Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on July 29, 2012, 01:51:PM
-
Exposing what took place by reference to use of broom handle in reconstruction
AS far as I know, there was no broom handle as an exhibit in this case, or which was photographed at the scene. Yet in David Shaws account he makes mention of police officers gathering around the body of Sheila on the bedroom floor, and DCI "Taff" Jones using a broom handle to demonstrate how Sheila could have shot herself twice?
-
Exposing what took place by reference to use of broom handle in reconstruction
AS far as I know, there was no broom handle as an exhibit in this case, or which was photographed at the scene. Yet in David Shaws account he makes mention of police officers gathering around the body of Sheila on the bedroom floor, and DCI "Taff" Jones using a broom handle to demonstrate how Sheila could have shot herself twice?
DCI "Taff" Jones, arrived at the scene at about 9:10am...
-
My understanding is that by the time DCI Jones arrived (9;10am) at the scene, the training exercise involving other officers not yet named, was already under way. Furthermore, PS Adams had already been into the bedroom (9am) and seen Sheila's body with no rifle upon it, or near to it...
-
My understanding is that by the time DCI Jones arrived (9;10am) at the scene, the training exercise involving other officers not yet named, was already under way. Furthermore, PS Adams had already been into the bedroom (9am) and seen Sheila's body with no rifle upon it, or near to it...
According to "Taff" Jones account, the rifle "Y" was already upon the body when he first entered the bedroom and viewed Sheila on the bedroom floor...
If true I think we can safely assume that somebody placed rifle "Y" onto Sheila's body during the training exercise prior to "Taff", entering the bedroom? If we say PS Adams was in the bedroom at 9am, and that "Taff" did not go there until about 9:15 to 9:30am, then time of death for Sheila was somewhere in the region of 9:15am (after the occasion when the police surgeon, Dr Craig, had already pronounced Sheila as being dead at 8:44am)?
Sheila must have been shot for the second time at some stage after 9am...
-
In David Shaws account, he makes mention of the use of a broom handle by "Taff" Jones who was / is showing the others at the scene (huddled around him) how it was possible for Sheila to have shot herself twice by using a broom handle as a relevant prop, but I think he actually used rifle "Y", which had actually already discharged the fatal shot (PV/19) under the chin that killed Sheila...
-
The question I would like to pose, is why would DCI "Taff" Jones, be concerning himself with whether or not Sheila had shot herself twice in quick succession at such an early stage?
-
The question I would like to pose, is why would DCI "Taff" Jones, be concerning himself with whether or not Sheila had shot herself twice in quick succession at such an early stage?
Please tell us why,the suspense is killing me..and whilst you're about it tell us why nobody in that house heard a report of a rifle..
-
Please tell us why,the suspense is killing me..and whilst you're about it tell us why nobody in that house heard a report of a rifle..
DCI Jones and other senior officers present at the scene gathered around the body of Sheila on the bedroom floor, pondering and discussing how Sheila had come to be shot a second time by use of the rifle that had been standing at the bedroom window, which had been picked up by a member of the training exercise involved in a reconstruction of the raid (which took place after 9am) and placed upon Sheila's body lengthways with the muzzle of its barrel in the region of the solitary wound (at that time) upon her throat. The rifle (Y) was resting flush on top of her nightdress as described (during the reconstruction) and the fingers of Sheila's right hand were positioned upon the trigger mechanism, and pressed against the trigger which discharged the second round under her chin, sending the fatal bullet (PV/20) thundering upwards through her chin, up into the void of her mouth, through the roof of her mouth until it became deposited in her brain. It was at this stage that police realized that Sheila had not been dead until the second shot had been discharged. By this stage of course, the police surgeon, Dr Craig, and all the ambulance crews had already left the scene. The member of the training exercise who took possession of the rifle from the bedroom window did not know that the rifle in question was still loaded with any ammunition because he mistakenly thought it was the gun which had been used to shoot the victims including Sheila herself and that another officer who was part of the original raid team had made it safe already. All of this took place before the arrival of DCI "Taff" Jones at the scene and before he actually entered the farmhouse, but other senior police officers such as DCI "George" Harris, were present...
When DCI "Taff" Jones went into the house and eventually ended up in the bedroom where Sheila had already been shot twice, a huge debate and discussion was already in progress between police officers who were present in the bedroom about how they were going to have to explain how Sheila came to be shot twice, when already she had been pronounced as dead (Dr Criag, at 8:44am) with a solitary wound to her throat? The rifle in question (Y) which had discharged the fatal bullet (PV/19) had been removed by the time DCI Jones arrived in the bedroom, and made safe by PI "Ivor" Montgomery who checked to see if the gun was still loaded with bullets, and that there was no further ammunition in the breach of the rifle? He also believed to have activated the safety switch on the weapon, before "Taff" Jones took possession of it and whilst others were gathered around Sheila's body on the floor, he relaid it atop her body with the muzzle of the rifle close in proximity to the two bullet entry wounds on her neck and by moving Sheila's right arm he was able to reconstruct what had taken place during the training exercise when one of the officers had accidentally shot Sheila under the chin and killed her?
Prior to the arrival of "Taff" Jones in the bedroom, Coroners officer, PC Wright entered the bedroom and viewed the body of Sheila on the bedroom floor with no rifle on her body. It is known that PC Wright did not enter the bedroom until about 9:25am, and so what this means is that once DCI "Taff" Jones arrived at the scene at a round 9:10am, he must have been engaged elsewhere at the scene for 15 to 20 minutes or so before he actually ended up in the bedroom carrying out the exercise described above at about 9:30am...
It was during this reconstruction when everyone was gathered around Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, that it was agreed that it could be suggested that Sheila had been shot twice by use of the same gun, through recoil because of the type of weapon which had actually fired the second fatal shot under the chin (by the police). When those present had finished discussing the pro's and con's of this, police proceeded to stage manage Sheila's body with the rifle (Y) in different positions, making sure that the safety catch on the rifle could not be seen during photographing...
-
DCI Jones and other senior officers present at the scene gathered around the body of Sheila on the bedroom floor, pondering and discussing how Sheila had come to be shot a second time by use of the rifle that had been standing at the bedroom window, which had been picked up by a member of the training exercise involved in a reconstruction of the raid (which took place after 9am) and placed upon Sheila's body lengthways with the muzzle of its barrel in the region of the solitary wound (at that time) upon her throat. The rifle (Y) was resting flush on top of her nightdress as described (during the reconstruction) and the fingers of Sheila's right hand were positioned upon the trigger mechanism, and pressed against the trigger which discharged the second round under her chin, sending the fatal bullet (PV/20) thundering upwards through her chin, up into the void of her mouth, through the roof of her mouth until it became deposited in her brain. It was at this stage that police realized that Sheila had not been dead until the second shot had been discharged. By this stage of course, the police surgeon, Dr Craig, and all the ambulance crews had already left the scene. The member of the training exercise who took possession of the rifle from the bedroom window did not know that the rifle in question was still loaded with any ammunition because he mistakenly thought it was the gun which had been used to shoot the victims including Sheila herself and that another officer who was part of the original raid team had made it safe already. All of this took place before the arrival of DCI "Taff" Jones at the scene and before he actually entered the farmhouse, but other senior police officers such as DCI "George" Harris, were present...
When DCI "Taff" Jones went into the house and eventually ended up in the bedroom where Sheila had already been shot twice, a huge debate and discussion was already in progress between police officers who were present in the bedroom about how they were going to have to explain how Sheila came to be shot twice, when already she had been pronounced as dead (Dr Criag, at 8:44am) with a solitary wound to her throat? The rifle in question (Y) which had discharged the fatal bullet (PV/19) had been removed by the time DCI Jones arrived in the bedroom, and made safe by PI "Ivor" Montgomery who checked to see if the gun was still loaded with bullets, and that there was no further ammunition in the breach of the rifle? He also believed to have activated the safety switch on the weapon, before "Taff" Jones took possession of it and whilst others were gathered around Sheila's body on the floor, he relaid it atop her body with the muzzle of the rifle close in proximity to the two bullet entry wounds on her neck and by moving Sheila's right arm he was able to reconstruct what had taken place during the training exercise when one of the officers had accidentally shot Sheila under the chin and killed her?
Prior to the arrival of "Taff" Jones in the bedroom, Coroners officer, PC Wright entered the bedroom and viewed the body of Sheila on the bedroom floor with no rifle on her body. It is known that PC Wright did not enter the bedroom until about 9:25am, and so what this means is that once DCI "Taff" Jones arrived at the scene at a round 9:10am, he must have been engaged elsewhere at the scene for 15 to 20 minutes or so before he actually ended up in the bedroom carrying out the exercise described above at about 9:30am...
It was during this reconstruction when everyone was gathered around Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, that it was agreed that it could be suggested that Sheila had been shot twice by use of the same gun, through recoil because of the type of weapon which had actually fired the second fatal shot under the chin (by the police). When those present had finished discussing the pro's and con's of this, police proceeded to stage manage Sheila's body with the rifle (Y) in different positions, making sure that the safety catch on the rifle could not be seen during photographing...
This was achieved by the police who were responsible for stage managing the body with the rifle upon it, placing it on her body with the safety catch out of sight against her nightdress - by the time these crime scene phoptogroahs were taken by PC Bird (SOC), the rifle was already made safe (PI Montgomery) who had activated the safety catch to prevent the gun being accidentally fired again...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18750;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4455;image)
-
whilst you're about it tell us why nobody in that house heard a report of a rifle..
When you say, nobody heard the report of the rifle discharging when Sheila was shot by the police under the chin, who are / were you referring to?
-
When you say, nobody heard the report of the rifle discharging when Sheila was shot by the police under the chin, who are / were you referring to?
Some police officers present during the training exercise, obviously did, especially the police officer who actually caused Sheila to be shot under the chin...
-
Another thing which everyone should be aware of, is that when the rifle spotted by WPC Juila Jeapes at the bedroom window (about 7:15am) was seen it had an end cap screwed onto the external thread on the end of its barrel, so that a silencer could not have been screwed onto the rifle at any stage when any of the five victims had been shot (including Sheila). This was removed (yet retained as a discreet exhibit produced during the trial with no explanation for how it came to be in police possession) once senior officers at the scene decided to suggest Sheila had been shot twice by use of the same gun by a process of recoil. Police already knew the identity of the other weapon found downstairs which had been used to inflict the original non fatal shot (PV/20) which had a silencer attached to its barrel (the silencer which DS "Stan" Jones, seized that same morning, bearing the exhibit mark of SBJ/1). DCI "Taff" Jones, DCI "George" Harris, and others realized they had to remove the end cap from rifle "Y" because they could see bruising around the lower entry wound caused by a silencer having been pressed against the throat, and if it was going to be suggested that rifle "Y" had fired both shots, it would require the removal of the end cap from rifle "Y", otherwise there would be a glaring inconsistency regarding the size of the mark (bruising) from the face of the silencer, around the lower entry wound site, as compared to the dimensions of the end cap of rifle "Y"...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=10359;image)
-
By the time DCI "Taff" Jones and other senior officers present at the scene had agreed to proceed upon the basis that Sheila could have shot herself twice by use of the same rifle (Y), by a reliance upon recoil, and PC Bird had taken the first photographs of Sheila, on the bed, and on the bedroom floor, the condition and state of blood upon Sheila's face, and throat had deteriorated badly:-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=10492;image)
-
Blood spots photographed on the bedroom carpet next to Sheila's body were identified as blood originating from June Bamber (AK 2-1) as she walked around the room from one side of the bed to the other, crossing the bedroom window, and eventually with her body ending up by the bedroom door...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4306;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4304;image)
-
According to DI "Ron" Cook, he testified that he only moved Sheila's right hand from the gun to allow PC Bird to photograph the bloodied fingermarks on the front lower part of her nightdress, but this can now be shown to be a complete lie...
