Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on July 05, 2012, 04:54:AM
-
Sheila attempted to commit suicide (but failed), and was shot by the police...
To save confusion about what I am saying took place, I would simply like to mention that I believe that Sheila tried to take her own life downstairs in the region of the kitchen, but as it turned out she failed (this is what the officers report, 1612, refers to). She was actually shot upstairs in the bedroom by the police and her body was moved from the bed to the bedroom floor and stage managed to try and suggest that she had taken her own life - the stage managing was done by the police, and photographic records altered to facilitate the cover up...
This is the reason why Essex police edited out 358 photographs and created a false MASTER COPY ALBUM, containing only 223 pictures, when 581 had been actually taken...
-
You do not go to the lengths which Essex police went to, by creating a false photographic record, and claiming you only took 223 photographs, when all along you took 581, unless you are trying to hide something or cover something up?
Such was the scale of the cover up, that PC Bird has never acknowleged the existence of 581 photographs, nor has any schedule been disclosed relating to all of its 581 pictures...
-
The only schedules produced by PC Bird, relate to the album with 223 photographs contained within it, and the court albjm with 50 photographs in it, with a reference to which photographs in the 50 album came from the 223 album - nothing about the order in relation to the other album containing 581 pictures...
In other words dodgy photographic evidence was relied upon to support a bogus prosecutions case...
-
The mix up involving the find of a dead female body downstairs in the kitchen upon entry, and the substituton of bullet PV/20, is linked to the circumstances surrounding Sheila's eventual death upstairs in the bedroom...
-
Sheila attempted to commit suicide (but failed), and was shot by the police...
To save confusion about what I am saying took place, I would simply like to mention that I believe that Sheila tried to take her own life downstairs in the region of the kitchen, but as it turned out she failed (this is what the officers report, 1612, refers to). She was actually shot upstairs in the bedroom by the police and her body was moved from the bed to the bedroom floor and stage managed to try and suggest that she had taken her own life - the stage managing was done by the police, and photographic records altered to facilitate the cover up...
This is the reason why Essex police edited out 358 photographs and created a false MASTER COPY ALBUM, containing only 223 pictures, when 581 had been actually taken...
But if the logs have been edited, how come not only police at control but even civilian employees didn't express concerns about the kitchen incident, when it was later portrayed by EP / prosecuting authorities that Bamber was responsible and that Sheila had been found upstairs on the floor? Since they would have been involved in the contemporaneous recording of events unfolding (inclusive of the alleged shooting incident that 1612 might refer to).
-
It was also a great shot by the police to shoot her under the chin that way. I assume they must have got the gun off her, checked to see if it was loaded, put it under her chin and shot her. I guess she must have been tired after such a massive fight with Ralph anyway.
-
It was also a great shot by the police to shoot her under the chin that way. I assume they must have got the gun off her, checked to see if it was loaded, put it under her chin and shot her. I guess she must have been tired after such a massive fight with Ralph anyway.
What fight with Ralph.? No sign of a fight either with Jeremy or Sheila. Ralph got his bruises,breaks and burns from the butt of a rifle which he was trying to defend himself against.
Would you argue with anyone who was weilding a rifle.? Especially if it was a woman holding one------even.?
-
What fight with Ralph.? No sign of a fight either with Jeremy or Sheila. Ralph got his bruises,breaks and burns from the butt of a rifle which he was trying to defend himself against.
Would you argue with anyone who was weilding a rifle.? Especially if it was a woman holding one------even.?
Sounds like 'a fight' is an appropriate description of that. :-\
-
Sounds like 'a fight' is an appropriate description of that. :-\
Yes,,,of the in-family type,,minus Jeremy. I would have said that it was Ralph who got a good bashing,rather than say there'd been a fight. Ralph having been a gentleman wouldn't have " fought " with his own daughter.
-
Yes,,,of the in-family type,,minus Jeremy. I would have said that it was Ralph who got a good bashing,rather than say there'd been a fight. Ralph having been a gentleman wouldn't have " fought " with his own daughter.
Don't worry I'm just being facetious. Although I'm not so sure this entire thread should be seen as a serious discussion, maybe I'm not being facetious at all. :-\
-
Hi lookout I think Ralph was beaten with the rifle when he was near death after the gun shot wounds. I seem to think he was sat in the chair when he was beaten. No doubt I am now going to get corrected :) I feel The Jam ready to pounce ;)
-
Ralph having been a gentleman wouldn't have " fought " with his own daughter.
Replace wouldn't with mightn't and you get full marks from me.
Not a pop at you Lookout but I am forever getting irritated by certain other people saying Ralph 'wouldn't have done this', Ralph 'wouldn't have done that', Bamber cant be genuine or he'd have phoned 999 blah blah blah...
NOBODY knows what they would do... unless they themselves were placed in the same dire situation. These same Armchair theorists who would probably soil their own clothing, panic and take erroneous actions which would in turn be interpreted by another set of armchair theorists as being not genuine because they 'hadn't done this' or they 'hadn't done that'.
-
Hi lookout I think Ralph was beaten with the rifle when he was near death after the gun shot wounds. I seem to think he was sat in the chair when he was beaten. No doubt I am now going to get corrected :) I feel The Jam ready to pounce ;)
You need to get your 'Jam Pouncing Detector' serviced. ;)
I was about to do no such thing! >:( ;D
-
Replace wouldn't with mightn't and you get full marks from me.
Not a pop at you Lookout but I am forever getting irritated by certain other people saying Ralph 'wouldn't have done this', Ralph 'wouldn't have done that', Bamber cant be genuine or he'd have phoned 999 blah blah blah...
NOBODY knows what they would do... unless they themselves were placed in the same dire situation. These same Armchair theorists who would probably soil their own clothing, panic and take erroneous actions which would in turn be interpreted by another set of armchair theorists as being not genuine because they 'hadn't done this' or they 'hadn't done that'.
Ten out of ten from me, Rochy. Good post.
-
Ten out of ten from me, Rochy. Good post.
Thank you.
-
Apologise Mr Jam for calling you a pouncer must have misread my tea leaves ;) ;) ;)
-
Whats that term used in Texas Hold Em ? All in thats it well im going all in its the figure seen that night.
-
Hi mertol22 don,t understand your post have you been on the lager :) :) :)
-
Sheila attempted to commit suicide (but failed), and was shot by the police...
To save confusion about what I am saying took place, I would simply like to mention that I believe that Sheila tried to take her own life downstairs in the region of the kitchen, but as it turned out she failed (this is what the officers report, 1612, refers to). She was actually shot upstairs in the bedroom by the police and her body was moved from the bed to the bedroom floor and stage managed to try and suggest that she had taken her own life - the stage managing was done by the police, and photographic records altered to facilitate the cover up...
This is the reason why Essex police edited out 358 photographs and created a false MASTER COPY ALBUM, containing only 223 pictures, when 581 had been actually taken...
Hi, I am new to the forum but I have introduced myself :). The point I would like to make is that although I find what you say interesting, my problem with it is that surely had this been the case, it would have been easier to have let Sheila take the blame and not peruse a case around Jeremy. Why go to the trouble of fitting up an innocent man for murder, when a cut and dried 'uncomplicated' murder suicide would have resulted in less intervention by authorities likely to discover the cover-up?
Has anyone seen the photograph of Sheila's body with only one gun shot wound?
-
Whats that term used in Texas Hold Em ? All in thats it well im going all in its the figure seen that night.
You would probably be interested in seeing Myalls and Bews witness statements then. Feel free to petition Mike for them. ;)
-
Replace wouldn't with mightn't and you get full marks from me.
Not a pop at you Lookout but I am forever getting irritated by certain other people saying Ralph 'wouldn't have done this', Ralph 'wouldn't have done that', Bamber cant be genuine or he'd have phoned 999 blah blah blah...
NOBODY knows what they would do... unless they themselves were placed in the same dire situation. These same Armchair theorists who would probably soil their own clothing, panic and take erroneous actions which would in turn be interpreted by another set of armchair theorists as being not genuine because they 'hadn't done this' or they 'hadn't done that'.
Roch, hi and how very true. there is NO way we can know for certain how we would react in a situation we have never before experienced, let alone know what somebody else would do. Unless we are capable of getting inside another persons head, we can't know what it feels like to be them or experience things in the way they do. Mind readers, step forward now, please.
-
Hi, I am new to the forum but I have introduced myself :). The point I would like to make is that although I find what you say interesting, my problem with it is that surely had this been the case, it would have been easier to have let Sheila take the blame and not peruse a case around Jeremy. Why go to the trouble of fitting up an innocent man for murder, when a cut and dried 'uncomplicated' murder suicide would have resulted in less intervention by authorities likely to discover the cover-up?
Has anyone seen the photograph of Sheila's body with only one gun shot wound?
Caroline,hi. Please refer to Mike's post at top of pafe 2. I think it reads "How to gain an in heritance........by "dobbing" in a family member innocent of committing five murders"
No, not yet. We wait with baited breath.
-
Hi, I am new to the forum but I have introduced myself :). The point I would like to make is that although I find what you say interesting, my problem with it is that surely had this been the case, it would have been easier to have let Sheila take the blame and not peruse a case around Jeremy. Why go to the trouble of fitting up an innocent man for murder, when a cut and dried 'uncomplicated' murder suicide would have resulted in less intervention by authorities likely to discover the cover-up?
Has anyone seen the photograph of Sheila's body with only one gun shot wound?
Caroline, It was first thought that it was a murder/suicide, although some cops doubted this. DI jones was convinced that Sheila was responsible, but unfortunately he died before the trial. I believe he would have backed Bamber.
The family were convinced that Jeremy was responsible, and badgered the police. DI Jones threw them out of his office at one time.
DC Clarke told Ann that June, and Sheila were found on the bed with the rifle between them, and a bible on Sheila's body.
Mugford told Ann that Sheila had one wound under the chin when she identified the bodies at the morgue.
It has been suggested that 60 police officers attended the farm that dreadful morning for training. It is quite possible that the police moved the bodies around as part of a training exercise.
I no longer believe that the family were out to get Jeremy, but still think they were wrong in thier assumptions, and played a major part in his conviction. I still think this is all about a woman scorned.
-
Old crap I know, but the silencer evidence was tainted, and should never have been allowed. It was handled/mishandled by so many people. This is what keeps me here. For the life of me I cannot understand why the CCRC have not referred again.
-
Caroline, It was first thought that it was a murder/suicide, although some cops doubted this. DI jones was convinced that Sheila was responsible, but unfortunately he died before the trial. I believe he would have backed Bamber.
The family were convinced that Jeremy was responsible, and badgered the police. DI Jones threw them out of his office at one time.
DC Clarke told Ann that June, and Sheila were found on the bed with the rifle between them, and a bible on Sheila's body.
Mugford told Ann that Sheila had one wound under the chin when she identified the bodies at the morgue
Hi Buddy, witness testimony is notoriously the most unreliable evidence of all! However, as far as the second wound is concerned I would imagine that the morgue tried to cover up as much of the gore as possible during identification. I do have to add that I don't understand why the police decided to pay so much attention to Ann Eaton and the relatives and surely any 'so called' evidence they produced was contaminated and unreliable? Certainly by todays standards!
-
Old crap I know, but the silencer evidence was tainted, and should never have been allowed. It was handled/mishandled by so many people. This is what keeps me here. For the life of me I cannot understand why the CCRC have not referred again.
Hi (again) Buddy! I think I have just written the same thing! Toally agree!!
-
Hi, I am new to the forum but I have introduced myself :). The point I would like to make is that although I find what you say interesting, my problem with it is that surely had this been the case, it would have been easier to have let Sheila take the blame and not peruse a case around Jeremy. Why go to the trouble of fitting up an innocent man for murder, when a cut and dried 'uncomplicated' murder suicide would have resulted in less intervention by authorities likely to discover the cover-up?
Has anyone seen the photograph of Sheila's body with only one gun shot wound?
Police went along with the case against Jeremy expecting him not to be convicted - if it had turned out that way police would have got the relatives off thier backs, and got away with shooting Sheila dead in the bedroom...
-
Hi Buddy, witness testimony is notoriously the most unreliable evidence of all! However, as far as the second wound is concerned I would imagine that the morgue tried to cover up as much of the gore as possible during identification. I do have to add that I don't understand why the police decided to pay so much attention to Ann Eaton and the relatives and surely any 'so called' evidence they produced was contaminated and unreliable? Certainly by todays standards!
Caroline, I don't think that any gore would have been hidden from Julie.
After the identification of the victims she told Ann that Sheila had one wound, and pointed to under her chin. Later that night she slept with the alledged killer of two small boys.
It really irritates me that a drug user, drug smuggler, credit card thief, housebreaker got off with with nothing except £25,000 reward and now runs a school.
-
Caroline, I don't think that any gore would have been hidden from Julie.
After the identification of the victims she told Ann that Sheila had one wound, and pointed to under her chin. Later that night she slept with the alledged killer of two small boys.
It really irritates me that a drug user, drug smuggler, credit card thief, housebreaker got off with with nothing except £25,000 reward and now runs a school.
Hi Buddy, I have had to identify a body in the past (suicide) and a sheet was pulled up to the top of the neck so only the head was visible, after all it is only the face you need to see. I have seen the post mortem pictures of Sheila and if she were covered with a sheet the neck wound would not have been seen. However, I do have to wonder at how much influence Ann Eaton and the 'relatives' had on Mugford’s statement regards Jeremy's involvement? It seems strange why she refuses to talk about the incident after the pay-out from the News of the World and her move to Winnipeg.
-
Hi Buddy, I have had to identify a body in the past (suicide) and a sheet was pulled up to the top of the neck so only the head was visible, after all it is only the face you need to see. I have seen the post mortem pictures of Sheila and if she were covered with a sheet the neck wound would not have been seen. However, I do have to wonder at how much influence Ann Eaton and the 'relatives' had on Mugford’s statement regards Jeremy's involvement? It seems strange why she refuses to talk about the incident after the pay-out from the News of the World and her move to Winnipeg.
It's known as hush money,Caroline. Why do you think the police let her off with her crime.? So that she,JM ,would" assist " police in their prosecution of Jeremy. Wheels within wheels.
-
It's known as hush money,Caroline. Why do you think the police let her off with her crime.? So that she,JM ,would" assist " police in their prosecution of Jeremy. Wheels within wheels.
So to go back to Caroline's earlier question, why go to all that trouble in order to frame Jeremy when Sheila would have been the perfect scapegoat?
-
Caroline, I don't think that any gore would have been hidden from Julie.
After the identification of the victims she told Ann that Sheila had one wound, and pointed to under her chin. Later that night she slept with the alledged killer of two small boys.
It really irritates me that a drug user, drug smuggler, credit card thief, housebreaker got off with with nothing except £25,000 reward and now runs a school.
I totally agrea Buddy. Very well put.
-
Hi, I am new to the forum but I have introduced myself :). The point I would like to make is that although I find what you say interesting, my problem with it is that surely had this been the case, it would have been easier to have let Sheila take the blame and not peruse a case around Jeremy. Why go to the trouble of fitting up an innocent man for murder, when a cut and dried 'uncomplicated' murder suicide would have resulted in less intervention by authorities likely to discover the cover-up?
Has anyone seen the photograph of Sheila's body with only one gun shot wound?
Bring on act 2 "The relatives".
-
So to go back to Caroline's earlier question, why go to all that trouble in order to frame Jeremy when Sheila would have been the perfect scapegoat?
Bridget, there seems to be a theory going round that EP would have been quite satisfied that Sheila was responsible, until the rellies started to produce their own evidence. It seems, that being satisfied, they allowed AE to go in and do a bit of cleaning and were therefore not in a position to say that what was discovered was either something known to them, or even something which they had missed. As they later admitted, mistakes were made.
-
So to go back to Caroline's earlier question, why go to all that trouble in order to frame Jeremy when Sheila would have been the perfect scapegoat?
As I say, police believed that by prosecuting Jeremy at the end of September 1985 for the murders, it would get the relatives off their backs. The relatives were piling on the pressure to get the police to arrest Jeremy for the murders, and the police either had to stop the relatives in their tracks and tell them the truth about how Sheila had died in the bedroom, and risk police officers themselves being prosecuted for interfering with a crime scene, falsifying evidence in connection with Sheila's death, perverting the course of justice, perjury and conspiracy? Essex police took the easier option, they decided to run with arresting Jeremy, building a false case against him, by use of edited, withheld crime scene photographs, and a false story about how police supposedly found Sheila dead in the bedroom on the bedroom floor. They hid over 358 photographs which would but for the fact that these were not disclosed, have enabled Jeremy and his legal team to prove that police tampered with the crime scene and stage managed the bodies. It was easier to arrest and prosecute Jeremy for the murders, than for Essex police to hold its hands up to covering up the true circumstances of how Sheila died in the bedroom? It was too late for the police to start telling the truth at the time Jeremy was arrested at the beginning of September 1985, because the bodies had already been disposed of by way of cremation, and police had deceived the deputy coroner (Mr Thompkin) into accepting that Sheila had in fact been responsible. Bodies gone, a large amount of bloodstained evidence from the scene burnt on a bonfire, crime scene photographs edited and withheld, different silencers found at the scene merged into one, and all manner of stories designed to fill the heads of the police from the gang of relatives, and story teller Julie Mugford? Such was the intensity of the information directed at the police by them, that they felt obliged to do something and arrest Bamber, Collins and McDonald - all for nothing, because there was no truth in anything the relatives or Julie Mugford had to say, so Jeremy got released...
-
Bridget, there seems to be a theory going round that EP would have been quite satisfied that Sheila was responsible, until the rellies started to produce their own evidence. It seems, that being satisfied, they allowed AE to go in and do a bit of cleaning and were therefore not in a position to say that what was discovered was either something known to them, or even something which they had missed. As they later admitted, mistakes were made.
It seems to me that the manner in which the relatives evidence was found would have given the police the perfect excuse to reject it. But instead, they all apparently colluded in order bring in this evidence, so why? The police have never had any trouble telling anyone where stick their theories if they don't like them, and why would they do all of this falsifying of evidence - thus risking their careers at the very least - what was in it for them?
-
As I say, police believed that by prosecuting Jeremy at the end of September 1985 for the murders, it would get the relatives off their backs. The relatives were piling on the pressure to get the police to arrest Jeremy for the murders, and the police either had to stop the relatives in their tracks and tell them the truth about how Sheila had died in the bedroom, and risk police officers themselves being prosecuted for interfering with a crime scene, falsifying evidence in connection with Sheila's death, perverting the course of justice, perjury and conspiracy? Essex police took the easier option, they decided to run with arresting Jeremy, building a false case against him, by use of edited, withheld crime scene photographs, and a false story about how police supposedly found Sheila dead in the bedroom on the bedroom floor. They hid over 358 photographs which would but for the fact that these were not disclosed, have enabled Jeremy and his legal team to prove that police tampered with the crime scene and stage managed the bodies. It was easier to arrest and prosecute Jeremy for the murders, than for Essex police to hold its hands up to covering up the true circumstances of how Sheila died in the bedroom? It was too late for the police to start telling the truth at the time Jeremy was arrested at the beginning of September 1985, because the bodies had already been disposed of by way of cremation, and police had deceived the deputy coroner (Mr Thompkin) into accepting that Sheila had in fact been responsible. Bodies gone, a large amount of bloodstained evidence from the scene burnt on a bonfire, crime scene photographs edited and withheld, different silencers found at the scene merged into one, and all manner if stories designed to fill the heads of the police from the gang of relatives, and story teller Julie Mugford? Such was the intensity of the information directed at the police by them, that they felt obliged to do something and arrest Bamber, Collins and McDonald - all for nothing, because there wass no truth in anything the relatives or Julie Mugford had to say, so Jeremy got released...
I see what you're saying Mike, but it would have been MUCH easier to tell the relatives to sod off and frame Sheila instead.
-
Roch, hi and how very true. there is NO way we can know for certain how we would react in a situation we have never before experienced, let alone know what somebody else would do. Unless we are capable of getting inside another persons head, we can't know what it feels like to be them or experience things in the way they do. Mind readers, step forward now, please.
Exactly April.
-
I see what you're saying Mike, but it would have been MUCH easier to tell the relatives to sod off and frame Sheila instead.
No, police were blackmailed by Robert Boutfours knowledge of what police had actually done. He had contacts at Essex police who were fellow freemasons, and he also received privileged information from PC Robbie Carr (Metropolitan police), and contacts at Special Branch, who were also in the brotherhood. Robert Boutflour had the upper hand and forced ACC Simpson (another fellow mason) into appointing DCS "Mick" Ainsley to run the case that would prosecute Bamber, despite the original officer in the case (DCI "Taff" Jones), and a reviewing officer, maintaining that the original findings that Sheila was responsible were accurate. DCS Ainsley was another fellow mason, who knew what needed to be done, and did what needed to be done, to pacify the relative. Robert Boutflour had the upper hand, he could send a lot of police officers down for a long time, there was no way the police could get out of the mess they had got themselves into, by the beginning of September 1985, I am afraid it was much too late for that, since the damage had already been done and was unrepairable...
-
No, police were blackmailed by Robert Boutfours knowledge of what police had actually done. He had contacts at Essex police who were fellow freemasons, and he also received privileged information from PC Robbie Carr (Metropolitan police), and contacts at Special Branch, who were also in the brotherhood. Robert Boutflour had the upper hand and forced ACC Simpson (another fellow mason) into appointing DCS "Mick" Ainsley to run the case that would prosecute Bamber, despite the original officer in the case (DCI "Taff" Jones), and a reviewing officer, maintaining that the original findings that Sheila was responsible were accurate. DCS Ainsley was another fellow mason, who knew what needed to be done, and did what needed to be done, to pacify the relative. Robert Boutflour had the upper hand, he could send a lot of police officers down for a long time, there was no way the police could get out of the mess they had got themselves into, by the beginning of September 1985, I am afraid it was much too late for that, since the damage had already been done and was unrepairable...
What evidence is there that RB was 'in the know', or that he put any pressure on the police? If I recall correctly, PC Robbie Carr was just the son of a friend who offered to find out what was going on at a time when Taff Jones was being less than welcoming. There is no indication that he or anyone else was given privileged information.
-
Police went along with the case against Jeremy expecting him not to be convicted - if it had turned out that way police would have got the relatives off thier backs, and got away with shooting Sheila dead in the bedroom...
I have only just seen this post... but can honestly say that I have wondered whether this was the case for a very long time now. If Bamber had got off on the evidence presented, the (decent) police ITK would probably have breathed a sigh of relief. I expect that when he was convicted, some must have thought Shit... what do we do now? Bamber would have been tainted because there would always have been a question mark hanging over him. However, he would never have been prosecuted even with the change of the double jeopardy law... because the evidence that was withheld veers towards him having no involvement. There is no withheld evidence supporting his guilt.
-
Robert Boutflour found out about how Sheila had been shot once downstairs, and secondly upstairs by a differently configured gun. He found out that Sheila did not die in the bedroom until long after the police surgeon, Dr Craig, had already pronounced her as being dead at 8:44am? He found out that Sheila was still very much alive for a long while after the ambulance crews were sent away from the scene. He found out that after Sheila was originally discovered downstairs in the kitchen, that police had removed a silencer from one of the guns and that this was the one DS "Stan" Jones seized at / from the scene on 7th August 1985 (SBJ/1), and that the gun which fired the fatal bullet under the chin did not have a silencer fitted to its barrel. He knew about the training exercise which was carried out, and that police stage managed the bodies and exhibits around those bodies and took pictures designed to portray Sheila's suicide?
-
I will be back in about half an hour with further information...
-
Robert Boutflour found out about how Sheila had been shot once downstairs, and secondly upstairs by a differently configured gun. He found out that Sheila did not die in the bedroom until long after the police surgeon, Dr Craig, had already pronounced her as being dead at 8:44am? He found out that Sheila was still very much alive for a long while after the ambulance crews were sent away from the scene. He found out that after Sheila was originally discovered downstairs in the kitchen, that police had removed a silencer from one of the guns and that this was the one DS "Stan" Jones seized at / from the scene on 7th August 1985 (SBJ/1), and that the gun which fired the fatal bullet under the chin did not have a silencer fitted to its barrel. He knew about the training exercise which was carried out, and that police stage managed the bodies and exhibits around those bodies and took pictures designed to portray Sheila's suicide?
Interesting, but without evidence it is pure fiction.
-
Interesting, but without evidence it is pure fiction unsubstantiated unsubstantiated speculation unsubstantiated received info Unsubstantiated allegedly received info?.
:P
-
:P
Well what would you call it? ::)
-
Well what would you call it? ::)
The last one (I think). Allegedly received info, that is not substantiated because the alleged givers will never put pen to paper for fear of being scapegoated. It therefore has no evidential use for JB... but aids the defence in understanding the dynamics in play at the time. At a guess :D
-
Robert Boutflour found out about how Sheila had been shot once downstairs, and secondly upstairs by a differently configured gun. He found out that Sheila did not die in the bedroom until long after the police surgeon, Dr Craig, had already pronounced her as being dead at 8:44am? He found out that Sheila was still very much alive for a long while after the ambulance crews were sent away from the scene. He found out that after Sheila was originally discovered downstairs in the kitchen, that police had removed a silencer from one of the guns and that this was the one DS "Stan" Jones seized at / from the scene on 7th August 1985 (SBJ/1), and that the gun which fired the fatal bullet under the chin did not have a silencer fitted to its barrel. He knew about the training exercise which was carried out, and that police stage managed the bodies and exhibits around those bodies and took pictures designed to portray Sheila's suicide?
If there is evidence of this, surely that would be MORE than enough to force an appeal?
-
Bridget, there seems to be a theory going round that EP would have been quite satisfied that Sheila was responsible, until the rellies started to produce their own evidence. It seems, that being satisfied, they allowed AE to go in and do a bit of cleaning and were therefore not in a position to say that what was discovered was either something known to them, or even something which they had missed. As they later admitted, mistakes were made.
Theories and conjecture seem to be what the whole case was originally fought on - it will only ever be facts that allow a new appeal. If there are facts to back-up whats been said here - where are they?
-
The last one (I think). Allegedly received info, that is not substantiated because the alleged givers will never put pen to paper for fear of being scapegoated. It therefore has no evidential use for JB... but aids the defence in understanding the dynamics in play at the time. At a guess :D
Or completely misleads them. Not that they seem to buy into any of this Z stuff.
-
Theories and conjecture seem to be what the whole case was originally fought on - it will only ever be facts that allow a new appeal. If there are facts to back-up whats been said here - where are they?
A very good question.. ;)
-
It seems to me that the manner in which the relatives evidence was found would have given the police the perfect excuse to reject it. But instead, they all apparently colluded in order bring in this evidence, so why? The police have never had any trouble telling anyone where stick their theories if they don't like them, and why would they do all of this falsifying of evidence - thus risking their careers at the very least - what was in it for them?
Bridget, I'm going to take the simple route and suggest that initially it was done to save face. Had there not previously been a major cock up with an Essex case that went national? They admitted that mistakes had been made, but on a scale of 1-10, where did the marker fall?
-
So to go back to Caroline's earlier question, why go to all that trouble in order to frame Jeremy when Sheila would have been the perfect scapegoat?
Thank you Bridget, it just seems that the more they try and cover up, the more likely they would be discovered.
-
Bridget, I'm going to take the simple route and suggest that initially it was done to save face. Had there not previously been a major cock up with an Essex case that went national? They admitted that mistakes had been made, but on a scale of 1-10, where did the marker fall?
