem so concerned with the David Boutflour silencer, and the Robert Woodwis Boutflour silencer. Not to mention the Anthony Pargeter one. So where was the BAMBER one amongst all this. We all know there was one. So what happened to it?
-
The silencer (which ever one is being referred to) is pretty dodgy evidence anyway and new evidence suggests that the wounds are condusive with a silencer NOT having being used!
-
The silencer (which ever one is being referred to) is pretty dodgy evidence anyway and new evidence suggests that the wounds are condusive with a silencer NOT having being used!
Further tests are still needed to ratify this, as was confirmed in the submissions to the CCRC.
-
The silencer (which ever one is being referred to) is pretty dodgy evidence anyway and new evidence suggests that the wounds are condusive with a silencer NOT having being used!
Personally I think the silencer evidence is a red herring and I don't believe it was used. (1) Because JB said it was not on the gun when he left it there. (strange that people accept that he left the loaded gun there but they reject his testimony when he said it didn't have the silencer on it? A bit of cherry picking going on there I think) (2) If it was used then it certainly did not good at all because everyone was awake it seems except the boys. So as far as I can see it is redundant evidence and should never have been accepted as evidence.
-
Personally I think the silencer evidence is a red herring and I don't believe it was used. (1) Because JB said it was not on the gun when he left it there. (strange that people accept that he left the loaded gun there but they reject his testimony when he said it didn't have the silencer on it? A bit of cherry picking going on there I think) (2) If it was used then it certainly did not good at all because everyone was awake it seems except the boys. So as far as I can see it is redundant evidence and should never have been accepted as evidence.
Well said Grahame. It is also strange that JB admitted to having left a gun in the first place..He could have easily said..Sheila was ranting and raving that evening and, had no idea where she got my rifle from..last time I used it was last weekend when AP came down....So no idea where the gun was, i think I put it with AP rifle in the Den....? ? ? ? ? :)
-
Well said Grahame. It is also strange that JB admitted to having left a gun in the first place..He could have easily said..Sheila was ranting and raving that evening and, had no idea where she got my rifle from..last time I used it was last weekend when AP came down....So no idea where the gun was, i think I put it with AP rifle in the Den....? ? ? ? ? :)
It certainly is a warning not to be too helpful to the police in future. Just in case I get blamed for the crime myself.
-
Personally I think the silencer evidence is a red herring and I don't believe it was used. (1) Because JB said it was not on the gun when he left it there. (strange that people accept that he left the loaded gun there but they reject his testimony when he said it didn't have the silencer on it? A bit of cherry picking going on there I think) (2) If it was used then it certainly did not good at all because everyone was awake it seems except the boys. So as far as I can see it is redundant evidence and should never have been accepted as evidence.
Grahame, hi and good morning. Cherry picking. Conjecture. Seems to me that much of the original trial was based on it. The only certainty being five dead people. Even now, all these years on, much of what the pro Jeremys' say is regarded by the antis as theories and therefore not acceptable as evidence, but it seems to me that 27 years ago, theories were perfectly acceptable as evidence, because the was no other way of convicting.
-
Well said Grahame. It is also strange that JB admitted to having left a gun in the first place..He could have easily said..Sheila was ranting and raving that evening and, had no idea where she got my rifle from..last time I used it was last weekend when AP came down....So no idea where the gun was, i think I put it with AP rifle in the Den....? ? ? ? ? :)
It's not really strange if you think about it - if he was tring to plant the idea of Sheila having done it in the minds of police it would have assisted in their 'understanding' of what had happened. It would make his story more credible if the gun was easily available to the 'nutter'. Denying any knowledge of the whereabouts of the gun would be more the actions of a guilty person under suspicion, and at that point he wasn't, and he knew he wasn't.
-
It's not really strange if you think about it - if he was tring to plant the idea of Sheila having done it in the minds of police it would have assisted in their 'understanding' of what had happened. It would make his story more credible if the gun was easily available to the 'nutter'. Denying any knowledge of the whereabouts of the gun would be more the actions of a guilty person under suspicion, and at that point he wasn't, and he knew he wasn't.
Good Morning Bridget, Isn't that as conjectural as saying that the reduction in Sheila's meds resulted in a psychotic episode?
-
Good Morning Bridget, Isn't that as conjectural as saying that the reduction in Sheila's meds resulted in a psychotic episode?
Of course, that's why I preceded it with the word 'if'.
-
It's not really strange if you think about it - if he was tring to plant the idea of Sheila having done it in the minds of police it would have assisted in their 'understanding' of what had happened. It would make his story more credible if the gun was easily available to the 'nutter'. Denying any knowledge of the whereabouts of the gun would be more the actions of a guilty person under suspicion, and at that point he wasn't, and he knew he wasn't.