Rifle was also moved...
Nightdress was adjusted...
Blankets on bed removed...
"Ron" Cook, is therefore, a lying crook...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6023;image)
-
How utterly amazing that Sheila's body should end up being photograph on that part of the bedroom floor and none of the blood on the bedroom carpet all around her, or underneath her body, managed to get onto the rear of her nightdress - Jeremy must have been really clever to arrange all this (if he was the killer)? Same argument could be applied if there had been an as yet unidentified killer - such precision in the placement and stage managing of Sheila's body was / is somewhat breathtaking in its execution...
-
DCI "Taff" Jones, did not use a broom handle to gauge the distance between the two entry wounds on Sheila's throat and down along her body to see if the fingers of her right hand could reach the trigger, before he postulated that she could have shot herself twice by a reliance upon recoil - he used the rifle (Y) that had been actually used to inflict the second fatal shot under the chin (PV/20), which was moved back and forth from its original position of leaning against the bedroom window:-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4092;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4094;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4093;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4042;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4091;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4088;image)
-
DCI "Taff" Jones, did not use a broom handle to gauge the distance between the two entry wounds on Sheila's throat and down along her body to see if the fingers of her right hand could reach the trigger, before he postulated that she could have shot herself twice by a reliance upon recoil - he used the rifle (Y) that had been actually used to inflict the second fatal shot under the chin (PV/20), which was moved back and forth from its original position of leaning against the bedroom window:-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4092;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4094;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4093;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4042;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4091;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4088;image)
Mike I am a little confused here. You say that DCI 'Taff' Jones knew Sheila had been shot twice, yet I am led to belive that the doctor/pathologist on the scene didn't.
-
Mike I am a little confused here. You say that DCI 'Taff' Jones knew Sheila had been shot twice, yet I am led to belive that the doctor/pathologist on the scene didn't.
Police surgeon, Dr Craig, pronounced Sheila as being dead at 8:44am, and DCI "Taff" Jones did not arrive at the scene until about 9:10am. It was around 9:30am when "Taff" got into the bedroom, and saw Sheila with two wounds on her throat - by that stage the mishap with the loaded rifle from the bedroom window had already discharged the fatal bullet PV/19 under her chin which effectively killed Sheila. This was why DCI Jones later behaved like he did towards suggestions put forward by relatives that Jeremy killed Sheila, because DCI Jones knew that Jeremy did not kill Sheila, a police officer involved in the training exercise did...
-
Police surgeon, Dr Craig, pronounced Sheila as being dead at 8:44am, and DCI "Taff" Jones did not arrive at the scene until about 9:10am. It was around 9:30am when "Taff" got into the bedroom, and saw Sheila with two wounds on her throat - by that stage the mishap with the loaded rifle from the bedroom window had already discharged the fatal bullet PV/19 under her chin which effectively killed Sheila. This was why DCI Jones later behaved like he did towards suggestions put forward by relatives that Jeremy killed Sheila, because DCI Jones knew that Jeremy did not kill Sheila, a police officer involved in the training exercise did...
Your mishap theory is pure bunkum and is not supported by any evidence. Why do you post such dribble??
-
Your mishap theory is pure bunkum and is not supported by any evidence. Why do you post such dribble??
The dribble you talk about is in your own head...
-
The dribble you talk about is in your own head...
Sounds more like Shona than John!
-
Sounds more like Shona than John!
When the police surgeon, Dr Craig, was spoken to by COLP as part of thier 1991 investigation, he was asked by them about why he refers to Sheila only having a solitary wound in his witness statement, and Dr Craig responded that was because that was all he saw at that stage...
Does this not suggest in the stronest possible terms that when he pronounced her as being dead at 8:44am, that she only had one entry wound on her throat at that specific time or point? It is also very interesting that at no point in any witness statement or COLP interview does Dr Craig make reference to him seeing two entry wounds upon Sheila's neck? Now, considering that Craig is the person who pronounces Sheila as being dead at 8:44am, if there had been two entry wounds on Sheila's neck at that stage, how could he have failed to see them both?
-
What is also apparent, is that when the police surgeon, Dr Craig, and PI "Bob" Miller attended the scene at 8:44am, and Craig reported onlr seeing a solitary wound upon Sheila Caffells neck, so did Miller - furthermore, on 14th August 1985, at the opening of the inquests into these five deaths, Miller told Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, that police were satisfied that Sheila had shot and killed the others, and that she had then gone on to take her own life by way of a solitary shot under the chin...
To which solitary shot was Miller refering to, the first one inflicted by Sheila's own hand, or the second one inflicted by a police officer?
-
One thing which is not in dispute, is that the pronouncement at 8:44am that Sheila was dead on the far side of the bed with what appeared to be a solitary wound upon her neck, is that Dr Craig had left the scene in the bedroom before PC Bird started to take any photograps at all of Sheila. By looking at the available photographs taken by PC Bird of Sheila, it becomes apparent that no-one practiced CPR on Sheila's body before PC Bird took the first photographs of Sheila on the bed or the floor. This is very interesting for a number of different reasons, depending upon when exactly PC Bird started to take the first pictures of Sheila in the bedroom? He says he did not start taking any photographs until 10 am, but he actually took the first photographs of Sheila on the bed at abiut 9:30am...
Depending upon which starting point you choose to accept it means no-one practiced CPR on Sheila until after a minimum period of 45 minutes after the police surgeon pronounced Sheila as being dead at 8:44am, or worse case scenario, one hour and 15 minutes later...
-
In order to find out the truth about how Sheila died in the bedroom, ask youtselves why there was such a lengthy delay before CPR was applied?
-
In order to find out the truth about how Sheila died in the bedroom, ask youtselves why there was such a lengthy delay before CPR was applied?
Mike,,,because Sheila was probably threatening the police while they were trying to reason with her. Why the dickens the police won't come forward and say what they saw that morning,,I don't know,,but there's no doubt about it that they're holding back on what actually went on.
When you're threatened by someone who's armed,,,and you're not armed,,what do you do.? Remove that firearm the best way you can without being injured yourself.
What happened at the farmhouse was that there were two rifles in play that night/morning.
Did we ever see a pic of the damaged rifle.? I've never seen it yet.
-
Mike,,,because Sheila was probably threatening the police while they were trying to reason with her. Why the dickens the police won't come forward and say what they saw that morning,,I don't know,,but there's no doubt about it that they're holding back on what actually went on.
When you're threatened by someone who's armed,,,and you're not armed,,what do you do.? Remove that firearm the best way you can without being injured yourself.
What happened at the farmhouse was that there were two rifles in play that night/morning.
Did we ever see a pic of the damaged rifle.? I've never seen it yet.
I really can't go along with that at all. What evidence do you have Lookout that Sheila was alive?...I mean evidence that is not a strained version of other evidence such as 'police on conversation with someone inside the farmhouse' That has been totally disproven.
I suspect that Sheila was long dead by the time the police showed up. No-one, not a single person present has ever claimed that they spoke with her. The telephone operator listened to the now open line and says all she could hear was the barking of a dog. Now what makes you think that Sheila was still alive? I am totally bewildered by that statement.
-
I really can't go along with that at all. What evidence do you have Lookout that Sheila was alive?...I mean evidence that is not a strained version of other evidence such as 'police on conversation with someone inside the farmhouse' That has been totally disproven.I suspect that Sheila was long dead by the time the police showed up. No-one, not a single person present has ever claimed that they spoke with her. The telephone operator listened to the now open line and says all she could hear was the barking of a dog. Now what makes you think that Sheila was still alive? I am totally bewildered by that statement.
What has totally been disproven about that line in the logs? Nothing has been disproven at all ??? We will never ever know exactly what that line refers to.
-
I really can't go along with that at all. What evidence do you have Lookout that Sheila was alive?...I mean evidence that is not a strained version of other evidence such as 'police on conversation with someone inside the farmhouse' That has been totally disproven.
I suspect that Sheila was long dead by the time the police showed up. No-one, not a single person present has ever claimed that they spoke with her. The telephone operator listened to the now open line and says all she could hear was the barking of a dog. Now what makes you think that Sheila was still alive? I am totally bewildered by that statement.
Okay,Moe.Can you tell me why CPR was even mentioned if there was absolute proof that Sheila was dead.? Nobody but nobody attempts CPR on a " visually " dead person ( rigor and livor mortis )
-
What has totally been disproven about that line in the logs? Nothing has been disproven at all ??? We will never ever know exactly what that line refers to.
Wasn't the next line 'no response' (or similar)? I was reading GDS's submissions on this the other day, I noticed that he failed to mention the 'no response' part.
-
I know the police are unbelievably thick,,,but surely one can tell if a person's dead or not. Can they.????
-
Okay,Moe.Can you tell me why CPR was even mentioned if there was absolute proof that Sheila was dead.? Nobody but nobody attempts CPR on a " visually " dead person ( rigor and livor mortis )
Who mentioned CPR though? No one who was there.
-
Wasn't the next line 'no response' (or similar)? I was reading GDS's submissions on this the other day, I noticed that he failed to mention the 'no response' part.
The no response to challenge does not disprove the line that preceeds it. Police could have been in conversation, then issued a further challenge, to which there was no response.
-
Indications would have been choking/spluttering after the first wound,,,,particularly as she would have been lying flat on top of the bed as her airways would have contained blood.
Beds are no good for performing CPR,,unless a board is put beneath that person,,so she'd have been lifted onto the floor,,a harder surface. That's where she was found.
-
Who mentioned CPR though? No one who was there.
Hi Bridget,,I'll try and find the said link. I wouldn't have mentioned it if I hadn't read about it .So many links.!
-
The no response to challenge does not disprove the line that preceeds it. Police could have been in conversation, then issued a further challenge, to which there was no response.
Yes but then you would expect to see either another line relating to the further challenge, or something which says that she ceased responding, as opposed to no response.
-
The " lost clues " was in the MailOnline 11th of January 2008,,,which stated that Sheila wasn't dead when police had entered the farmhouse,so she was then put in the recovery position,,hence the blood-flow out of the corners of her mouth.
I'm sorry,,,but the indications must have been there,,even though I wasn't,,,to enable the police to see if they could have saved her life. A dead person,as you know,is completely lifeless,and visibly deceased in many ways.
-
Yes but then you would expect to see either another line relating to the further challenge, or something which says that she ceased responding, as opposed to no response.