Hi April :) - saving face is one thing but going along with this kind of conspiracy needs a much larger scale than 1-10! Obvioulsy something isn't right but unless there are facts or an original scource to back up the theory, it's simply never going to be any use to JB. In fact, wild claims without evidence might even hurt his chances!
-
Or completely misleads them. Not that they seem to buy into any of this Z stuff.
Point taken. Though I don't think Mike is a lone seeker... and there have been other sources of info provided to the defence in the past.
-
Thank you Bridget, it just seems that the more they try and cover up, the more likely they would be discovered.
It seems that way to me too. So why frame a living person who would be able to do exactly what he has done, i.e. spend 27 years going through the evidence with a fine tooth comb, when a dead person would have been so much less trouble?
-
Hi mertol22 don,t understand your post have you been on the lager :) :) :)
No go for carlsberg at present susan just opened a orange lucozade chilled can, a figure was spotted walking/ in hurry down either a dirt track or a field when the police arrived, that figure/person was never been ELIMINATED from the investigation why not ?,and what is someone doing on private land at that time of night clearly knew the existance of the track/field.
-
Bridget, I'm going to take the simple route and suggest that initially it was done to save face. Had there not previously been a major cock up with an Essex case that went national? They admitted that mistakes had been made, but on a scale of 1-10, where did the marker fall?
Yes I believe there had been a previous major cock up, my memory is fuzzy, a doctor's wife maybe?
What I don't see is why it would have saved any face to frame JB rather than accept the neat and tidy package that was delivered to them in the form of Sheila.
-
Hi mertol22 I had read about that it seems strange that the police never tried to find the person just for the process of elimination if nothing more I was told on this forum as well that the police found a silencer outside the farm house. Can,t remember of course who told me. Hope you are getting better. :)
-
It seems that way to me too. So why frame a living person who would be able to do exactly what he has done, i.e. spend 27 years going through the evidence with a fine tooth comb, when a dead person would have been so much less trouble?
We are coming to the crux of the matter now Bridget I think. I can relate to people trying to solve this puzzle. One person could ask 'how or why did the case turn?' Another could ask 'why frame a living person when it would have been easier to frame a dead person'?
-
Yes I believe there had been a previous major cock up, my memory is fuzzy, a doctor's wife maybe?
What I don't see is why it would have saved any face to frame JB rather than accept the neat and tidy package that was delivered to them in the form of Sheila.
Exactly! However, IF there is such a photograph clearly showing ONE gun shot wound on Sheila and someone has a copy - why aren't they handing it over? This evidence would surely seal the appeal?
-
Interesting, but without evidence it is pure fiction.
Despite there may be an element of truth. I'm reminded of a situation in which I knew something I couldn't prove and being challenged to try. Lack of evidence is not proof of something having happened or not, and can be, and is used by both the prosecution and defence.
-
Despite there may be an element of truth. I'm reminded of a situation in which I knew something I couldn't prove and being challenged to try. Lack of evidence is not proof of something having happened or not, and can be, and is used by both the prosecution and defence.
This is true and JB was basically convicted by such 'evidence' however, people have said they they have seen the picture of Sheila. If they have a copy or know where to find it, why not post it or give it to the defence team?
-
We are coming to the crux of the matter now Bridget I think. I can relate to people trying to solve this puzzle. One person could ask 'how or why did the case turn?' Another could ask 'why frame a living person when it would have been easier to frame a dead person'?
Roch, in crude terms, if the living person walked free, the money could have gone with him and so to could a lifestyle. What would have been gained by framing the dead person?
-
Despite there may be an element of truth. I'm reminded of a situation in which I knew something I couldn't prove and being challenged to try. Lack of evidence is not proof of something having happened or not, and can be, and is used by both the prosecution and defence.
If you assert something it's down to you to provide the evidence to support it, there appears to be absolutely nothing to support all these masonic conspiracy theories.
Roch, in crude terms, if the living person walked free, the money could have gone with him and so to could a lifestyle. What would have been gained by framing the dead person?
What would the police have gained either way?
Exactly! However, IF there is such a photograph clearly showing ONE gun shot wound on Sheila and someone has a copy - why aren't they handing it over? This evidence would surely seal the appeal?
You'd think...
Mike has said he has copies of a photo on 3 (or was it 4?) hard drives. He has described this photo as showing Sheila on the bed with no blood coming from the sides of her mouth, thus showing that Sheila must have been on the bed before the crime scene photos were taken. He's had it since 2003 but won't post it or do anything else with it.
Then there is Mike's informant 'Z' who met him in the wood somewhere and showed him a picture of Sheila on the bed with one wound. Mike and 'Z' apparently hand delivered that phot to the CCRC in Birmingham, but nothing has been said about that since and Mike apparently doesn't have a copy.
Make of that what you will...
-
Roch, in crude terms, if the living person walked free, the money could have gone with him and so to could a lifestyle. What would have been gained by framing the dead person?
I'm not sure Sheila would necessarily have been 'framed' by police if the rap for what took place had stayed with her. Nevertheless the question asked by Bridget and the question asked by my self is at the crux of the case. What made EP switch from her to him? It used to be because JM came forward. I think JM was shoved forward rather forcefully. But by who? And why?
There's problems for whichever line you take. If you speculate that the major driving force was money, does that adequately portray the unswerving protestations of belief in guilt by the relatives? If you speculate that belief in guilt was the driving force, that doesn't support RWB obtaining all this alleged info about Sheila's death and the aftermath (i.e. if he discovered she had been alive prior to the raid).
If there is considerable dislike, distrust & suspicion of JB and also a financial motive, then that still doesn't explain how EP were persuaded to switch their attentions. Mike seems to favour that it was all of the above, plus highlt sensitive inside info known by RWB (used as leverage).
An alternative argument is that EP genuinely came round to the idea it was JB. Because they hadn't properly preserved the crime scene and because of the immense pressure they were under, they created a case against him to achieve the desired result.
-
I'm not sure Sheila would necessarily have been 'framed' by police if the rap for what took place had stayed with her. Nevertheless the question asked by Bridget and the question asked by my self is at the crux of the case. What made EP switch from her to him? It used to be because JM came forward. I think JM was shoved forward rather forcefully. But by who? And why?
There's problems for whichever line you take. If you speculate that the major driving force was money, does that adequately portray the unswerving protestations of belief in guilt by the relatives? If you speculate that belief in guilt was the driving force, that doesn't support RWB obtaining all this alleged info about Sheila's death and the aftermath (i.e. if he discovered she had been alive prior to the raid).
If there is considerable dislike, distrust & suspicion of JB and also a financial motive, then that still doesn't explain how EP were persuaded to switch their attentions. Mike seems to favour that it was all of the above, plus highlt sensitive inside info known by RWB (used as leverage). If you follow that line, depending the extent of what RWB allegedly knew, it doesn't paint him in a very good light, especially if it is the level of info asserted above by Mike.
An alternative argument is that EP genuinely came round to the idea it was JB. Because they hadn't properly preserved the crime scene and because of the immense pressure they were under, they created a case against him to achieve the desired result.
That seems a pretty fair summary of the problems, now what are the answers? ;D
-
If you assert something it's down to you to provide the evidence to support it, there appears to be absolutely nothing to support all these masonic conspiracy theories.
Bridget, I find the masonic conspiracy theories much too hard to swallow. I accept that there are rotten eggs everywhere, ut my numerous friens and relatives who are masons are all thoroughly decent people and I have a very strong urge to defend them.
What would the police have gained either way?
It may be more about what they may have lost had they not gone along with it.
You'd think...
Mike has said he has copies of a photo on 3 (or was it 4?) hard drives. He has described this photo as showing Sheila on the bed with no blood coming from the sides of her mouth, thus showing that Sheila must have been on the bed before the crime scene photos were taken. He's had it since 2003 but won't post it or do anything else with it.
Then there is Mike's informant 'Z' who met him in the wood somewhere and showed him a picture of Sheila on the bed with one wound. Mike and 'Z' apparently hand delivered that phot to the CCRC in Birmingham, but nothing has been said about that since and Mike apparently doesn't have a copy.
Make of that what you will...
I wait patiently.
-
That photograph was in the hands of Ewen Smith,,,a former solicitor of Jeremys',,back in December 2003.
It was when Mike saw it in EW's office. It showed Sheila on top of the bed in the master bedroom,,minus the/a rifle on,or near her body.
This would account for Sheilas' bed not having been slept in,,apart from the indentation of her head having been resting on the pillow as shown in pics that we've seen.
-
That photograph was in the hands of Ewen Smith,,,a former solicitor of Jeremys',,back in December 2003.
It was when Mike saw it in EW's office. It showed Sheila on top of the bed in the master bedroom,,minus the/a rifle on,or near her body.
This would account for Sheilas' bed not having been slept in,,apart from the indentation of her head having been resting on the pillow as shown in pics that we've seen.
Has Ewen Smith ever admitted to having seen that photo?
-
I'm not sure Sheila would necessarily have been 'framed' by police if the rap for what took place had stayed with her. Nevertheless the question asked by Bridget and the question asked by my self is at the crux of the case. What made EP switch from her to him? It used to be because JM came forward. I think JM was shoved forward rather forcefully. But by who? And why?
There's problems for whichever line you take. If you speculate that the major driving force was money, does that adequately portray the unswerving protestations of belief in guilt by the relatives? If you speculate that belief in guilt was the driving force, that doesn't support RWB obtaining all this alleged info about Sheila's death and the aftermath (i.e. if he discovered she had been alive prior to the raid).
If there is considerable dislike, distrust & suspicion of JB and also a financial motive, then that still doesn't explain how EP were persuaded to switch their attentions. Mike seems to favour that it was all of the above, plus highlt sensitive inside info known by RWB (used as leverage).
An alternative argument is that EP genuinely came round to the idea it was JB. Because they hadn't properly preserved the crime scene and because of the immense pressure they were under, they created a case against him to achieve the desired result.
Roch, I'm happy to go with your alternative argument adding that they may have caved in under pressure from the rellies and it started to look like the easiest option, and if they thought he would get off through lack of evidence at least they would have fulfilled any
obligation they may have believed they had to the rellies, by taking him to court.
-
Robert Boutflour seized on the information he learned about the find of a silencer by the police on the morning of the shootings, and he built his theory about Jeremy using a silencer on the gun when he carried out the shootings, based on that information. The original silencer (SBJ/1) found by the police on 7th August 1985, caused the relatives to believe that it had been handed back to the scene by the police, prior to the keys being handed back to the family, on the evening of 9th August 1985? Linked to this, is the fact that on the afternoon of the 9th August 1985, DCI "taff" Jones, and DS "Stan" Jones, visited Jeremy Bamber at his cottage at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, Essex, and spoke to him about the rifle and the silencer. In particular, they asked him if the rifle had got the silencer fitted to its barrel on the evening prior to the shootings which Jeremy had handled before leaving whf and going home to his cottage on evening 6th August 1985? He told them,"No"...
Although DCI "Taff" Jones has since died, DS "Stan" Jones has confirmed in a witness statement that the police did speak to Jeremy about the silencer on the afternoon of 9th August 1985...
So, the police knew about the silencer, a silencer, the day before the relatives claim to have found one in the gun cupboard. Why did the police take an interest in one of these silencers on the day of the shootings, which they drew Jeremy's attention to on the afternoon of 9th August 1985, the day before the relatives brought the second silencer into the equation? I have received intelligence that Robert Boutflour was told by sources already mentioned that the police actually shot Sheila upon entering the kitchen - he was told that this came about involving a rifle with a silencer fitted to the end of its barrel. He was told that there was a struggle between a police officer and Sheila and that it resulted in her getting shot in the right side of the neck by the police. The angle of the shot and the dimension of the gun with silencer fitted prevented an opportunity for Sheila to have shot herself in the neck at that time, and so with Sheila on the kitchen floor presumed dead, police removed the silencer from the guns barrel (which was later seized by DS Jones). Police thought she was dead, and left her body unattended downstairs whilst they proceeded to carry out a search of other parts of the farmhouse, and upstairs. She had not died but found her way upstairs to the bedroom and collapsed on the bed. This took place before the training exercise took place at around 8:30am to 9am. By this stage, police officers engaged in the training exercise had moved the body and repositioned the rifle (minus a silencer) atop the body, and that no-one had checked to see if the rifle being used was loaded with bullets or safe? It was during the stage managing of Sheila's body and the repositioning of the rifle atop her body that the gun went off and Sheila got shot under the chin. It was not until that moment that the police realized that Sheila was not dead, but had been killed by the second discharge of a gun...
The key feature which Robert Boutflour found out relating to the shooting of Sheila was that a silencer was used when she was first shot downstairs, but that there was no silencer fitted to the gun that fired the fatal shot under the chin? Boutflour found out that the police had removed a silencer from one guns barrel, and that there was no silencer fitted to the gun which killed her because police had removed it, and it had been seized by DS "Stan" Jones at the scene along with three other exhibits (SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4). Boutflour was confident that he could make fellow mason ACC Peter Simpson instigate an investigation into trying to put Jeremy in the frame for the murders, because of the fact that police had removed a silencer from one rifle, and had seized a metal end cap from the other. Police have kept the location where the metal end cap was found secret, because they wanted to leave it open to argue if necessary that the silencer taken into possession by DS Jones (SBJ/1) on 7th August 1985, had also been fitted to the barrel of the rifle which fired the fatal shot, but it had not...
Boutflour found out that this was the reason why the original fragmented bullet (PV/20) was substituted and replaced by a test fired whole bullet. He knew this was important because the fragmented bullet had become damaged as a result of having been fired through a misaligned silencer, which was not reproduced on the fatal bullet that killed her. Boutflour knew this was the reason why police swapped over one of the bullets, because if they had been left as they were, it would have been crystal clear that both bullets had not been fired through a damaged silencer, becaue only one of the two bullets |(PV/20) was fragmented...
With this in mind, persuading ACC Simpson to start a new investigation trying to put Jeremy in the frame was a piece of cake...
-
If you assert something it's down to you to provide the evidence to support it, there appears to be absolutely nothing to support all these masonic conspiracy theories.
What would the police have gained either way?
You'd think...
Mike has said he has copies of a photo on 3 (or was it 4?) hard drives. He has described this photo as showing Sheila on the bed with no blood coming from the sides of her mouth, thus showing that Sheila must have been on the bed before the crime scene photos were taken. He's had it since 2003 but won't post it or do anything else with it.
Then there is Mike's informant 'Z' who met him in the wood somewhere and showed him a picture of Sheila on the bed with one wound. Mike and 'Z' apparently hand delivered that phot to the CCRC in Birmingham, but nothing has been said about that since and Mike apparently doesn't have a copy.
Make of that what you will...
Essex police deliberately falsified the photographic records and hid 358 photographs from the defence and the court which tried him, and the appellate court which dealt with the 2002 appeal. Many of these 358 photograph (if not all) would have exposed the prosecutions case as a pack of lies, and would have helped to prove that police stage managed the scene and planted the gun and the bible on Sheila's body to make out that she had taken her own life (Jeremy was completely innocent and played no role at all in those proceedings) - make of this what you will? Police swapped over one of the bullets relating to Sheila's injuries. Police tampered with the exhibit references of different silencers and presented a false case suggesting there was only ever just the one (merged) silencer...
Make of this and all the other inconsistencies, irregularities and contradictions in / of the case against Jeremy Bamber? Can you really keep using the lousy excuse that police made errors in this case?
-
Nevertheless the question asked by Bridget and the question asked by my self is at the crux of the case. What made EP switch from her to him? It used to be because JM came forward. I think JM was shoved forward rather forcefully. But by who? And why?
Actually Roch, it was my question but as Bridget said - what are the answers? Speculation just makes more questions than answers.
Also, regards the picture - no one would surely hand over such an important piece of evidence without 'first' making a copy and you would 'never' had over the original! If there is such a picture, why not just post it here and then we can ALL lobby the CCRC with the same information and something might happen BUT if it is simply a case of someone needing people to think they know something others don't - well, that's not really helping anyone.
-
Actually Roch, it was my question but as Bridget said - what are the answers? Speculation just makes more questions than answers.
Also, regards the picture - no one would surely hand over such an important piece of evidence without 'first' making a copy and you would 'never' had over the original! If there is such a picture, why not just post it here and then we can ALL lobby the CCRC with the same information and something might happen BUT if it is simply a case of someone needing people to think they know something others don't - well, that's not really helping anyone.
I suppose its a bit like DC Clarke telling Ann Eaton on the morning of the shootings that the bodies of Sheila and June were found on the bed, and the actual photographs which Essex police dared disclose amongst the 223 they said had been taken showed Sheila on the bedroom floor with the gun barrel in different positions against and around her neck. In addition, in these re-staged photographs the position of Sheila's right hand is shown in various positions upon, against and around the trigger...
Guns barrel has been moved about in the region of the neck where the second fatal shot under the chin was inflicted - and police photographed her right hand in different positions around, upon and against the trigger. It should be obvious why the police are saying no-one moved anything until after PC Bird finished taking all his pictures, yet here we have the guns barrel in different positions against her neck, and Sheila's right hand and fingers dancing around the region of the trigger, at a time when police were satisfied that she took her own life.
She committed suicide didn't she?
-
Police blamed Jeremy for stage managing Sheila's body, but it was the police who stage managed her body wasn't it?
Why don't the police just own up to what they did (stage manage her body), and agree that they wrongly blamed Jeremy for doing precisely that which they themselves had done?
-
Police blamed Jeremy for stage managing Sheila's body, but it was the police who stage managed her body wasn't it?
Why don't the police just own up to what they did (they stage managed her body), and agree that they wrongly blamed Jeremy for doing precisely that which they themselves had done?
Make of this what you will...
-
That seems a pretty fair summary of the problems, now what are the answers? ;D
My guess is that RWB didn't share all of what he had found out with his off-spring. I think that where CAE and later DB shared RWB's distrust, suspicion and disdain for JB, they were not made privy to some of the info he received.
I think JB had a dodgy side which impacted upon some but not others. Those who he impacted upon had no qualms about getting shot of him and subsequently stuck together when the need arose (i.e. statements / scratches / silencer). I think the financial implications regarding estate / inheritance etc, merely compounded the fate of JB. However I have a feeling that in the case of RWB, there was more to it than that, i.e. it was more of a motivation. I think that after the killings, everything JB had ever done or said was reinterpreted with a sinister bent.
I think the police were stuck between a rock and a hard place due to the raid / crime scene etc. Under mounting pressure, they chose the lesser of two evils from their own perspective. They burned a cad and they twisted arms / called in favours to do so. It was slight of hand. They ruthlessly ditched anything that was supportive of JB, in order to play up the cad. The silencer evidence was created and the whole Mugford episode was engineered, coerced and managed, literally micro managed. It must have been an exhausting process to make her 'credible'.
I think potential waverers were silenced in the wake of Taff Jones' death. If there was nothing sinister in it, they had still lost their figurehead. It was a new regime.
In two months time, I'll probably tell you something completely different.
-
Actually Roch, it was my question but as Bridget said - what are the answers? Speculation just makes more questions than answers.
Also, regards the picture - no one would surely hand over such an important piece of evidence without 'first' making a copy and you would 'never' had over the original! If there is such a picture, why not just post it here and then we can ALL lobby the CCRC with the same information and something might happen BUT if it is simply a case of someone needing people to think they know something others don't - well, that's not really helping anyone.
I'm ambivalent regarding this pic. I haven't got a clue as to what is going on with it, if it exists. I see your point about speculation, which I am guilty of. It really does create more questions than answers.
-
Police blamed Jeremy for stage managing Sheila's body, but it was the police who stage managed her body wasn't it?
Why don't the police just own up to what they did (stage manage her body), and agree that they wrongly blamed Jeremy for doing precisely that which they themselves had done?
If you know this (and I mean REALLY KNOW 100%) why don't you do something about it? If you are indeed in possession on this picture - it would be a very powerful piece of evidence. It would render their whole case obsolete and as sound as a house of cards!
-
My guess is that RWB didn't share all of what he had found out with his off-spring. I think that where CAE and later DB shared RWB's distrust, suspicion and disdain for JB, they were not made privy to some of the info he received.
I think JB had a dodgy side which impacted upon some but not others. Those who he impacted upon had no qualms about getting shot of him and subsequently stuck together when the need arose (i.e. statements / scratches / silencer). I think the financial implications regarding estate / inheritance etc, merely compounded the fate of JB. However I have a feeling that in the case of RWB, there was more to it than that, i.e. it was more of a motivation. I think that after the killings, everything JB had ever done or said was reinterpreted with a sinister bent.
I think the police were stuck between a rock and a hard place due to the raid / crime scene etc. Under mounting pressure, they chose the lesser of two evils from their own perspective. They burned a cad and they twisted arms / called in favours to do so. It was slight of hand. They ruthlessly ditched anything that was supportive of JB, in order to play up the cad. The silencer evidence was created and the whole Mugford episode was engineered, coerced and managed, literally micro managed. It must have been an exhausting process to make her 'credible'.
I think potential waverers were silenced in the wake of Taff Jones' death. If there was nothing sinister in it, they had still lost their figurehead. It was a new regime.
In two months time, I'll probably tell you something completely different.
That's almost what I believe to the letter - however, without cold hard evidence I sometimes think I sound like someone claiming alien abduction! :)
-
Roch, I'm happy to go with your alternative argument adding that they may have caved in under pressure from the rellies and it started to look like the easiest option, and if they thought he would get off through lack of evidence at least they would have fulfilled any
obligation they may have believed they had to the rellies, by taking him to court.
Yes, I have thought exactly along these lines. However, it's not as if they provided any helpful get out of jail cards to the defence... :-\
-
Yes, I have thought exactly along these lines. However, it's not as if they provided any helpful get out of jail cards to the defence... :-\
The picture that Mike is talking about would be exactly that but I don't understand why he is unwilling to post it? Does it exist or not?
-
The picture that Mike is talking about would be exactly that but I don't understand why he is unwilling to post it? Does it exist or not?
If it does, the authorities don't seem too concerned.
-
If it does, the authorities don't seem too concerned.
'Authorities' find miscarriages of justice embarrassing! The defence team would!
-
Police blamed Jeremy for stage managing Sheila's body, but it was the police who stage managed her body wasn't it?
Why don't the police just own up to what they did (stage manage her body), and agree that they wrongly blamed Jeremy for doing precisely that which they themselves had done?
Mike
Given, your posts, in my opinion it is very apparent you do not trust EP in any way shape or form.
As such I am confused as to why are you asking them to own up to something when you do not believe they would ever do such a thing?
On the other hand you could always force their hand by posting a photograph of Sheila on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck. If you do not want to post such a picture you could make sure such a photograph finds its way to Jeremy's defence lawyer........... Jeremy's defence lawyer being the one person who could force EP to provide the responses you want merely by presenting the new photographic evidence. Such new evidence would also satisfy the CCRC criteria in granting a referral.
In the absence of a posted / published / presented photograph EP do not have to defend their current position....... it is you who has to force EP's hand.
I am afraid the posting of lots of questions and speculations on a forum will not generate the answers you are seeking.
-
My guess is that RWB didn't share all of what he had found out with his off-spring. I think that where CAE and later DB shared RWB's distrust, suspicion and disdain for JB, they were not made privy to some of the info he received.
I think JB had a dodgy side which impacted upon some but not others. Those who he impacted upon had no qualms about getting shot of him and subsequently stuck together when the need arose (i.e. statements / scratches / silencer). I think the financial implications regarding estate / inheritance etc, merely compounded the fate of JB. However I have a feeling that in the case of RWB, there was more to it than that, i.e. it was more of a motivation. I think that after the killings, everything JB had ever done or said was reinterpreted with a sinister bent.
I think the police were stuck between a rock and a hard place due to the raid / crime scene etc. Under mounting pressure, they chose the lesser of two evils from their own perspective. They burned a cad and they twisted arms / called in favours to do so. It was slight of hand. They ruthlessly ditched anything that was supportive of JB, in order to play up the cad. The silencer evidence was created and the whole Mugford episode was engineered, coerced and managed, literally micro managed. It must have been an exhausting process to make her 'credible'.
I think potential waverers were silenced in the wake of Taff Jones' death. If there was nothing sinister in it, they had still lost their figurehead. It was a new regime.
In two months time, I'll probably tell you something completely different.
So to be clear, you buy this idea that RWB found out that the raid team / trainees cocked it up and that he used that information to put pressure on the police (via masonic channels) to concoct a case against Jeremy? Really?
Do you also agree wiith Mike's latest idea that Sheila struggled with a member of the raid team and was then shot by him in the kitchen, that despite her injuries (lacerated jugular and fractured vertebrae) she made it unseen up to the bedroom where she lay on the bed and was then shot accidentally by one of the trainees? If so, you must also buy the theory that not only could Dr Craig (among others) not tell the difference between a dead person and a live person, but he lied about her being on the floor when he examined her. So many lies..
-
So to be clear, you buy this idea that RWB found out that the raid team / trainees cocked it up and that he used that information to put pressure on the police (via masonic channels) to concoct a case against Jeremy? Really?
Do you also agree wiith Mike's latest idea that Sheila struggled with a member of the raid team and was then shot by him in the kitchen, that despite her injuries (lacerated jugular and fractured vertebrae) she made it unseen up to the bedroom where she lay on the bed and was then shot accidentally by one of the trainees? If so, you must also buy the theory that not only could Dr Craig (among others) not tell the difference between a dead person and a live person, but he lied about her being on the floor when he examined her. So many lies..
Rushed answer:
I never mentioned masonic channels ??? I have no problem with RWB receiving info from Carr. Exactly what such info was, I couldn't say. I think at the very least he knew the crime scene had been trashed and that this alone could have proved majorly embarrassing for EP who were under severe pressure.
With regard to Mike's assertion re report 1612, I haven't got a clue. Nobody knows what is in the unedited and as yet, unseen report. It's contents could contain anything.
Regarding Dr. Craig, I suppose it depends upon the circs in which they found Sheila. She could have been in a virtual catatonic state with a gunshot wound to the throat. You seem to be very keen on the police / professionals making multiple blunders from start to finish, when it suits a guilty argument. Yet you have an aversion to the same when it does not suit a guilty argument.
I'll be back considerably later.
-
Rushed answer:
I never mentioned masonic channels ??? I have no problem with RWB receiving info from Carr. Exactly what such info was, I couldn't say. I think at the very least he knew the crime scene had been trashed and that this alone could have proved majorly embarrassing for EP who were under severe pressure.
With regard to Mike's assertion re report 1612, I haven't got a clue. Nobody knows what is in the unedited and as yet, unseen report. It's contents could contain anything.
Regarding Dr. Craig, I suppose it depends upon the circs in which they found Sheila. She could have been in a virtual catatonic state with a gunshot wound to the throat. You seem to be very keen on the police / professionals making multiple blunders from start to finish, when it suits a guilty argument. Yet you have an aversion to the same when it does not suit a guilty argument.
I'll be back considerably later.
There is a world of difference between writing down an incorrect time, or misinterpreting something said over a radio and later correcting it, and doing what you are suggesting they did.
-
Make of this what you will...
Mike,,,are you in contact with Ron Cook at all.?
-
Rushed answer:
I never mentioned masonic channels ??? I have no problem with RWB receiving info from Carr. Exactly what such info was, I couldn't say. I think at the very least he knew the crime scene had been trashed and that this alone could have proved majorly embarrassing for EP who were under severe pressure.
With regard to Mike's assertion re report 1612, I haven't got a clue. Nobody knows what is in the unedited and as yet, unseen report. It's contents could contain anything.
