Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: campion on September 08, 2012, 11:45:PM

Title: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on September 08, 2012, 11:45:PM
Having belatedly put my head above the parapet, after a
nudge from Jack Benny's Man Friday, I shall be glad to put into the chamber(pot) my considerations on the matter of the back staircase, which is situate in the 'Back kitchen', Den, or as Jeremy refers to it, the Laundryroom.
  I will be grateful for advice/correction and empathy from The Hon Gringo, and the Ladies Tyler and Maggie, in particular. I respectfully request silence  from mat on this matter.
  This staircase has caused me some consternation viZzz:-
     a) In jeremy's rough sketch of the ground plan of WHF, drawn in the police car, it appears as a spiral stair to the upstairs office
      b) In the EP plans,drawn for the Trial,  this stair is omitted - I always wondered why.
      c) Hartley, H, or was it The Jam, produced an architectural elevation of the stair, showing it leading to the Upstairs Office.
    Apparently there is no connection from the Upstairs Office to the rest of the upstairs at WHF.

   Now, at Daybreak or Dawn!,  say 5.45am Collins,  possibly by means of a mirror, saw a female, through the Laundryroom window, adjacent to the back door. It was surreptitiously arranged for Jeremy to be taken to the village to make IMO an unnecessary phonecall. With Jeremy out of earshot, the asault could be made on the door. It is  a possibility that Sheila was some how injured in this process.
    It is my contention that Sheila had been imprisoned in the back kitchen, by persons unknown. The back door had no key in it, thus preventing Sheila opening it, The door to the kitchen was blocked by the armchair wedged against it, with the deceased Nevill having been placed in it. Similarly the door to the upstairs office was found to be blocked, with the key on the far side, or by being barricaded.
   If this proved to be the case, then how could whomever had blocked up the door have  got to the master bedroom, to be seen as a 'trick of light' to Bews, Myall, and Jeremy , for them to take refuge behind the antiquated churnstand, which has since been demolished?
    I have some, perhaps ingenious or indeed convoluted solutions, but it would be fair to say that the murderer(s) knew a few secrets to the layout of WHF.
     Don't forget Jeremy had a perfect alibi- being with 3 Policemen!!!





0
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on September 08, 2012, 11:59:PM
What on Earth are you going on about?  ???

The stairs go up to the office upstairs, there is a door from the upstairs office into another small room, from this small room there is a door into a bathroom, from this bathroom there is a door onto the main house landing.
From the main house landing it leads into all other upstairs rooms with the exception of the box room between the master bedroom and the twins room.

The door between the bathroom and the small room could be bolted from the bathroom side, it appears from police witness statements that the bolts were in place.

Clear as mud?  :-\
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on September 09, 2012, 12:00:AM
It was a plan and not an elevation by the way.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: guest154 on September 09, 2012, 12:10:AM

  I will be grateful for advice/correction and empathy from The Hon Gringo, and the Ladies Tyler and Maggie, in particular. I respectfully request silence  from mat on this matter.
 

What the heck?  :-\
If you want advice from only your friends then don't post on a public message board and do it via pm!

Hartley seems to think you're wrong any way.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on September 09, 2012, 12:16:AM
What the heck?  :-\
If you want advice from only your friends then don't post on a public message board and do it via pm!

Hartley seems to think you're wrong any way.

Some people are eccentric, some people try to be eccentric and some people have eccentricity thrust upon them, usually in cahoots with a snide remark or two.  ::)
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: guest154 on September 09, 2012, 12:17:AM
Some people are eccentric, some people try to be eccentric and some people have eccentricity thrust upon them, usually in cahoots with a snide remark or two.  ::)

and some people.......are nutters.  ;D
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on September 09, 2012, 12:19:AM
and some people.......are nutters.

Well yes, there is that of course.  :P
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: guest154 on September 09, 2012, 12:26:AM
Having belatedly put my head above the parapet, after a
nudge from Jack Benny's Man Friday, I shall be glad to put into the chamber(pot) my considerations on the matter of the back staircase, which is situate in the 'Back kitchen', Den, or as Jeremy refers to it, the Laundryroom.
 


What have you been smoking?  ;D




   It is  a possibility that Sheila was some how injured in this process.
   