No really. The logs do not identify the sex of the person police are in conversation with, nor the content or nature of the conversation. If a conversation took place, it will have occured prior to the entry which refers to it in the logs and may have still been taking place at the time the entry occurs. or it may have petered out. Challenges then issued. No reponse.
-
The " lost clues " was in the MailOnline 11th of January 2008,,,which stated that Sheila wasn't dead when police had entered the farmhouse,so she was then put in the recovery position,,hence the blood-flow out of the corners of her mouth.
I'm sorry,,,but the indications must have been there,,even though I wasn't,,,to enable the police to see if they could have saved her life. A dead person,as you know,is completely lifeless,and visibly deceased in many ways.
Can you post a link to the article, or at least say who is suggesting that CPR was attempted?
-
No really. The logs do not identify the sex of the person police are in conversation with, nor the content or nature of the conversation. If a conversation took place, it will have occured prior to the entry which refers to it in the logs and may have still been taking place at the time the entry occurs. or it may have petered out. Challenges then issued. No reponse.
Even you have to admit that's something of a stretch..
-
The " lost clues " was in the MailOnline 11th of January 2008,,,which stated that Sheila wasn't dead when police had entered the farmhouse,so she was then put in the recovery position,,hence the blood-flow out of the corners of her mouth.
I'm sorry,,,but the indications must have been there,,even though I wasn't,,,to enable the police to see if they could have saved her life. A dead person,as you know,is completely lifeless,and visibly deceased in many ways.
It's okay, they're not lost any more, I've found them. :)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-507801/The-lost-clues-clear-Bambi-killer-gunning-family.html
Have you read Bob Woffindens other, more recent article on this? "I was wrong about Bambi Killer" in the MailOnline 16th of May 2011:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html
It's also worth reading Mcdonells blood pattern evidence (he was instructed by the defence), particularly regarding the blood patterns to Sheila: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,264.0.html
-
Even you have to admit that's something of a stretch..
How?
-
David Shaw claim's he as listened to the tape and you can hear SC , he went on to say this was done in front of his solicitor , presumably in case legal action was taken against him , after the publication of his book !!
-
How?
The entry stating 'no response' was just 4 minutes after the one which suggested they were in a conversation. If there had have been a conversation don't you think they would have detailed what was said? If not in the logs then in someone's statement. It's far more likely that they spent 4 minutes shouting through a loudhailer and got no response.
-
Yes but then you would expect to see either another line relating to the further challenge, or something which says that she ceased responding, as opposed to no response.
Hi Bridget, one may expect to see another line relating to the 'no response' but as most of the logs are bitty and unclear I guess this is just another situation when we simply don't know.
-
Hi Bridget, one may expect to see another line relating to the 'no response' but as most of the logs are bitty and unclear I guess this is just another situation when we simply don't know.
I can agree with that :) You'd still expect to see an account of such a conversation in a witness statement though, wouldn't you?
-
I can agree with that :) You'd still expect to see an account of such a conversation in a witness statement though, wouldn't you?
Seriously Bridget I don't know because there are so many anomalies in this case that what we expect should happen rarely seems to have done. I am interested in jon's comment that David Shaw states in front of a solicitor that he has heard Sheila's or a female voice on the tape.....interesting.
-
The entry stating 'no response' was just 4 minutes after the one which suggested they were in a conversation. If there had have been a conversation don't you think they would have detailed what was said? If not in the logs then in someone's statement. It's far more likely that they spent 4 minutes shouting through a loudhailer and got no response.
Is it worth remembering that the person who wrote that log entry was not at the scene (Bonnett), when he heard the police trying to communicate with anybody in the house, it may well have sounded like a conversation, all be it a one sided one (which obviously by definition is not a conversation at all).
I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that this indicates that somebody was alive in the house at that time.
-
How easy is it to have said " no response " when none of US were there.! We unfortunately have to,,or not,rely on what the police say,,which isn't always true.
-
The " lost clues " was in the MailOnline 11th of January 2008,,,which stated that Sheila wasn't dead when police had entered the farmhouse,so she was then put in the recovery position,,hence the blood-flow out of the corners of her mouth.
I'm sorry,,,but the indications must have been there,,even though I wasn't,,,to enable the police to see if they could have saved her life. A dead person,as you know,is completely lifeless,and visibly deceased in many ways.
I would suggest that this article is read alongside the Dickinson report,which clearly intimates that Jeremy is guilty.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-507801/The-lost-clues-clear-Bambi-killer-gunning-family.html
The scenario that there are two would-be killers in one household is just too far-fetched in my opinion.
-
I know very little of CPR, save that the head is tilted back to clear the air way. Had EP performed such an operation on Sheila, would not the contents of her mouth, resulting from the first injury, have been expelled, creating flow pattern different from what had previously been. Apologies for lack of clarity, but I'm trying not to be too graphic.
-
I would suggest that this article is read alongside the Dickinson report,which clearly intimates that Jeremy is guilty.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-507801/The-lost-clues-clear-Bambi-killer-gunning-family.html
The scenario that there are two would-be killers in one household is just too far-fetched in my opinion.
There are,,and always will be,conflicting views as to which newspaper you read,or prefer. Because the case was so badly investigated,,those who say that Jeremy is guilty are becoming a minority because of the public awareness of the sloppy way it was all handled,,,,as have been a lot of other high-profile cases since this one. Unless anyone was physically there,at the scene,,one can only surmise/assume what went on,and that includes those of us who say that Jeremy is innocent,,,except that personally speaking I remember the case well and so drew my own conclusions years ago without the use of a computer,etc,,or without opinions of others ( I don't listen to others anyway ) I work things out for myself and don't need prompting.
Reading " anti-Bamber " material isn't exactly the way forward,as then,you just get a biased opinion. The idea is to form your OWN opinion by looking at both sides and constructively form your own verdict without leaning on others for answers.
Newspapers,,,books,,links,,etc etc,don't know nor publish the real truth,,,it's still supposition whichever way you look at it. I reiterrate,,,we weren't there,,,none of us.
I imagine Mike knows a thing or two,,but he's biding his time.
Jeremy had a very unfair trial. That, you must agree with,,as he had the world and its wife against him,,made worse by the judge on that day,who swayed the jury,,,except for the two,who,,if they'd been joined by one more member would have secured Jeremys' freedom.
Why,,,during such a much publicised case,,do you think that it wasn't the whole 12 jury.?
My reason for dismissing Jeremy out of the equation was because I'd worked in a mental hospital and had experienced what women were capable of,,,with or without treatment. Most medication for psychotics carries the risk of side effects which mimic what they'd be like without it. There is no " one fits all " when it comes to mental illness. It's all very trial and error as to which is going to be the most suitable,,,and I'd have said that in Sheilas' case,,,that some of what she was taking was unsuitable for her and caused more problems than cured her.
BTW,,so far as I'm concerned,there were no killers in that household,,just a very sick and misguided woman who wasn't responsible for her actions of that fateful night.
-
There are,,and always will be,conflicting views as to which newspaper you read,or prefer. Because the case was so badly investigated,,those who say that Jeremy is guilty are becoming a minority because of the public awareness of the sloppy way it was all handled,,,,as have been a lot of other high-profile cases since this one. Unless anyone was physically there,at the scene,,one can only surmise/assume what went on,and that includes those of us who say that Jeremy is innocent,,,except that personally speaking I remember the case well and so drew my own conclusions years ago without the use of a computer,etc,,or without opinions of others ( I don't listen to others anyway ) I work things out for myself and don't need prompting.
Reading " anti-Bamber " material isn't exactly the way forward,as then,you just get a biased opinion. The idea is to form your OWN opinion by looking at both sides and constructively form your own verdict without leaning on others for answers.
Newspapers,,,books,,links,,etc etc,don't know nor publish the real truth,,,it's still supposition whichever way you look at it. I reiterrate,,,we weren't there,,,none of us.
I imagine Mike knows a thing or two,,but he's biding his time.
Jeremy had a very unfair trial. That, you must agree with,,as he had the world and its wife against him,,made worse by the judge on that day,who swayed the jury,,,except for the two,who,,if they'd been joined by one more member would have secured Jeremys' freedom.
Why,,,during such a much publicised case,,do you think that it wasn't the whole 12 jury.?
My reason for dismissing Jeremy out of the equation was because I'd worked in a mental hospital and had experienced what women were capable of,,,with or without treatment. Most medication for psychotics carries the risk of side effects which mimic what they'd be like without it. There is no " one fits all " when it comes to mental illness. It's all very trial and error as to which is going to be the most suitable,,,and I'd have said that in Sheilas' case,,,that some of what she was taking was unsuitable for her and caused more problems than cured her.
BTW,,so far as I'm concerned,there were no killers in that household,,just a very sick and misguided woman who wasn't responsible for her actions of that fateful night.
Lookout I am in no way decrying those who are afflicted with mental illness and some of the posts here go beyond the bounds of human decency in that regard. Had Sheila killed or slayed her family I would be the first to say she was not mentally culpable and had she survived and confessed to the crime she would now in all probability be serving time in an institution for the criminally insane.
The reason I ask people to read both the Daily Mail "new evidence" and the Dickinson report is that you get two views slanted at both sides of the argument. One might if one were being unkind say that the Daily Mail article's primary concern was to sell newspapers for that day,and the Dickinson report was to cover the backs of the officialdom who dealt with the murders,but again both assertions would be sweeping. I am pleased that you have made time to study the case,but I reiterate myself,there were two pillars to this case-the Julie Mugford testimony and the silencer evidence,and unless or until both of these pillars have been totally dismantled then in my opinion Jeremy Bamber is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and his conviction remains safe.
-
There are,,and always will be,conflicting views as to which newspaper you read,or prefer. Because the case was so badly investigated,,those who say that Jeremy is guilty are becoming a minority because of the public awareness of the sloppy way it was all handled,,,,as have been a lot of other high-profile cases since this one. Unless anyone was physically there,at the scene,,one can only surmise/assume what went on,and that includes those of us who say that Jeremy is innocent,,,except that personally speaking I remember the case well and so drew my own conclusions years ago without the use of a computer,etc,,or without opinions of others ( I don't listen to others anyway ) I work things out for myself and don't need prompting.
Reading " anti-Bamber " material isn't exactly the way forward,as then,you just get a biased opinion. The idea is to form your OWN opinion by looking at both sides and constructively form your own verdict without leaning on others for answers.
Newspapers,,,books,,links,,etc etc,don't know nor publish the real truth,,,it's still supposition whichever way you look at it. I reiterrate,,,we weren't there,,,none of us.
I imagine Mike knows a thing or two,,but he's biding his time.
Jeremy had a very unfair trial. That, you must agree with,,as he had the world and its wife against him,,made worse by the judge on that day,who swayed the jury,,,except for the two,who,,if they'd been joined by one more member would have secured Jeremys' freedom.
Why,,,during such a much publicised case,,do you think that it wasn't the whole 12 jury.?