Regarding Dr. Craig, I suppose it depends upon the circs in which they found Sheila. She could have been in a virtual catatonic state with a gunshot wound to the throat. You seem to be very keen on the police / professionals making multiple blunders from start to finish, when it suits a guilty argument. Yet you have an aversion to the same when it does not suit a guilty argument.
I'll be back considerably later.
It is acknowledged by all parties that there were police cock-ups from the word go. This was in fact the main complaint from the relatives. I wouln't mind betting that RWB used his influence to oust Taff Jones from leading the investigation. Concerning the Masons I could not say. But many powerful Masons can and I'm sure do use their influence to achieve what they want.
-
There is a world of difference between writing down an incorrect time, or misinterpreting something said over a radio and later correcting it, and doing what you are suggesting they did.
It is also unlikely that so many personnel within the same force would require hearing aid apparatus, suffer from the early onset of dementia and be so poor at handwriting that they need to scribble every date out to correct it ;)
-
Mike,,,are you in contact with Ron Cook at all.?
Lookout, you are referring to the poster 'Ron Cook' as opposed to the former police officer. Ron has privately contacted many people linked to the case, in an unofficial capacity.
-
Hi Roch I was reading back today and it said at the Trial Jeremy never once said that Julie was telling porkies if this was the case have you any idea why he would do this. (Dare not ask Bridget ;))
-
Hi Roch I was reading back today and it said at the Trial Jeremy never once said that Julie was telling porkies if this was the case have you any idea why he would do this. (Dare not ask Bridget ;))
I don't know Susan. Unless he was instructed not to do so by his defence counsel? ???
-
Hi Roch I was reading back today and it said at the Trial Jeremy never once said that Julie was telling porkies if this was the case have you any idea why he would do this. (Dare not ask Bridget ;))
What were you reading?
-
Hi Bridget Wow you have caught me out. Actually I know where I read it that will surprise you. An earlier post today was referring back to letters Jeremy had written to Julie and it was on the same page of posts back in 2011. I bet you will find it Bridget and no doubt I will hear from you again :) :) :)
-
Hi Bridget Wow you have caught me out. Actually I know where I read it that will surprise you. An earlier post today was referring back to letters Jeremy had written to Julie and it was on the same page of posts back in 2011. I bet you will find it Bridget and no doubt I will hear from you again :) :) :)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1125.msg34512/topicseen.html#msg34512
::)
-
Thanks Roch.
Hi Roch I was reading back today and it said at the Trial Jeremy never once said that Julie was telling porkies if this was the case have you any idea why he would do this. (Dare not ask Bridget ;))
I think that post of yours was a little misleading Susan. I'm sure at trial the defence will have refuted JM's evidence, what was being said in that thread was that he didn't accuse her of lying at trial in that letter.
-
Hi Bridget Thank you for being right once more one of these days I will be right and you wrong my dear :) ;) Sorry for being misleading naughty step coming my way ;)
-
He must have had incredible trust in her not to tell that he was a murderer even to dare breaking up with her? Something there just doesn't ring true for me.
-
Hi Grahame what kind of a woman would carry on sleeping with a man after she had seen the little bodies of the twins in the mortuary if he had confessed to killing them. Just too ridiculous to be true.
-
I've not read her statement yet... :-\
-
Hi Grahame what kind of a woman would carry on sleeping with a man after she had seen the little bodies of the twins in the mortuary if he had confessed to killing them. Just too ridiculous to be true.
Hi Susan, hope your feet are dry! There's a curious parallel here between JM and Vickie Carr, Ian huntley's girlfriend. I could understand why VC gave him an alibi. I imagine, that under the circumstances it surely must have been impossible to believe that the man she shared a bed with was capable of such horrendous violence and in giving him the alibi she was attempting to make herself believe that he didn't do it. I think it possible that by saying Jeremy was responsible, JM was attempting to make herself believe that he was.
-
Hi Grahame what kind of a woman would carry on sleeping with a man after she had seen the little bodies of the twins in the mortuary if he had confessed to killing them. Just too ridiculous to be true.
A money mad kind of woman.
-
A money mad kind of woman.
Or a scorned one.... ;) ;) ;)
-
Hi Roch I was reading back today and it said at the Trial Jeremy never once said that Julie was telling porkies if this was the case have you any idea why he would do this. (Dare not ask Bridget ;))
Jeremy was never asked this whilst testifying - but he did say in his interviews by the police that she was not telling the truth and or that she was simply a woman scorned (which DCI "Taff" Jones agreed with). One of the things about Julie Mugfords evidence, is that it dramatically changed over a period of time. She was seen and spoken to by the police over 30 times, and many numerous witness statements giving these unfolding detail which have never yet been disclosed fully. The actual contents of all these witness statements was important to the defence, to the court which tried the matter, and to the appeals which went on to dismiss the case? In most of the instances when police saw Mugford or took new statements from her she was in the company of DS "Stan" Jones, or DC Barlow. This is very interesting because DS Jones was the first police officer to suspect Jeremy of involvement in the shootings, and he undoubtedly influenced what Mugford later went on to say. Mugford should have been handled by a different police officer who was not so bias in favour of Sheila not having killed the others and then herself? The other thing which needs to be mentioned and taken into consideration is that there is / was a real danger that one or more of those witness statements made in Julie Mugfords name, were not actually made by her, but had been made on her behalf and her name put to them? Such witness statements could have been typed out by DS "Stan" Jones, or the DPP (like in other instances involving the materialization of police officers witness statements made up for them in their absence)?
-
Yes,,,of the in-family type,,minus Jeremy. I would have said that it was Ralph who got a good bashing,rather than say there'd been a fight. Ralph having been a gentleman wouldn't have " fought " with his own daughter.
[/quo
Has it ever ben discussed that having been shot upstairs or on/around the stairs he then proceeed to fall down them, doing lots of damage to himself but not leavin gany marks on JB (or Sheila)? Has this been investigated? It seems more plausible than the wetsuit busines I've heard about.
-
Hi Mike the thing that is bugging me is any self respecting person who was aware that her boyfriend of 2 years had murdered his whole family did not immediately go to the police and tell them that Jeremy had confessed to her that he had carried out the murders. She was therefore an accessory to the murders. She went to the mortuary and identified the two little boys and if what she had said about Jeremy was true she was worse than him. I think her main motivation for doing what she did was she would not be charged with crimes she had committed i.e. fraud, drug smuggling which would have put an end to her teaching career plus of course the payout of £25,000 new life in Canada goodbye Jeremy the love of my life (I don,t think).
I personally don,t know how she can sleep at night unless of course even with her evidence she thought Jeremy was going to walk a free man if she did it all backfired and then she was in no position to reverse her statement.
-
Hi Mike the thing that is bugging me is any self respecting person who was aware that her boyfriend of 2 years had murdered his whole family did not immediately go to the police and tell them that Jeremy had confessed to her that he had carried out the murders. She was therefore an accessory to the murders. She went to the mortuary and identified the two little boys and if what she had said about Jeremy was true she was worse than him. I think her main motivation for doing what she did was she would not be charged with crimes she had committed i.e. fraud, drug smuggling which would have put an end to her teaching career plus of course the payout of £25,000 new life in Canada goodbye Jeremy the love of my life (I don,t think).
I personally don,t know how she can sleep at night unless of course even with her evidence she thought Jeremy was going to walk a free man if she did it all backfired and then she was in no position to reverse her statement.
The police were none the wiser about those things until she came forward and told them.
-
Morning Bridget I was not aware of that. But as I see it the crimes had still be committed and she would have been charged at sometime with them unless of course the crimes had gone undetected if that was the case why would she bother telling the police about them at all. Unless I am missing something or misread something again ;)
-
Hi Mike the thing that is bugging me is any self respecting person who was aware that her boyfriend of 2 years had murdered his whole family did not immediately go to the police and tell them that Jeremy had confessed to her that he had carried out the murders. She was therefore an accessory to the murders. She went to the mortuary and identified the two little boys and if what she had said about Jeremy was true she was worse than him. I think her main motivation for doing what she did was she would not be charged with crimes she had committed i.e. fraud, drug smuggling which would have put an end to her teaching career plus of course the payout of £25,000 new life in Canada goodbye Jeremy the love of my life (I don,t think).
I personally don,t know how she can sleep at night unless of course even with her evidence she thought Jeremy was going to walk a free man if she did it all backfired and then she was in no position to reverse her statement.
I agree that after all said and done she should have been charged for being an accessory after the fact. Instead, everything criminal that she had ever done was spirited away so that she could not only work with children, but make a new life for herself abroad as a teacher with £25,000 to boot. What a lovely justice system we have. What honourable men we have to uphold that justice system. ::)
-
Morning Bridget I was not aware of that. But as I see it the crimes had still be committed and she would have been charged at sometime with them unless of course the crimes had gone undetected if that was the case why would she bother telling the police about them at all. Unless I am missing something or misread something again ;)
I think once she came forward she was probably told that if she had any skeletons in her cupboard she'd better reveal them now.
-
I think once she came forward she was probably told that if she had any skeletons in her cupboard she'd better reveal them now.
Not sure about skeletons in her cupboard? But she had a lot of clobber in her wardrobe.
-
Hi Bridget sorry I thought her crimes were already known or about to be known as my school report always said Must Pay More Attention ;) ;)
-
Hi Bridget sorry I thought her crimes were already known or about to be known as my school report always said Must Pay More Attention ;) ;)
I imagine the crimes themselves were known about, but her involvement wasn't general knowledge. I suppose the thinking was that it would damage her credibility as a witness if JB were to be able to suddenly point to her and call her a crook, so she was encouraged to come clean.
-
Hi Susan, hope your feet are dry! There's a curious parallel here between JM and Vickie Carr, Ian huntley's girlfriend. I could understand why VC gave him an alibi. I imagine, that under the circumstances it surely must have been impossible to believe that the man she shared a bed with was capable of such horrendous violence and in giving him the alibi she was attempting to make herself believe that he didn't do it. I think it possible that by saying Jeremy was responsible, JM was attempting to make herself believe that he was.
-
I think once she came forward was pulled in & interviewed under caution, she was probably told that if she had any skeletons in her cupboard she'd better reveal them now.
-
Morning April1 yes I have dry feet as I am in The Highlands at the mo. I can,t really relate Julie Mugford and Vickie Carr because Ian Huntley never confessed to her that he had committed the crimes and according to Julie Jeremy had confessed to her not only that but told her when he was going to carry out the horrendous murders so at that stage she should have alerted the family and the police and stopped it from happening. I do know what you mean about Vicki Carr perhaps deep down she knew Ian had carried out the murders and was kidding herself on that he could not have done it and was kind of obliged to give him an alibi for what ever reason he told her he needed one.
-
Hi Roch I hear where you are coming from but why was it necessary not to proceed with charges against her "skeletons" in the cupboard surely she had sat on the fact she knew Jeremy to be a mass murderer she should not have been rewarded for withholding that serious information
-
Hi Roch I hear where you are coming from but why was it necessary not to proceed with charges against her "skeletons" in the cupboard surely she had sat on the fact she knew Jeremy to be a mass murderer she should not have been rewarded for withholding that serious information
I suspect that the police would not have let her get away with being an accessory or an accomplice or having prior knowledge etc. I suspect that if she had been genuinely any of the above, she would not have been 'rewarded' in the material and circumstantial way that came to be. Maxine Carr was not 'rewarded'. She was demonised and punished. Although I accept this is a different case in a different era.
This in turn leads me to believe that there was never anything for her to be an accomplice to or an accessory of. Instead, she was used, coerced and micro managed, then rewarded.
-
Hi Roch my sentiments exactly she therefore, if this was the case committed perjury.
-
Hi Roch my sentiments exactly she therefore, if this was the case committed perjury.
I have always wondered whether JB made frustrated and innapropriate comments about his family to her. If so, these could have sowed a seed of possibilities in her mind. Such remarks could also have been embelleshed under the tutorship of DS Jones. It has been alleged that he informed her that there had definitely not been a call from WHF to Goldhanger. This was in fact unprovable and therefore inconclusive for either defence or prosecution. If what is being alleged is true, then that is a shocking lie which would have had a devastating impact upon her. From that point on, it really is about saving her own skin.
-
Morning Roch. Do you not think it a possibility that the police did a deal with her along the lines of having enough on her to do serious damage to her chances of a future career, to put a stain on her reputation and possibly earn her a prison sentence, all of which could be overlooked if she told them what she knew. It may have been left to her to decide what she did know, which may explain why, although she said he planned it, she bought in a "hitman" because it was marginally better than saying the gun was in Jeremy's hand.
-
Hi Roch I think Jeremy would have made silly comments to her about his family acting the "Big Man" and when it suited her she thought maybe it was possible that Jeremy was involved. But I don,t think he ever confessed to her that he had carried out the murders that is the main difference. She believed what she wanted to believe and dressed it up somewhat especially after he dumped her and she would know then she was not going to share his inheritance Jeremy was naive but not so naive that he would dump her after what he had told her.
-
Spot on Susan. Right down to the last punctuation mark!!!!!
-
I think once she came forward was pulled in & interviewed under caution, she was probably told that if she had any skeletons in her cupboard she'd better reveal them now.
As yet unproven.
-
Hi Roch I think Jeremy would have made silly comments to her about his family acting the "Big Man" and when it suited her she thought maybe it was possible that Jeremy was involved. But I don,t think he ever confessed to her that he had carried out the murders that is the main difference. She believed what she wanted to believe and dressed it up somewhat especially after he dumped her and she would know then she was not going to share his inheritance Jeremy was naive but not so naive that he would dump her after what he had told her.
You might be right Susie.
Did Uncle Bobby inadvertantly give police the idea of Jeremy having discussed with Julie about doing away with his family? It was RWB who claimed Jeremy had once said "I could easily shoot my parents". We'll never know if JB actually said such a thing, but his propensity for innapropriate remarks causing irksome social situations, seems to be a regular theme. Whether the remarks are flippant or sinister can never be proved.
-
As yet unproven.
In a court of law, I agree.
-
Hi Roch I think Jeremy would have made silly comments to her about his family acting the "Big Man" and when it suited her she thought maybe it was possible that Jeremy was involved. But I don,t think he ever confessed to her that he had carried out the murders that is the main difference. She believed what she wanted to believe and dressed it up somewhat especially after he dumped her and she would know then she was not going to share his inheritance Jeremy was naive but not so naive that he would dump her after what he had told her.
-
Morning Roch. Do you not think it a possibility that the police did a deal with her along the lines of having enough on her to do serious damage to her chances of a future career, to put a stain on her reputation and possibly earn her a prison sentence, all of which could be overlooked if she told them what she knew. It may have been left to her to decide what she did know, which may explain why, although she said he planned it, she bought in a "hitman" because it was marginally better than saying the gun was in Jeremy's hand.
April, I suspect she was 'got at'. She was either the way in to frame a guilty man... or the way in to frame an innocent man. Yes I think that you are right but I suspect the threat may have been more serious, i.e. linked to the murders.
I cant claim the credit for the following theory: The police introduced the hitman story... because of the sighting at the window.
-
Do not forget when JM went back to the bank she was accompanied by a policeman , this
was verified by a the then manager at the bank , i will let Bridget show us what the COA said
about the impartial manager's recollection of event's !! If she would be so kind !!
-
You mean this?:
We are far from persuaded that anything done by the police or by the witnesses was improper on any version of the facts. Insofar as there is now a conflict between the witnesses, we are not persuaded that such conflict would have manifested itself, if these matters had been explored whilst memories remained fresh and notes still survived. Accordingly we are not in any way persuaded that this aspect of the case, which was to an extent removed from the critical features of the case, gives us any cause to doubt the safety of the convictions. We do not accept that any impropriety by the police has been established on the evidence available, either as to their conduct at the time of the visit to the bank or by way of some attempt to cover up their role in the matter.
-
You mean this?:
We are far from persuaded that anything done by the police or by the witnesses was improper on any version of the facts. Insofar as there is now a conflict between the witnesses, we are not persuaded that such conflict would have manifested itself, if these matters had been explored whilst memories remained fresh and notes still survived. Accordingly we are not in any way persuaded that this aspect of the case, which was to an extent removed from the critical features of the case, gives us any cause to doubt the safety of the convictions. We do not accept that any impropriety by the police has been established on the evidence available, either as to their conduct at the time of the visit to the bank or by way of some attempt to cover up their role in the matter.
Thanks for that , but i believe there is a bit more , something to do with the manager not keeping
a record of the meeting if memory serves me correctly !!
-
You mean this?:
We are far from persuaded that anything done by the police or by the witnesses was improper on any version of the facts. Insofar as there is now a conflict between the witnesses, we are not persuaded that such conflict would have manifested itself, if these matters had been explored whilst memories remained fresh and notes still survived. Accordingly we are not in any way persuaded that this aspect of the case, which was to an extent removed from the critical features of the case, gives us any cause to doubt the safety of the convictions. We do not accept that any impropriety by the police has been established on the evidence available, either as to their conduct at the time of the visit to the bank or by way of some attempt to cover up their role in the matter.
Why should we believe bank managers.?
-
Why should we believe bank managers.?
I believe EP denied going the bank with JM , the manger claimed they did
if memory not playing trick's with me !! I believe the bank manager made a statement , saying such !!
-
Why should we believe bank managers.?
Why indeed!
-
Thanks for that , but i believe there is a bit more , something to do with the manager not keeping
a record of the meeting if memory serves me correctly !!
He did make notes at the time, but when he tried to find them 16 years later he found that the bank had destroyed them I believe.
-
He did make notes at the time, but when he tried to find them 16 years later he found that the bank had destroyed them I believe.
Hi Bridget,,,yes,I can believe that too. Sudden memory loss.
-
Hi Bridget,,,yes,I can believe that too. Sudden memory loss.
The bank manager contradicted what EP said Lookout !!
-
He did make notes at the time, but when he tried to find them 16 years later he found that the bank had destroyed them I believe.
Can you not find COA word's on this matter ?
-
We do not accept that any impropriety by the police has been established
To the tune of that song by 'The Police' (Every breath you take)
Every date you cross.. every pocket book scribbled.. every statement alter--ed... every photo withheld.... I'll be watching you...
;D
-
We have no doubt that Mr Dovey was an honest witness doing his best to assist the court but a great deal was being asked of his unaided recollection in recalling matters so long ago. There were differences between his evidence in the witness box and the statement which he made in March 2002. In the witness box he said that he did not know of any connection between the matters he was dealing with and any police inquiry. He further said when speaking of the phone call from the Chief Inspector's Department that he only "vaguely remembered" getting such a call. None of this surprises us after such a lapse of time particularly when the notes which he made in order to remind himself if necessary of these events are no longer available. There was, however, no doubt in his mind that a police officer had been present.
-
We have no doubt that Mr Dovey was an honest witness doing his best to assist the court but a great deal was being asked of his unaided recollection in recalling matters so long ago. There were differences between his evidence in the witness box and the statement which he made in March 2002. In the witness box he said that he did not know of any connection between the matters he was dealing with and any police inquiry. He further said when speaking of the phone call from the Chief Inspector's Department that he only "vaguely remembered" getting such a call. None of this surprises us after such a lapse of time particularly when the notes which he made in order to remind himself if necessary of these events are no longer available. There was, however, no doubt in his mind that a police officer had been present.
The last sentence , tell's you all you need to know !! IMO
-
Mike, could you please explain something to me?
If, as you maintain, Sheila shot herself once downstairs but then fled upstairs and was shot by the police, how is it that there can be a photograph of her ON THE BED with a single bullet wound?
-
Mike, could you please explain something to me?
If, as you maintain, Sheila shot herself once downstairs but then fled upstairs and was shot by the police, how is it that there can be a photograph of her ON THE BED with a single bullet wound?
She must have collapsed again through loss of blood, or whatever?
-
So, she shot herself once downstairs, then fled upstairs and collapsed on the bed and was photographed by presumably SOC but then subsequently awoke and was shot by the police?
Could you please remind me of approximately how many police officers were in WHF at the time Sheila fled upstairs and at what time the first member of SOC attended WHF?
-
So, she shot herself once downstairs, then fled upstairs and collapsed on the bed and was photographed by presumably SOC but then subsequently awoke and was shot by the police?
Could you please remind me of approximately how many police officers were in WHF at the time Sheila fled upstairs and at what time the first member of SOC attended WHF?
six raid team members, and first members of SOC first arrived at the scene before 9am...
-
So, none of the 6 members of the raid team saw/heard Sheila flee upstairs or even noticed that she was no longer downstairs? She then collapsed on the bed and some time after 09.00 a member of the SOC team (believing her to be dead) took a photograph of her on the bed with a solitary wound. At that time of course, the 6 (or at least some) members of the raid team must have been aware that she was no longer downstairs. Then she "awoke" and was shot by the police?
And that is the basis of the whole cover-up?
Do I have this sequence of events correct?
The alternative explanation is that the reference to Sheila being dead downstairs is a simple mistake?
Which of these explanations is the more credible (I pose rhetorically)?
Mike, all you have to do is to produce the photograph!
In the absence of you producing this photograph, JB's Defence team WILL NOT seek to persuade any Court in the land that your version of events is correct !!!
-
So, none of the 6 members of the raid team saw/heard Sheila flee upstairs or even noticed that she was no longer downstairs?
The six man raid team had progressed to other parts of the farmhouse, they left the bodies of Ralph and Sheila downstairs in the region of the kitchen, wrongly believing that both victims were dead...
-
The six man raid team had progressed to other parts of the farmhouse, they left the bodies of Ralph and Sheila downstairs in the region of the kitchen, wrongly believing that both victims were dead...
They soon after reported 3 other bodies upstairs for some reason?
-
But, putting the matter as neutrally as possible, at least some of the raid team must have been astonished when they appreciated that Sheila had managed to transfer herself upstairs and to have "collapsed" on the bed (when photographed by SOC) , yet she then awoke and was shot by the police?
Take it from me, JB's defence team will NEVER seek to suggest that sequence of events is correct.
Mike, let me test the water in this way - I will personally pay for the top computer expert in the country to examine the hard drive on your computer to see if it contains the photograph - if you assure this forum that your hard drive does contain the photograph, I will arrange the expert to attend upon you and examine your hard drive at my expense. Do you accept this challenge? But I will only go to this expense if you positively assure this forum that the photograph is on your hard drive - I don't want any bull shit from you that, if the expert doesn't find the photograph on your hard drive, the photograph must have mysteriously disappeared !!!
-
But, putting the matter as neutrally as possible, at least some of the raid team must have been astonished when they appreciated that Sheila had managed to transfer herself upstairs and to have "collapsed" on the bed (when photographed by SOC) , yet she then awoke and was shot by the police?
Take it from me, JB's defence team will NEVER seek to suggest that sequence of events is correct.
Mike, let me test the water in this way - I will personally pay for the top computer expert in the country to examine the hard drive on your computer to see if it contains the photograph - if you assure this forum that your hard drive does contain the photograph, I will arrange the expert to attend upon you and examine your hard drive at my expense. Do you accept this challenge? But I will only go to this expense if you positively assure this forum that the photograph is on your hard drive - I don't want any bull shit from you that, if the expert doesn't find the photograph on your hard drive, the photograph must have mysteriously disappeared !!!
I don't think the extraction of the data is the issue. You won't need a top expert in computers either,It ain't that difficult.
-
Please forgive my ignorance, but on the rare occasions I've been in possession of a gun I've always held the pointy bit away from me. Might it be possible that wherever Sheila was, she was in a state of semiconsciousness which was overlooked, the gun was placed in a position commensurate with her having shot herself, her finger covering the trigger, as she started to regain consciousness her body tensed, maybe in an attempt to sit up and she involuntarily pulled the trigger?
-
But, putting the matter as neutrally as possible, at least some of the raid team must have been astonished when they appreciated that Sheila had managed to transfer herself upstairs and to have "collapsed" on the bed (when photographed by SOC) , yet she then awoke and was shot by the police?
Take it from me, JB's defence team will NEVER seek to suggest that sequence of events is correct.
Mike, let me test the water in this way - I will personally pay for the top computer expert in the country to examine the hard drive on your computer to see if it contains the photograph - if you assure this forum that your hard drive does contain the photograph, I will arrange the expert to attend upon you and examine your hard drive at my expense. Do you accept this challenge? But I will only go to this expense if you positively assure this forum that the photograph is on your hard drive - I don't want any bull shit from you that, if the expert doesn't find the photograph on your hard drive, the photograph must have mysteriously disappeared !!!
That's clearly not what he has claimed
JB's defence team are tied to what has been set down in ink, with gaps here there and everywhere.
-
Neither in the original Trial nor at any subsequent stage has JB's defence team asserted that a policeman shot Sheila !!!!
-
Please forgive my ignorance, but on the rare occasions I've been in possession of a gun I've always held the pointy bit away from me. Might it be possible that wherever Sheila was, she was in a state of semiconsciousness which was overlooked, the gun was placed in a position commensurate with her having shot herself, her finger covering the trigger, as she started to regain consciousness her body tensed, maybe in an attempt to sit up and she involuntarily pulled the trigger?
Good morning April. If ever there was a " stage-managed" pic,,,it's the one where the rifle has been placed upon Sheila,with her hand in such a position as to make you think she shot herself.
No way,,could anyone lie in such a restful looking position after they've either shot themselves,or have been shot. The pain/impact of a close-range/contact shot,,,injury,, would leave an excruciating contorted expression on their face,,,unless she was drugged up to the hilt.
People who die in pain isn't a pretty sight,believe you me,,particularly if it's a sudden death.
On the other hand,as you pointed out,if she'd already have been in a state of semi-consciousness,,then the force of the second shot wouldn't have had the same effect as the first. So yes,,after the first injury,she would have been in a dazed state,,,but even then,I would fail to grasp at her being able to carry out a second shot to herself,and my own theory there is that she flopped onto her bed after that first shot,,,and it remains to be seen/heard who actually fired the second one,but it wasn't herself,,,as she'd have abandoned the rifle.
-
One of the Key problems in this case is that Sheila did not voluntarily shoot herself under the chin, and her body was not found in the position shown by reference to the disclosed crime scene photographs, which show her body on the bedroom floor, with two bullet wounds to her neck. It was the prosecutions case at trial (and since) that somebody shot Sheila, with use of a rifle and silencer and then stage managed her body so that it might appear ass a suicide- which is what did occur. From the defence perspective, they claim that no-one shot Sheila but that she took her own life by shooting herself under the chin by use of a rifle without a silencer fitted to its barrel...
I agree that insofar as the fatal shot under the chin is / was concerned, that no silencer was fitted to the gun which fired that fatal shot, and with this in mind the silencer / blood found inside it / and paint upon it, is nothing but a red herring (bogus)...
-
Neither in the original Trial nor at any subsequent stage has JB's defence team asserted that a policeman shot Sheila !!!!
What about it? Are you implying that documentary evidence is in the hands of the defence, to enable them to do so? Because if no such (new) sworn testimony or other documentary evidence is in the hands of the defence, how could they claim such a thing?
-
Jim ignatowski... please can you confirm, who Bamber blamed on the morning of 7/8/85, upon being informed of the deaths of his family?
-
What about it? Are you implying that documentary evidence is in the hands of the defence, to enable them to do so? Because if no such (new) sworn testimony or other documentary evidence is in the hands of the defence, how could they claim such a thing?
Isn't that the point Jim is making? There is no evidence for the police-shot-Sheila theory, documentary or otherwise.
-
Isn't that the point Jim is making? There is no evidence for the police-shot-Sheila theory, documentary or otherwise.
No, I don't think it is. You do not know that to be the case anyway. What are the contents of report 1612 for example? Verbal investigations have been going on behind the scenes for a considerable period of time. Are you and Jim not confusing this forum, with the defence? The two are not the same. And documentary evidence is not the same as investigatory evidence given verbally.