You mean shot, right? Because Sheila had no other injuries.


    It is my contention that Sheila had been imprisoned in the back kitchen, by persons unknown. The back door had no key in it, thus preventing Sheila opening it,


And this person left WHF how?  :-\ :-\


     Don't forget Jeremy had a perfect alibi- being with 3 Policemen!!!


How is that an alibi? It is an alibi that he was standing outside the house - but not that he didn't kill anyone. With no time of death you can not tell how long those inside had been dead, so could have been dead inside WHF the entire time Bamber was outside with the police.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on September 09, 2012, 12:28:AM
You don't do requests then Mat?  ;D
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mertol22 on September 09, 2012, 12:29:AM
No one knew for sure the people inside were all dead, death has to be confirmed.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: guest154 on September 09, 2012, 12:30:AM
You don't do requests then Mat?  ;D

Nope. Haha, I'm not going to ignore something and not question it when it doesn't make sense. Excluding me - how mean!  ::)  ;)


No one knew for sure the people inside were all dead, death has to be confirmed.

Which it was.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on September 09, 2012, 12:32:AM
No one knew for sure the people inside were all dead, death has to be confirmed.

I think that's what the whole firearms raid team followed by five certifications by Dr Craig was all about.

Wasn't it?   ???
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on September 09, 2012, 12:50:AM
  Thankyou for your observations The Jam.
  From your explanation it does appear to be a somewhat tortuos route.
  I find it strange that this arrangement was not drawn up for, or alluded to at the Trial.
   Will you kindly draw up a plan of this part of WHF to make things clear for us plebs?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on September 09, 2012, 01:05:AM
  Thankyou for your observations The Jam.
  From your explanation it does appear to be a somewhat tortuos route.
  I find it strange that this arrangement was not drawn up for, or alluded to at the Trial.
   Will you kindly draw up a plan of this part of WHF to make things clear for us plebs?

The trouble is Campion, you are really quite insulting with many of your posts, so much in fact that I usually tend to completely ignore you, as you are of course well aware. With that in mind, I'm sure that you will forgive me for not being too enthusiastic about assisting you in understanding the layout any more than I already have.

Sorry.  :-\
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on September 09, 2012, 08:04:AM
When members of the raid team went into the premises, they were limited to parts of the farmhouse, upstairs and downstairs, because direct access to the main kitchen was immediately impossible due to the fact that the body of Ralp Bamber was slumped in a large wooden chair directly behind the internal kitchen door. This delayed entry into the main kitchen for several minutes. It was because this kitchen door was blocked off that the raid team were forced to concentrate on the only other rooms inside the farmhouse on this side of that blocked door. This included the so called back kitchen, the downstairs office, and up a set of stairs in the direction of Ralph Bambers office, and a storeroom with a locked door which had to be smashed open. The funny thing was is that the door which had to be smashed open had a key in the lock, but the key was in place on the inside of the room, a key which had been turned into the locked position. Once police smashed this door open, they were puzzle to find no-one inside it. However, in the ceiling space of this room, was a loft trap door which afforded acces to a loft space, in particular, to an unlocked roof window which gave access to the roof/farmhouse, depending whether a person intended to get into the building or out. The presence of the key in the lock on the inside of the door of the aforementionrd room, means that at some point before police smashed this door open, a person had entered this room, and locked it from the inside, climbed up into the loft by removing the loft cover, replaced the loft cover and left the premises by climbing out onto the roof above.

The police later searched the loft, but this was not done until the rest of the house had been searched...

The police were prevented from searching other room upstairs on the other side of the farmhouse, because they couldn't find a door to open which led them there. So they had to go back down the set of stairs and force open the internal kitchen door by gradually applying pressure to the door in question, which sent the body of Ralph Bamber crashing to the kitchen floor, partly resting upon the wooden chair his body had been sat upon. This explains why Ralphs body ended up on the kitchen floor in the crime scene photograpgs, albeit the police placed his head into a coal bucket with a view of trying to restrict the amount of blood spillage on the kitchen floor..

Later when police got upstairs they found a bolted panel in the bathroom which gave access to the other part of the farmhouse where Ralph Bambers office was located...



Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Roch on September 09, 2012, 08:11:AM
Despite Campion's ascerbic digs at certain forum members, I cannot see how it is accpetable to label him as a 'nutter'.  That's out of order.  Forum members can of course defend themselves within reason.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: susan on September 09, 2012, 08:41:AM
Hi Roch

not sure about the posts from campion as I don't read the late posts anymore for obvious reasons.  I think campion is a very very clever humourous gentleman and if he is classed a "nutter" God Help" the rest of us. 
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on September 09, 2012, 08:47:AM
I think the questions raised by Campion about the ommision or misrepresentation of the so called back stairs at whf is a very interesting one, and that Essex police had a reason for not providing information to allow other mere mortals to understand and fathom out what went wrong with the firearms operation once police forced entry into the premises from 7:30am, onward...

The intelligence gathered about the layout and accessability to different parts of the farmhouse were not discussed or taken into account when the original six man raid team set off with sledgehammer at the ready to knock the external door in...

We now know of course, that they were met by two major obstacles once they forced the rear external door to the farmhouse in, namely:-

(1) - they couldn't get directly into the main kitchen because the body of Ralph Bamber was sat perched on a large wooden chair directly behind it, and (2) - access upstairs was restricted to the upstairs office and a storeroom because there was no obvious connecting door...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on September 09, 2012, 08:55:AM
So campion are you thi.king of Jimmy Bell, or some other character with a grudge against Ralph Bamber?    How would this person have got from the roof and escaped? 
While I consider it a compliment to be named as a friend of campion......I think he refers to myself as someone who has debated this point on various occasions in the past. I have never ruled out the possibility of a third person unconnected to Jeremy Bamber  ;D
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Roch on September 09, 2012, 09:00:AM
Hi Roch

not sure about the posts from campion as I don't read the late posts anymore for obvious reasons.  I think campion is a very very clever humourous gentleman and if he is classed a "nutter" God Help" the rest of us.

I lost my marbles years ago Susan.  Too much acid.  :P
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: susan on September 09, 2012, 09:06:AM
Morning Maggie  Whilst I am not disagreeing with you I am wondering why anybody with a grudge against Ralph Bamber would take the life of two innocent children who were sleeping.  If a third person was involved the motive would have to be for another reason other than a grudge.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on September 09, 2012, 09:18:AM
I think the questions raised by Campion about the ommision or misrepresentation of the so called back stairs at whf is a very interesting one, and that Essex police had a reason for not providing information to allow other mere mortals to understand and fathom out what went wrong with the firearms operation once police forced entry into the premises from 7:30am, onward...

The intelligence gathered about the layout and accessability to different parts of the farmhouse were not discussed or taken into account when the original six man raid team set off with sledgehammer at the ready to knock the external door in...

We now know of course, that they were met by two major obstacles once they forced the rear external door to the farmhouse in, namely:-

(1) - they couldn't get directly into the main kitchen because the body of Ralph Bamber was sat perched on a large wooden chair directly behind it, and (2) - access upstairs was restricted to the upstairs office and a storeroom because there was no obvious connecting door...

These two features have very serious ramifications concerning how Jeremy Bamber could have removed a silencer from the barrel of the anshulz rifle, and taken it to conceal it in the gun cupboard in the downstairs office, he having to get beyond the body of Ralph Bamber sat in the large wooden chair directly behind the internal kitchen door, and or beyond the panel in the bathroom that gives access to the upstairs rooms beyond, and the back stairs...