My reason for dismissing Jeremy out of the equation was because I'd worked in a mental hospital and had experienced what women were capable of,,,with or without treatment. Most medication for psychotics carries the risk of side effects which mimic what they'd be like without it. There is no " one fits all " when it comes to mental illness. It's all very trial and error as to which is going to be the most suitable,,,and I'd have said that in Sheilas' case,,,that some of what she was taking was unsuitable for her and caused more problems than cured her.
BTW,,so far as I'm concerned,there were no killers in that household,,just a very sick and misguided woman who wasn't responsible for her actions of that fateful night.
Lookout, hi. I totally support all you've said. I've said previously, that whilst I think Sheila's finger pulled the trigger, it wasn't Sheila's brain giving the instructions.
Is it known at what time the family had supper that night? I've just read that Jeremy and his father finished work at 10.30pm which would be about right at harvest time. This must have meant that supper was very early as it would hardly have been worth N and J taking time out at between, say, 7 or 8, to go in and eat and then go back to work. Conjecture on my part, of course, but which ever way the timing of the meal pans out, it seems to me, save for feeding, bathing and putting the twins to bed, that Sheila and June would have been alone together for several hours. I imagine, at the best of times, June might have been as red rag to a bull when it came to dealing with Sheila. If she had no concept of the stresses Sheila was experiencing, a mother/daughter tete a tete wouldn't have been a good idea. Jeremy makes no mention of an atmosphere, but Neville may have experienced one, which may explain why he was terse with his secretary when she phoned. It may have been that during time they spent alone together June threatened Sheila with the removal of her boys/told her they would get her sectioned/told her they would sell the London property and she and the boys would have to return to the farm.
I remain convinced that June had a very strong emotional and psychological hold on Sheila which caused her to be dependent when she longed to be free.
-
And don't you think Jeremy sensed this? An unhappy sister who would not be reconciled with Colin,twins who were preventing his ex brother-in-law from obtaining regular employment,a mother who may well have exercised a hold on Sheila through biblical references and who had sought psychiatric help in the past,and a father who was disappointed by him because he hadn't taken to the farming lifestyle. All this mulling around the head of a person who yearned to be free of it all,who had made plans for a year on how the crime would be carried out,quizzing Colin about when the twins would be present at the farm,trying to get Sheila to load the rifle,knowing an entrance to the farm bypassing the main thoroughfares,the ladies' bicycle which he had himself ridden in front of Ann Eaton,the telephone calls to Julie,the delay in calling the Police,the charade of his behaviour at the funerals and his haste to call Basil Cock the executor..to my mind it's all beyond reasonable doubt sorry..
-
The entry stating 'no response' was just 4 minutes after the one which suggested they were in a conversation. If there had have been a conversation don't you think they would have detailed what was said? If not in the logs then in someone's statement. It's far more likely that they spent 4 minutes shouting through a loudhailer and got no response.
You'd still expect to see an account of such a conversation in a witness statement though, wouldn't you?
Extremely unlikely, given the direction of the prosecution's case and the execution of the second investigation under Ainsley. Though it's possible that what you are saying re unmet challenges is correct. However, a series of unmet loudhailer challenges, described specifically as 'in conversation with a person from inside the farm' :-\
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=16098;image)
-
Extremely unlikely, given the direction of the prosecution's case and the execution of the second investigation under Ainsley. Though it's possible that what you are saying re unmet challenges is correct. However, a series of unmet loudhailer challenges, described specifically as 'in conversation with a person from inside the farm' :-\
If there was an actual conversation with a person inside then the belief would have been that there was indeed a person alive inside who had a gun. The firearms teams, including the raid team, would have been briefed accordingly. Several of them describe what they were told before taking up their positions, and none of them mention being briefed in such a way. So if you are suggesting that the statement of the officer with the loudhailer was edited to exclude that information, so too must those of the firearms officers. At what point does all of this editing and collusion to suppress evidence for no apparent reason become just too ridiculous to believe?
-
Steve,,let's remember,,we're talking about a 24 year old young man,,who'd found freedom living on his own at Goldhanger. No time for family upheavals,,just going out enjoying himself,as men of that age did,and still do. They're not interested in family" set-to's " and only perhaps listen to snippets of conversation in between thinking about other things in their young lives.
I doubt if he even took much notice of what was really going on. It's only as he's got older that he's realised that his sister was more sick than anyone realised.
In Jeremys' defence,,I doubt that he overworked himself at the farm,,and what bit he did,probably knocked him for six as he wouldn't have been used to hard graft as a lot of us have probably experienced,,so therefore,besides the fact that he didn't commit any murders that night,,he wouldn't have had the energy,let alone the mindset to have done such a thing.
Like a lot of young men,,he was just full of hot air with his " supposed threats ",but it certainly didn't mean that he'd ever carry them out. He wouldn't have said boo to a goose. He had respect for his parents,,and they thought a lot of him.Poor Sheila was the thorn in their sides with her unpredictable behaviour over the years which would have taken its toll on her parents.
Just say for instance that he had murdered his family. It would have been between midnight and 3am,,,if he went home at all. What blows that theory out of the water is the fact that blood had been pumping out of Sheilas' neck by the time the police had gained entry. So we all know that she was the last one to die,,,,it would seem,while Jeremy was outside with the police,,,though why he wasn't allowed into the house to at least try and reason with Sheila,I don't know. Why was he kept out of the house.? Plus,there was no sign of mortis,either rigor or livor. What does let the side down is the fact that none of the deceased were given a time of death,,which to my mind, is/should have been a vital part of the investigation,,,as it's a recognised part of a coroners report.
-
If there was an actual conversation with a person inside then the belief would have been that there was indeed a person alive inside who had a gun. The firearms teams, including the raid team, would have been briefed accordingly. Several of them describe what they were told before taking up their positions, and none of them mention being briefed in such a way. So if you are suggesting that the statement of the officer with the loudhailer was edited to exclude that information, so too must those of the firearms officers. At what point does all of this editing and collusion to suppress evidence for no apparent reason become just too ridiculous to believe?
As far we're concerned, firearms team statements only came to light in the wake of the case becoming a prosecution against Bamber. No such prosecution is going to include in their attack, statements relating to a conversation with a live person in the farmhouse are they? The firearms team did not enter the farmhouse under the impression that everyone was dead. At one point, an officer calls for Sheila Bamber to make her self known, due to noises heard. It also might be worth noting at this point, how many statements are actually signed and how many firearms officers testified at trial?
-
And don't you think Jeremy sensed this? An unhappy sister who would not be reconciled with Colin,twins who were preventing his ex brother-in-law from obtaining regular employment,a mother who may well have exercised a hold on Sheila through biblical references and who had sought psychiatric help in the past,and a father who was disappointed by him because he hadn't taken to the farming lifestyle. All this mulling around the head of a person who yearned to be free of it all,who had made plans for a year on how the crime would be carried out,quizzing Colin about when the twins would be present at the farm,trying to get Sheila to load the rifle,knowing an entrance to the farm bypassing the main thoroughfares,the ladies' bicycle which he had himself ridden in front of Ann Eaton,the telephone calls to Julie,the delay in calling the Police,the charade of his behaviour at the funerals and his haste to call Basil Cock the executor..to my mind it's all beyond reasonable doubt sorry..
Steve,,,as regards Jeremys' " financial standing " had he committed the murders,,,he'd have known that if he was caught that he'd have to forfeit every penny. I don't think he could have lived with the prospect of losing everything that was his. Ironically,this is how it turned out,,,but it certainly wasn't of his doing.
Jeremy wouldn't have kept himself in the spotlight all these years if he'd murdered anyone,,,he wouldn't have got the response he's getting for starters. Only those who have murdered get forgotten about ( thank goodness ) but those facing a miscarriage of justice continue with their pleas.
-
And don't you think Jeremy sensed this? An unhappy sister who would not be reconciled with Colin,twins who were preventing his ex brother-in-law from obtaining regular employment,a mother who may well have exercised a hold on Sheila through biblical references and who had sought psychiatric help in the past,and a father who was disappointed by him because he hadn't taken to the farming lifestyle. All this mulling around the head of a person who yearned to be free of it all,who had made plans for a year on how the crime would be carried out,quizzing Colin about when the twins would be present at the farm,trying to get Sheila to load the rifle,knowing an entrance to the farm bypassing the main thoroughfares,the ladies' bicycle which he had himself ridden in front of Ann Eaton,the telephone calls to Julie,the delay in calling the Police,the charade of his behaviour at the funerals and his haste to call Basil Cock the executor..to my mind it's all beyond reasonable doubt sorry..
I'm not entirely sure he would have. Whilst we may never know what another feels unless they choose to tell us, t.here's nothing about him which leads me to believe he's an empath!!! I'm more inclined to think he distanced himself from the farm, only going there out of necessity. He had his own life and if his parents didn't approve of it, he probably tried not to get into conversation about it with them. He didn't live there, unlike Sheila, whose visits necessitated her being there overnight. As for quizzing Colin about when the boys would be there, it could well have been to make sure HE wasn't, maybe he didn't want to play nursemaid.
Much of what you attribute to him are incidences taken out of context, which under other circumstances would be innocent enough to be disregarded. I feel more inclined to question the motives of JM, who, had she not turned police evidence could have found herself in court with a criminal record, her reputation in shreds and unlikely to find employment as a teacher. I also question the motives of relatives whoses lifestyles may have seen serious changes had Jeremy inherited.
-
As far we're concerned, firearms team statements only came to light in the wake of the case becoming a prosecution against Bamber. No such prosecution is going to include in their attack, statements relating to a conversation with a live person in the farmhouse are they?
No, they're not going to use it in their attack, but the statements still have to be disclosed. So we're back to the suggestion that either the statements were edited, or those giving them were told to leave the conversation with a person in the house out of them. Why? All of those people would know that Sheila was alive and that Jeremy was outside with them at the time. It can't even be said that they didn't know their statements had been edited because that much would have been clear to them from the results.
The firearms team did not enter the farmhouse under the impression that everyone was dead.
No, they didn't actually know anyone was dead at all until they looked through the window, but if there was a conversation they would have known that at least one person was alive and probably had a gun.
At one point, an officer calls for Sheila Bamber to make her self known, due to noises heard.
Other team members? The dog?
It also might be worth noting at this point, how many statements are actually signed and how many firearms officers testified at trial?
There will be a list of witnesses somewhere, but I haven't seen it.
-
At one point, an officer calls for Sheila Bamber to make her self known, due to noises heard.
This would be the same officer, would it, who later said, that when he called out, somebody replied by barking like a dog!!!!
-
April, I have read that Jeremy went into the farmhouse around 9.30 - 10 pm. The boys wre in bed and the family were sitting eating supper and talking about the boys. Jeremy says he stood by the sink in the utility room eating something and did the gun and then went out to finish up as they had one more load of rape before finishing for the n ight. So the conversation took place around 9.30 apparently
-
No, they're not going to use it in their attack, but the statements still have to be disclosed. So we're back to the suggestion that either the statements were edited, or those giving them were told to leave the conversation with a person in the house out of them. Why? All of those people would know that Sheila was alive and that Jeremy was outside with them at the time. It can't even be said that they didn't know their statements had been edited because that much would have been clear to them from the results.