-
My point is simple - JB's defence team has never asserted before a Court that Sheila was shot by a policeman.
-
No, I don't think it is. You do not know that to be the case anyway. What are the contents of report 1612 for example? Verbal investigations have been going on behind the scenes for a considerable period of time. Are you and Jim not confusing this forum, with the defence? The two are not the same. And documentary evidence is not the same as investigatory evidence given verbally.
I'm sorry, you've lost me. I have no idea what you mean by verbal investigatory evidence - sounds like gossip!
By the way, in whose statement is the bit about JB blaming the raid team - I know I've read it but can't remember where.
-
My point is simple - JB's defence team has never asserted before a Court that Sheila was shot by a policeman.
JB's defence team have for 27 years, tried to uncover / piece together what took place. Repeated requests for the release of relevant documentation have been denied, ignored, sidestepped. Go and read the adjournment debate from Andrew Hunter and the reply given by Fiona McTaggart. That was 7 years ago and 3 years after his last failed appeal, to put things in perspective.
And Bridget, two Italian medical professors gave an estimated time of death as not superior to two hours of being discovered (official time of discover). That places the death within the time frame of the raid. The CCRC rejected their report because they were working from photographs. You your self have stated that there is no wet blood, which is astounding as there are plain as day small pools of wet blood upon her throat.
-
I'm sorry, you've lost me. I have no idea what you mean by verbal investigatory evidence - sounds like gossip!
By the way, in whose statement is the bit about JB blaming the raid team - I know I've read it but can't remember where.
Bridget, please don't be flippant and dismissive with me. Cheers.
-
JB's defence team have for 27 years, tried to uncover / piece together what took place. Repeated requests for the release of relevant documentation have been denied, ignored, sidestepped. Go and read the adjournment debate from Andrew Hunter and the reply given by Fiona McTaggart. That was 7 years ago and 3 years after his last failed appeal, to put things in perspective.
And Bridget, two Italian medical professors gave an estimated time of death as not superior to two hours of being discovered (official time of discover). That places the death within the time frame of the raid. The CCRC rejected their report because they were working from photographs. You your self have stated that there is no wet blood, which is astounding as there are plain as day small pools of wet blood upon her throat.
No, I've stated that to me (a non expert) the photos do not show conclusively that the blood is wet. I've also said that if it is wet it could be blood trapped in her throat seeping from the wounds.
Bridget, please don't be flippant and dismissive with me. Cheers.
What?? You sound like my old school teacher - get some coffee. I don't know what you mean by "verbal investigatory evidence" and the way you have used the phrase makes it sound like what I would call gossip. Is that better?
-
No, I've stated that to me (a non expert) the photos do not show conclusively that the blood is wet. I've also said that if it is wet it could be blood trapped in her throat seeping from the wounds.
What?? You sound like my old school teacher - get some coffee. I don't know what you mean by "verbal investigatory evidence" and the way you have used the phrase makes it sound like what I would call gossip. Is that better?
It's quite clear the that the small pools of blood on her throat are wet. Crystal clear. They are not in the line of any flash.
Change 'evidence' for 'information'.
Investigatory in this case = explorative interviewing around specific issues.
Verbal information in this case = information give via the mode of human speech, from relevant people to the investigator.
-
Neither in the original Trial nor at any subsequent stage has JB's defence team asserted that a policeman shot Sheila !!!!
It is now my turn to put things into perspective and as simply as I can - If the police stage managed the body of Sheila on the bedroom floor, and they tampered with the crime scene photographic evidence, and instigated a cover up, they must have done so with self - preservation in mind, do you not agree? Let me try to put it another way, if the police actually stage managed Sheila's body on the bedroom floor and allowed Jeremy to be blamed for doing what they themselves did, why would they allow that to happen, if the police had done nothing wrong at the scene? Anyone who has seen the crime scene photographs of Sheila's body on the bedroom floor will almost certainly come to the conclusion that her body has been stage managed by someone. I for one do not believe or accept that Jeremy stage managed Sheila's body on the bedroom floor as shown in the disclosed photographs taken by police - everything points to the police being responsible for doing that and this is backed up by reference to the photographs which have recently come into the public domain (on this forum and elsewhere). Jeremy wasn't at the scene when this set or sequence of photographs were being taken, and clearly there is evidence that police moved not only Sheila's right hand so that PC Bird could take pictures of the bloodied hand mark on the front lower part of her nightdress, but they also moved the guns barrel from a position beneath the chin, to one of it resting against the left hand side of her throat. They also adjusted the hem of her nightdress, and moved a bible against her upper right arm, actions which the police strenuously deny having done, even though it is clearly shown in the photographs they took at a time when Bamber could not possibly have had any involvement because he was not there at the material time or moment when such stage managing of the scene took place, and photographs were then taken?
So...
Jeremy did not stage manage his sisters body on the bedroom floor to try and fool the police into thinking that she had killed the others and then taken her own life - the police did the stage managing, and they allowed Jeremy to be blamed for doing that which they themselves are responsible for doing. You would not do that unless you have got something to hide, in my view. For some reason the police at the scene do not want to have to admit that it was them / they who stage managed Sheila's body on the bedroom floor? If they did, Jeremy's convictions would become quashed at the stroke of a pen, because the jury at his trial were shown photographs on the understanding that this was exactly how Sheila;'s body had been found upon entry by the police, when all along the jury had been shown stage managed pictures, and fooled by the prosecutions arguments that Jeremy had been responsible for doing that, and that he had killed Sheila on the bedroom floor and stage managed the body by planting the rifle atop it, and re-arranging her hands to make it appear that she had taken her own life?
The person or persons who did stage manage Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, have got something to hide that is linked to how she actually died in the bedroom after being shot under the chin - this was why the jury relied and acted upon the images they were shown of Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, stage managed as it were according to the prosecutions case, by Jeremy Bamber, and no-one else? The jury were persuaded that Bamber had done the stage managing, but they based this on being shown and given access to only a small number of crime scene photographs (50 out of 581). Imagine for one moment the impact it would have had, if all 581 photographs had been made available to the jury? Imagine if the jury had seen the photographs of the displaced and repositioned guns barrel from a position under the chin to one of resting against the left side of her neck? Imagine what they would have made of the police assertion that no-one moved or touched anything other than DI "Ron" Cook, who shifted Sheila's right hand so that PC Bird could photograph bloodied marks on her nightdress? If the jury had known about the existence of such crucial photographs taken by the police at a time when Jeremy was not even at the scene, they would have rejected the photographic evidence on the basis that they did not show how Sheila's body had been or was found. I think the jury would have been able to work out who had been guilty of the stage managing, and they would almost certainly have concluded that it could not have been and was not Jeremy. With this in mind, the effect of introducing the photographs to support the prosecutions contention that Bamber had stage managed his sisters body so as to fool the police into thinking she had taken her own life, the jury would have been able to reject that consideration and the fact that police did stage manage the scene in the bedroom would have alerted the jury to the possibility that something untoward had taken place surrounding the circumstances of her alleged death by suicide in the bedroom...
Police did not stage manage Sheila's body on the bedroom floor for nothing. They had something to hide which related to how she came to die there. Police went out of their way to promote the idea that Sheila had only been shot once, and that relatives had found the crucial silencer that was used on the gun at the time she was shot under the chin and died? Yet, one of their own had taken possession of a silencer (SBJ/1) at the scene on 7th August 1985. Fact of the matter is, that no silencer was fitted to the guns barrel which fired the fatal shot under the chin that killed Sheila, but police were happy to let such dodgy evidence be used to try (and succeed) to convict Jeremy for killing his sister, and everyone else...
-
Mike,,,the police had already come under fire over the Diane Jones murder,,so it's obvious that they were trying to justify their past mistakes by ( adding yet more ) in getting their man this time round.
They had to shrug off their " Clouseau " type investigations,,so made sure that they all still held their jobs.
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=137.0;attach=75;image)
Bridget, I have had my coffee now. This is the document. I have tried to post it up it by using the mona lisa button
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=137.0;attach=75;image)
Bridget, I have had my coffee now. This is the document. I have tried to post it up it by using the mona lisa button
That's better :)
I take it that's Saxby? Is the rest of it available?
-
That's better :)
I take it that's Saxby? Is the rest of it available?
I was wondering if there was any more available. They look like COLP notes?
-
I was wondering if there was any more available. They look like COLP notes?
Could be.. what thread was it on?
-
Mike,,,the police had already come under fire over the Diane Jones murder,,so it's obvious that they were trying to justify their past mistakes by ( adding yet more ) in getting their man this time round.
They had to shrug off their " Clouseau " type investigations,,so made sure that they all still held their jobs.
According to the evidence of PS Woodcock, he did not seize the rifle and check to see if it was loaded with bullets until 11:10am, yet if this was the case, it becomes obvious by reference to the available crime scene photographs that police were potentially moving a loaded rifle around and about in the region of Sheila's neck, before then...
(1) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image
(2) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4318;image
(3) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4308;image
-
Could be.. what thread was it on?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=137.0
-
According to the evidence of PS Woodcock, he did not seize the rifle and check to see if it was loaded with bullets until 11:10am, yet if this was the case, it becomes obvious by reference to the available crime scene photographs that police were potentially moving a loaded rifle around and about in the region of Sheila's neck, before then...
(1) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image
(2) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4318;image
That completely trashes John Lamberton's assertion. He used to argue the the police first removed the rifle to make it safe, then replaced it were it had been, in order to take crime scene photos. His argument was that this initial displacement of the rifle caused Sheila's head to move and expunged blood from her (that had welled up). I always thought this was a load of tosh btw.
-
That completely trashes John Lamberton's assertion. He used to argue the the police first removed the rifle to make it safe, then replaced it were it had been, in order to take crime scene photos. His argument was that this initial displacement of the rifle caused Sheila's head to move and expunged blood from her (that had welled up). I always thought this was a load of tosh btw.
It is the movement of a potentially loaded rifle (before 11:10am) upon and around Sheila's neck and the repositioning of her hand upon in and around the trigger that ultimately led to Sheila being killed by the discharge of the gun beneath her chin which sent bullet PV/20 up through the base and roof of her mouth and into her brain...
-
It is the movement of a potentially loaded rifle (before 11:10am) upon and around Sheila's neck and the repositioning of her hand upon in and around the trigger that ultimately led to Sheila being killed by the discharge of the gun beneath her chin which sent bullet PV/20 up through the base and roof of her mouth and into her brain...
What about the circular blood pattern on the carpet?
-
That completely trashes John Lamberton's assertion. He used to argue the the police first removed the rifle to make it safe, then replaced it were it had been, in order to take crime scene photos. His argument was that this initial displacement of the rifle caused Sheila's head to move and expunged blood from her (that had welled up). I always thought this was a load of tosh btw.
Personally I find it very hard to believe that none of the raid team would have touched her, either to check the rifle was safe or to check whether she was alive - and yet none of them mention it. Doesn't that seem odd? They've gone in there armed to the teeth expecting to be confronted by a 'nutter with a gun', and when they see her lying there they just assume that she's dead and the gun is safe.
-
What about the circular blood pattern on the carpet?
Possibly caused after Sheila sustained the second fatal shot under the chin and whilst police were moving her body from the bed to the bedroom floor. It is strange that it exists so close to where her body ended up...
-
Possibly caused after Sheila sustained the second fatal shot under the chin and whilst police were moving her body from the bed to the bedroom floor. It is strange that it exists so close to where her body ended up...
That would render the Birdwell Armory photos useless.
-
That would render the Birdwell Armory photos useless.
No, because thise tests were carried out having regards to the prosecutions contention that Sheila had been shot twice whilst on the bedroom floor, or at least one of them was. Those tests performed at Birdwell armoury (as it was then) were undertaken primarily to show that even if the silencer had been fitted to the guns barrel, the overall length of the weapon would not have been too long to prevent Sheila from shooting herself with a silencer fitted to the guns barrel, contrary to what the prosecution argued as part of its case during trial, and since...
-
No, because thise tests were carried out having regards to the prosecutions contention that Sheila had been shot twice whilst on the bedroom floor, or at least one of them was. Those tests performed at Birdwell armoury (as it was then) were undertaken primarily to show that even if the silencer had been fitted to the guns barrel, the overall length of the weapon would not have been too long to prevent Sheila from shooting herself with a silencer fitted to the guns barrel, contrary to what the prosecution argued as part of its case during trial, and since...
Ok but the pic were the model is upright, with the gun underneath her chin, was previously argued as a contender for the cause of that circular pattern. But that would definitely have been a suicide shot.
-
I'm taking that second shot as being purely " accidental "and not by Sheilas' hand.
The first shot was an attempt at suicide,,,which after a short while,would have eventually killed the girl,,but Sheila did not administer that second shot.No way.
As I've already surmised,that after the first shot,Sheila put the rifle on the windowsill upstairs,then lay on her bed.
It was after that she was moved,then the accident happened when the rifle went off " unexpectedly " during the investigation,,,then the big cover-up. Nobody likes to admit that they shot someone accidentally.
-
So, none of the 6 members of the raid team saw/heard Sheila flee upstairs or even noticed that she was no longer downstairs?
The alternative explanation is that the reference to Sheila being dead downstairs is a simple mistake?
Which of these explanations is the more credible (I pose rhetorically)?
They swept through the farmhouse to reach the children. So their intentions were genuine and their actions carried out under extreme circs / pressure.
Which of these is more credible....
It is possible to bungle an armed raid.
It is not possible to bungle an armed raid (I pose rhetorically)?
-
Ok but the pic were the model is upright, with the gun underneath her chin, was previously argued as a contender for the cause of that circular pattern. But that would definitely have been a suicide shot.
Well, yes - but the tests conducted at Birdwell were undertaken with the view of dealing with several different aspects and features of the prosecutions case as argued by them during the trial, and subsequent appeal (2002). The tests were primarily carried out to disprove the prosecutions argument that with the silencer fitted to the rifle barrel the overall length of the gun would have been too long to give Sheila an opportunity to shoot and kill herself even if she had wanted to - the tests carried out were designed to show that the prosecution argument was fundamentally flawed in that respect. The only feature which impacted on the results of the tests carried out at Birdwell was the claim that a silencer had not been found at the scene by the police, which we now know was / is a complete and disgraceful lie, because DS "Stan" Jones seized four exhibits from the scene on the morning of the shootings, and one of these exhibits was a silencer...
-
Nobody likes to admit that they shot someone accidentally.
It's been claimed that they did not wish to upset Jeremy any further.
-
Well, yes - but the tests conducted at Birdwell were undertaken with the view of dealing with several different aspects and features of the prosecutions case as argued by them during the trial, and subsequent appeal (2002). The tests were primarily carried out to disprove the prosecutions argument that with the silencer fitted to the rifle barrel the overall length of the gun would have been too long to give Sheila an opportunity to shoot and kill herself even if she had wanted to - the tests carried out were designed to show that the prosecution argument was fundamentally flawed in that respect. The only feature which impacted on the results of the tests carried out at Birdwell was the claim that a silencer had not been found at the scene by the police, which we now know was / is a complete and disgraceful lie, because DS "Stan" Jones seized four exhibits from the scene on the morning of the shootings, and one of these exhibits was a silencer...
I'm still puzzled by that pattern. It needs to be addressed. There were pics of it on here before but I don't know on which thread they are, in order to link to them. We cant upload docs on the forum as there is no space. The spell check isn't working either. Not sure if this is related.
-
Isn't that the point Jim is making? There is no evidence for the police-shot-Sheila theory, documentary or otherwise.
But there is - Jeremy made a complaint to a police officer at the scene on the morning of the shootings that the police had shot and killed all of his family, and that complaint was never investigated by anyone at any time, and some 27 years have elapsed since he made that complaint to a police officer at the scene upon learning that all his family inside the farmhouse were dead...
-
I'm still puzzled by that pattern. It needs to be addressed. There were pics of it on here before but I don't know on which thread they are, in order to link to them. We cant upload docs on the forum as there is no space. The spell check isn't working either. Not sure if this is related.
Here is a link to the said photograph which I copied when I visited the office of GDS in London in 2004:-
(1) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18723;image
-
But there is - Jeremy made a complaint to a police officer at the scene on the morning of the shootings that the police had shot and killed all of his family, and that complaint was never investigated by anyone at any time, and some 27 years have elapsed since he made that complaint to a police officer at the scene upon learning that all his family inside the farmhouse were dead...
In order to have made that complaint he must have heard gunshots of some kind?
-
In order to have made that complaint he must have heard gunshots of some kind?
I think differently.
-
In order to have made that complaint he must have heard gunshots of some kind?
He'd have heard the gunshots,Grahame,,but probably at the time didn't attach anything overly serious,,more of, say,warning shots being fired in the air,as opposed to him thinking the worst,,,as what happened. He was used to Sheila " kicking off ",but this action took it to extremes which he wouldn't have really been aware of,or expecting at the onset,until reaching the farmhouse. He would have been in shock, but felt suppressed at showing it because of the " unemotional " upbringing,,,as well as his macho image being shot to pieces.
-
Here is a link to the said photograph which I copied when I visited the office of GDS in London in 2004:-
(1) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18723;image
Thanks. Herbert Leon MacDonnell would not have seen this pattern, is that correct?
-
But there is - Jeremy made a complaint to a police officer at the scene on the morning of the shootings that the police had shot and killed all of his family, and that complaint was never investigated by anyone at any time, and some 27 years have elapsed since he made that complaint to a police officer at the scene upon learning that all his family inside the farmhouse were dead...
With respect, that is not evidence.
-
With respect, that is not evidence.
Every complaint to the police must by law be investigated. This they apparently did not do?
-
He'd have heard the gunshots,Grahame,,but probably at the time didn't attach anything overly serious,,more of, say,warning shots being fired in the air,as opposed to him thinking the worst,,,as what happened. He was used to Sheila " kicking off ",but this action took it to extremes which he wouldn't have really been aware of,or expecting at the onset,until reaching the farmhouse. He would have been in shock, but felt suppressed at showing it because of the " unemotional " upbringing,,,as well as his macho image being shot to pieces.
It's sad to think that he must have done his grieving while being locked up like that,,,as that in itself can take a couple of years to get over in normal circumstances,,,but these were not normal circumstances which he found himself in,,,but he will have been trying to come to terms with what had happened and to also try and fathom out how and why he got the blame. Which is evident in the reams of written paperwork which has been mounting up since he was incarcerated.
-
Every complaint to the police must by law be investigated. This they apparently did not do?
I mean, a complaint in itself is not evidence.
-
With respect, that is not evidence.
With counter respect, it is evidence because a police officer took the complaint and refers to it in a witness statement. Of course it is evidence, Jeremy made a complaint that the police shot and killed his family, what more needs to be done or said to make it into evidence? How convenient that whenever anything shows the police investigation and handling of the case in a poor light, or there is anything which favours Jeremy's defence, it is always described as not being evidence, or whatever?
Jeremy made a complaint to a police officer that the police had shot and killed his family and that police officer who was on duty at the material time the complaint was made, had an obligation to act upon that complaint and deal with it accordingly. These were the very first words spoken by Jeremy upon being told by the police that all his family were in fact dead inside the farmhouse, so this was an important part of the case which the jury ought to have been told about (along with many other things which the police and the prosecution swept under the carpet)...
This was one of those occasions where the police were not too keen to verbal Jeremy up and use what he said upon first being notified that his entire family was dead, since to take that approach might alert everyone to the possibility that police did shoot one or more of the victims?
-
This was one of those occasions where the police were not too keen to verbal Jeremy up and use what he said upon first being notified that his entire family was dead, since to take that approach might alert everyone to the possibility that police did shoot one or more of the victims?
Classy posting Mike.
-
And the thing is - the police were / are responsible for Sheila being shot for the second time by bullet PV/20 under the chin, whichever way you look at it, or whichever way you want to describe how she got shot for the second time in the bedroom, whether or not she actually pulled the trigger or the police did accidentally or otherwise. It should not have happened, it could have been prevented from happening, but instead of holding their hands up and coming to the table and saying it was a terrible accident, the police have chosen to lie about it. They have falsified records, tampered with exhibits, used all manner of underhand techniques to get away with them being responsible for Sheila's death inside the bedroom at whf. The then DPP even got in on the act, and typed out witness statements for prosecution witness to sign which were made up in the absence of the witnesses in question. They can lie and falsify evidence at the stroke of a pen and they appear to be able to get away with it, without fear of prosecution or loss of liberty - in my book there are all criminals, and anyone who supports what they did and what they do, must be themselves corrupted...
-
With counter respect, it is evidence because a police officer took the complaint and refers to it in a witness statement. Of course it is evidence, Jeremy made a complaint that the police shot and killed his family, what more needs to be done or said to make it into evidence? How convenient that whenever anything shows the police investigation and handling of the case in a poor light, or there is anything which favours Jeremy's defence, it is always described as not being evidence, or whatever?
Jeremy made a complaint to a police officer that the police had shot and killed his family and that police officer who was on duty at the material time the complaint was made, had an obligation to act upon that complaint and deal with it accordingly. These were the very first words spoken by Jeremy upon being told by the police that all his family were in fact dead inside the farmhouse, so this was an important part of the case which the jury ought to have been told about (along with many other things which the police and the prosecution swept under the carpet)...
This was one of those occasions where the police were not too keen to verbal Jeremy up and use what he said upon first being notified that his entire family was dead, since to take that approach might alert everyone to the possibility that police did shoot one or more of the victims?
Firstly, it was a comment, not a complaint. Secondly the fact that Jeremy made the comment is not evidence that it happened, Jeremy was not in the house and has not mentioned hearing shots. Thirdly, Jeremy knows what he said, and could have used it in whatever way he thought would best serve him, but didn't.
-
Firstly, it was a comment, not a complaint. Secondly the fact that Jeremy made the comment is not evidence that it happened, Jeremy was not in the house and has not mentioned hearing shots. Thirdly, Jeremy knows what he said, and could have used it in whatever way he thought would best serve him, but didn't.
Comments made by witnesses always find there way into evidence, he felt justified in making such a complaint because he and the other police officers had seen someone moving around inside the farmhouse shortly after arriving there, and later Jeremy had seen men carrying guns going towards the farmhouse. He did not have to hear any gunshots, the fact that he and the other two police officers had seen someone alive moving around in the bedroom, beforehand, and the fact that he saw men with guns rushing off in the direction of the farmhouse, justified him making the observation he did, and should have been acted upon. It was a complaint / comment that you simply cannot just dismiss, since Jeremy was not to know at that time, that police officers would later on try to explain away the sighting of the moving figure at the bedroom widow as a simple trick of light? The complaint made by Jeremy at that time was evidence which ought to have been given during the trial, and given by the police officer who received the complaint, since such a complaint was linked to the claim of the sighting of the moving figure at the bedroom window. It establishes in the mind of Bamber that he believed all his family to still be alive inside the farmhouse after his and the arrival of the police at just before 4am? This complaint made by Bamber to that police officer, had some substance to it, since the police themselves acted upon the earlier sighting of the figure at the bedroom window by treating the incident as a siege - hence why it was several hours before they decided to force their way into the building...
-
Comments made by witnesses always find there way into evidence, he felt justified in making such a complaint because he and the other police officers had seen someone moving around inside the farmhouse shortly after arriving there, and later Jeremy had seen men carrying guns going towards the farmhouse. He did not have to hear any gunshots, the fact that he and the other two police officers had seen someone alive moving around in the bedroom, beforehand, and the fact that he saw men with guns rushing off in the direction of the farmhouse, justified him making the observation he did, and should have been acted upon. It was a complaint / comment that you simply cannot just dismiss, since Jeremy was not to know at that time, that police officers would later on try to explain away the sighting of the moving figure at the bedroom widow as a simple trick of light? The complaint made by Jeremy at that time was evidence which ought to have been given during the trial, and given by the police officer who received the complaint, since such a complaint was linked to the claim of the sighting of the moving figure at the bedroom window. It establishes in the mind of Bamber that he believed all his family to still be alive inside the farmhouse after his and the arrival of the police at just before 4am? This complaint made by Bamber to that police officer, had some substance to it, since the police themselves acted upon the earlier sighting of the figure at the bedroom window by treating the incident as a siege - hence why it was several hours before they decided to force their way into the building...
It was treated as a siege because he had told them that Sheila was a 'nutter' who had gone crazy and had a gun, and she had not responded when they used the loudhailer.
Both the 'trick of the light' incident and Jeremy's comment to Saxby (?) were known to Jeremy, so it was up to him to put them into evidence. I suggest he didn't because he knew that neither had any substance.
-
It was treated as a siege because he had told them that Sheila was a 'nutter' who had gone crazy and had a gun, and she had not responded when they used the loudhailer.
Both the 'trick of the light' incident and Jeremy's comment to Saxby (?) were known to Jeremy, so it was up to him to put them into evidence. I suggest he didn't because he knew that neither had any substance.
It was treated as a siege because the police went to whf so that they could send in a situation report accompanied by a request for the firearms team to be sent out - If it had been a trick of light I doubt that a request would have been sent out for the attendance of the firearms team to come to the scene. It was not a trick of light at the material time, it only became a trick of light excuse in time for the trial to foil Jeremy's alibi (in my opinion)...
PC Myall the other police officer who witnessed the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window has not reverted to the "trick of light" excuse /story, and details of the message passed from the scene to the control room have not been disclosed so that an informed assessment of what took place, and what is now being used as an excuse, can be evaluated? It did not turn into a siege situation because of what Jeremy told the police, it turned into a siege situation because the police were sent to the scene to carry out an evaluation account and report back to the control room which is what took place. It was the detail passed back to the control room and the request for the firearms team to attend which resulted in it turning into a siege, so Jeremy can't be blamed for that I am afraid...
-
But, at his Trial, Jeremy did not contend that a police officer shot Sheila!!! The defence team(s) employed by Jeremey, without exception, have always accepted that it's a straight choice between Jeremy and Sheila as to the identity of the murderer.
Take it from me, Jeremy's case is and always will be that Sheila was the murderer and Jeremy will never contend that it was a police officer who killed Sheila
-
But, at his Trial, Jeremy did not contend that a police officer shot Sheila!!! The defence team(s) employed by Jeremey, without exception, have always accepted that it's a straight choice between Jeremy and Sheila as to the identity of the murderer.
Take it from me, Jeremy's case is and always will be that Sheila was the murderer and Jeremy will never contend that it was a police officer who killed Sheila
and that my friend is why Jeremy is still where he is, and why his case keeps getting nowhere fast...
-
The police have not gone to all this trouble to falsify the evidence, withhold hundreds of thousands of documents and crime scene photographs and cover up the circumstances of Sheila's death in the bedroom at whf, if Sheila really did commit suicide?
Do you not agree?
-
The police have not gone to all this trouble to falsify the evidence, withhold hundreds of thousands of documents and crime scene photographs and cover up the circumstances of Sheila's death in the bedroom at whf, if Sheila really did commit suicide?
Do you not agree?
We are at the stage where the defence claim that Sheila committed suicide, but the photographic evidence taken at the scene (as per the MASTER COPY ALBUM) proves that her body was stage managed. If her body was stage managed by someone, Sheila could not and did not take her own life by way of bullet PV/20. Prosecution have proved that her body was stage managed, how is the defence going to prove that Sheila committed suicide if someone stage managed her body? So, Sheila committed suicide it is - I await with bated breath for the outcome...
-
I mean, a complaint in itself is not evidence.
Of course it is - it should have been given a crime reference number and investigated, especially when the complaint was of such a very serious nature, I mean you can't get any more serious than claiming the police shot and killed your family...