Morning Bridget, I hope the weather is being kind to you. :)
I think it is strange, for if it was premeditated he would have gone the whole hog...and said she was being difficult with mum and dad and I left them arguing, but he went to confirm what Colin had said in his statement and, that she was very quiet.
Regarding the rifle, he had no need to set it up, the rifles/gun were rife and all over the place, she could have picked any one of them up....I think he was telling the truth....she was quiet and he did leave the rifle....He also told the police the truth about her illness, he had too...no matter how horrific it sounded she had been diagnosed with a mental illness....On all three occasions he was telling the truth...IMHO... :) :) :)
-
Morning Bridget, I hope the weather is being kind to you. :)
I think it is strange, for if it was premeditated he would have gone the whole hog...and said she was being difficult with mum and dad and I left them arguing, but he went to confirm what Colin had said in his statement and, that she was very quiet.
Regarding the rifle, he had no need to set it up, the rifles/gun were rife and all over the place, she could have picked any one of them up....I think he was telling the truth....she was quiet and he did leave the rifle....He also told the police the truth about her illness, he had too...no matter how horrific it sounded she had been diagnosed with a mental illness....On all three occasions he was telling the truth...IMHO... :) :) :)
Morning! The weather is revolting, thank you for asking...
Remember that it is his case that Sheila was having an episode when she shot them, not just being difficult or argumentative. If he'd said she was already into one then questions would be asked as to why he left.
-
Morning Bridget, I hope the weather is being kind to you. :)
I think it is strange, for if it was premeditated he would have gone the whole hog...and said she was being difficult with mum and dad and I left them arguing, but he went to confirm what Colin had said in his statement and, that she was very quiet.
Regarding the rifle, he had no need to set it up, the rifles/gun were rife and all over the place, she could have picked any one of them up....I think he was telling the truth....she was quiet and he did leave the rifle....He also told the police the truth about her illness, he had too...no matter how horrific it sounded she had been diagnosed with a mental illness....On all three occasions he was telling the truth...IMHO... :) :) :)
Good morning Patti,,,,sunny and warm here,washing out.
I think Sheila put the rifle in the window after that first shot to herself,,,then lay on her bed.What happened after that is the mystery,,,as Jeremy was outside with the police when the rifle was spotted on the sill. While Sheila was on top of the bed,,she'd have been semi-conscious,but not really able to have mustered up the energy to have picked up the rifle again to shoot herself a second time. Someone else shot her while she was laying on her bed,,,,to make doubly sure she was dead.!!
-
Morning! The weather is revolting, thank you for asking...
Remember that it is his case that Sheila was having an episode when she shot them, not just being difficult or argumentative. If he'd said she was already into one then questions would be asked as to why he left.
The point is Bridget, he did not lie, he told the truth. CC and PB confirms this, with their statements....Your last sentence is pure argument for arguments sake.....lol
Who says Sheila had an episode? Was it not documented that she became agitated more so during the night? Is it not in the doctors report that the other drug wore off after 3 and a half hours....and she became happy and lively again...I can't remember what the other drug was that she was taking...something beginning with A......
Anyway, shower time and off out shopping :(
Catch you later :D :D :D
-
Good morning Patti,,,,sunny and warm here,washing out.
I think Sheila put the rifle in the window after that first shot to herself,,,then lay on her bed.What happened after that is the mystery,,,as Jeremy was outside with the police when the rifle was spotted on the sill. While Sheila was on top of the bed,,she'd have been semi-conscious,but not really able to have mustered up the energy to have picked up the rifle again to shoot herself a second time. Someone else shot her while she was laying on her bed,,,,to make doubly sure she was dead.!!
Morning Lookout, just caught your post...sun trying it's hardest here...lol
I don't go with the bed theory Lookout, for there is no evidence on her to say she stood up at any time, she would have had blood down the front of her nightie...The blood flow runs to her right side, which suggests she was on her right side at some point. Catch you later off shopping...X
-
Morning Lookout, just caught your post...sun trying it's hardest here...lol
I don't go with the bed theory Lookout, for there is no evidence on her to say she stood up at any time, she would have had blood down the front of her nightie...The blood flow runs to her right side, which suggests she was on her right side at some point. Catch you later off shopping...X
Hi Patti,,,for when you come back....