Well where are the original signed statements... and if the defence are correct in their assertions of the raid experiencing serious complications, then how much content in those original statements would have been an exact and accurate portrayal of events anyway? Who were they disclosed to? Jeremy Bamber was not outside the farm during the time frame allocated to the 'conversation' entry. Neither would Jeremy Bamber have been given a running commentary of what was unfolding. I don't get your point re the TFG knowing about whether their statements had been edited.
No, they didn't actually know anyone was dead at all until they looked through the window, but if there was a conversation they would have known that at least one person was alive and probably had a gun.
My point was that the raid team conducted proceedings in accordance with there being the possibility that person or persons were alive and / or possibly armed. This is not proof that any 'conversation' took place but is certainly not averse to such a conversation having preceded the raid.
Other team members? The dog?
Possibly. However, see above.
There will be a list of witnesses somewhere, but I haven't seen it.
Sounds like a job for someone.
-
Well where are the original signed statements... and if the defence are correct in their assertions of the raid experiencing serious complications, then how much content in those original statements would have been an exact and accurate portrayal of events anyway? Who were they disclosed to? Jeremy Bamber was not outside the farm during the time frame allocated to the 'conversation' entry. Neither would Jeremy Bamber have been given a running commentary of what was unfolding. I don't get your point re the TFG knowing about whether their statements had been edited.
There is no evidence for there having been serious complications. The statements, edited or otherwise, would have been disclosed to the defence. I know Jeremy claims that he only obtained these recently, but it seems inconceivable that there wouldn't have been such statements (or the defence wouldn't have demanded to see such statements) prior to the trial. The witness list may well sort that issue out. What we have here are unsigned statements, but that doesn't mean that signed ones don't exist. If there was a conversation the TFG would know that someone was alive, and that Jeremy could not therefore have killed that person. So, either they would know that their statements as disclosed to the defence were not as they were written, or they falsified their statements.
My point was that the raid team conducted proceedings in accordance with there being the possibility that person or persons were alive and / or possibly armed. This is not proof that any 'conversation' took place but is certainly not averse to such a conversation having preceded the raid.
You don't think they would have been told that a person was definately alive, and that they had been in conversation with the police?
-
April, I have read that Jeremy went into the farmhouse around 9.30 - 10 pm. The boys wre in bed and the family were sitting eating supper and talking about the boys. Jeremy says he stood by the sink in the utility room eating something and did the gun and then went out to finish up as they had one more load of rape before finishing for the n ight. So the conversation took place around 9.30 apparently
Maggie, hi and thanks for the info., although it doesn't add up with Neville not getting in until 10.30, unless, like Jeremy, he went out again before finishing for the night. We can speculate till the cows come home, but I suspect we'll never know the truth. How VERY frustrating........................unless!!!! Does anybody know a reliable medium?!!!!!!!!!!
-
There is no evidence for there having been serious complications. The statements, edited or otherwise, would have been disclosed to the defence. I know Jeremy claims that he only obtained these recently, but it seems inconceivable that there wouldn't have been such statements (or the defence wouldn't have demanded to see such statements) prior to the trial. The witness list may well sort that issue out. What we have here are unsigned statements, but that doesn't mean that signed ones don't exist. If there was a conversation the TFG would know that someone was alive, and that Jeremy could not therefore have killed that person. So, either they would know that their statements as disclosed to the defence were not as they were written, or they falsified their statements.
I suggest that two sets of crime scene photos, one set withheld for 19 years and which show oxygenated blood and thin pools of blood similar to finger-marks, while the other set (used at trial) show semi-congealed blood, logs withheld for 19 years that detail not just a female body found downstairs but the correctly corresponding number of bodies found upstairs and a host of actions stemming form these finds, are indeed evidence of something going wrong with the raid. Now, it is possible for the authorities to deem something as not being evidence. You can deem anything you want as being something else other than what it appears to be. A coal mine can be a 'super pit' one day and then not financially viable the next.
The defence must be telling lies about the statements being disclosed. That's the only explanation I can come up with, that fits the approach taken by you and one or two other posters on the statements issue.
You don't think they would have been told that a person was definately alive, and that they had been in conversation with the police?
Sorry but can you clarify what you mean here by 'they'?
-
the TFG would know that someone was alive, and that Jeremy could not therefore have killed that person. So, either they would know that their statements as disclosed to the defence were not as they were written, or they falsified their statements.
This seems to be Mike Tesko's argument. He alleges that they refused to sign their statements and refused to testify at trial. Woodcock did I believe sign his statement and he may have testified? Woodcock's statement has been alleged as having been doctored, though I do not know what evidence there is to back that claim.
-
I suggest that two sets of crime scene photos, one set withheld for 19 years and which show oxygenated blood and thin pools of blood similar to finger-marks, while the other set (used at trial) show semi-congealed blood, logs withheld for 19 years that detail not just a female body found downstairs but the correctly corresponding number of bodies found upstairs and a host of actions stemming form these finds, are indeed evidence of something going wrong with the raid. Now, it is possible for the authorities to deem something as not being evidence. You can deem anything you want as being something else other than what it appears to be. A coal mine can be a 'super pit' one day and then not financially viable the next.
I refer you to Hartley's explanation for the body count upstairs/ downstairs issue. As to the photos, it doesn't take an expert to see that the colourisation (is that a word?) is different on what you are calling the congealed blood ones, and the oxygenated blood one. Certainly the oxygenated blood one that we have here appears to have been manipulated in some way, even the colours in the skin tone appear to be too red. The original unmanipulated photos were presumably used in whatever submissions were made, and the argument was rejected I believe.
The defence must be telling lies about the statements being disclosed. That's the only explanation I can come up with, that fits the approach taken by you and one or two other posters on the statements issue.
Do you really believe that in a case where a house was raided by the TFG, there would not be statements from the team members? I know the defence has been described as lacking but really..
Sorry but can you clarify what you mean here by 'they'?
The raid team and the firearms officers outside.
This seems to be Mike Tesko's argument. He alleges that they refused to sign their statements and refused to testify at trial. Woodcock did I believe sign his statement and he may have testified? Woodcock's statement has been alleged as having been doctored, though I do not know what evidence there is to back that claim.
This was a very public trial. If that were the case do you not think the defence would have made a song and dance about it, and in turn the press would have had a field day?
-
I refer you to Hartley's explanation for the body count upstairs/ downstairs issue. As to the photos, it doesn't take an expert to see that the colourisation (is that a word?) is different on what you are calling the congealed blood ones, and the oxygenated blood one. Certainly the oxygenated blood one that we have here appears to have been manipulated in some way, even the colours in the skin tone appear to be too red. The original unmanipulated photos were presumably used in whatever submissions were made, and the argument was rejected I believe.
Do you really believe that in a case where a house was raided by the TFG, there would not be statements from the team members? I know the defence has been described as lacking but really..
The raid team and the firearms officers outside.
This was a very public trial. If that were the case do you not think the defence would have made a song and dance about it, and in turn the press would have had a field day?
I am prepared to read Hartley's explanation again, if somebody can point out to me. I remember being unimpressed by the notion that a female body is recorded in the logs as being found downstairs, merely due to a recce through the window. The female body referred to is clearly logged as having been found upon entry and after the entries relating to the TFG attacking the door. The female body is not listed first, it is listed second, after the male body, upon entry. The police had open Mics and there was 38 minutes to clarify and confirm, as each room was secured, exactly which sexed body was located where.
I'm just not understanding your point about the raid team statements. Could you have picked me up wrong? ???
Why would the press make a song and dance about something they didn't know about?
You can mock the idea that defence has been impeded all you like... but in this case, it doesn't even matter if a government minister is questioned at length in the house of commons or a disclosure order is issued by a court of law. There ways around things. How much more so then, when so much less was known than is known now?
-
I'm just not understanding your point about the raid team statements. Could you have picked me up wrong?
I don't know, my point is simple enough. If there was a conversation the raid team would have been briefed on it. None of their statements contain any reference to that, even though they describe what they were told in their briefing. If they were briefed on a conversation then they would know that JB could not have killed the person in the farm who was involved in the conversation. If they knew about the conversation then they would have included that information in their statements. So, if there was nothing in their statements about the conversation either:
a) their statements were edited without their knowledge but they would have known this because they knew what the police case was and it didn't fit their original statements or
b) they falsified their statements - if so why? Or
c) it didn't happen.
-
I don't know, my point is simple enough. If there was a conversation the raid team would have been briefed on it. None of their statements contain any reference to that, even though they describe what they were told in their briefing. If they were briefed on a conversation then they would know that JB could not have killed the person in the farm who was involved in the conversation. If they knew about the conversation then they would have included that information in their statements. So, if there was nothing in their statements about the conversation either:
a) their statements were edited without their knowledge but they would have known this because they knew what the police case was and it didn't fit their original statements or
b) they falsified their statements - if so why? Or
c) it didn't happen.
Mike Tesko has alleged a...
d) Their statements were edited with their knowledge; they refused to sign their edited statements; they refused to testify at trial.
-
Mike Tesko has alleged a...
d) Their statements were edited with their knowledge; they refused to sign their edited statements; they refused to testify at trial.
Mike Tesko has made many allegations and accusations, I'm struggling to recall one which he is able to comprehensively prove to be justified.
-
Mike Tesko has alleged a...
d) Their statements were edited with their knowledge; they refused to sign their edited statements; they refused to testify at trial.
That would have made for a pretty sensational headline.
-
That would have made for a pretty sensational headline.
Problem can easily be resolved - show all the crime scene pictures taken by PC Bird to every single one of the living raid team members and ask them if that is how they found the bodies of the five victims and the scenes inside whf that morning when they first set foot into the building?
It's 100& certainty that those who are still alive will say "No"...
-
Problem can easily be resolved - show all the crime scene pictures taken by PC Bird to every single one of the living raid team members and ask them if that is how they found the bodies of the five victims and the scenes inside whf that morning when they first set foot into the building?
It's 100& certainty that those who are still alive will say "No"...
So what if they were moved to examine them. Who cares mate.....get over yourself?
-
So what if they were moved to examine them. Who cares mate.....get over yourself?
You obviously don't have a clue, police say they didn't move or touch anything, so now you are suggesting they did. If they did, and they say they didn't, then police have deceived the court of appeal (2002) and the court which originally tried this matter, were fed lies about it being Jeremy who was responsible for stage managing Sheila's body, when all along it was the police, so I suggest you get over yourself, as you pit it...
-
You obviously don't have a clue, police say they didn't move or touch anything, so now you are suggesting they did. If they did, and they say they didn't, then police have deceived the court of appeal (2002) and the court which originally tried this matter, were fed lies about it being Jeremy who was responsible for stage managing Sheila's body, when all along it was the police, so I suggest you get over yourself, as you pit it...
Course they moved things....how fucking stupid can you be to believe that crap.
-
Course they moved things....how fucking stupid can you be to believe that crap.