-
It was treated as a siege because the police went to whf so that they could send in a situation report accompanied by a request for the firearms team to be sent out - If it had been a trick of light I doubt that a request would have been sent out for the attendance of the firearms team to come to the scene. It was not a trick of light at the material time, it only became a trick of light excuse in time for the trial to foil Jeremy's alibi (in my opinion)...
PC Myall the other police officer who witnessed the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window has not reverted to the "trick of light" excuse /story, and details of the message passed from the scene to the control room have not been disclosed so that an informed assessment of what took place, and what is now being used as an excuse, can be evaluated? It did not turn into a siege situation because of what Jeremy told the police, it turned into a siege situation because the police were sent to the scene to carry out an evaluation account and report back to the control room which is what took place. It was the detail passed back to the control room and the request for the firearms team to attend which resulted in it turning into a siege, so Jeremy can't be blamed for that I am afraid...
Given that the police had been told that there was a situation involving a firearm going on inside the farmhouse, the only way that a firearms team would NOT have been called in is if Neville had come out confirming that all was ok, and inviting them all in for a nightcap.
-
Of course it is - it should have been given a crime reference number and investigated, especially when the complaint was of such a very serious nature, I mean you can't get any more serious than claiming the police shot and killed your family...
A complaint is a complaint, not evidence. I could ring the police and tell them you burgled my grannie's house last night, the complaint in itself wouldn't serve as evidence that you did.
-
Given that the police had been told that there was a situation involving a firearm going on inside the farmhouse, the only way that a firearms team would NOT have been called in is if Neville had come out confirming that all was ok, and inviting them all in for a nightcap.
I am afraid that is not how it worked back in 1985...
The practice or policy was to send a police officer of no less a rank PS, to the incident and for him to pass or make an assessment as to whether or not such an incident warranted the deployment of the firearms officers. If so, a request would be made by that officer after carrying out the assessment for the deployment of the firearms team, which is what happened in this case - if the contents of the message passed were disclosed the lies told by Bews at the trial and since would easily be exposed as a blatant despicable lie....
-
I am afraid that is not how it worked back in 1985...
The practice or policy was to send a police officer of no less a rank PS, to the incident and for him to pass or make an assessment as to whether or not such an incident warranted the deployment of the firearms officers. If so, a request would be made by that officer after carrying out the assessment for the deployment of the firearms team, which is what happened in this case - if the contents of the message passed were disclosed the lies told by Bews at the trial and since would easily be exposed as a blatant despicable lie....
So you don't think that getting no response from a household of 5 people, and in which you have been told that one of them is a nutter with a gun, warrants calling out the firearms team?
-
A complaint is a complaint, not evidence. I could ring the police and tell them you burgled my grannie's house last night, the complaint in itself wouldn't serve as evidence that you did.
Unless your grannies house had got burgled, then the information you passed to the police would be regarded as evidence, and it would be part of the file under a crime reference number provided because a burglary had been committed. The complaint itself would be evidence in one form or another, and you would or might be required to make a witness statement, which might or might not be used at any court proceedings...
-
oh no Mike, you are wrong - all you have to do is to produce the photograph of Sheila on the bed with a single bullet wound - that's evidence and forms the evidential foundation for a case that Sheila was shot by the police.
However, I fear that there is much chance of that happening as there is of me having sexual intercourse on the surface of the moon with Claudia Schiffer in 17 minutes' time !!!!
I just don't know how I can make myself any clearer - Jeremy's case was, is currently, and always will be that it's a straight choice between Sheila and Jeremy as to the identity of the murderer (Jeremy's case is that Sheila was the murderer and then killed herself)- Jeremy's case will NEVER be (absent Mike producing the photograph) that Sheila was the murderer and then the police killed Sheila or even that Sheila was the murderer and then, whilst the police were inside WHF, Sheila killed herself.
One wonders why Jeremy's case has never and never will be that either of those scenarios is how Sheila came to be deceased!!
-
Unless your grannies house had got burgled, then the information you passed to the police would be regarded as evidence, and it would be part of the file under a crime reference number provided because a burglary had been committed. The complaint itself would be evidence in one form or another, and you would or might be required to make a witness statement, which might or might not be used at any court proceedings...
Once I had made the complaint the police would ask me what makes me think you did it. What follows would be evidence. What followed Jeremy's comment?
-
So you don't think that getting no response from a household of 5 people, and in which you have been told that one of them is a nutter with a gun, warrants calling out the firearms team?
So, why wasn't the firearms team deployed, as soon as Ralph (3:26am) and Jeremy (3:36am) , called the police, both stating that "Daughter has got hold of one of my guns" and "Sheila has got the gun"?
-
Once I had made the complaint the police would ask me what makes me think you did it. What follows would be evidence. What followed Jeremy's comment?
The police shot and killed Sheila with bullet PV/20...
-
So, why wasn't the firearms team deployed, as soon as Ralph (3:26am) and Jeremy (3:36am) , called the police, both stating that "Daughter has got hold of one of my guns" and "Sheila has got the gun"?
Because as you say, "The practice or policy was to send a police officer of no less a rank PS, to the incident and for him to pass or make an assessment as to whether or not such an incident warranted the deployment of the firearms officers."
-
Just a theory you uderstand. We are all aware that the rifle was move around Sheila's body, as evidenced by the movement of her hands
Is it possible that Sheila was clutching the rifle when the raid team entered the bedroom, andit discharged when the police tried to remove it. This could explain the lack of fingerprints on the rifle. The cops wiped it, so none of their prints were found on it.
-
The police shot and killed Sheila with bullet PV/20...
That's quite a tangent, even for you ::)
-
Because as you say, "The practice or policy was to send a police officer of no less a rank PS, to the incident and for him to pass or make an assessment as to whether or not such an incident warranted the deployment of the firearms officers."
In the meantime then, such a lousy policy or practice could have cost lives, due to the delay in getting a police officer to the scene to carry out an assessment with a view to requesting the deployment of the firearms team?
-
In the meantime then, such a lousy policy or practice could have cost lives, due to the delay in getting a police officer to the scene to carry out an assessment with a view to requesting the deployment of the firearms team?
Bews & co weren't delayed.
-
Bews & co weren't delayed.
There was a delay in deploying the firearms team to the scene, until Bews, Myall, and Saxby, were sent there to carry out a situation report, if Sheila had the gun as claimed by Ralph (Daughter has got one of my guns), or by Jeremy (Sheila has got the gun), every second that passed placed the family in more and more danger. Nothing changed with the arrival of the Bews, Myall and Saxby at the scene, only the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window. Bews did not pass a message saying that they had seen something at the bedroom window which could have been a trick of light, he reported that a figure had been seen who was probably armed with a loaded rifle...
This could easily be resolved by disclosing the contents of the message which Bews passed at the material time...
-
There was a delay in deploying the firearms team to the scene, until Bews, Myall, and Saxby, were sent there to carry out a situation report, if Sheila had the gun as claimed by Ralph (Daughter has got one of my guns), or by Jeremy (Sheila has got the gun), every second that passed placed the family in more and more danger. Nothing changed with the arrival of the Bews, Myall and Saxby at the scene, only the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window. Bews did not pass a message saying that they had seen something at the bedroom window which could have been a trick of light, he reported that a figure had been seen who was probably armed with a loaded rifle...
This could easily be resolved by disclosing the contents of the message which Bews passed at the material time...
It takes time to organise a firearms team, and even if they had been called in straight away, that wouldn't have changed the decision to hold off until daylight, or to call in additional firearms officers once the size / layout of the building was known.
-
We are at the stage where the defence claim that Sheila committed suicide, but the photographic evidence taken at the scene (as per the MASTER COPY ALBUM) proves that her body was stage managed. If her body was stage managed by someone, Sheila could not and did not take her own life by way of bullet PV/20. Prosecution have proved that her body was stage managed, how is the defence going to prove that Sheila committed suicide if someone stage managed her body? So, Sheila committed suicide it is - I await with bated breath for the outcome...
Well argued. I'm not sure where Jim is coming from or why he is crowing so much about what the defence do or do not claim?
-
But, at his Trial, Jeremy did not contend that a police officer shot Sheila!!! The defence team(s) employed by Jeremey, without exception, have always accepted that it's a straight choice between Jeremy and Sheila as to the identity of the murderer.
Take it from me, Jeremy's case is and always will be that Sheila was the murderer and Jeremy will never contend that it was a police officer who killed Sheila
Why are you so hung up on what the defence do now or did 26-7 years ago? ??? Cases like this evolve as per disclosure of evidence and received info. Why are you so het up about the suggestion that cops at the seen made blunders or may have mishandled a rifle?
-
Because you have to think like a judge !!!
If a submission is made to a judge that the police shot Sheila, the judge will simply enquire if that is a serious submission ? There is no evidence to support it and it is quite simply too ridiculous for words!!
Jeremy has had some very, very able legal representatives and not one has yet made that submission - it would cause a judge to become very angry!!
Jeremy's legal representatives will never, in the absence of evidence, make that submission- indeed, in the absence of evidence, the submission simply cannot be made
Mike tells us that he has a photograph of Sheila on the bed depicting a single bullet wound - this is a powerful piece of evidence since it begs the question how Sheila was subsequently photographed on the floor with two bullet wounds and it lays the evidential foundation for a submission that either Sheila subsequently re-shot herself or that she was shot by the police - in those circumstances, a judge, far from becoming angry with Jeremy, would direct his anger to Essex Police!!!
However, in the absence of such evidence, the submission that Sheila was shot by the police is, I repeat, a quite ridiculous submission
So, come on Mike, let's see the photograph!!!
-
Because you have to think like a judge !!!
If a submission is made to a judge that the police shot Sheila, the judge will simply enquire if that is a serious submission ? There is no evidence to support it and it is quite simply too ridiculous for words!!
Jeremy has had some very, very able legal representatives and not one has yet made that submission - it would cause a judge to become very angry!!
Jeremy's legal representatives will never, in the absence of evidence, make that submission- indeed, in the absence of evidence, the submission simply cannot be made
Mike tells us that he has a photograph of Sheila on the bed depicting a single bullet wound - this is a powerful piece of evidence since it begs the question how Sheila was subsequently photographed on the floor with two bullet wounds and it lays the evidential foundation for a submission that either Sheila subsequently re-shot herself or that she was shot by the police - in those circumstances, a judge, far from becoming angry with Jeremy, would direct his anger to Essex Police!!!
However, in the absence of such evidence, the submission that Sheila was shot by the police is, I repeat, a quite ridiculous submission
So, come on Mike, let's see the photograph!!!
Ok I'm with you. I view this forum as a place of debate, about what took place, rather than some kind of direct feed in to Bamber's official defence. It is a shocking allegation but I do not believe it is a ridiculous allegation. Do you not think that the defence is stuck between a rock and a hard place? There's no pleasing people on your side. The defence are supposed to come up with an explanation for a fabricated piece of evidence. But it was not the defence who fabricated the evidence in the first place!!! Why should the defence jump through hoops for a referral by having to provide the exact explanation for the fabrication inflicted upon their client? The defence can only provide what it can provide. it cannot fill the gaps with submissions just to fill the gaps. filling in the gaps is what this forum is about. WE speculate on this forum, by a process of elimination, argument and debate about was actually in the gaps.
-
Ok I'm with you. I view this forum as a place of debate, about what took place, rather than some kind of direct feed in to Bamber's official defence. It is a shocking allegation but I do not believe it is a ridiculous allegation. Do you not think that the defence is stuck between a rock and a hard place? There's no pleasing people on your side. The defence are supposed to come up with an explanation for a fabricated piece of evidence. But it was not the defence who fabricated the evidence in the first place!!! Why should the defence jump through hoops for a referral by having to provide the exact explanation for the fabrication inflicted upon their client? The defence can only provide what it can provide. it cannot fill the gaps with submissions just to fill the gaps. filling in the gaps is what this forum is about. WE speculate on this forum, by a process of elimination, argument and debate about was actually in the gaps.
The defence have to show that it was fabricated (if that is what they assert) which is naturally going to take some sort of explanation. You can't just say "this is fabricated because we say so, now you prove it wasn't". I agree it's an uphill struggle, not least because the CCRC / CoA are going to strongly resist finding any impropriety on the part of the police without very strong evidence. To my mind this is why the Arizona tests weren't accepted as grounds for referral. They didn't show conclusively that a silencer wasn't used, and so the results could still be countered by the blood in the silencer evidence.
-
The defence have to show that it was fabricated (if that is what they assert) which is naturally going to take some sort of explanation. You can't just say "this is fabricated because we say so, now you prove it wasn't". I agree it's an uphill struggle, not least because the CCRC / CoA are going to strongly resist finding any impropriety on the part of the police without very strong evidence. To my mind this is why the Arizona tests weren't accepted as grounds for referral. They didn't show conclusively that a silencer wasn't used, and so the results could still be countered by the blood in the silencer evidence.
Bridget, do you not think that the silencer evidence is tainted? First David supposedly scraped blood from it. Secondly the family had possesion of it for some considerable time. Third Bird dismantled it, before the forensics had seen it, also bearing in mind that the baffles may have been re assembled in the wrong order.
The silencer/s should never been allowed as part of the prosecutions case IMO.
-
Bridget, do you not think that the silencer evidence is tainted? First David supposedly scraped blood from it. Secondly the family had possesion of it for some considerable time. Third Bird dismantled it, before the forensics had seen it, also bearing in mind that the baffles may have been re assembled in the wrong order.
The silencer/s should never been allowed as part of the prosecutions case IMO.
Hi Buddy, yes I think it's unsatisfactory, for most of the reasons you've stated. If I recall correctly, David didn't actually scrape the blood from it, he said that it was thick enough to be scraped off with a razor blade (not that he actually did it). But even so, I think if the defence were to turn it's mind to showing a real possibility of innocent contamination rather than any conspiracy to frame Jeremy they may actually get somewhere towards discrediting the silencer evidence.
-
Hi Buddy, yes I think it's unsatisfactory, for most of the reasons you've stated. If I recall correctly, David didn't actually scrape the blood from it, he said that it was thick enough to be scraped off with a razor blade (not that he actually did it). But even so, I think if the defence were to turn it's mind to showing a real possibility of innocent contamination rather than any conspiracy to frame Jeremy they may actually get somewhere towards discrediting the silencer evidence.
Hi Bridget, David stated that he scraped the blood off because he was curious. Not only that but when the police arrived to collect the silencer the cop noticed a grey hair on it which then vanished.
Yes I agree the defence should have been more robust on the silencer evidence.
-
It takes time to organise a firearms team, and even if they had been called in straight away, that wouldn't have changed the decision to hold off until daylight, or to call in additional firearms officers once the size / layout of the building was known.
Essex police could simply release the message passed from the scene (CA07) by PS Bews, at the time the request for the firearms team to be deployed to whf. Not too difficult a request to make, but on the part of Essex police, a very difficult position to be in, considering that PS Bews made mention of the figure at the bedroom widow possibly in possession of a rifle? Not only have Essex police not provided a transcript of what PS Bews told the control room at the material time, but PS Bews makes no mention of what he actually said at that time in any witness statement. Neither is there any record of such a message having been received at the control room by any member of staff, police officer or civilian worker? How very odd do you not agree? I wonder why the police are very reluctant to release any information about what was said by PS Bews to someone at the control room? I also wonder what the person at the control room said to the senior police officer the information was passed onto when the request was made to deploy the firearms team? I wonder why we have not heard from the senior poice officer who was contacted and given the information which PS Bews had passed from the scene, and so on and so forth, on and on it goes, until the firearms team is deployed, and we still don't get any confirmation about who said what to whom, and in fact I am a little confused as to how exactly the firearms team managed to end up at the scene at around 5am? Was it as a result of information passed to the control room after the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window the reason for the deployment of the firearms team? Or, did they respond to the scene as a result of the attack alarm being activated? Seems to me to a very good chance that the occupants of CA07 went to the scene as a result of the attack alarm being activated, followed by the firearms team who took a while longer to organise and deploy?
There is no information passed from PS Bews to the control room about the figure sighted at the bedroom window because police went to the scene because the attack alarm had been activated, which overrode any other reason why armed police, or any police should be at the scene? If the attack alarm was activated, to be borne in mind is the reason why that alarm had been installed in the first place - it was installed because threats against Ralph Bambers life, and the lives of his family had been made arising out of Ralph's duties as a magistrate. If someone threatens to kill a magistrate and his family and an attack alarm has to be installed at the magistrates home, and it gets activated in the middle of the night, there is a very good chance that police will be deployed to the scene to deal with it, and that sooner or later the firearms team are going to be arriving at the scene...
I think this is what happened and why there is no disclosure of information passed by PS Bews to the control room after the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window. If anything the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window was linked in the mindset of the police to the threats to kill for which the attack alarm had been installed. They did not treat it as a trick of light at the material time, that came later when they put Jeremy in the frame....
-
It takes time to organise a firearms team, and even if they had been called in straight away, that wouldn't have changed the decision to hold off until daylight, or to call in additional firearms officers once the size / layout of the building was known.
But how do you know that? There have been situations where police were sent in when it was dark. They may very well have held off too long for all you know? Perhaps lives would have been saved if they had gone in earlier?
-
Why are you so hung up on what the defence do now or did 26-7 years ago? ??? Cases like this evolve as per disclosure of evidence and received info. Why are you so het up about the suggestion that cops at the seen made blunders or may have mishandled a rifle?
Believe me cops aint that bright at the best of time. They've shot people by mistake before remember.
-
Hi Bridget, David stated that he scraped the blood off because he was curious. Not only that but when the police arrived to collect the silencer the cop noticed a grey hair on it which then vanished.
Yes I agree the defence should have been more robust on the silencer evidence.
Hi Buddy, do you know what statement that was in? I was reading one a few days ago and all he says is that the blood was thick enough to be scraped off but not that he actually did it. I'll see if I can find it again when I get time.
-
But how do you know that? There have been situations where police were sent in when it was dark. They may very well have held off too long for all you know? Perhaps lives would have been saved if they had gone in earlier?
Perhaps, but Mike's suggestion was that their policy of sending in a PS to assess the situation first delayed the calling in of the firearms team and may have cost lives. What I'm saying is that had they have sent in a firearms team earlier there's no reason to think that the decsions made concerning when to enter would have been any different - I mean, they sat around for a couple of hours or more anyway, why would it have been any different if they'd have arrived a half hour earlier?
-
Perhaps, but Mike's suggestion was that their policy of sending in a PS to assess the situation first delayed the calling in of the firearms team and may have cost lives. What I'm saying is that had they have sent in a firearms team earlier there's no reason to think that the decsions made concerning when to enter would have been any different - I mean, they sat around for a couple of hours or more anyway, why would it have been any different if they'd have arrived a half hour earlier?
Well, I should think that would be obvious - for example, if the firearms team had been deployed to the scene immediately instead of sending say the occupants of CA07, the firearms team would have seen the figure moving around inside the bedroom, and may have attempted and succeeded in communicating with that person, and if that person was the eventual killer, they may have been able to persuade that person, not to kill anyone, or to attempt to kill themselves. Lets put it another way, if the firearms team had been deployed to the scene immediately instead of the occupants of CA07, they might have looked in through the Kitchen window whilst the person was moving around upstairs and they may have been able to see two bodies, or one body in the region of the kitchen. If they had forced their way into the premises at that time, they may have been able to discredit Bambers claim that he had very recently received a call from his father, because Ralph might have long since already been dead? Alternatively, they might have found him to still be alive (yet wounded) and he may have been able to tell the firearms officers what had taken place...
-
Sheila attempted to commit suicide (but failed), and was shot by the police...
To save confusion about what I am saying took place, I would simply like to mention that I believe that Sheila tried to take her own life downstairs in the region of the kitchen, but as it turned out she failed (this is what the officers report, 1612, refers to). She was actually shot upstairs in the bedroom by the police and her body was moved from the bed to the bedroom floor and stage managed to try and suggest that she had taken her own life - the stage managing was done by the police, and photographic records altered to facilitate the cover up...
This is the reason why Essex police edited out 358 photographs and created a false MASTER COPY ALBUM, containing only 223 pictures, when 581 had been actually taken...
In Andrew Hunter's book draft he depicts a scenario where Sheila and Ralph(Nevill) are struggling with the rifle in the kitchen,which would explain the scratch marks on the underside of the mantlepiece and also the gouge marks to Nevill's forearm. In this scenario the gun goes off injuring Sheila in the right hand side of the neck. This struggle would have taken place after the telephone call which Nevill made to Jeremy and would explain why there was no blood on the phone.
However with Sheila incapacitated for a time with a bullet wound one wonders why Nevill does not go to the gun den or downstairs toilet and avail himself of a weapon in this life and death situation he now finds himself in. Sheila would also have to remove the silencer and replace it in the gun cupboard before proceeding upstairs and shooting herself a second time.
-
In Andrew Hunter's book draft he depicts a scenario where Sheila and Ralph(Nevill) are struggling with the rifle in the kitchen,which would explain the scratch marks on the underside of the mantlepiece
Trouble is, additional scratch marks were made on the aga surround on 12th September 1985, as proven by reference to photographs taken in the kitchen on the morning of the shootings (7th August 1985), on 11th September 1985, and on 12th September 1985. There wasn't enough room between the overturned table and the aga surround for two people to be involved in the kind of struggle you are referring to. Any marks which could have been present on the underside of the aga surround had been made by the barrel of a different gun (according to DS Davidsons account which he gave to COLP as part of their 1991 investigation). If you take the time and trouble to read what Davidson says you will soon realize that COLP elicited the fact that a paint sample had been taken from the aga because some paint had been found on the end of a guns barrel which was not a reference to paint found on the end of a silencer? I do not think that any mark was made anywhere on the aga surround by a silencer striking it, until it did so on 12th September 1985, and there is no evidence to prove there was any red paint present on the end of any silencer before that date - if there is please refer me to it....
-
Sheila would also have to remove the silencer and replace it in the gun cupboard before proceeding upstairs and shooting herself a second time.
Well, again you miss the point about the seizure of four exhibits from the scene by DS "Stan" Jones, bearing the identifying marks of SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1, which he took possession of downstairs on 7th August 1985. These exhibits were found or retained downstairs in the region of the kitchen, and the downstairs toilet (where Pargeters gun and silencer was normally kept). Now, as you know, the silencer was initially identifiable by the exhibit reference SBJ/1, so by applying just a wee bit of common sense and logic, which silencer was that then? Please do not tyry and convince me that police made a boo boo, and got mixed up with giving the silencer which was later found by relatives an exhibit reference that clashed with different exhibits found by witnesses with the same identifying marks, because SBJ/1 (the original silencer) was seized by DS "Stan" Jones, on the morning of 7th August 1985, it could not have been the same silencer the relatives claim they found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985? Look, to save any confusion, please ti=ell me, or try to find out what exhibit did DS Jones seize at the scene on 7th August 19895, bearing the exhibit reference SBJ/1...
It's not too much to ask for, is it?
What was DS "Stan" Jones, exhibit bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1?
-
In Andrew Hunter's book draft he depicts a scenario where Sheila and Ralph(Nevill) are struggling with the rifle in the kitchen,which would explain the scratch marks on the underside of the mantlepiece and also the gouge marks to Nevill's forearm. In this scenario the gun goes off injuring Sheila in the right hand side of the neck. This struggle would have taken place after the telephone call which Nevill made to Jeremy and would explain why there was no blood on the phone.
However with Sheila incapacitated for a time with a bullet wound one wonders why Nevill does not go to the gun den or downstairs toilet and avail himself of a weapon in this life and death situation he now finds himself in. Sheila would also have to remove the silencer and replace it in the gun cupboard before proceeding upstairs and shooting herself a second time.
If she was incapacitated why wouldn't he just take the gun off her? I have a hard time picturing a father arming himself against his daughter in any case.
-
If she was incapacitated why wouldn't he just take the gun off her? I have a hard time picturing a father arming himself against his daughter in any case.
He would have to be near death himself. I'm just trying to establish a scenario where all eventualities are considered and it's frustrating.
-
He would have to be near death himself. I'm just trying to establish a scenario where all eventualities are considered and it's frustrating.
I know :)
If he was near death though, he wouldn't have gone for the gun cupboard either.
She wasn't shot in the kitchen anyway.
-
If she was incapacitated why wouldn't he just take the gun off her? I have a hard time picturing a father arming himself against his daughter in any case.
I'm afraid that she was no ordinary daughter,Bridget. Instead,a girl who missed/forgot vital medication for her volatile state of mind. Nevill wouldn't have been in any fit state himself to disarm Sheila,,,because she'd have made sure that he was bashed and shot enough so as not to give him the chance.
Psychotic outbursts are frightening to see let alone getting involved in one,,and nobody knows when these people will turn.
My daughter and two work colleagues had to shut themselves in a cupboard while on night duty when a patient who'd been talking quite normally with them,,,suddenly turned violent and had got a knife from the kitchen. They had to get the police,,and even then,,for a scrawny man,it took 4 officers to calm him down.
-
I'm afraid that she was no ordinary daughter,Bridget. Instead,a girl who missed/forgot vital medication for her volatile state of mind. Nevill wouldn't have been in any fit state himself to disarm Sheila,,,because she'd have made sure that he was bashed and shot enough so as not to give him the chance.
Psychotic outbursts are frightening to see let alone getting involved in one,,and nobody knows when these people will turn.
My daughter and two work colleagues had to shut themselves in a cupboard while on night duty when a patient who'd been talking quite normally with them,,,suddenly turned violent and had got a knife from the kitchen. They had to get the police,,and even then,,for a scrawny man,it took 4 officers to calm him down.
Hi Lookout, I have seen a psychotic outburst up close and personal - and I agree, they are fookin' terrifying. But really I was talking about what Neville might do once she was incapacitated.
-
Sheila looks serene in the photographs,there are no grimaces or signs that she had been in any struggle. True to most schizophrenics she had never harmed anyone else before apart from throwing a few pots and pans around;she was more of a danger to herself if anything when she had put her hand through a window pane. The only known time she had handled a gun was six years earlier and even then witnesses couldn't remember whether she had actually fired or was a mere grouse beater. It also seems strange that she should wash her hands and feet as the Defence maintain yet not put on any clean underwear.
-
Hi Lookout, I have seen a psychotic outburst up close and personal - and I agree, they are fookin' terrifying. But really I was talking about what Neville might do once she was incapacitated.
It would have appeared that Nevill was already " fit for nothing ",Bridget,,,but what he may have done if Sheila had been incapacitated,I wouldn't know really. I do think he'd have made some attempt to have grabbed the rifle from her though and I'm surprised that he may not have attempted to,except that Sheila had the upper hand anyway,,and would have backed away from any attempt he may have made.
-
I know :)
If he was near death though, he wouldn't have gone for the gun cupboard either.
She wasn't shot in the kitchen anyway.