There must have been some indication that Sheila had some breath left in her body at the stage where she was lying on the bed,,,,so being that you can't perform CPR on someone on a bed,she'd have been lifted onto a hard.even surface,the floor. They put her in the recovery position,on her side,,hence the blood pouring side-ways. Then she was obviously left where she finally died,,between 7 and 9am.
Where that second shot came from,,I don't know for absolute certainty,,,but she may have had a sign of a pulse,albeit a weak one,before the police tried to revive her after the first shot.
-
The point is Bridget, he did not lie, he told the truth. CC and PB confirms this, with their statements....Your last sentence is pure argument for arguments sake.....lol
Who says Sheila had an episode? Was it not documented that she became agitated more so during the night? Is it not in the doctors report that the other drug wore off after 3 and a half hours....and she became happy and lively again...I can't remember what the other drug was that she was taking...something beginning with A......
Anyway, shower time and off out shopping :(
Catch you later :D :D :D
I don't recalll seeing a doctors report that said that, but anyway, the other drug (which I also can't remember the name of) was to counteract the effects of the Haldol, which made her drowsy and unco-ordinated. If it wore off that would have made her more drowsy, not more lively.
-
I don't recalll seeing a doctors report that said that, but anyway, the other drug (which I also can't remember the name of) was to counteract the effects of the Haldol, which made her drowsy and unco-ordinated. If it wore off that would have made her more drowsy, not more lively.
Hi Bridget,,,Sheila didn't like drowsy,,she was a night owl. Early mornings her speciality. Very early.
-
Hi Bridget,,,Sheila didn't like drowsy,,she was a night owl. Early mornings her speciality. Very early.
No one likes to be drowsy all the time, that's why she asked for her Haldol dose to be reduced.
-
It's not really strange if you think about it - if he was tring to plant the idea of Sheila having done it in the minds of police it would have assisted in their 'understanding' of what had happened. It would make his story more credible if the gun was easily available to the 'nutter'. Denying any knowledge of the whereabouts of the gun would be more the actions of a guilty person under suspicion, and at that point he wasn't, and he knew he wasn't.
Jeremy didn't need to say he left the gun out. Sheila had easy access to all the guns in WHF as the gun cupboard had no lock and AP's gun was kept in the bathroom.
-
Personally I think the silencer evidence is a red herring and I don't believe it was used. (1) Because JB said it was not on the gun when he left it there. (strange that people accept that he left the loaded gun there but they reject his testimony when he said it didn't have the silencer on it? A bit of cherry picking going on there I think) (2) If it was used then it certainly did not good at all because everyone was awake it seems except the boys. So as far as I can see it is redundant evidence and should never have been accepted as evidence.
Grahame,,a lot of issues were irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
-
Jeremy didn't need to say he left the gun out. Sheila had easy access to all the guns in WHF as the gun cupboard had no lock and AP's gun was kept in the bathroom.
Oops Patti already made that point.
-
Jeremy didn't need to say he left the gun out. Sheila had easy access to all the guns in WHF as the gun cupboard had no lock and AP's gun was kept in the bathroom.
Of course he didn't need to, but doing so improved the credibility of his story.
-
Of course he didn't need to, but doing so improved the credibility of his story.
How would it?
-
How would it?
Because it's easier to believe that Sheila went into one of her rages and grabbed a convenient gun with a loaded magazine right next to it, than it is to believe that she would go hunting in cupboards for weapons, and then know which ammunition goes with it and where to find it whilst in that state.
-
Because it's easier to believe that Sheila went into one of her rages and grabbed a convenient gun with a loaded magazine right next to it, than it is to believe that she would go hunting in cupboards for weapons, and then know which ammunition goes with it and where to find it whilst in that state.
You overlook something of importance and significance...
Police believed a shotgun was fired inside whf during the incident, which caused them to seize a 12 bore shotgun and an empty 12 bore shotgun cartridge, and to fingerprint the same...
-
You overlook something of importance and significance...
Police believed a shotgun was fired inside whf during the incident, which caused them to seize a 12 bore shotgun and an empty 12 bore shotgun cartridge, and to fingerprint the same...
What makes you think they believed that?
-
What makes you think they believed that?
A local resident by the name of Smith, reported that he heard a shotgun blast come from the direction of whf on the evening before police went to the scene. He made a witness statement saying that he heard the shotgun blast, between 9:30 - 1015pm, on 6th August 1985...
-
A local resident by the name of Smith, reported that he heard a shotgun blast come from the direction of whf on the evening before police went to the scene. He made a witness statement saying that he heard the shotgun blast, between 9:30 - 1015pm, on 6th August 1985...
And why is that important and significant?
-
And why is that important and significant?