How could Jeremy be expected to overcome these two formiddable obstacles to allow him to remove the silencer after he shot and killed Sheila, and take the silencer all the way downstairs by either route, and hide it in a box at the back of the gun cupboard in the downstairs office?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on September 09, 2012, 09:20:AM
Morning Maggie  Whilst I am not disagreeing with you I am wondering why anybody with a grudge against Ralph Bamber would take the life of two innocent children who were sleeping.  If a third person was involved the motive would have to be for another reason other than a grudge.
Morning Susie.....Jimmy Bell was a violent, angry man Susie. He was witnessed throwing bullets at the Bambers while waving a .22 rifle complete with silencer. He told Ralph and June next time the bullets would be in the gun. A year after WHF murders he persued his estranged wife and baby daughter to her mothers house in Suffolk and shot her and then himself. He was known as an extremely cruel man its claimed it was only luck he didnt shoot his baby daughter. .....
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: susan on September 09, 2012, 09:26:AM
Hi Maggie  what can I say I dare not disagree with you :) but as I have no knowledge on the Jimmy Bell guy I really can't add or take on your theory. ;)  I shall rest my case.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on September 09, 2012, 09:26:AM
These two features have very serious ramifications concerning how Jeremy Bamber could have removed a silencer from the barrel of the anshulz rifle, and taken it to conceal it in the gun cupboard in the downstairs office, he having to get beyond the body of Ralph Bamber sat in the large wooden chair directly behind the internal kitchen door, and or beyond the panel in the bathroom that gives access to the upstairs rooms beyond, and the back stairs...

How could Jeremy be expected to overcome these two formiddable obstacles to allow him to remove the silencer after he shot and killed Sheila, and take the silencer all the way downstairs by either route, and hide it in a box at the back of the gun cupboard in the downstairs office?

It took at least a couple of burley firearms officers to push against the internal door behind which the body of Ralph Bamber was sat perched on a large wooden chair, which eventually sent his body crashing to the kitchen floor - so how did Jeremy manage to get beyond the body of Ralph Bamber so that he could hide the all important silencer in the gun cupboard?

And do so by going through and beyond (and back) the very door that Ralps body was blocking off?

More or less impossible, in my opinion...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Jane on September 09, 2012, 09:29:AM
Morning Susie.....Jimmy Bell was a violent, angry man Susie. He was witnessed throwing bullets at the Bambers while waving a .22 rifle complete with silencer. He told Ralph and June next time the bullets would be in the gun. A year after WHF murders he persued his estranged wife and baby daughter to her mothers house in Suffolk and shot her and then himself. He was known as an extremely cruel man its claimed it was only luck he didnt shoot his baby daughter. .....


Morning Magie/Susie. There were others who were given police protection because of his threats to them and their children just because he perceived them as having betrayed him in some way
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on September 09, 2012, 09:32:AM
Hi Maggie  what can I say I dare not disagree with you :) but as I have no knowledge on the Jimmy Bell guy I really can't add or take on your theory. ;)  I shall rest my case.
Haha susie....you are welcome to disagree with me???!  I just do always wonder if we are on the right track or if there was a third person.....it is a puzzle a real whodunnit in many ways ...in my opinion. I know you dont go for it and thats fair enough. :)
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on September 09, 2012, 09:38:AM
Morning Maggie  Whilst I am not disagreeing with you I am wondering why anybody with a grudge against Ralph Bamber would take the life of two innocent children who were sleeping.  If a third person was involved the motive would have to be for another reason other than a grudge.

Morning Susan. Take that ( contract killing,a possibility ) in France.The killer/s have no compunction whatsoever in killing children,or whoever/whatever moves within the vicinity.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on September 09, 2012, 09:38:AM

Morning Magie/Susie. There were others who were given police protection because of his threats to them and their children just because he perceived them as having betrayed him in some way
Hi April, there are certainly question marks over Jimmy Bell. I read the Rough Justice book and that really convinced me there were possibilities. To me he seems to have had the elements required to be some sort of psychopath/sociopath who would be capable of such a dreadful crime.  He was an intelligent man who may have planned his revenge well. Wasn't he the reason for the installation of the panic alarm?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: susan on September 09, 2012, 09:39:AM
Maggie my friend  you do know that most of my theories are wrong so you could be right :) ;) ;)
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on September 09, 2012, 09:42:AM
Hi April, there are certainly question marks over Jimmy Bell. I read the Rough Justice book and that really convinced me there were possibilities. To me he seems to have had the elements required to be some sort of psychopath/sociopath who would be capable of such a dreadful crime.  He was an intelligent man who may have planned his revenge well. Wasn't he the reason for the installation of the panic alarm?