She was, and the contents of the police radio logs confirm this to be true - you do not report finding the body of a dead male "AND" the body of a dead female in the kitchen upon entry (7:37am), if there was no female body which had been shot there. The excuse about PC Collins mistakenly identifying Ralphs body for a female one simply does not hold water, because if that was the true explanation, there would only have been reference to the finding of one body, not two different ones. Moreover, the reference to two bodies was not in isolation, since a minute later, there was /is confirmation from the scene that the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female (7:38am) had been found. Again, you do not report the finding of a dead male and a dead female, if as it were there had been or was only one body found in the kitchen, misidentified by a police officer. You might get the sex of the body wrong, but not the number of bodies found. Then of course, there is / was the additional message passed from the scene at 7:42am, where a request is sent for the police surgeon and the coroners officer to be contacted regarding two bodies? Again, if there had only been one body that had been mistakenly identified as a dead female when all along it was the body of Ralph Bamber, you would not be reporting from the scene and making a request for the police surgeon and the coroners officer to be contacted regarding the discovery of two bodies, the reference would be to the find of one body, which could possibly have been mistakenly identified as a dead female, when all along it had been a dead male. Moreover, by 7:45am, the control room was contacting scenes of crime officers at home asking them to come on duty because police were dealing with an incident at whf involving a murder and a suicide, now where did the control room get that information from? How could anyone describe Ralph Bambers death, by and from before 7:45am as a suicide? I do not buy any nonsense about the police recording the facts wrongly, it's just too fantastic to expect anyone with a brain to contemplate on the scale it would have had to happen. They didn 't make mistakes on the scale suggested, they lied and covered up the truth, about where the body of Sheila was originally found upon entry to the kitchen. How come the raid team only reported finding three more bodies upstairs (8:10am), if only one body had been found downstairs? Whichever way you want to look at it, the explanation about PC Collins mistakenly misidentifying Ralphs body for that of a dead female, simply does not hold water, or add up, or equate to the known, and reported facts. If the explanation offered by PC Collins had any truth in it, the reference to the body of a dead female would have appeared in the radio logs before any mention of a dead male body having been found upon entry into the kitchen - police can't even get basic things like this right which indicates that they have made a story up, and they did so because later on upstairs in the bedroom, a police officer shot and killed Sheila, after she had already been declared dead by the police surgeon (8:44am) at a time when she only had one wound to her throat...
-
But why would the Police kill Sheila upstairs? They would have to deliberately approach her and shoot her in the neck to make it look like a suicide.They could cover themselves by saying Sheila was armed and they had to shoot her from a distance in order to preserve their own lives.
-
Sheila looks serene in the photographs,there are no grimaces or signs that she had been in any struggle. True to most schizophrenics she had never harmed anyone else before apart from throwing a few pots and pans around;she was more of a danger to herself if anything when she had put her hand through a window pane. The only known time she had handled a gun was six years earlier and even then witnesses couldn't remember whether she had actually fired or was a mere grouse beater. It also seems strange that she should wash her hands and feet as the Defence maintain yet not put on any clean underwear.
You have hit the nail on the head - How could Sheila look so peaceful and serene if she was shot under the chin and killed by Jeremy, or anybody else? She was on the bed, unconscious and whilst police were shifting a loaded rifle about onto and off her body, and whilst adjusting her fingers around the trigger mechanism the weapon fired the second bullet (PV/19) that penetrated beneath her chin and sent a bullet thundering into her brain - I do not believe that she fired the shot herself under her chin, and I do not believe that Jeremy or any would be as yet unidentified killer was responsible for firing a second shot under her chin, but I do know that the police did so, or at least she was shot under the chin by a bullet which killed her, after she had already been pronounced as being dead (8:44am) by the police surgeon at a time when she only had one wound to her neck / throat...
-
If Sheila shoots herself or is accidentally shot in the kitchen during the struggle with Nevill then lies there either incapacitated or pretending to be dead,which would explain the Police report of one male body and one female body in the kitchen,what is the time frame for the first set of photographs taken of Sheila which show a free flow of blood on her face and neck? Are you saying that in the first set of photographs taken the Police were photographing a person who was still alive? How does Sheila get from the kitchen where she is shot with a gun with the silencer fitted,move upstairs then scatter her religious messages with the bible,not to mention the other suicide note in capital letters,then wait until the Police enter the bedroom? If she resists arrest and the Police feel they were in danger they can justify shooting her without a cover-up. Why do the Police have to stage-manage a death,and how does the rifle manage to discharge in the bedroom? What happened to the silencer which according to the Andrew Hunter book draft was definitely on the gun whilst Sheila received her first non fatal injury but was absent on the second fatal shot,and why if the Police had shot Sheila in the bedroom which time-wise would have been late in the investigation does the second set of photos used in evidence at the trial show that blood had congealed in these photos when with the Police having shot her upstairs there should have been fresh blood as a result.
-
If Sheila shoots herself or is accidentally shot in the kitchen during the struggle with Nevill then lies there either incapacitated or pretending to be dead,which would explain the Police report of one male body and one female body in the kitchen,what is the time frame for the first set of photographs taken of Sheila which show a free flow of blood on her face and neck? Are you saying that in the first set of photographs taken the Police were photographing a person who was still alive?
The photograph which I have seen of Sheila on the bed with only one wound to her throat / neck was taken when Sheila was unknowingly still alive. The photograph I removed from the album at Ewen Smiths office at the beginning of 2004, that I sent to Jeremy and which has been confiscated by prison security, shows Sheila on the bed with no blood running from the corners of her mouth, and back into her left eye socket. So, yes, police did photograph Sheila on the bed when she was not actually dead, despite the fact that she had already been pronounced as being dead by the police surgeon, Dr Craig at 8:44am...
Nothing could be any clearer than that / this...
-
The photograph which I have seen of Sheila on the bed with only one wound to her throat / neck was taken when Sheila was unknowingly still alive. The photograph I removed from the album at Ewen Smiths office at the beginning of 2004, that I sent to Jeremy and which has been confiscated by prison security, shows Sheila on the bed with no blood running from the corners of her mouth, and back into her left eye socket. So, yes, police did photograph Sheila on the bed when she was not actually dead, despite the fact that she had already been pronounced as being dead by the police surgeon, Dr Craig at 8:44am...
Nothing could be any clearer than that / this...
But was it a close up shot,from a distance you may be mistaken...The photo you relieved from smith,so to speak?
-
This photo Mike,it's always confused me.first it was one bullet wound,then an unshaven vagina without a tampon inserted,now a picture of her mouth?
Must of been one hell of a wide angle lens mike....
-
How does Sheila get from the kitchen where she is shot with a gun with the silencer fitted,move upstairs then scatter her religious messages with the bible,not to mention the other suicide note in capital letters,then wait until the Police enter the bedroom?
There was no evidence given by any police officer about how she actually managed to get upstairs into the bedroom, but police believed that she used the small spiral staircase in the corner of the kitchen to get from downstairs to upstairs, and that once the alarm was raised that her body had disappeared from the kitchen, she was discovered upstairs collapsed on the bed. The gun she used to shoot herself with in the side of the neck was not taken upstairs with her, it was left downstairs and this was seized by DS "Stan" Jones, later that same morning under the identifying mark of SBJ/1, which was the .22 bolt action rifle and silencer owned by Anthony Pargeter. Sheila shot herself with use of the Pargeter rifle, not the family owned Anshulz rifle. The notes and everything else was not distributed after she fled upstairs from the kitchen, this was done beforehand. She did not flee upstairs and then wait for the police to come and get her, as you try to suggest, she actually collapsed on the bed and was unconscious when police managed to relocate her...
-
This photo Mike,it's always confused me.first it was one bullet wound,then an unshaven vagina without a tampon inserted,now a picture of her mouth?
Must of been one hell of a wide angle lens mike....
There is nothing at all confusing about it, I have always maintained that there was no blood running or leaking or pouring from the corners of her mouth in the photograph I removed from the "Senior Investigating officers album", at Ewen Smiths Office, at the beginning of 2004. And, I have since been shown a photograph which was taken of Sheila on the bed with only one wound to her throat / neck, consistent with what the police surgeon, Dr Craig, has spoken about when he pronounced her as being dead at 8:44am - lets get the facts right so that you cannot try to twist what I am saying, Dr Craig made a witness statement saying that at 8:44am, he pronounced Sheila as being dead at a time when her body was on the far side of the bed, with a solitary wound to her neck. I am not interested in arguing over what he meant when he said what he said, I know what I have seen and what I have been shown, and I am not interested any more in repeating what I have already said about the matter. If no-one believes what I am saying I personally don't give a flying fuck...
-
Am I right in saying that both bullets with which Sheila was shot were lighter than the others which were used to kill the other victims and what is the significance of this? I took Andrew Hunter's draft to mean that more than one weapon was used in the killings but as has been pointed out this is not necessarily so. Are you also saying that Dr. Craig made a mistake in his diagnosis of Sheila and that some time after that she was shot which has been covered up all this time,even with the £1 million reward on offer for information such as this?
You must bear with us Mike as the devil may be in the detail in this case,which reminds me..I urge you once again to remove your Sheila thread..
-
There is nothing at all confusing about it, I have always maintained that there was no blood running or leaking or pouring from the corners of her mouth in the photograph I removed from the "Senior Investigating officers album", at Ewen Smiths Office, at the beginning of 2004. And, I have since been shown a photograph which was taken of Sheila on the bed with only one wound to her throat / neck, consistent with what the police surgeon, Dr Craig, has spoken about when he pronounced her as being dead at 8:44am - lets get the facts right so that you cannot try to twist what I am saying, Dr Craig made a witness statement saying that at 8:44am, he pronounced Sheila as being dead at a time when her body was on the far side of the bed, with a solitary wound to her neck. I am not interested in arguing over what he meant when he said what he said, I know what I have seen and what I have been shown, and I am not interested any more in repeating what I have already said about the matter. If no-one believes what I am saying I personally don't give a flying fuck...
Quote from: mike tesko on July 15, 2012, 09:33:PM
I will say the following on the matter, and you will be well advised to take note of what I am saying - The photograph of Sheila on the bed which I have taken control of back in 2003, shows Sheila with pubic hair in her most private parts. Now I am not seeking to try and make out that there is anything sexual in what I am saying, I am merely pointing out that she was unshaven or untrimmed - now anybody who wants to know the truth (especially those in high places, and in positions of influence) only has to find out if what I have described was / is the truth?
Without being too specific, or intend to appear rude or perverted, but I would also like to add that there was no evidence that a tampon had been internally inserted, in the photograph I have taken control and possession of back at the beginning of 2003 from Ewen Smith (at his offices in Birmingham) - Now any of you can choose to believe anything you want to, I don't particularly care any more...
I just struggle to see how a single photo will show the detail,you describe. As an avid lensman I'd of thought you'd see the limitations of getting it all in one frame?
I am getting fucking fed up of telling the truth and being accused of all manner of things...
-
Sorry,the last lines mikes....
Poor,poor editing on my part.
-
If she resists arrest and the Police feel they were in danger they can justify shooting her without a cover-up. Why do the Police have to stage-manage a death,and how does the rifle manage to discharge in the bedroom?
First of all, Sheila did not resist arrest as you try to put it. She was unconscious on the bed, and in these circumstances the police could not justify shooting her. Fact of the matter is, police used the rifle which was propped up against the left hand side window Jamb (as observed from the vantage point of being inside the main bedroom) to falsely suggest that she had taken her own life on the bed (upstairs) to try and cover for the mistake of her being originally found downstairs in the kitchen, and declared to be already dead by members of the raid team at 7:37am - "the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found in kitchen upon entry". This was in addition to the police surgeon, Dr Craig, later pronouncing Sheila as being dead inside the bedroom, her body being "on the far side of the bed with only a solitary wound to her neck" by 8:44am. If you study the available crime scene photographic evidence, it will become apparent to all and sundry that police moved the rifle from the window about on Sheila's body at a time when it had not been checked to see if it was still loaded with bullets, or if it was safe to handle? You will see the barrel of the anshulz rifle in different positions upon Sheila's body, in particular that the end of the guns barrel was at one stage beneath her chin and later resting against the side of her neck. You will also note that the positioning of Sheila Caffells right hand and fingers were photographed in different positions upon and around the guns trigger mechanism. Surely, it is not that difficult to imagine that whilst the police were busy reconstructing the scene to make it appear as though Sheila's body had been found in the bedroom, rather than downstairs in the region of the kitchen, that the rifle actually discharged a second bullet that penetrated beneath her chin and killed her...
According to the police, no-one moved or touched the body or any exhibits until after PC David Bird had taken all of his photographs, yet the photographs he took tell a completely different story...
-
Didn't I read somewhere that Jeremy might have cleaned the silencer with one of his sister's tampons..had Sheila not worn a tampon this would explain her bloodstained knickers. If Sheila attempted to commit suicide but failed this rules out her having received the shot accidentally with the struggle with Ralph(Nevill).According to Andrew Hunter the silencer was on the rifle at this stage,so either Sheila after the first shot puts the silencer back in the gun cupboard or someone else finds the silencer..I'm assuming that Sheila takes the Anschutz rifle back upstairs with her minus the silencer..
-
Didn't I read somewhere that Jeremy might have cleaned the silencer with one of his sister's tampons..had Sheila not worn a tampon this would explain her bloodstained knickers. If Sheila attempted to commit suicide but failed this rules out her having received the shot accidentally with the struggle with Ralph(Nevill).According to Andrew Hunter the silencer was on the rifle at this stage,so either Sheila after the first shot puts the silencer back in the gun cupboard or someone else finds the silencer..I'm assuming that Sheila takes the Anschutz rifle back upstairs with her minus the silencer..
Andrew Hunter clearly states where he is theorising. His manuscript is 8 years old. He theorises in places by making use what was known 8 years ago.
-
First of all, Sheila did not resist arrest as you try to put it. She was unconscious on the bed, and in these circumstances the police could not justify shooting her. Fact of the matter is, police used the rifle which was propped up against the left hand side window Jamb (as observed from the vantage point of being inside the main bedroom) to falsely suggest that she had taken her own life on the bed (upstairs) to try and cover for the mistake of her being originally found downstairs in the kitchen, and declared to be already dead by members of the raid team at 7:37am - "the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found in kitchen upon entry". This was in addition to the police surgeon, Dr Craig, later pronouncing Sheila ass being dead inside the bedroom, her body being "on the far side of the bed with only a solitary wound to her neck" by 8:44am. If you study the available crime scene photographic evidence, it will become apparent to all and sundry that police moved the rifle from the window about on Sheila's body at a time when it had not been checked to see if it was still loaded with bullets, or if it was safe to handle? You will see the barrel of the anshulz rifle in different positions upon Sheila;'s body, in particular that the end of the guns barrel was at one stage beneath her chin and later resting against the side of her neck. You will also note that the positioning of Sheila Caffells right hand and fingers were photographed in different positions upon and around the guns trigger mechanism. Surely, it i not that difficult to imagine that whilst the police were busy reconstructing the scene to make it appear as though Sheila's body had been found in the bedroom, rather than downstairs in the region of the kitchen, that the rifle actually discharged a second bullet that penetrated beneath her chin and killed her...
According to the police, no-one moved or touched the body or any exhibits until after PC David Bird had taken all of his photographs, yet the photographs he took tell a completely different story...
How easy is it to discharge a .22 anschutz rifle accidentally? I read somewhere that this rifle needed two hands to make it steady.
-
How easy is it to discharge a .22 anschutz rifle accidentally? I read somewhere that this rifle needed two hands to make it steady.
Sheila didn't handle the rifle which fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) which killed her after it penetrated beneath her chin, it was a police officer who accidentally or carelessly activated the trigger mechanism on that occasion...
Now, if you are the police and you are moving a rifle about on the body of one of the victims, and you have not checked to see if the weapon in question is till loaded with a bullet or more) and you start to move the barrel of the rifle around in the vicinity of the victims beck, and you adjust the right hand and fingers of the victim about near or close to the trigger mechanism of the gun, there is going to be a good chance, or at least some risk involved in the loaded weapon (if it is loaded with a live bullet) discharging and causing an additional injury, do you not agree?
-
Sheila didn't handle the rifle which fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) which killed her after it penetrated beneath her chin, it was a police officer who accidentally or carelessly activated the trigger mechanism on that occasion...
Now, if you are the police and you are moving a rifle about on the body of one of the victims, and you have not checked to see if the weapon in question is till loaded with a bullet or more) and you start to move the barrel of the rifle around in the vicinity of the victims beck, and you adjust the right hand and fingers of the victim about near or close to the trigger mechanism of the gun, there is going to be a good chance, or at least some risk involved in the loaded weapon (if it is loaded with a live bullet) discharging and causing an additional injury, do you not agree?
That's an awful lot of if's,but yes.
-
That's an awful lot of if's,but yes.
Sorry about spelling mistakes - well, police state categorically that no-one moved or touched anything until after PC Bird took his crime scene pictures, but they have lied...
look at the pictures PC Bird took, and we can all see the police have lied, and that in fact they did n=move things around whilst PC Bird was taking his pictures...
You do not tell lies of this nature unless you are trying to cover something up...
"Oh, look, we shot and killed Sheila, but it doesn't matter because she was already pronounced as being dead by the police surgeon at 8:44am"...
If you get my drift?
-
Sorry about spelling mistakes - well, police state categorically that no-one moved or touched anything until after PC Bird took his crime scene pictures, but they have lied...
look at the pictures PC Bird took, and we can all see the police have lied, and that in fact they did n=move things around whilst PC Bird was taking his pictures...
You do not tell lies of this nature unless you are trying to cover something up...
"Oh, look, we shot and killed Sheila, but it doesn't matter because she was already pronounced as being dead by the police surgeon at 8:44am"...
If you get my drift?
How do you end up killing someone who has already been pronounced as already being dead, and who has been declared as being dead from as long ago, as 7:37am (by members of the raid team) and at 8:44am (by the police surgeon, Dr Craig?
"It's official, we shot and killed her, but she was already pronounced as being dead, twice beforehand"...
Mmmmmmn....
-
How do you end up killing someone who has already been pronounced as already being dead, and who has been declared as being dead from as long ago, as 7:37am (by members of the raid team) and at 8:44am (by the police surgeon, Dr Craig?
"It's official, we shot and killed her, but she was already pronounced as being dead, twice beforehand"...
Mmmmmmn....
Mike, for 33 days it didn't matter. 4 murders and 1 suicide. Who was going to say differently? If the rellies hadn't started poking around we'd still be none the wiser.
-
It seems a huge step to fake a cover-up just because someone on a walkie-talkie relays to base that one male and one female body have been found in the kitchen. I'm sure there was a possibility that Police upstairs moved the rifle and then put it back again,but why not just leave it where they found it beside the body without trying to put Sheila's hands on the trigger?
-
It seems a huge step to fake a cover-up just because someone on a walkie-talkie relays to base that one male and one female body have been found in the kitchen. I'm sure there was a possibility that Police upstairs moved the rifle and then put it back again,but why not just leave it where they found it beside the body without trying to put Sheila's hands on the trigger?
It's almost as if somebody was shouting "Look! She's committed suicide!". A ham fisted, badly staged, unconvincing suicide. How on earth could some of the force's most senior and experienced detectives, witness and survey this scene... and come away thinking "Yep.. it's just a two shot suicide. Back to base lads... someone put the kettle on".
Bullshit
There's no way they would survey that scene and come away with that attitiude unless they had staged it themselves, in desperation.
-
It's almost as if somebody was shouting "Look! She's committed suicide!". A ham fisted, badly staged, unconvincing suicide. How on earth could some of the force's most senior and experienced detectives, witness and survey this scene... and come away thinking "Yep.. it's just a two shot suicide. Back to base lads... someone put the kettle on".
Bullshit
There's no way they would survey that scene and come away with that attitiude unless they had staged it themselves, in desperation.
Very true Roch , experienced policemen would know that scene was stage managed by somebody , with their eyes closed !! How can anybody not see a gun ending up in that position , had been put there by somebody else apart from SC ?
-
Very true Roch , experienced policemen would know that scene was stage managed by somebody , with their eyes closed !! How can anybody not see a gun ending up in that position , had been put there by somebody else apart from SC ?
And they claimed that Jeremy almost got away with the perfect murders?
What a joke...
If the jury had been shown all the crime scene photographs taken by PC Bird, (and others) at the scene on the morning of the investigation, they would have been left in no doubt at all who had actually stage managed the body of Sheila, and that no-one other than Sheila herself or the police could have fired the second fatal shot under the chin which killed her. The jury never got to see the different crime scene photographs which showed the barrel of the gun in different positions against and in the region of her neck, and the corresponding photographs that show how the police shifted her right hand about near to the trigger? If they had been told that no-one checked the anshulz rifle to see if it was loaded with bullets until 11:15am that morning (after PC Bird had taken his photographs) it would have been possible for the jury to accept that Sheila got shot (whether by her own hand or by the police who mishandled a loaded rifle whilst moving it about on Sheila's body), under the chin with bullet PV/19, not by Jeremy, or any as yet unidentified killer. The jury would almost certainly have also concluded that her blood could not have got inside the silencer at the time that second fatal shot under the chin had been inflicted, and the silencer could not have been placed inside the gun cupboard by Jeremy or any would be as yet unidentified killer, because she was shot long after Jeremy left the scene to go back to his cottage with the police where he made a witness statement. If a silencer was fitted to the rifles barrel that fired that second shot under the chin, the police would have known about it, because they were moving the rifle about on her body before PS Woodcock made it safe and checked it for bullets at 11:15am...
-
Very true Roch , experienced policemen would know that scene was stage managed by somebody , with their eyes closed !! How can anybody not see a gun ending up in that position , had been put there by somebody else apart from SC ?
So.. if these experienced police officers should have known that the scene looked false as it was, wouldn't they have made a better job? It could be argued that the scene looks as if it were staged by someone inexperienced in these things, i.e. JB.
Of course that doesn't explain why they were fooled for a month, but then they'd had their heads filled with stories of Sheila's mental health and Neville's phone call. But maybe this is why Stan Jones was suspicious?
-
Police had to arrange for the bullet (PV/20) which was fragmented, to be swapped over and replaced by a different whole control bullet which must have been test fired via the anshulz rifle, so that they could keep this a one gun crime, and conceal the truth about how Sheila was shot twice, once downstairs, and secondly, upstairs?
You do not tamper with a crime scene bullet unless you have got something to hide...
Ask yourselves this question - do you think or believe that someone swapped over the original fragmented bullet (PV/20) for a substituted whole control bullet for the purpose of making it a one gun matter relating to both shots inflicted to Sheila's neck / throat?
Yes, or no?
If no, how do you account for the transformation of a fragmented bullet as of 7th August 1985, miraculously becoming transformed into a whole bullet that the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, was able to positively link as having been fired via the anshulz rifle, along with bullet PV19?
-
It seems a huge step to fake a cover-up just because someone on a walkie-talkie relays to base that one male and one female body have been found in the kitchen. I'm sure there was a possibility that Police upstairs moved the rifle and then put it back again,but why not just leave it where they found it beside the body without trying to put Sheila's hands on the trigger?
It goes much deeper than that - since, yet to be fathomed out, is how the control room knew that police at the scene were dealing with a murder and a suicide before 7:45am, in order for the control room to be contacting SOCO at home, asking them to come into the office on duty because police were dealing with an incident at whf involving a murder and a suicide? Where did the control room get the information from about a murder and a suicide? Furthermore, why (7:42am) was a request sent from the scene for the police surgeon (Dr Craig) and the coroners officer (PC Wright) to be notified about two bodies (not one)? These cannot be put down to a mistake having been made by PC Collins supposedly looking through the kitchen window and he mistakenly identifying Ralph's body for that of a female - er, how can anyone come to the conclusion that Ralph Bamber had committed suicide in the kitchen, and that he had also been murdered before 7:45am?
Impossible, Ralph's death could not be described as a suicide, to even contemplate such a scenario would be and is preposterous...
Police had not even got upstairs into the main bedroom by 7:45am, so how could they be talking about a suicide before 7:45am, to enable the control room to be contacting SOCO at home, asking them to come into the office because police at whf were dealing with a murder and a suicide?
-
So.. if these experienced police officers should have known that the scene looked false as it was, wouldn't they have made a better job? It could be argued that the scene looks as if it were staged by someone inexperienced in these things, i.e. JB.
Of course that doesn't explain why they were fooled for a month, but then they'd had their heads filled with stories of Sheila's mental health and Neville's phone call. But maybe this is why Stan Jones was suspicious?
Police were easily able to get around this problem, by being selective about which photographs (if any) were disclosed in time for the opening of the inquest on 14th August 1985. This matter was rigorously sorted out by the time Jeremy was arrested, because although there had existed 581 photographs in an album which became known as "The Senior Investigating Officers Album", police arranged for PC Bird to create a false photographic schedule declaring that police had only taken 223 photographs which were contained in a misleading tilted album which has become known as "THE MASTER COPY ALBUM". A total of 358 photographs were removed from the equation, just so a false case against Jeremy could be mounted, based upon the theory that Jeremy had killed everyone including Sheila, and that he had stage managed her body to fool police into thinking she had then taken her on life? They set about trying to achieve this (and succeeded) by hiding away the existence of 358 photographs, many of which show that police stage managed Sheila's body, not Jeremy or anyone else, and that the prosecutions case at trial was based on false evidence and involved a conspiracy by Essex police to try and convict Jeremy of these murders on the basis that he had stage managed his sisters body to fool police into thinking she had killed the others and then taken her own life, when all along the police stage managed her body, and if anyone fooled anyone, it was Essex police who fooled the jury and themselves, into thinking they could get away with what they have undoubtedly done and been responsible for...
You do not hide and conceal 358 photographs from Bamber and his legal team, and from the court which is trying the matter, (and the general public) unless you have got a dark secret that you do not want anyone to find out about...
-
and all this is based upon the foundation of a report which refers to a male and a female found downstairs
jeremy's legal team will never, ever seek to persuade a judge of the truth of the contention that sheila was shot downstairs, fled upstairs and was (perhaps accidently) shot by a police officer
it is utter nonsense
-
Sorry, it's late and I can't take all that in. Are you saying that they stage managed it to look like it had been stage managed? If so, why did they then go with the 4 murders and a suicide theory for a month?
-
It goes much deeper than that - since, yet to be fathomed out, is how the control room knew that police at the scene were dealing with a murder and a suicide before 7:45am, in order for the control room to be contacting SOCO at home, asking them to come into the office on duty because police were dealing with an incident at whf involving a murder and a suicide? Where did the control room get the information from about a murder and a suicide? Furthermore, why (7:42am) was a request sent from the scene for the police surgeon (Dr Craig) and the coroners officer (PC Wright) to be notified about two bodies (not one)? These cannot be put down to a mistake having been made by PC Collins supposedly looking through the kitchen window and he mistakenly identifying Ralph's body for that of a female - er, how can anyone come to the conclusion that Ralph Bamber had committed suicide in the kitchen, and that he had also been murdered before 7:45am?
Impossible, Ralph's death could not be described as a suicide, to even contemplate such a scenario would be and is preposterous...
Police had not even got upstairs into the main bedroom by 7:45am, so how could they be talking about a suicide before 7:45am, to enable the control room to be contacting SOCO at home, asking them to come into the office because police at whf were dealing with a murder and a suicide?
I would suggest that the entry in the police radio log timed at 7:37am (the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found in kitchen upon entry) and the fact that the control room must have been informed that police at the scene were dealing with two bodies (7:42am) and that one was a murder, and the other a suicide (before 7:45am), helps to expose the story introduced by PC Collins and others that he mistakenly identified Ralph Bambers bullet riddled body for the body of a female, as a concoction to try and get around details being leaked out about the discovery of Sheila's body in the region of the kitchen, and pronounced or reported as being dead by members of the raid team at about 7:37am, or there abouts. You do not make the mistake of declaring that two bodies have been found upon entry to the kitchen, and that one of these two bodies is a dead male, and the other a dead female, and that one is a murder and the other a suicide, if PC Collins simply made a mistake in wrongly identifying Ralph's bullet riddled body for that of a dead female?