Because when the police fingerprinted the shotgun, they found Ralph's and Sheila's fingerprints upon it...
-
So what? They also didn't find any shotgun blasts to the walls.
-
Because it's easier to believe that Sheila went into one of her rages and grabbed a convenient gun with a loaded magazine right next to it, than it is to believe that she would go hunting in cupboards for weapons, and then know which ammunition goes with it and where to find it whilst in that state.
All he needed to do to establish that was say nothing at all and plead ignorance.
-
All he needed to do to establish that was say nothing at all and plead ignorance.
I'm not following you, he's not going to plant many seeds in their heads by pleading ignorance, is he?
-
It strikes me that all this JB cunningly tried to frame his sister just doesn't add up at all. He's somehow predicted that in years to come, it would become widely known that there are numerous incidences of mothers killing their own children, due to a combination of mental health issues and fear of losing their children. Back in the mid 80's? No. Not widely known at all. To coin a phrase oft used by certain posters, A far simpler explanation would be for Sheila to be one of the first of an increasing batch of mothers who would go on to commit these tragic crimes in the modern era.
Portrayed her as a 'nutter'. The term 'nutter' was an extremely common phrase used back in the 80's, at a time when people in gerneral displayed less respect, empathy and understanding towards people suffering mental health issues. It was a Thatcherite 'sink or swim' mentality. JB portrayed his sister in much the same way as she was portrayed in her last known telephone call to another prosecution witness, i.e. listless, distant etc.
For somebody who has supposed to have set Sheila up, just when things were going to plan, instead of exclaiming woe about how his nutter sister has just killed everyone I told you so etc, he blames 'those men with the guns' who went in to the farmhouse.
The setting up of Sheila is fantasy.
-
It strikes me that all this JB cunningly tried to frame his sister just doesn't add up at all. He's somehow predicted that in years to come, it would become widely known that there are numerous incidences of mothers killing their own children, due to a combination of mental health issues and fear of losing their children. Back in the mid 80's? No. Not widely known at all. To coin a phrase oft used by certain posters, A far simpler explanation would be for Sheila to be one of the first of an increasing batch of mothers who would go on to commit these tragic crimes in the modern era.
Portrayed her as a 'nutter'. The term 'nutter' was an extremely common phrase used back in the 80's, at a time when people in gerneral displayed less respect, empathy and understanding towards people suffering mental health issues. It was a Thatcherite 'sink or swim' mentality. JB portrayed his sister in much the same way as she was portrayed in her last known telephone call to another prosecution witness, i.e. listless, distant etc.
For somebody who has supposed to have set Sheila up, just when things were going to plan, instead of exclaiming woe about how his nutter sister has just killed everyone I told you so etc, he blames 'those men with the guns' who went in to the farmhouse.
The setting up of Sheila is fantasy.
As I've said before, he didn't have to predict anything. As you said yourself, there was much less understanding in the 80's of mental illness, and I'm sure he thought the 'nutter with the gun' would suffice.
-
As I've said before, he didn't have to predict anything. As you said yourself, there was much less understanding in the 80's of mental illness, and I'm sure he thought the 'nutter with the gun' would suffice.
I've amended your post to show my amended quote. I'm not buying it Bridget. It's bollocks. He could just as easily have termed his sister as a 'nutter' because the term was common. The use of the word 'nutter' is therefore not indicative of having 'set her up'. Neither do I buy your assertion that he would simply chance his arm, at including child murder by a mother.
-
It strikes me that all this JB cunningly tried to frame his sister just doesn't add up at all. He's somehow predicted that in years to come, it would become widely known that there are numerous incidences of mothers killing their own children, due to a combination of mental health issues and fear of losing their children. Back in the mid 80's? No. Not widely known at all. To coin a phrase oft used by certain posters, A far simpler explanation would be for Sheila to be one of the first of an increasing batch of mothers who would go on to commit these tragic crimes in the modern era.
Portrayed her as a 'nutter'. The term 'nutter' was an extremely common phrase used back in the 80's, at a time when people in gerneral displayed less respect, empathy and understanding towards people suffering mental health issues. It was a Thatcherite 'sink or swim' mentality. JB portrayed his sister in much the same way as she was portrayed in her last known telephone call to another prosecution witness, i.e. listless, distant etc.
For somebody who has supposed to have set Sheila up, just when things were going to plan, instead of exclaiming woe about how his nutter sister has just killed everyone I told you so etc, he blames 'those men with the guns' who went in to the farmhouse.
The setting up of Sheila is fantasy.
I agree with this - Jeremy was accusing the police of shooting dead his family, he was not trying to pin the blame on his sister...