I don't believe their crap, and its them and those who believe what they said who are stupid, we all know the moved things and we all know they stage managed Sheila's body. They moved the rifle from the bedroom window, it ended up on her body because it fired the fatal shot under her chin that eventually killed her. They moved the bible, they adjusted her nightdress, the cut out and destroyed the bedroom carpet where all this activity took place. They burnt the blankets from the bed, and everything and anything that could be or might be used to prevent anyone coming along at a later date to carry out a reconstruction. They created a false photographic schedule telling lies that only 223 pictures had been taken in connection with the investigation, when all along 581 existed in a tip secret album which became known as the senior investigating officers album...
And you say that it was normal for the police to do such things, and are suggesting it doesn't matter or have a bearing on the safety or otherwise of the case. But it does matter, and what they did was wrong, since they blamed Jeremy for doing the very things they themselves have been responsible for doing, to help get him convicted...
-
I don't believe their crap, and its them and those who believe what they said who are stupid, we all know the moved things and we all know they stage managed Sheila's body. They moved the rifle from the bedroom window, it ended up on her body because it fired the fatal shot under her chin that eventually killed her. They moved the bible, they adjusted her nightdress, the cut out and destroyed the bedroom carpet where all this activity took place. They burnt the blankets from the bed, and everything and anything that could be or might be used to prevent anyone coming along at a later date to carry out a reconstruction. They created a false photographic schedule telling lies that only 223 pictures had been taken in connection with the investigation, when all along 581 existed in a tip secret album which became known as the senior investigating officers album...
And you say that it was normal for the police to do such things, and are suggesting it doesn't matter or have a bearing on the safety or otherwise of the case. But it does matter, and what they did was wrong, since they blamed Jeremy for doing the very things they themselves have been responsible for doing, to help get him convicted...
Sorry old chap but he got himself convicted....end off. ;)
-
Sorry old chap but he got himself convicted....end off. ;)
No, its not the end of, as you suggest - its the beginning revisited, no stone will be left unturned and thos who are still alive who were involved in this conspiracy are brought to book and prosecuted for their part in this matter...
-
No, its not the end of, as you suggest - its the beginning revisited, no stone will be left unturned and thos who are still alive who were involved in this conspiracy are brought to book and prosecuted for their part in this matter...
No conspiracy. No reason for any conspiracy just a load of wishful thinking on your behalf.
-
No conspiracy. No reason for any conspiracy just a load of wishful thinking on your behalf.
You are wrong, and you and the others will be proved wrong...
-
You are wrong, and you and the others will be proved wrong...
I can't wait,Mike. I've known from day one back in 1985 that Jeremy didn't murder his family.
It doesn't take a Philadelphia Lawyer to work it out.
-
Sorry old chap but he got himself convicted....end off. ;)
So did these people Rhodes..But they were innocent and had their convictions overturned. Sadly for some, some were executed... :-[ :-[
A
Donna Anthony
George Archer-Shee
B
Adolf Beck case
Ronan Bennett
Derek Bentley case
John Bingham (loyalist)
Paul Blackburn (UK)
C
Cameo Murder
Cecil Aylmer Cameron
Angela Cannings
C cont.
Cardiff Newsagent Three
Sally Clark
Lee Clegg
Murder of Linda Cook
D
Stephen Downing case
E
Timothy Evans
G
Barry George
M
Dominic McGlinchey
Danny McNamee
Mahmood Hussein Mattan
M cont.
Raymond McCartney
Bernard Henry McGinn
Murder of Lesley Molseed
S
Murder of Teresa de Simone
Oscar Slater
W
William Herbert Wallace
Judith Ward
Murder of Lynette White
-
B
Birmingham Six
Bridgewater Four
G
Guildford Four
G cont.
Guildford Four and Maguire Seven
M
M25 Three
Maguire Seven
S
Winston Silcott
T
Sara Thornton case
-
Where did Ann Eaton get the information from that Sheila's body was found on the bed on the morning of the shootings? It could only have come from either DC Clarke or DS Jones. DC Clarke denies having told Ann Eaton this, which leaves it open to the suggestion that she was really told that Sheila's body was found on the bed, looking so peaceful ad though she was sleeping, by DS "Stan" Jones, and that Ann Eaton has told a deliberate lie in suggesting it was Clarke who told her, when all along she knows it was DS Jones who told her this? The more you think about it, the more likely it was DS Jones who told Eaton that Sheila was found on the bed, looking so peaceful as though she were simply sleeping...
No wonder DS Jones falsified his pocketbook entries...
"Pocketbook had three different start dates, (1) - 5th November 1984, (2) - 4th November 1984, an (3) - 5th April 1985"...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18886;image)
"This is the same DS "Stan" Jones, who states that when he first saw Sheila in the bedroom, she looked so peaceful, clean and as though she had been a sleep"...
-
We are in a time warp where injustice is/has been rife. There is no doubt about that. It should never be up to the people of this Country, to set up blogs and fight for the innocent, for it should never happen in the first place....Our system, need a thorough overall...to bring it up to date. The jury should be vetted more...and, should be more aware of forensic evidence and how it works...
The facts and evidence should be clear and precise...and not a figment of someone else's imagination....Hearsay and, what might have happened is not good enough to inter a man/woman for life....good forensics is needed...and when forensics improve it should be used on all cases of the past....to make sure no mistake has been made....
The way our system stands, is most outdated....But, of course lack of money and common sense does not prevail........... :) :) :) :)
-
I have it from a traffic ex police officer at a crime scene you touch nothing.
-
Where did Ann Eaton get the information from that Sheila's body was found on the bed on the morning of the shootings? It could only have come from either DC Clarke or DS Jones. DC Clarke denies having told Ann Eaton this, which leaves it open to the suggestion that she was really told that Sheila's body was found on the bed, looking so peaceful ad though she was sleeping, by DS "Stan" Jones, and that Ann Eaton has told a deliberate lie in suggesting it was Clarke who told her, when all along she knows it was DS Jones who told her this? The more you think about it, the more likely it was DS Jones who told Eaton that Sheila was found on the bed, looking so peaceful as though she were simply sleeping...
No wonder DS Jones falsified his pocketbook entries...
"Pocketbook had three different start dates, (1) - 5th November 1984, (2) - 4th November 1984, an (3) - 5th April 1985"...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18886;image)
"This is the same DS "Stan" Jones, who states that when he first saw Sheila in the bedroom, she looked so peaceful, clean and as though she had been a sleep"...
There is a link between DS Jones falsified account in his re-written notes as per the whf investigation, and PI "Bob" Miller who countersigned the page entries of this pocketbook, and therefore he must have known that DS Jones had re-written his notes in a pocketbook which had three separate start dates recorded on its front cover, who was at the heart of the editing of the original file (SC/688/85) that was redrafted and placed into a new file (SC/786/85) so that the police did not have to disclose the case they had built up, to prove Sheila was culpable for killing the others and then for trying to take her own life, to defence lawyers?
-
I have it from a traffic ex police officer at a crime scene you touch nothing.
Mertol that is usually true and would have been the case but a certain DCI had made his visit before going to play golf and pronounced '4 murders and a suicide' case closed.
-
Mertol that is usually true and would have been the case but a certain DCI had made his visit before going to play golf and pronounced '4 murders and a suicide' case closed.
You do not say exactly how long DCI "Taff" Jones and any of the other senior officers in attendance that morning stayed at the scene? Perhaps someone ought to look into this feature just so the record can be put straight...
-
Another cruel ‘twist of fate’ also worked against the truth of Jeremy’s innocence coming out at trial. While renovating at home, only months before the case went to court, DCI Tom Jones ‘fell off a ladder’ and was found dead in his garden. Despite repeated requests, the coroner’s findings into Tom’s death have not been released. If Tom Jones had appeared in court, the trial would never have gone to jury. By falling off a ladder and dying, Fate saved the names and careers of numerous officers involved in the cover-up. Tom knew the truth about what had occurred at White House Farm and that Jeremy Bamber had nothing to do with the murder of Sheila Caffell. He had read through all the reports and covered up the mistakes of his fellow officers to help save their backsides; he knew that officers of all ranks had lied in witness statements, manipulated crime scenes and material evidence, lied to the CPS solicitors and were prepared to lie in open court. A former colleague stated on record: ‘Up until his very sad death Taff (DCI Tom Jones) was convinced Bamber didn’t do it. If he’d gone in the witness box in that trial it would have been sensational, because he intended to say what he thought. He was that kind of bloke.’
-
There must be some news articles that refer to Taff's death. The above is an adaptation from David Shaw.
He says Taff fell from a ladder outside....I have also read he was on a step ladder and fell indoors...
I don't know which is the truth. Nor do I know who was present when he died....I have searched for Newspaper articles, but to no avail...Research is not confined to the internet in this case, the archives for Essex, or local library in Chelmsford would give you a better result.... :) :) :)
-
Another cruel ‘twist of fate’ also worked against the truth of Jeremy’s innocence coming out at trial. While renovating at home, only months before the case went to court, DCI Tom Jones ‘fell off a ladder’ and was found dead in his garden. Despite repeated requests, the coroner’s findings into Tom’s death have not been released. If Tom Jones had appeared in court, the trial would never have gone to jury. By falling off a ladder and dying, Fate saved the names and careers of numerous officers involved in the cover-up. Tom knew the truth about what had occurred at White House Farm and that Jeremy Bamber had nothing to do with the murder of Sheila Caffell. He had read through all the reports and covered up the mistakes of his fellow officers to help save their backsides; he knew that officers of all ranks had lied in witness statements, manipulated crime scenes and material evidence, lied to the CPS solicitors and were prepared to lie in open court. A former colleague stated on record: ‘Up until his very sad death Taff (DCI Tom Jones) was convinced Bamber didn’t do it. If he’d gone in the witness box in that trial it would have been sensational, because he intended to say what he thought. He was that kind of bloke.’
Hi Patti,,,it just goes to show how much DOES go on behind the scenes.It stinks. That a dead man can be used in such a way, thus saving others from losing their pension,,to which they made sure anyway after his untimely demise.
No honour among thieves,is a saying that springs to mind. Then police wonder why they're not trusted.!
When the cat's away,the mice will play,,,,and that's just what happened. If they can twist things round to their way of thinking,,they will.
DCI " Taff Jones " would turn in his grave if he knew. Pity he didn't come back and haunt them.
In a way it's a blessing that capital punishment isn't in force,or there'd have been an outcry,,even with all the technology available today,,the police still get it wrong. More so than years ago when all they had to rely on was grey matter. That said,a bit of re-training wouldn't go amiss instead of that " parrot-fashion " attitude of going by the book. Columbo would have showed them up. Imagine a character like that forever popping up,and you never knowing when. That's the way to go instead of whizzing about,,sirens going and letting the criminal know that you're on your way,,so giving him/her the chance to scarper. It makes me cringe.
The element of surprise is by far the best tactic to use.No need for noise. After all,,,empty vessels DO make the most noise.
-
Hi Patti,,,it just goes to show how much DOES go on behind the scenes.It stinks. That a dead man can be used in such a way, thus saving others from losing their pension,,to which they made sure anyway after his untimely demise.
No honour among thieves,is a saying that springs to mind. Then police wonder why they're not trusted.!
When the cat's away,the mice will play,,,,and that's just what happened. If they can twist things round to their way of thinking,,they will.