-
and all this is based upon the foundation of a report which refers to a male and a female found downstairs
jeremy's legal team will never, ever seek to persuade a judge of the truth of the contention that sheila was shot downstairs, fled upstairs and was (perhaps accidently) shot by a police officer
it is utter nonsense
Well, Jeremy's legal team can do whatever they want to, and for your in formation I have got letters written by Jeremy where he talks about the police originally finding Sheila's body downstairs and mistakenly believing she was / is dead. I have also got other letters written by Jeremy to me, where he talks about Sheila's body on the bed, and that police moved her body to the bedroom floor, so I am not particularly bothered what his legal team might do or not do. I suppose they will go with the argument that Sheila shot herself, they will take the path of least resistance, because it is a much easier option to take, but it doesn't mean that their approach is the right one which proves how Sheila died, or where she was supposed to have died, sure, let them take the easy option, but why should I?
-
Well, Jeremy's legal team can do whatever they want to, and for your in formation I have got letters written by Jeremy where he talks about the police originally finding Sheila's body downstairs and mistakenly believing she was / is dead. I have also got other letters written by Jeremy to me, where he talks about Sheila's body on the bed, and that police moved her body to the bedroom floor, so I am not particularly bothered what his legal team might do or not do. I suppose they will go with the argument that Sheila shot herself, they will take the path of least resistance, because it is a much easier option to take, but it doesn't mean that their approach is the right one which proves how Sheila died, or where she was supposed to have died, sure, let them take the easy option, but why should I?
We have some things in common, and that is that Jeremy did not kill his family, and he did not stage manage his sisters body to fool the police into thinking she killed the others and then herself. we are also in agreement that a silencer was not fitted to the barrel of the anshulz rifle which fired the fatal shot under the chin...
-
Even Jeremy himself, is now promoting the suggestion that Sheila shot herself and killed herself, despite the fact that I have hundreds of letters written and addressed to me, where he expounds the idea that police originally found her body downstairs, that they also found her on the bed, and that they moved her body to the bedroom floor and stage managed it themselves. He accuses Anthony Pargeter of killing his family with use of his own rifle and the family owned anshulz, and all manner of theories which are now at odds with the official line now being pursued - I understand why he may have changed his views, and why he and his legal team are going for the easier option of just trying to prove that Sheila killed the others and then herself, but if that were true, why did the police stage manage Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, and how could the second shot under the chin have occurred long after police had set foot inside whf and Jeremy had already left the scene, and he having accused the police of killing all of his family?
-
Even Jeremy himself, is now promoting the suggestion that Sheila shot herself and killed herself, despite the fact that I have hundreds of letters written and addressed to me, where he expounds the idea that police originally found her body downstairs, that they also found her on the bed, and that they moved her body to the bedroom floor and stage managed it themselves. He accuses Anthony Pargeter of killing his family with use of his own rifle and the family owned anshulz, and all manner of theories which are now at odds with the official line now being pursued - I understand why he may have changed his views, and why he and his legal team are going for the easier option of just trying to prove that Sheila killed the others and then herself, but if that were true, why did the police stage manage Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, and how could the second shot under the chin have occurred long after police had set foot inside whf and Jeremy had already left the scene, and he having accused the police of killing all of his family?
Basically, what I am saying is that this approach of trying to prove that Sheila killed herself, is at odds with the fact that police stage managed the scene to promote the idea that she had taken her own life - if she had, why did the police go to all this / that trouble of stage managing her body on the bedroom floor, and falsifying photographic records to conceal for the fact that police had been responsible for stage managing the scene?
-
But Mike, where is the evidence that SC was originally on the bed?
You assured members of this forum that you had a photograph of SC on the bed with a single bullet wound but it transpires that you don't have such a photo at all (unless it's buried on the hard drive of one of your old computers).
By the way, as you will, no doubt, recall, I offered to personally pay for a computer expert to retrieve that photo from the hard drive, but you didn't respond to that offer !!
-
At the trial, the judge told the jury that there was no evidence that any third party played any role in the shootings or the death of Sheila, and that the jury should concentrate on it either being Sheila or Jeremy who was responsible? But, if all the evidence which now supports the case for police involvement in the death of Sheila had been available at that stage, the trial judge would not have been able to couch his direction to the jury as he did, he would have had to include reference to the possibility that the police shot and killed Sheila, an that it was the police who had stage managed her body on the bedroom floor...
-
But Mike, where is the evidence that SC was originally on the bed?
You assured members of this forum that you had a photograph of SC on the bed with a single bullet wound but it transpires that you don't have such a photo at all (unless it's buried on the hard drive of one of your old computers).
By the way, as you will, no doubt, recall, I offered to personally pay for a computer expert to retrieve that photo from the hard drive, but you didn't respond to that offer !!
I do not have a photograph of Sheila with only one wound to her neck, I have always maintained that I was shown one, and that I have seen one. Sheila was photographed on the bed, before she was moved to the bedroom floor, and police stage managed her body there on the bedroom floor next to the bed...
You and everybody else can choose to believe whatever you want to, you believe in your truth and I will contiue to believe and know my own truth...
-
It goes much deeper than that - since, yet to be fathomed out, is how the control room knew that police at the scene were dealing with a murder and a suicide before 7:45am, in order for the control room to be contacting SOCO at home, asking them to come into the office on duty because police were dealing with an incident at whf involving a murder and a suicide? Where did the control room get the information from about a murder and a suicide? Furthermore, why (7:42am) was a request sent from the scene for the police surgeon (Dr Craig) and the coroners officer (PC Wright) to be notified about two bodies (not one)? These cannot be put down to a mistake having been made by PC Collins supposedly looking through the kitchen window and he mistakenly identifying Ralph's body for that of a female - er, how can anyone come to the conclusion that Ralph Bamber had committed suicide in the kitchen, and that he had also been murdered before 7:45am?
Impossible, Ralph's death could not be described as a suicide, to even contemplate such a scenario would be and is preposterous...
Police had not even got upstairs into the main bedroom by 7:45am, so how could they be talking about a suicide before 7:45am, to enable the control room to be contacting SOCO at home, asking them to come into the office because police at whf were dealing with a murder and a suicide?
Mike, Bob Woffinden disagrees. I copied this from his radio interview. This is, of course, a completely separate question to that concerning the location of the telephones. Strange how his "opinion" has changed on various aspects of the case.
Bob Woffinden
The initial theory was the one which bamber himself promulgated… as the result of this telephone call he had received which was that the parents and the twins had been shot by Sheila.
According to those logs it said there was one dead male one dead female in the kitchen and three more bodies upstairs, so really… (was going to explain something, apparently, but interrupts himself ) …there wasn’t you see, there was just the father Nevill in the kitchen downstairs, the other four bodies were upstairs, so when you saw the radio logs you were kind of asking “Well how could one of the bodies have got from downstairs to upstairs” Err… and it was almost like a Jonathon Creek mystery-unless it was, maybe, that Sheila was actually not dead and was still alive and had then gone upstairs and shot herself, you see, and that was one theory and I found this the most persuasive evidence for his innocence.
Well I’ve now decided some years later that that is probably wrong and that what happened, I think, on the day-and, after all, they were relatively fast moving events at the time and I suspect that the radio operator just got everything wrong-in other words somebody phoned into her, you know, from the scene to say “One dead female in kitchen” then someone else phoned to say “one dead male in kitchen” and so the radio operator probably put both of those together and then had “One dead female and one dead male” in the kitchen and then when she was told there were five bodies altogether, just kind of subtracted the two she’d already got and that left three upstairs-I mean that’s one explanation of how those radio logs came to be so wrong.
I don't believe he really has changed his "opinion". That stuff about the radio operator is nonsense and he must realise it. Could it be that some people have been talking to him?
-
Greetings fellow peeps
A bit late in the evening I know but I came across this forum by accident and always wondered about the Jeremy bamber case and if he is innocent. Does this site support his fight for freedom?
-
Mike, Bob Woffinden disagrees. I copied this from his radio interview. This is, of course, a completely separate question to that concerning the location of the telephones. Strange how his "opinion" has changed on various aspects of the case.
I don't believe he really has changed his "opinion". That stuff about the radio operator is nonsense and he must realise it. Could it be that some people have been talking to him?
Problem with his explanation - if PC Collins mistakenly misidentify's Ralph's body in the kitchen for that of a dead female, (7:37am), how come a request is sent from the scene for the police surgeon and the coroners officer to be contacted regarding two bodies (7:42am) and that one is a murder, and the other a suicide (before 7:45am)? Ralph Bambers death could not be mistaken for a suicide, considering that he had been shot eight times? Where did the control room get this information from about police at the scene dealing with a murder and a suicide, to enable them to contact SOCO at home asking them to come into the office at 7:45am because police at whf were dealing with a murder and a suicide? Police inside the premises had not yet got upstairs to the main bedroom to discover the other two bodies (June and Sheila) so how could it be known before 7:45am that police were dealing with a murder and a suicide by 7:45am, if two bodies had not already been discovered?
-
Problem with his explanation - if PC Collins mistakenly misidentify's Ralph's body in the kitchen for that of a dead female, (7:37am), how come a request is sent from the scene for the police surgeon and the coroners officer to be contacted regarding two bodies (7:42am) and that one is a murder, and the other a suicide (before 7:45am)? Ralph Bambers death could not be mistaken for a suicide, considering that he had been shot eight times? Where did the control room get this information from about police at the scene dealing with a murder and a suicide, to enable them to contact SOCO at home asking them to come into the office at 7:45am because police at whf were dealing with a murder and a suicide? Police inside the premises had not yet got upstairs to the main bedroom to discover the other two bodies (June and Sheila) so how could it be known before 7:45am that police were dealing with a murder and a suicide by 7:45am, if two bodies had not already been discovered?
Before police allegedly reached Sheila's body in the main bedroom with it being allegedly laid on the floor next to the bed, police would have by that stage had to have found three bodies, before anyone could declare a suicide at the scene, namely the body of Ralph Bamber in the kitchen, followed by the body of June Bamber in the bedroom doorway, and then the body of Sheila on the floor beyond the bed? In the circumstances of how this case has been reported (falsely) police would need to refer to the discovery of three bodies before any mention is made of a suicide, involving two murders and a suicide...
-
Morning sammy and welcome to the forum yes the majority of the forum members are suporters of Jeremy and his freedom.
-
Welcome, Sammy. I believe people are innocent until proven guilty. In my opinion, the critical point of 'beyond reasonable doubt' was never even close.
-
So.. if these experienced police officers should have known that the scene looked false as it was, wouldn't they have made a better job? It could be argued that the scene looks as if it were staged by someone inexperienced in these things, i.e. JB.
Of course that doesn't explain why they were fooled for a month, but then they'd had their heads filled with stories of Sheila's mental health and Neville's phone call. But maybe this is why Stan Jones was suspicious?
Morning Bridget. I think you may be looking at this with the benefit of hindsight. That morning, when the police first went in the found a dead male and a (semi?)dead female downstairs. They did a search which revealed three more bodies and it was probably from upstairs that they told the ambulance to stand down. So now there is nobody in the house but the police and 5 bodies, or so they believe, but when they go downstairs via the main staircase, there is only one body in the place where previously there had been two.
I imagine at this point they are s!!!!!g themselves!!!! It must have been with some relief that they find her collapsed on the bed. They had expected to find 4 murders and 1 suicide and but for a blip, it's what they still had. She had a neck wound so it was simplicity itself to place a weapon at such a position that it seemed as if she had lain on the bed to shoot herself. It could easily have been that the gun was fired during this operation. Inspite that there was nobody there but them, they must have been unnerved by what had happened. They would have known the scene was wrong, but they needed to make it look right. Having completed the task all they had to do was wait for the photographers to do their job, and then the undertakers could do theirs. I'll bet those police involved couldn't wait to get out of the house, but at least they had successfully covered their tracks, no questions would be asked and in any case who was there to ask them. Sighs of relief all round, I imagine. Their secret was safe..........
.........For 33 days.
-
Morning Bridget. I think you may be looking at this with the benefit of hindsight. That morning, when the police first went in the found a dead male and a (semi?)dead female downstairs. They did a search which revealed three more bodies and it was probably from upstairs that they told the ambulance to stand down. So now there is nobody in the house but the police and 5 bodies, or so they believe, but when they go downstairs via the main staircase, there is only one body in the place where previously there had been two.
I imagine at this point they are s!!!!!g themselves!!!! It must have been with some relief that they find her collapsed on the bed. They had expected to find 4 murders and 1 suicide and but for a blip, it's what they still had. She had a neck wound so it was simplicity itself to place a weapon at such a position that it seemed as if she had lain on the bed to shoot herself. It could easily have been that the gun was fired during this operation. Inspite that there was nobody there but them, they must have been unnerved by what had happened. They would have known the scene was wrong, but they needed to make it look right. Having completed the task all they had to do was wait for the photographers to do their job, and then the undertakers could do theirs. I'll bet those police involved couldn't wait to get out of the house, but at least they had successfully covered their tracks, no questions would be asked and in any case who was there to ask them. Sighs of relief all round, I imagine. Their secret was safe..........
.........For 33 days.
I keep asking this question - why did they need to cover anything up? Given the supposed situation it wouldn't have mattered if she'd died in a hail of police bullets. In your scenario, why, having found her collapsed on the bed, would they feel the need to place the gun in such a position to make it appear like suicide? And again, if they accidentally shot her whilst positioning the gun, they could simply have said that it went off when they were trying to take it from her.
-
I keep asking this question - why did they need to cover anything up? Given the supposed situation it wouldn't have mattered if she'd died in a hail of police bullets. In your scenario, why, having found her collapsed on the bed, would they feel the need to place the gun in such a position to make it appear like suicide? And again, if they accidentally shot her whilst positioning the gun, they could simply have said that it went off when they were trying to take it from her.
I agree, even if they killed her accidentally they would not need to cover it up.....
-
I keep asking this question - why did they need to cover anything up? Given the supposed situation it wouldn't have mattered if she'd died in a hail of police bullets. In your scenario, why, having found her collapsed on the bed, would they feel the need to place the gun in such a position to make it appear like suicide? And again, if they accidentally shot her whilst positioning the gun, they could simply have said that it went off when they were trying to take it from her.
-
I agree, even if they killed her accidentally they would not need to cover it up.....
Boheme,,,if the police can sit on evidence for 16 years, of a chap who I know,who served 18 years until 2010,,,then they can do anything. I don't go along with the question " why didn't they say anything ".
-
I keep asking this question - why did they need to cover anything up? Given the supposed situation it wouldn't have mattered if she'd died in a hail of police bullets. In your scenario, why, having found her collapsed on the bed, would they feel the need to place the gun in such a position to make it appear like suicide? And again, if they accidentally shot her whilst positioning the gun, they could simply have said that it went off when they were trying to take it from her.
Absolutely Bridget. But at some point I think that eyes were taken off balls and discipline and order started to disintegrate. This was not a typical casebook scenario, there was no precedent. This one must have been horror heaped on horror, so if a junior member of the team finds his hands are shaking when he places the gun in Sheila's hand, pointing towards the already inflicted neckwound, it should come as no surprise. Did he vomit as a result? who is there to spill beans?
Under ANY other circumstances, reports would have had to be made, questions would have to be answered. How would they explain how a "body" got up and walked? They went for damage limitation.They had gone in expecting to find 4 murders and 1 suicide, and but for a blip, that's what they still had and nobody need be any the wiser. By closing ranks, they may have saved the career of a terrified rooky, they most certainly had saved themselves a serious reprimand or even demotion. They believed that as there was nobody to witness what had happened, they were safe, and they were..............for 33 days.
-
they were safe, and they were..............for 33 days.
I don't think they were safe from much earlier than 33 days because the machinations and pressure started from the off.
-
Absolutely Bridget. But at some point I think that eyes were taken off balls and discipline and order started to disintegrate. This was not a typical casebook scenario, there was no precedent. This one must have been horror heaped on horror, so if a junior member of the team finds his hands are shaking when he places the gun in Sheila's hand, pointing towards the already inflicted neckwound, it should come as no surprise. Did he vomit as a result? who is there to spill beans?
Under ANY other circumstances, reports would have had to be made, questions would have to be answered. How would they explain how a "body" got up and walked? They went for damage limitation.They had gone in expecting to find 4 murders and 1 suicide, and but for a blip, that's what they still had and nobody need be any the wiser. By closing ranks, they may have saved the career of a terrified rooky, they most certainly had saved themselves a serious reprimand or even demotion. They believed that as there was nobody to witness what had happened, they were safe, and they were..............for 33 days.
Given the fact that she had a lacerated jugular vein and fractured vertebrea in her neck, the fact that none of her blood was found anywhere other than in the main bedroom, the fact that there was no blood on her which could be attributed to having been standing up, let alone running around, and the fact that she had no one else's blood on her including Ralph's (etc.) I don't accept that she was ever in the kitchen.
That said, if I go along with your assertion that she was, they were a firearms team, not doctors. If she miraculously revived and appeared upstairs, so what? Why would anyone think "oh dear - I'm going to look a bit of a prick here - I'd better just stage this so it looks like she killed herself here.."? How would that even help them seeing as she was supposed to be in the kitchen?
The assertion that they all closed ranks to save the career of some rooky just doesn't add up. To get to that position you would have to have an officer who for reasons I cannot fathom thought that the fact that Sheila had moved was so detrimental to his career he had to stage a suicide in a different room. Then he has to accidentally kill her. Then, rather than just taking the easy route and saying she resisted when they tried to take the gun from her and it went off, they all decide to stage the body in a manner which is apparently completely obviously staged, and risk all of their careers by lying about it for 27 years, sure in the knowledge none of the raid team, SOCO, doctors or scientists would ever break ranks and blab, even though an innocent man was framed and there was a £1,000,000 reward.
Nope, not buying that.
-
I have to agree with you Bridget on the cover up. I could see someone pulling down her nightgown to make her decent and moving the bible after they accidentally pushed it [a door has been suggested]. However, she could have been in the kitchen before she shot herself and had Ralph's blood on her. Blood is very easily washed off, I've cut myself shaving enough times to know. The pile of cushions with someone's blood in the center and the towel on the pool of Ralph's blood need expanation.
-
Sorry about spelling mistakes - well, police state categorically that no-one moved or touched anything until after PC Bird took his crime scene pictures, but they have lied...
look at the pictures PC Bird took, and we can all see the police have lied, and that in fact they did n=move things around whilst PC Bird was taking his pictures...
You do not tell lies of this nature unless you are trying to cover something up...
"Oh, look, we shot and killed Sheila, but it doesn't matter because she was already pronounced as being dead by the police surgeon at 8:44am"...
If you get my drift?
Classic Mike,Classic. ;D ;D ;D
-
How can you kill someone who has already been pronounced as being dead at 8;44am by a police surgeon?
-
One of the difficulties of trying to prove Sheila committed suicide, is that she didn't...
-
One of the difficulties of trying to prove Sheila committed suicide, is that she didn't...
At last Mike, we can agree upon something lol ;)
-
At last Mike, we can agree upon something lol ;)
But..
She did attempt to take her own life...
-
Jeremy ended up being convicted of these murders that he did not commit, because he wrongly relied on Sheila having committed suicide when she did not, and because the trial judge took the ability of the jury to conclude that she may have died at the hands of a third party, away from them?
-
Jeremy ended up being convicted of these murders that he did not commit, because he wrongly relied on Sheila having committed suicide when she did not, and because the trial judge took the ability of the jury to conclude that she may have died at the hands of a third party away from them?
This was done based on the judge trying to put the jury in its place over the possible involvement of a hitman hired by Bamber to carry out the murders, not that the police had not been responsible for shooting Sheila in the bedroom? If all the evidence which is now known had been available to Bamber and the court there would have been a compelling case that police directly or indirectly killed Sheila upstairs in the bedroom, and stage managed her body...
-
This was done based on the judge trying to put the jury in its place over the possible involvement of a hitman hired by Bamber to carry out the murders, not that the police had not been responsible for shooting Sheila in the bedroom? If all the evidence which is now known had been available to Bamber and the court there would have been a compelling case that police directly or indirectly killed Sheila upstairs in the bedroom, and stage managed her body...
The problem with this scenario is that DCI Taff Jones who was in charge of the investigation at the outset was content with the "four murders and a suicide" theory which had been cleverly put to all and sundry by the ubiquitous Jeremy who always seems to be sniffing around somewhere or other. It was the junior ranks from which the discontent arose about how events were being interpreted and they found their mouthpiece in DS Stan Jones,which is when the interest began to be focused on Jeremy.
-
The problem with this scenario is that DCI Taff Jones who was in charge of the investigation at the outset was content with the "four murders and a suicide" theory which had been cleverly put to all and sundry by the ubiquitous Jeremy who always seems to be sniffing around somewhere or other. It was the junior ranks from which the discontent arose about how events were being interpreted and they found their mouthpiece in DS Stan Jones,which is when the interest began to be focused on Jeremy.
There is no problem, DS"Stan" Jones was / is a criminal - he found and took possession of a silencer at the scene bearing the original exhibit reference SBJ/1. Lets get the facts right about this bent ex copper. He left Jeremys cottage at about 11am or soon afterwards or whenever and he went back to the scene at whf and took possession of four exhibits which were documented in the property registers when the case was being investivated as four murders and a suicide (SC/688/85). One of these exhibits was the original silencer, and another was a photograph of the downstairs toilet showing Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle in there. Once the nature of the investigation changed a month later, these four exhibits that DS Jones had seized disappeared and were not listed in the hastely rewritten property registers. Suddenly exbibits SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 vanished from the system, it was as if DS Jones had never found or seized them from the scene at all on the morning of the shootings...
This had to be done so that the silencer found in the gun cupboard by the relatives later on could be integrated into the equation. Jones is / was a criminal who was and is responsible for inciting other crooks to conspire to get Bamber convicted of the murders. I wonder why he never made a witness statement about him taking possession of those four exhibits (SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4)?
-
There is no problem, DS"Stan" Jones was / is a criminal - he found and took possession of a silencer at the scene bearing the original exhibit reference SBJ/1. Lets get the facts right about this bent ex copper. He left Jeremys cottage at about 11am or soon afterwards or whenever and he went back to the scene at whf and took possession of four exhibits which were documented in the property registers when the case was being investivated as four murders and a suicide (SC/688/85). One of these exhibits was the original silencer, and another was a photograph of the downstairs toilet showing Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle in there. Once the nature of the investigation changed a month later, these four exhibits that DS Jones had seized disappeared and were not listed in the hastely rewritten property registers. Suddenly exbibits SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 vanished from the system, it was as if DS Jones had never found or seized them from the scene at all on the morning of the shootings...
This had to be done so that the silencer found in the gun cupboard by the relatives later on could be integrated into the equation. Jones is / was a criminal who was and is responsible for inciting other crooks to conspire to get Bamber convicted of the murders. I wonder why he never made a witness statement about him taking possession of those four exhibits (SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4)?
Ex cop Jones, is a criminal, a lying no good son of a bitch, he deserves to be locked up in jail and the key thrown away...
Rewind the clock to the evening of 12th August 1985, he goes and supposedly collects the other silencer from Peter Eaton - hang on a minute, at that moment ex cop Jones knew there were in fact two silencers which had found their way into his possession (1) which he took possession of at the scene on 7th August 1985, under the identifying mark of SBJ/1, and (2) this second silencer which was handed to him by Peter Eaton on evening of 12th August 1985. Two silencers which had by that stage passed through ex crooked cop Jones' hands at an early stage of the original investigation...
-
Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle had its own parker hale silencer attached to its barrel, which was normally kept in the downstairs toilet at whf, and a second silencer belonging to the Bamber anshulz rifle which was normally kept in the gun cupboard in the downstairs office?
Ex cop Jones found Pargeters silencer and took it away from the scene on 7th August 1985, this was / is the silencer which was given the original exhibit mark of SBJ/1. Then on evening of 12th August 1985, Peter Eaton handed to ex cop Jones, the Bamber silencer which Boutflour found in the gun cupboard....
Anyone who tries to pretend that both of these silencers were / are the same silencer is bonkers...
Everybody for the past 27 years or more has been pretending that there was only one silencer, and no-one has bothered to enquire what happened to Pargetersw identical looking silencer? It's as if they did not want the Pargeter silencer to exist. But it does, and it did...
-
Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle had its own parker hale silencer attached to its barrel, which was normally kept in the downstairs toilet at whf, and a second silencer belonging to the Bamber anshulz rifle which was normally kept in the gun cupboard in the downstairs office?
Ex cop Jones found Pargeters silencer and took it away from the scene on 7th August 1985, this was / is the silencer which was given the original exhibit mark of SBJ/1. Then on evening of 12th August 1985, Peter Eaton handed to ex cop Jones, the Bamber silencer which Boutflour found in the gun cupboard....
Anyone who tries to pretend that both of these silencers were / are the same silencer is bonkers...
Everybody for the past 27 years or more has been pretending that there was only one silencer, and no-one has bothered to enquire what happened to Pargetersw identical looking silencer? It's as if they did not want the Pargeter silencer to exist. But it does, and it did...
Step back for one minute and ask yourselves why none of the relatives appeared concerned over the identity of the silencer they found in the gun cupboard (when ever they found it)?
Did Robert Boutflour ever once enquire of this silencer - to whom does it belong?
Did David Boutflour ever once enquire of this silencer - to whom does it belong?
Did Ann Eaton ever once enquire of this silencer - to whom does it belong?
Did Peter Eaton ever once enquire of this silencer - to whom does it belong?
Did Anthony Pargeter ever once enquire of this silencer - to whom does it belong?
Did ex cop DS Jones ever once enquire of this silencer - to whom does it belong?
Did PI "Bob" Miller ever once enquire of this silencer - to whom does it belong?
Did DI "Ron" Cook ever once enquire of this silencer - to whom does it belong?
Did DCS "Mick" Ainsley ever once enquire - to who does it belong?
Did the DPP ever once enquire - to whom does it belong?
Did the trial judge Mr Justice Drake ever once enquire - to whom does it belong?
Did the court of appeal in 2002 ever once enquire - to whom does it belong?
Did the CCRC ever once enquire of the silencer - to whom does it belong?
Fact is, all these people didn't want it to be anybody else's silencer, they wanted it to be the Bamber silencer, how dare it be found in the gun cupboard where it was normally kept?
-
One thing is for sure, and that is that if ex cop Jones found a silencer at the scene on 7th August 1985 (SBJ/1) and he took it away, and its details were entered into the original property register, it could not be the very same silencer found in the gun cupboard by Boutflour on 10th August 1985....
-
One thing is for sure, and that is that if ex cop Jones found a silencer at the scene on 7th August 1985 (SBJ/1) and he took it away, and its details were entered into the original property register, it could not be the very same silencer found in the gun cupboard by Boutflour on 10th August 1985....
Ex crooked cop Jones, could not have been handed the very same silencer (SBJ/1) he found at the scene on 7th August 1985, by Peter Eaton on the evening of 12th August 1985, because Jones already had seized that silencer (SBJ/1) along with three other exhibits on 7th August 1985...
-
Is it just a coincidence that ex crooked cop Jones had direct dealings with both of the silencers which were normally to be found at the scene, and that he played a significant riole in helping to merge both of these silencers into the very same one by the time the case came to trial in October 1986?
-
Is it just a coincidence that ex crooked cop Jones had direct dealings with both of the silencers which were normally to be found at the scene, and that he played a significant riole in helping to merge both of these silencers into the very same one by the time the case came to trial in October 1986?
Your out of order there mate.
-
Your out of order there mate.
Same crooked ex copper who falsified his pocketbook entries months after it was first issued to him against regulation. The contents of this doctored pocketbook entry, were counter signed by another crooked ex cop PI "Bob" Miller, who must have known that Jones had re-written the notes relating to the investigation at whf, several months later? Ex copper Jones, had three different start dates on the front cover of his pocketbook which contained his evidence as per whf, the handing over of the second silencer by Peter Eaton, and his watered down involvement with Mugford. I'll show you how out of order I am when I post all end everything ex copper Jones got up to, and why he should have been charged' convicted and imprisoned for falsifying evidence that was used to prosecute Bamber for these murders that he did not commit...
Lets start right at the beginning - ex copper Jones, needs to explain and identify the four exhibits he took from the scene on 7th August 1985. A good place to start would be to go to one of the daily tabloids, or appear on TV and tell the world what exhibits he found and took possession of long before Peter Eaton handed over the second silencer to him on the evening of 12th August 1985. I will be waiting with interest to see what materializes. I doubt that the crook will have the balls to tell the truth...
-
Same crooked ex copper who falsified his pocketbook entries months after it was first issued to him against regulation. The contents of this doctored pocketbook entry, were counter signed by another crooked ex cop PI "Bob" Miller, who must have known that Jones had re-written the notes relating to the investigation at whf, several months later? Ex copper Jones, had three different start dates on the front cover of his pocketbook which contained his evidence as per whf, the handing over of the second silencer by Peter Eaton, and his watered down involvement with Mugford. I'll show you how out of order I am when I post all end everything ex copper Jones got up to, and why he should have been charged' convicted and imprisoned for falsifying evidence that was used to prosecute Bamber for these murders that he did not commit...
Lets start right at the beginning - ex copper Jones, needs to explain and identify the four exhibits he took from the scene on 7th August 1985. A good place to start would be to go to one of the daily tabloids, or appear on TV and tell the world what exhibits he found and took possession of long before Peter Eaton handed over the second silencer to him on the evening of 12th August 1985. I will be waiting with interest to see what materializes. I doubt that the crook will have the balls to tell the truth...
If anyone knows this crook, please let him know we know about the four exhibits he took possession of from the scene, on morning of 7th August 1985 (whilst bodies of victims were still in situ and being abused by officers carrying out a training exercise) under the identifying marks of SBJ/1 (silencer), SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
Out of order mate...
So you must think that its ok for a crooked cop to falsify a bit of evidence here and there? Jones is basically a crooked bastard, and a lying cunt, and he has got away with falsifying evidence for nigh on 27 years, and it is now time to set the record straight. If I have got anything at all to do with it, he ain't going to be getting away with it for much longer...
-
If anyone knows this crook, please let him know we know about the four exhibits he took possession of from the scene, on morning of 7th August 1985 (whilst bodies of victims were still in situ and being abused by officers carrying out a training exercise) under the identifying marks of SBJ/1 (silencer), SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
Out of order mate...
I'll fucking give you and him out of fucking order - so you must think that its ok for a crooked cop to falsify a bit of evidence here and there? Jones is basically a crooked bastard, and a lying cunt, and he has got away with falsifying evidence for nigh on 27 years, and it is now time to set the record straight. If I have got anything at all to do with it, he ain't going to be getting away with it for much longer...
Get the bastard to take me to court and we will have it out in a court battle - I can't stand bent coppers...
-
I suppose crooked ex cop Jones, didn't know anything at all about the small flake of dried blood that Boutflour scraped off the end of one of the silencers using a razor blade? Well, he did and guess what happened to that flake?
-
I suppose crooked ex cop Jones, didn't know anything at all about the small flake of dried blood that Boutflour scraped off the end of one of the silencers using a razor blade? Well, he did and guess what happened to that flake?
There are no prizes for guessing the right answer...
-
Why wasn't ex crooked cop Jones looking into why police stage managed Sheila's body in the bedroom?
Why wasn't he looking into why PC Bird falsified a photographed record so that 358 photographs could be taken out of the equation at the stroke of a pen? Why doesn't he simply make a statement saying and identifying the exhibit (SBJ/1) he took from the scene on the morning 7th August 1985, which supposedly clashed with references given to the silencer elsewhere under DB/1 and DRB/1?
Come on (Jones) - just tell us what your SBJ/1 exhibit was?
(it was the original silencer, that is what it was, nothing more and nothing less), and Jones had it long before Boutflour found the other one in the gun cupboard - Bamber and his legal team had a right to know about these two silencers, and so did the court which tried him, and the appeal which turned its back on him...
-
The role ex cop Jones played in this investigation and his involvement with mighty mouth Mugford, renders their joint evidence as a piece of worthless shit. They both lied and both had the same common purpose in mind, which was to put Bamber away because both by that stage disliked Bamber for one reason or another...
-
How come the photograph ex cop Jones took of the downstairs toilet at whf never found it way into the wrongly named MASTER COPY ALBUM containing all of 223 pictures, as presented by PC Bird? How could such a photographs be missing from such an album, and the police be treating it as a master copy album when it and another 357 photographs had also been omitted?
It's a fucking joke...
They acted and behaved like common criminals, the lot of them...
-
The role ex cop Jones played in this investigation and his involvement with mighty mouth Mugford, renders their joint evidence as a piece of worthless shit. They both lied and both had the same common purpose in mind, which was to put Bamber away because both by that stage disliked Bamber for one reason or another...
Mike I think it seemed apparent that jones didnt like Jeremys public school background. The fact he was a 'posh' boy seemed to annoy jones.imho
-
How come the photograph ex cop Jones took of the downstairs toilet at whf never found it way into the wrongly named MASTER COPY ALBUM containing all of 223 pictures, as presented by PC Bird? How could such a photographs be missing from such an album, and the police be treating it as a master copy album when it and another 357 photographs had also been omitted?
It's a fucking joke...
They acted and behaved like common criminals, the lot of them...
Mike
Rather than rant, why not just force their hand........... make arrangements to hand over to Jeremy's legal team or have published the alleged photograph of Sheila on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck.
Why have a go at Jones for not revealing an alleged photograph when it would appear you are doing the very same thing but with a different alleged photograph?
-
Didn't Anthony Pargeter win a libel case suggesting that his rifle had been at White House Farm at the time of the killings? Are you saying there wasn't a silencer used at all in the crime as this contradicts Andrew Hunter's book draft? Are you suggesting that a speck of Sheila's blood had been placed in one of the silencers by one of the relatives?
-
Mike
Rather than rant, why not just force their hand........... make arrangements to hand over to Jeremy's legal team or have published the alleged photograph of Sheila on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck.
Why have a go at Jones for not revealing an alleged photograph when it would appear you are doing the very same thing but with a different alleged photograph?
Curiousessex, why don't you try to justify Jones's conduct rather than try to distract attention from it?
-
Mike I think it seemed apparent that jones didnt like Jeremys public school background. The fact he was a 'posh' boy seemed to annoy jones.imho
yes, Jonesy boy took an immediate dislike to Jeremy. But Jones woild do well to remember that on the day before Boutflour finds the Bamber silencer in the gun cupboard where it was normally kept, that both he and DCI "Taff" jones, had gone along to Jeremys cottage to speak to him about the state of the rifle on the evening before the shootings? They wanted to know if the silencer was fitted to the barrel of the anshulz rifle at that time? This demonstrates that ex cop Jones knew about the existence of at least one silencer on the day before relatives found the other Bamber silencer in its gun cupboard? This is self- evident because on 7th August some 3 days before Boutflour took possession of the Bamber silencer from the gun cupboard, ex copper Jones had already taken possession of SBJ/1, the other silencer (belinging to the Pargeter gun) and what also seems to be so obvious is that during the early stages police got themselves into a bit of a muddle regarding the existence of two identical looking silencers? So much so, that when on the afternoon of 12th August DS Jones learned from Robert Boutflour that a silencer had been found at the scene, he reportedly remarks, "what silencer"?
-
yes, Jonesy boy took an immediate dislike to Jeremy. But Jones woild do well to remember that on the day before Boutflour finds the Bamber silencer in the gun cupboard where it was normally kept, that both he and DCI "Taff" jones, had gone along to Jeremys cottage to speak to him about the state of the rifle on the evening before the shootings? They wanted to know if the silencer was fitted to the barrel of the anshulz rifle at that time? This demonstrates that ex cop Jones knew about the existence of at least one silencer on the day before relatives found the other Bamber silencer in its gun cupboard? This is self- evident because on 7th August some 3 days before Boutflour took possession of the Bamber silencer from the gun cupboard, ex copper Jones had already taken possession of SBJ/1, the other silencer (belinging to the Pargeter gun) and what also seems to be so obvious is that during the early stages police got themselves into a bit of a muddle regarding the existence of two identical looking silencers? So much so, that when on the afternoon of 12th August DS Jones learned from Robert Boutflour that a silencer had been found at the scene, he reportedly remarks, "what silencer"?
So, off he goes later that same evening to collect this other (Bamber) silencer, he already having seized and taken control of the first (Pargeter) silencer at the scene on 7th August...
-
So, off he goes later that same evening to collect this other (Bamber) silencer, he already having seized and taken control of the first (Pargeter) silencer at the scene on 7th August...
This is where problems started to mount up for the police regarding the silencer evidence. Since, as of the evening 12th August 1985, Essex police had now got two identical looking parker hale silencers under thier control and possession, the Pargeter one, and the Bamber one...
-
This is where problems started to mount up for the police regarding the silencer evidence. Since, as of the evening 12th August 1985, Essex police had now got two identical looking parker hale silencers under thier control and possession, the Pargeter one, and the Bamber one...
One of the silencers (Pargeters) was retained by DI Cook. The other (Bamber) was kept by DCI "Taff" Jones...
-
Did we ever see a pic of the damaged rifle.? I don't recollect having seen it,,yet by all accounts,,there was a piece out of it,,and doubtless would have been as efficient if it had had a bashing,I don't know. Depends what it was bashed against and whether the barrel was damaged as well.
To my mind,,a male wouldn't have have had the need to use a gun to bash anyone with. It was a female who needed a hand-held weapon in which to enforce a further show of strength.
-
Did we ever see a pic of the damaged rifle.? I don't recollect having seen it,,yet by all accounts,,there was a piece out of it,,and doubtless would have been as efficient if it had had a bashing,I don't know. Depends what it was bashed against and whether the barrel was damaged as well.
To my mind,,a male wouldn't have have had the need to use a gun to bash anyone with. It was a female who needed a hand-held weapon in which to enforce a further show of strength.
Yet why press a heated rifle butt into the back of a 61 year old man? That in my opinion is more likely to be the action of a man than a woman.
-
steve uk how do we know it was a heated rifle that inflicted the burn marks on Ralph's neck/back. It has been suggested that it was a cigarette or cigar. Had Jeremy committed the murders he would not have hung around marking Ralph's back it was more likely to have been carried out by somebody residing the farm.
-
I was under the view these type of marks/burns were a trademark of the mob.
-
If anyone knows this crook, please let him know we know about the four exhibits he took possession of from the scene, on morning of 7th August 1985 (whilst bodies of victims were still in situ and being abused by officers carrying out a training exercise) under the identifying marks of SBJ/1 (silencer), SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
Out of order mate...
So you must think that its ok for a crooked cop to falsify a bit of evidence here and there? Jones is basically a crooked bastard, and a lying cunt, and he has got away with falsifying evidence for nigh on 27 years, and it is now time to set the record straight. If I have got anything at all to do with it, he ain't going to be getting away with it for much longer...
Out of order Mike?
I've got used to the occasional rant but I don't think this particular obscenity should be on your forum
-
Mike I think it seemed apparent that jones didnt like Jeremys public school background. The fact he was a 'posh' boy seemed to annoy jones.imho
I think it's more than possible that Jones displayed the type of venom towards Jeremy, that Mike is now displaying towards him, but for different reasons.
-
After reading last nights posts a poster stated cops don't move evidence or withhold it. A cop has just been jailed in the Scottish Courts today for withholding evidence which resulted in two innocent men being sent to prison they served 10 years but were released after Appeal. The cop was I think a Detective and this was his first murder case and he wanted to solve it quickly and he did that alright. The cop got 5 years not enough in my eyes he knew both men were innocent but still wanted them convicted. Disgrace.
-
After reading last nights posts a poster stated cops don't move evidence or withhold it. A cop has just been jailed in the Scottish Courts today for withholding evidence which resulted in two innocent men being sent to prison they served 10 years but were released after Appeal. The cop was I think a Detective and this was his first murder case and he wanted to solve it quickly and he did that alright. The cop got 5 years not enough in my eyes he knew both men were innocent but still wanted them convicted. Disgrace.
Hi Susan,,it was that Sammy who'd said that. I suggest it takes off its rose-coloured specs for starters and step into the real world of corruption. There are also those who are suspended/dismissed that we don't know about.
-
After reading last nights posts a poster stated cops don't move evidence or withhold it. A cop has just been jailed in the Scottish Courts today for withholding evidence which resulted in two innocent men being sent to prison they served 10 years but were released after Appeal. The cop was I think a Detective and this was his first murder case and he wanted to solve it quickly and he did that alright. The cop got 5 years not enough in my eyes he knew both men were innocent but still wanted them convicted. Disgrace.
I can remember that "When you want to know the time, ask a policeman." I suspect that these days the answer can't be relied on in the same way. What happened to going into the force to uphold and maintain the rights of the general public?
-
Hi lookout yes I thought it was sammy yes I think three of the cops involved are still on the force not sure missed the end of the story as usual. An investigation will take place.
-
Hi april1 Policemen were the pillars of Society along with Bankers they don't command much respect now in general.
-
Hi lookout yes I thought it was sammy yes I think three of the cops involved are still on the force not sure missed the end of the story as usual. An investigation will take place.
Yes,,Susan,an investigation behind closed doors. It'll be the last anyone hears about it.
-
Hi lookout I am thinking because of the noise that has been created over this an other MOJ they may have to be honest about the investigation and will not get off with behind closed doors anymore.
-
Hi lookout I am thinking because of the noise that has been created over this an other MOJ they may have to be honest about the investigation and will not get off with behind closed doors anymore.
[/quot
Susan, hi. Does that mean that if enough noise is made about possible police involvement in Jeremy's MOJ that something will, at last, be done?
-
Yet why press a heated rifle butt into the back of a 61 year old man? That in my opinion is more likely to be the action of a man than a woman.
I suppose you'll next be suggesting that it was Jeremy who made the burn marks on the children, too?
Not to be forgotten or overlooked, of course is that Sheila thought she was once Joan of arc, and we all know what happened to her don't we? Sheila was fascinated with death, with fire and burning, and hellish beliefs, and this to my way of thinking is consistent with Sheila heating up the end of the guns barrel and burning Ralph with it on the back of his neck...
-
I suppose you'll next be suggesting that it was Jeremy who made the burn marks on the children, too?
Not to be forgotten or overlooked, of course is that Sheila thought she was once Joan of arc, and we all know what happened to her don't we? Sheila was fascinated with death, with fire and burning, and hellish beliefs, and this to my way of thinking is consistent with Sheila heating up the end of the guns barrel and burning Ralph with it on the back of his neck...
In any event, the end of the guns barrel may simply have been resting against the hot aga, which in turn made it hot - not that she or anybody else deliberately set out to heat up the end of the guns barrel? Marks made on back of neck are not consistent with a silencer having been fitted to the guns barrel at the time these were made...
-
Blood which later ran from the corners of Sheila mouth had pooled inside as a result of the fatal shot under the chin which took a trajectory into her mouth, up through the roof of her mouth and into her brain. It ran from either side of her mouth when her head was moved this way and then that, and the run of blood that ended up in her left eye socket came about because at some time after she was shot and killed by bullet PV/19, her head lolled backward. I think this backward motion took place before blood which had pooled in her mouth started to run out either side...
The distribution of blood into her left eye socket, and from the corners of her mouth do not run in the same direction, and I think this supports the argument for someone having lifted up her head and rested it as it was later photographed at a point when her head rolled from side to side...
-
Morning april1 Unfortunately the case against Jeremy is so riddled with lies and deception and happened so long ago the only people who may start listening is some MP with influence or if Simon MacKay can get some evidence released to prove Jeremy's innocence. It seems to be a "closed shop" as far as the Judicial System is concerned. The case in Scotland is small time compared with Jeremy's case plus Scotland is so less populated voices can be heard louder although they still have MOJ which are being fought with vigour such as Willie Gauge and Luke Mitchell. I think the biggest obstacle regarding Jeremy is the 27 years evidence has been destroyed but I am sure he will gain his freedom.
-
Morning april1 Unfortunately the case against Jeremy is so riddled with lies and deception and happened so long ago the only people who may start listening is some MP with influence or if Simon MacKay can get some evidence released to prove Jeremy's innocence. It seems to be a "closed shop" as far as the Judicial System is concerned. The case in Scotland is small time compared with Jeremy's case plus Scotland is so less populated voices can be heard louder although they still have MOJ which are being fought with vigour such as Willie Gauge and Luke Mitchell. I think the biggest obstacle regarding Jeremy is the 27 years evidence has been destroyed but I am sure he will gain his freedom.
Hi Susan,
That is very interesting. Can you tell me more about the lies and deception. I am trying to learn more about the case. ;)
-
The first shot was exploratory, the second shot specific - Sheila tried to kill herself, police finished the job off. Different guns used to fire the two original bullets PV/20 and PV19...
-
The first shot was exploratory, the second shot specific - Sheila tried to kill herself, police finished the job off. Different guns used to fire the two original bullets PV/20 and PV19...
Of course the Jeremy supporters have to say that the Police moved the body,as evidence from forensic pathologist Dr. Martyn Ismail in 2002 suggests that Sheila was shot with her head propped up against the bedside cabinet,yet from the position of the back of the nightdress compared to the front someone had pulled her legs.(Point 518)
"518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress. "
Was this another attempt by Jeremy to check that his sister was dead? Why did he not volunteer to intercede between Sheila and the family upon arrival at the farm,another indication that he knew all the occupants inside were dead..
-
I suppose you'll next be suggesting that it was Jeremy who made the burn marks on the children, too?
Not to be forgotten or overlooked, of course is that Sheila thought she was once Joan of arc, and we all know what happened to her don't we? Sheila was fascinated with death, with fire and burning, and hellish beliefs, and this to my way of thinking is consistent with Sheila heating up the end of the guns barrel and burning Ralph with it on the back of his neck...
I didn't know there were burn marks on the twins-is this gruesome facetiousness on your part or verifiable truth?
-
The first shot was exploratory, the second shot specific - Sheila tried to kill herself, police finished the job off. Different guns used to fire the two original bullets PV/20 and PV19...
Is there any evidence that two guns were used-I fell into this trap but going back to the original ballistics report it does state that all the bullets could have been fired by the .22 anschutz rifle.
-
Of course the Jeremy supporters have to say that the Police moved the body,as evidence from forensic pathologist Dr. Martyn Ismail in 2002 suggests that Sheila was shot with her head propped up against the bedside cabinet,yet from the position of the back of the nightdress compared to the front someone had pulled her legs.(Point 518)
"518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress. "
Was this another attempt by Jeremy to check that his sister was dead? Why did he not volunteer to intercede between Sheila and the family upon arrival at the farm,another indication that he knew all the occupants inside were dead..
I did not know that Steve,
The nightdress information is very interesting and thought-provoking. This does however leave the burning question; If she was sat up initially by the bedside cabinet how did the first shot get fired into the underside of her chin? Surely if she was in this position the gun wouldn't have had room to be held perpendicular to her chin? Or is there a possibility that she was leaning at an angle of around 45 degrees or more?
-
Why did he not volunteer to intercede between Sheila and the family upon arrival at the farm,another indication that he knew all the occupants inside were dead..
Jeremy was told by PC West during his conversation with him, not to approach the farmhouse under any circumstances when he was being sent to the scene. He was to leave it to the police. Upon arrival at the scene Jeremy met the occupants of CA07 ( Bews, Myall and Saxby) - not one of these police officers asked Jeremy to intercede and or act as a mediator between the police and his family, so I think that kind of explains the point you were trying to raise...
If you have any further questions about this, perhaps you might like to contact Bews, Myall, Saxby and PC West direct and speak to them about it. If you get any response please feel free to let us all know their response...
-
Of course the Jeremy supporters have to say that the Police moved the body,as evidence from forensic pathologist Dr. Martyn Ismail in 2002 suggests that Sheila was shot with her head propped up against the bedside cabinet,yet from the position of the back of the nightdress compared to the front someone had pulled her legs.(Point 518)
Yes, the person who pulled her legs in this manner was a police officer during the re-staging process. The other thing which Ismail and the other experts, or anybody who was part of the prosecutoons case have failed to do, is to provide an account for how the bloodstain on the rear of Sheila's nightdress did ot produce a corresponding bloodstain on the bedroom carpet beneath where her body ended up being photographed? How was / is it possible for blood on the rear of her nightdress not to be duplicated on the bedroom (sheepskin) carpet beneath her body? Police records state that only a few spots of blood were found on the rug beneath her body and these spots of blood (blood type O) originated from June Bamber, since she was the only victim with "O" type blood. Yet I think the twins also had blood "O"?
-
Yes, the person who pulled her legs in this manner was a police officer during the re-staging process. The other thing which Ismail and the other experts, or anybody who was part of the prosecutoons case have failed to do, is to provide an account for how the bloodstain on the rear of Sheila's nightdress did ot produce a corresponding bloodstain on the bedroom carpet beneath where her body ended up being photographed? How was / is it possible for blood on the rear of her nightdress not to be duplicated on the bedroom (sheepskin) carpet beneath her body? Police records state that only a few spots of blood were found on the rug beneath her body and these spots of blood (blood type O) originated from June Bamber, since she was the only victim with "O" type blood. Yet I think the twins also had blood "O"?
What I find interesting about all of this, is that although it has been well documented that spots of June Bambers "O" type blood was found upon the rug beneath where Sheila's body was later photographed, there is a marked absence of any "O" type blood found anywhere on the rear of Sheila's nightdress? Now how can this be true?
-
"518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress. "
Court of appeal rejected or refused to allow Ismails evidence I think...
This was because although if it had been allowed it would point to the possible involvement of a "third party in the stage managing of Sheila's body" on the bedroom floor, what was not clear by anything that Ismail could have said or did say, was that it was any person in particular who had been responsible for doing this? It should be obvious to anybody with half a brain that what Ismail set out in his reoport could apply to the police being responsible for stage managing Sheila's body in its last resting place / posture on the bedroom floor? Of course, people can keep trying to blame Jeremy for having done this, but anyone who has seen the crime scene photographs which were kept back from the jury (October 1986), will already know in their own hearts that police have lied when they told the court of trial, and the copurt of appeal that nobody moved or touched anything at the scene until PC Bird had concluded the taking of all his phiotographs at different scenes within the farmhouse. Of course, now that some of the additional pictures which had been deliberately withheld to allow the prosecutions case to argue that Jeremy had been the one responsible for the stage managing of Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, it becomes possible for everyone to see that police moved and stage managed Sheila's body there, not Jeremy, or any as yet unidentifed killer or hitman...
You see...
What was required to give Ismails findings some real umph was for all the missing crime scene photographs which show the body had been and was disturbed by the police to be submitted along with his report and conclusions at the 2002 appeal - then it would have been absolutely clear (even to the relatives) that police stage managed her body, on the bedroom floor, not Jeremy, or anybdody else...
Questions would have been asked much sooner about why it was felt necessary for the police to be stage managing the body of Sheila on the floor at that time?
This approach would have undoubtedly opened up a can of worms, which Essex police and the CPS did not want, and do not want to happen. But where does the criminal justice system stand in the fray - if it fails to act upon the use and reliance of such false evidence that helped to convict an innocent man of killing his entire family? How would the relatives have felt if police had decided to build a case against david Boutflour and made him out to be the murderer, and they found out that police had tampered with the crime scene and all manner of evidence, by bouncing it between two separate (SC/688/85 and SC/786/85) files, and merging it as it were into one file (SC/786/85)?
I suppose none of the relatives would be complaining if it was one of their own and it had happened to one of them...
You see...
Boutflour introduces the silencer which contained the crucial blood group evidence, and in 1991 he admits to the COLP investigators that he used a razor blade to scrape off a small flake of dried blood from the outside of the silencer, and befiore we know it the lab' is saying that once this silencer was submitted to the lab' a similar flake of dried blood is found trapped between two baffle plates, which turns out to bear the same four blood group types as Sheuila Caffell? Hey presto, we have a case that we can proceed with against Jeremy, and nobody is bothered about asking what Happened to the flake Boutflour scraped off the silencer (he found) and why if he told Essex police at the time (1985) why we have not heard anything at all from Essex police about what they proposed to do about this / that?
Boutflour finds the silencer in the gun cupboard which the police missed during the three days of examination at the scene, and he tamperes with it, and the court which tried the matter in October 1986 hears nothing at all about this?
Since david Boutfklour likes appearing on TV Docunmentaries, and News braodcasts and in newspaper artickles, why doesn't he simply donate some time it trying to explain in his own words what he did and when he did it regarding the scraping off of the flake that he told COLP about in 1991? Why doesn't somebody in the media take Boutflour to tsk over this and everything else remotely associated with it?
We all want to know why he scraped off the flake of blood from the silencer by use of a razor blade?[
We all want to know what he did with it, and the razor blade in question?
We all want to know which Essex police officers he told and what action they took upon being told?
We all want to know if the police insisted (August/September 1985)he hand it over to them, and if so when?
We all want to know if the flake Boutflour removed from the outside of the silencer, is the same flake of blood which later ended up becoming attributed inside it, at the lab' on or around about 12th September 1985?
-
Yes, the person who pulled her legs in this manner was a police officer during the re-staging process. The other thing which Ismail and the other experts, or anybody who was part of the prosecutoons case have failed to do, is to provide an account for how the bloodstain on the rear of Sheila's nightdress did ot produce a corresponding bloodstain on the bedroom carpet beneath where her body ended up being photographed? How was / is it possible for blood on the rear of her nightdress not to be duplicated on the bedroom (sheepskin) carpet beneath her body? Police records state that only a few spots of blood were found on the rug beneath her body and these spots of blood (blood type O) originated from June Bamber, since she was the only victim with "O" type blood. Yet I think the twins also had blood "O"?
One of the problems in this case was that from the outset for whatever reasons the crime was regarded as four murders and a suicide and most of the professionals who dealt with the consequences of five dead bodies at White House Farm came under the influence of this whilst reaching their conclusions. It is mysterious that the evidence against Sheila collated at the scene was lost in a burglary, unacceptable that many of the exhibits have subsequently been destroyed and so many photographs of the crime scene withheld from Jeremy's trial in 1986.
I can't understand why the Defence doesn't hire experts in blood spatter evidence to examine the photographs of Sheila's and June's nightdresses,instead of wasting time with Peter Sutherst's useless Aga scratchings. I would like to know whether it was possible for the triangular bloodstain on Sheila's nightdress in the upper right area near her armpit could have been caused from the consequences of the first bullet,whether it was the impact of the bullet itself or Sheila instinctively touching her neck and blood running down soaking that area,or whether it was indeed caused by transference from June's own nightdress. It is surely not beyond the capacity of a world class expert in this field to look at pictures of Sheila's forearm and match them with June's nightie to verify whether contact had taken place.
Edit(after reading Mike's post #101): So we have a bloodspatter expert..is it true that the Bible next to Sheila's body was placed there after all this blood on the carpet,suggesting that Jeremy himself had put it there including some "suicide notes" allegedly in Sheila's hand,though of course one was typewritten.
-
It is mysterious that the evidence against Sheila collated at the scene was lost in a burglary, unacceptable that many of the exhibits have subsequently been destroyed and so many photographs of the crime scene withheld from Jeremy's trial in 1986.
Mind you don't get shot down in flames... by The Jam.