DCI " Taff Jones " would turn in his grave if he knew. Pity he didn't come back and haunt them.
In a way it's a blessing that capital punishment isn't in force,or there'd have been an outcry,,even with all the technology available today,,the police still get it wrong. More so than years ago when all they had to rely on was grey matter. That said,a bit of re-training wouldn't go amiss instead of that " parrot-fashion " attitude of going by the book. Columbo would have showed them up. Imagine a character like that forever popping up,and you never knowing when. That's the way to go instead of whizzing about,,sirens going and letting the criminal know that you're on your way,,so giving him/her the chance to scarper. It makes me cringe.
The element of surprise is by far the best tactic to use.No need for noise. After all,,,empty vessels DO make the most noise.
whoa.......whoa lookout. You are getting way ahead of yourself with these silly unfounded accusations. What evidence do you have exactly for making such accusations what are you basing these allegations on?
I know you have it in your head that Bamber is innocent. I admire that, but trying to back that up with baseless accusations or stretching aspects of the case to try to fit the facts weakens your point considerably.
I get a horrible feeling that there are many posters grasping at straws or suggesting theories that have no relation to fact in the hope that it makes Jeremy look that bit more innocent. It doesn't. It just makes the accusations look that much more strange and desperate. It would be nice to stick to the facts and work from there on the evidence.
Taff Jones dies falling off a ladder. It happens to literally hundreds of people each year - A similar sort of accident befell Rod Hull of Rod Hull and Emu fame. It is not unusual or anything untoward. Moreover, if he had survived it would ahve had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the trial whatsoever. He was by all accounts a very proud but ultimately arrogant man who could not accept that he was wrong.
His views were largely disregarded after Bamber was arrested for the second time.
-
Hi lookout I am trying to understand why people come on this forum trying to rubbish every theory put up. What do they gain they think Jeremy Bamber guilty and he is serving a life sentence. What more do they want
-
Exposing what took place by reference to use of broom handle in reconstruction
AS far as I know, there was no broom handle as an exhibit in this case, or which was photographed at the scene. Yet in David Shaws account he makes mention of police officers gathering around the body of Sheila on the bedroom floor, and DCI "Taff" Jones using a broom handle to demonstrate how Sheila could have shot herself twice?
Going back to the original subject of this thread, according to Wilkes book the 'broomstick demonstration' took place back at the cop shop, with Taff Jones laying on the floor demonstrating it on himself.
-
Going back to the original subject of this thread, according to Wilkes book the 'broomstick demonstration' took place back at the cop shop, with Taff Jones laying on the floor demonstrating it on himself.
That is correct Bridget...how did you know that Ha! It was his way pf proving that Sheila could have shot herself...which is also true. :P :P :P ;D ;D
-
That is correct Bridget...how did you know that Ha! It was his way pf proving that Sheila could have shot herself...which is also true. :P :P :P ;D ;D
I have the book, just haven't gotten around to reading it yet. I was flicking through looking for something else when I came across it.
-
I have the book, just haven't gotten around to reading it yet. I was flicking through looking for something else when I came across it.
Bridget do you take notes or do you remember things...I take notes, but they are mainly on the backs of empty envelopes, which I tend to throw away....I haven't got a good memory, I have short term memory loss. But, I find that since I have been on this forum it has improved...and, I remember the things I that are important, but forget the rest....does that make sense? Maybe I should get a proper note book...lol :) :) :) :)
-
Bridget do you take notes or do you remember things...I take notes, but they are mainly on the backs of empty envelopes, which I tend to throw away....I haven't got a good memory, I have short term memory loss. But, I find that since I have been on this forum it has improved...and, I remember the things I that are important, but forget the rest....does that make sense? Maybe I should get a proper note book...lol :) :) :) :)
Yes it does actually! I do it mainly from memory but I have also noticed that the use of this forum has improved mine.
-
Yes it does actually! I do it mainly from memory but I have also noticed that the use of this forum has improved mine.
mmmmmm Maybe if I took notes then, I could win more points, not that I lose any....lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
whoa.......whoa lookout. You are getting way ahead of yourself with these silly unfounded accusations. What evidence do you have exactly for making such accusations what are you basing these allegations on?
I know you have it in your head that Bamber is innocent. I admire that, but trying to back that up with baseless accusations or stretching aspects of the case to try to fit the facts weakens your point considerably.
I get a horrible feeling that there are many posters grasping at straws or suggesting theories that have no relation to fact in the hope that it makes Jeremy look that bit more innocent. It doesn't. It just makes the accusations look that much more strange and desperate. It would be nice to stick to the facts and work from there on the evidence.
Taff Jones dies falling off a ladder. It happens to literally hundreds of people each year - A similar sort of accident befell Rod Hull of Rod Hull and Emu fame. It is not unusual or anything untoward. Moreover, if he had survived it would ahve had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the trial whatsoever. He was by all accounts a very proud but ultimately arrogant man who could not accept that he was wrong.
His views were largely disregarded after Bamber was arrested for the second time.
Just a minute,Moe. If you didn't read into my post,,I was actually singing the praises of " Taff " Jones,,,it was you who was casting aspersions. And don't sound so flippant when you talk about accidents from ladders or you'll have me thinking that you were actually at the scene that day.
-
whoa.......whoa lookout. You are getting way ahead of yourself with these silly unfounded accusations. What evidence do you have exactly for making such accusations what are you basing these allegations on?
I know you have it in your head that Bamber is innocent. I admire that, but trying to back that up with baseless accusations or stretching aspects of the case to try to fit the facts weakens your point considerably.
I get a horrible feeling that there are many posters grasping at straws or suggesting theories that have no relation to fact in the hope that it makes Jeremy look that bit more innocent. It doesn't. It just makes the accusations look that much more strange and desperate. It would be nice to stick to the facts and work from there on the evidence.
Taff Jones dies falling off a ladder. It happens to literally hundreds of people each year - A similar sort of accident befell Rod Hull of Rod Hull and Emu fame. It is not unusual or anything untoward. Moreover, if he had survived it would ahve had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the trial whatsoever. He was by all accounts a very proud but ultimately arrogant man who could not accept that he was wrong.
His views were largely disregarded after Bamber was arrested for the second time.
Moe
Taff Jones was ready to spill the beans. It is of great sadness that he died before the trial. It is also open to speculation about the timing of his death and theories will of course culminate, due to the fact there is no data surrounding his death....If you google there is one newspaper article and no tribute what so ever from EP......
Prove to me Bamber did it....In fact prove to me that someone entered that house and left it....I can prove they didn't....for it is documented as evidence.... :) :) :) :)
-
Moe Cassani is probably not even fit to clean Taff Jones shoes. A ten times commended officer. And by the sounds of it, a man of conviction and fortitude.
I bet he had a chuckle to him self upstairs when Bamber passed his polygraph.
-
Moe Cassani is probably not even fit to clean Taff Jones shoes. A ten times commended officer. And by the sounds of it, a man of conviction and fortitude.
I bet he had a chuckle to him self upstairs when Bamber passed his polygraph.
You're funny....ha ha ha. ;D
Incidently Roch Taff Jones after the first interview started to suspect Bamber especially after he 'coughed' to the burglary. Take some time to read the police statements then you might not be so sure of yourself.Everyone that supports your nonsense is a person of conviction and fortitude' anyone that doesn't is not fit to clean shoes....right?
It is damning that you quote the 'ten times commended officer' and yet have spend most of your time on this forum condemning the police for their practices. An arrogant, overbearing policeman that refused to change his mind because he wanted to brush it under the carpet you you say is a man of 'conviction and fortitude' ;D ;D
-
You're funny....ha ha ha. ;D
Incidently Roch Taff Jones after the first interview started to suspect Bamber especially after he 'coughed' to the burglary. Take some time to read the police statements then you might not be so sure of yourself.Everyone that supports your nonsense is a person of conviction and fortitude' anyone that doesn't is not fit to clean shoes....right?
It is damning that you quote the 'ten times commended officer' and yet have spend most of your time on this forum condemning the police for their practices. An arrogant, overbearing policeman that refused to change his mind because he wanted to brush it under the carpet you you say is a man of 'conviction and fortitude' ;D ;D
hahahahah 5 times actually....he was commended please get the fact correct. Taff Jones did not believe that JB had committed the crimes. He was staunch in his belief.....and said so. He was about to tell all....but sadly he died....
Please show proof that Taff Jones believed that JB was guilty..... :) :) :)
-
You're funny....ha ha ha. ;D
Incidently Roch Taff Jones after the first interview started to suspect Bamber especially after he 'coughed' to the burglary. Take some time to read the police statements then you might not be so sure of yourself.Everyone that supports your nonsense is a person of conviction and fortitude' anyone that doesn't is not fit to clean shoes....right?
It is damning that you quote the 'ten times commended officer' and yet have spend most of your time on this forum condemning the police for their practices. An arrogant, overbearing policeman that refused to change his mind because he wanted to brush it under the carpet you you say is a man of 'conviction and fortitude' ;D ;D
I'm pro police actually Moe. Also, you're wrong in your claim about people who don't support my 'nonsense'. I take several forum members disposed towards guilt very seriously.
-
Moe Cassani is probably not even fit to clean Taff Jones shoes. A ten times commended officer. And by the sounds of it, a man of conviction and fortitude.
I bet he had a chuckle to him self upstairs when Bamber passed his polygraph.
I hope i am not wrong but i feel whatever he knew about jeremy being innocent he took to the other side.
-
hahahahah 5 times actually....he was commended please get the fact correct. Taff Jones did not believe that JB had committed the crimes. He was staunch in his belief.....and said so. He was about to tell all....but sadly he died....
Please show proof that Taff Jones believed that JB was guilty..... :) :) :)
Hmm seems we are a little pedantic. OK blame Roch for the number of times Taff Jones was commended. He is theone that said it. 'he was about to tell all' hmmm where did this come from?
Now Patti I am going to ask you a reasonable question and hope I get a reasonable answer. Those that support his innocence usually claim that it was Sheila that committed the murders. Now, could you please tell me exactly what evidence there is to substantiate such an accusation?. I need to know nothing of other matters just this one plain question. This is the crux of the entire case without all the other issues obscuring the picture.
-
You're funny....ha ha ha. ;D
Incidently Roch Taff Jones after the first interview started to suspect Bamber especially after he 'coughed' to the burglary. Take some time to read the police statements then you might not be so sure of yourself.Everyone that supports your nonsense is a person of conviction and fortitude' anyone that doesn't is not fit to clean shoes....right?
It is damning that you quote the 'ten times commended officer' and yet have spend most of your time on this forum condemning the police for their practices. An arrogant, overbearing policeman that refused to change his mind because he wanted to brush it under the carpet you you say is a man of 'conviction and fortitude' ;D ;D
I don't remember reading that. Could you point me to that interview and refresh my memory please?
-
Hmm seems we are a little pedantic. OK blame Roch for the number of times Taff Jones was commended. He is theone that said it. 'he was about to tell all' hmmm where did this come from?
Now Patti I am going to ask you a reasonable question and hope I get a reasonable answer. Those that support his innocence usually claim that it was Sheila that committed the murders. Now, could you please tell me exactly what evidence there is to substantiate such an accusation?. I need to know nothing of other matters just this one plain question. This is the crux of the entire case without all the other issues obscuring the picture.
I am getting tired Moe and, I think you are picking on me at this time of night.
Ok quickly I will tell you why I think Sheila committed the murders.
1, She was ill, I don't like using the word schizophrenic, but I have to use in this case.
2, Windows I have highlighted.
3, She was too clean....I will expand on that tomorrow.
4, She had partially digested food in her stomach, which suggest she had eaten within 4 hours.
5, It is documented that she had episodes during the night, then she would appear calm.
6, She was a farmers daughter, she lived most of her life around guns, a child could have used that gun, the recoil was so small.
A criminologist will tell you that it is more likely that Sheila fitted the profile, than Jeremy. Although, that is not evidence, is is worth considering important factors that make people with schizophrenia kill...
Take the lad in America recently that shot 12 people at a cinema....he was diagnosed with schizophrenia the day before the murders. He was ill....no doubt about that...but look at the profile...lonely, within, quiet, not with it, never hurt a sole....then flip! Many cases studies show that this illness is one of the most dangerous in our current times....
That's it now, I am off to bed....Night all :) :) :)
-
I don't remember reading that. Could you point me to that interview and refresh my memory please?
Hi Grahame our Moe doesn't answer questions, only asks them....Night and welcome back... :) :) :)
-
I hope i am not wrong but i feel whatever he knew about jeremy being innocent he took to the other side.
Mertol :) Night... :) :) :) :) :)
-
Mertol :) Night... :) :) :) :) :)
nite nite patti.
-
Moe Cassani is probably not even fit to clean Taff Jones shoes. A ten times commended officer. And by the sounds of it, a man of conviction and fortitude.
I bet he had a chuckle to him self upstairs when Bamber passed his polygraph.
Yes,a similar chuckle to the one reported by Stan Jones given by Jeremy Bamber at Goldhanger after he had just slain five members of his own family..
-
Yes,a similar chuckle to the one reported by Stan Jones given by Jeremy Bamber at Goldhanger after he had just slain five members of his own family..
Hearsay. Any more quotes from other people? Absolutely no proof whatsoever.
-
I am getting tired Moe and, I think you are picking on me at this time of night.
Ok quickly I will tell you why I think Sheila committed the murders.
1, She was ill, I don't like using the word schizophrenic, but I have to use in this case.
2, Windows I have highlighted.
3, She was too clean....I will expand on that tomorrow.
4, She had partially digested food in her stomach, which suggest she had eaten within 4 hours.
5, It is documented that she had episodes during the night, then she would appear calm.
6, She was a farmers daughter, she lived most of her life around guns, a child could have used that gun, the recoil was so small.
A criminologist will tell you that it is more likely that Sheila fitted the profile, than Jeremy. Although, that is not evidence, is is worth considering important factors that make people with schizophrenia kill...
Take the lad in America recently that shot 12 people at a cinema....he was diagnosed with schizophrenia the day before the murders. He was ill....no doubt about that...but look at the profile...lonely, within, quiet, not with it, never hurt a sole....then flip! Many cases studies show that this illness is one of the most dangerous in our current times....
That's it now, I am off to bed....Night all :) :) :)
I cannot believe that you are using these ludicrously spurious examples to prove her 'guilt'
Having a mental illness does NOT make someone guilty. I just cannot for the life of me understand why an seemingly intelligent person would use them. ALL of those examples are manufactured and tentative, I cannot wait to hear you reasons about Sheila's cleanliness............front row seats for that one Patti!
It dawns on me that many reasons on here are stretched to breaking point to try to prove Bamber didn't do it. I for one am a little tired of the mental heath issue being bandied around like it was a volleyball by those that really should know better. Maybe we should start the conversation off with talking about Bamber's psychopathy?? Of course it wouldn't be right or fair.
Has it ever dawned on you Patti that you may, just may be blaming a defenseless, mentally ill young woman that was cruelly murdered along with her parents and children? Bamber has a voice in which to defend himself.............Sheila has not. If this is the sort of 'evidence' that you have been using to condemn Sheila Cafell (and you have loudly and at length) I am utterly staggered. I hope I am wrong in that you have more evidence with which to point the finger at this woman because from where I am standing you could not get a conviction for jaywalking based on what you have just said.
-
I cannot believe that you are using these ludicrously spurious examples to prove her 'guilt'
Having a mental illness does NOT make someone guilty. I just cannot for the life of me understand why an seemingly intelligent person would use them. ALL of those examples are manufactured and tentative, I cannot wait to hear you reasons about Sheila's cleanliness............front row seats for that one Patti!
It dawns on me that many reasons on here are stretched to breaking point to try to prove Bamber didn't do it. I for one am a little tired of the mental heath issue being bandied around like it was a volleyball by those that really should know better. Maybe we should start the conversation off with talking about Bamber's psychopathy?? Of course it wouldn't be right or fair.
Has it ever dawned on you Patti that you may, just may be blaming a defenseless, mentally ill young woman that was cruelly murdered along with her parents and children? Bamber has a voice in which to defend himself.............Sheila has not. If this is the sort of 'evidence' that you have been using to condemn Sheila Cafell (and you have loudly and at length) I am utterly staggered. I hope I am wrong in that you have more evidence with which to point the finger at this woman because from where I am standing you could not get a conviction for jaywalking based on what you have just said.
There you go being nasty towards the members of the forum again. Do you do the same on the other forum? I very much doubt it.
-
There you go being nasty towards the members of the forum again. Do you do the same on the other forum? I very much doubt it.
Tut tut Grahame there you go again. You really ought to stop trolling the forum looking for things to arm yourself with...........does it make you feel better?
I dont think what I said was in anyway 'nasty' Just a point of view.................remember that word Grahame.........'point of view' NOT a personal attack!
:D :D :D :D
-
Tut tut Grahame there you go again. You really ought to stop trolling the forum looking for things to arm yourself with...........does it make you feel better?
I dont think what I said was in anyway 'nasty' Just a point of view.................remember that word Grahame.........'point of view' NOT a personal attack!
:D :D :D :D
What's with the attitude?!
Debating and putting across your viewpoint doesn't have to necessarily lead to vitriolic abuse of other forum member whether pro or anti JB. (I'm generalising so not directly claiming your latest post contained vitriolic abuse!)
-
Tut tut Grahame there you go again. You really ought to stop trolling the forum looking for things to arm yourself with...........does it make you feel better?
I dont think what I said was in anyway 'nasty' Just a point of view.................remember that word Grahame.........'point of view' NOT a personal attack!
:D :D :D :D
Well if you can't see it then you must be blind. Oh dear Tim your slip's showing.
-
What's with the attitude?!
Debating and putting across your viewpoint doesn't have to necessarily lead to vitriolic abuse of other forum member whether pro or anti JB. (I'm generalising so not directly claiming your latest post contained vitriolic abuse!)
Petey..........have you actually read Grahames comments or what?
-
Petey..........have you actually read Grahames comments or what?
I'm well aware of posts made by Graham and have openly disagreed with a number over the last year or so, which he is well aware of.
I just wish people would debate / discuss the case more, rather than the forum denigrating into various abusive posts from forum members.
To be honest I'd like to learn more about JB and his case etc, not whether you like / hate / respect Graham etc (only using you as an example as this applies to everybody)
-
Petey..........have you actually read Grahames comments or what?
I'm still waiting for your answer as to whether you agree or condone Tim Bennett's abusive comments towards my daughter. Do you? Yes or no?
-
I'm still waiting for your answer as to whether you agree or condone Tim Bennett's abusive comments towards my daughter. Do you? Yes or no?
How can I if I havent even seen them! I know what you are trying to do. So you can forget trying that Grahame it is not going to work.
-
How can I if I havent even seen them! I know what you are trying to do. So you can forget trying that Grahame it is not going to work.
I've asked you before. If you haven't seen them then how can you judge whether my insults of the other forum are not justified. You have just one half of the argument and because you have only one half of the argument then your judgment of me is unjust.
I ask you again. If Tim Bennett was abusive towards my daughter calling her a prostitute and a druggy and a goat would you commend his character or condemn his abuse? Its a simple enough question. Why are you finding it difficult to answer?
Also as I mentioned before. It is well know among Lamberton's own members that Tim Bennett has made very racist remarks. Do you condemn him for that or do you commend him?
-
I've asked you before. If you haven't seen them then how can you judge whether my insults of the other forum are not justified. You have just one half of the argument and because you have only one half of the argument then your judgment of me is unjust.
I ask you again. If Tim Bennett was abusive towards my daughter calling her a prostitute and a druggy and a goat would you commend his character or condemn his abuse? Its a simple enough question. Why are you finding it difficult to answer?
Also as I mentioned before. It is well know among Lamberton's own members that Tim Bennett has made very racist remarks. Do you condemn him for that or do you commend him?
Why is it so important for people to condemn racist views, when they are not openly involved. I'm sure that nobody on this forum is racist or would ever make racist comments.
I myself am certainly not a racist, but do not see the need to condemn posts made by people i dont know, have never met, never will meet and post on another forum.
This may be stretching the point, but its like me criticising you for your failure to openly condemn Hitler's racist ideals.
-
I've asked you before. If you haven't seen them then how can you judge whether my insults of the other forum are not justified. You have just one half of the argument and because you have only one half of the argument then your judgment of me is unjust.
I ask you again. If Tim Bennett was abusive towards my daughter calling her a prostitute and a druggy and a goat would you commend his character or condemn his abuse? Its a simple enough question. Why are you finding it difficult to answer?
Also as I mentioned before. It is well know among Lamberton's own members that Tim Bennett has made very racist remarks. Do you condemn him for that or do you commend him?
What goes on, on another forum that I have not seen I am not commenting on........Have you got that yet Grahame or do you need me to write it in capital letters?
-
What goes on, on another forum that I have not seen I am not commenting on........Have you got that yet Grahame or do you need me to write it in capital letters?
Then before you believe what the other forum says about me and my family you should not condemn me without cause. And you say that you are open minded. What a joke. First go and read what they say about my daughter and then come back here and and say7 that I was not justified in defended them.You are not reading the case fairly. Notice the word "IF" in my posts concerning Tim Bennett. And you still will not condemn him for it. You I suggest are the hypocrite in all this. Condemning someone without cause.
-
Then before you believe what the other forum says about me and my family you should not condemn me without cause. And you say that you are open minded. What a joke. First go and read what they say about my daughter and then come back here and and say7 that I was not justified in defended them.You are not reading the case fairly. Notice the word "IF" in my posts concerning Tim Bennett. And you still will not condemn him for it. You I suggest are the hypocrite in all this. Condemning someone without cause.
Groan............shakes head in disbelief.
-
Groan............shakes head in disbelief.
Addition "shakes empty head in disbelief". ;) Keep trying moe you'll get there one day.
-
Addition "shakes empty head in disbelief". ;) Keep trying moe you'll get there one day.
Love it ;D ;D ;D