Maggie,I've thought about him as well,especially the doctors' wife murder which was never solved and was about a couple of years before WHF. I'm going to try and rummage around to see if that character was ever treated by the doctor/husband of Diane Jones. It doesn't take much to stir the mind of a lunatic.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Jane on September 09, 2012, 09:48:AM
Hi April, there are certainly question marks over Jimmy Bell. I read the Rough Justice book and that really convinced me there were possibilities. To me he seems to have had the elements required to be some sort of psychopath/sociopath who would be capable of such a dreadful crime.  He was an intelligent man who may have planned his revenge well. Wasn't he the reason for the installation of the panic alarm?


That was one of the reasons given for it Maggie. Another reason was the father of a boy who had been sentenced by Nevill was making threatening noises.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Jane on September 09, 2012, 09:52:AM
Maggie,I've thought about him as well,especially the doctors' wife murder which was never solved and was about a couple of years before WHF. I'm going to try and rummage around to see if that character was ever treated by the doctor/husband of Diane Jones. It doesn't take much to stir the mind of a lunatic.


Lookout, I can say, quite confidently, that Jimmy wasn't a patient of Robert Jones.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on September 09, 2012, 09:52:AM
Maggie,I've thought about him as well,especially the doctors' wife murder which was never solved and was about a couple of years before WHF. I'm going to try and rummage around to see if that character was ever treated by the doctor/husband of Diane Jones. It doesn't take much to stir the mind of a lunatic.
That would be interesting to research lookout, he certainly seemed capable of anything but how would he have climbed off the roof?....that is a big question......doesnt mean he didnt tho.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on September 09, 2012, 01:07:PM
It took at least a couple of burley firearms officers to push against the internal door behind which the body of Ralph Bamber was sat perched on a large wooden chair, which eventually sent his body crashing to the kitchen floor - so how did Jeremy manage to get beyond the body of Ralph Bamber so that he could hide the all important silencer in the gun cupboard?

And do so by going through and beyond (and back) the very door that Ralps body was blocking off?

More or less impossible, in my opinion...
PS Woodcocks tampered with witness statement (some of its present contents have been retyped by use of a completely different typewriter, whilst other page contents have been removed altogether, relate to how the raid team got into the kitchen and found Ralph and Sheila's bodies' and what transpired when the raid team went upstairs and found the other three victims by 8:10am. Obviously, police will not want to be disclosing the full unedited version of PS Woodcocks 15 page statement, because to do so would be sufficient to prove that Jeremy could not have shot his sister under the chin or stage managed her body in the bedroom, because police originally found Sheila downstairs in the kitchen...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: tyler on September 09, 2012, 01:09:PM
Hi April, there are certainly question marks over Jimmy Bell. I read the Rough Justice book and that really convinced me there were possibilities. To me he seems to have had the elements required to be some sort of psychopath/sociopath who would be capable of such a dreadful crime.  He was an intelligent man who may have planned his revenge well. Wasn't he the reason for the installation of the panic alarm?
Maggie,I dont think the panic alarm was installed because of threats from Jimmy Bell.There is documentation on the forum somewhere that Neville was being threatened by someone by the name of Eden?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on September 09, 2012, 01:12:PM
PS Woodcocks tampered with witness statement (some of its present contents have been retyped by use of a completely different typewriter, whilst other page contents have been removed altogether, relate to how the raid team got into the kitchen and found Ralph and Sheila's bodies' and what transpired when the raid team went upstairs and found the other three victims by 8:10am. Obviously, police will not want to be disclosing the full unedited version of PS Woodcocks 15 page statement, because to do so would be sufficient to prove that Jeremy could not have shot his sister under the chin or stage managed her body in the bedroom, because police originally found Sheila downstairs in the kitchen...
Mike, do you believe the'body of a woman' ie probably Sheila first viewd thrugh the so called kitchen window was actully in the kitchen with Ralph or in the back kitchen,/laundry room/scullery, as has been suggested before?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on September 09, 2012, 01:28:PM
Maggie,I dont think the panic alarm was installed because of threats from Jimmy Bell.There is documentation on the forum somewhere that Neville was being threatened by someone by the name of Eden?

I'd read that too,tyler. Eden sounds to me like a " code " of some sort.Either to do with Neville himself,or Sheila and her drug debt. But to get a panic alarm fitted,something had to be going on.
This is the problem when people keep things to themselves.It invariably leaves you asking questions because they were so private.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: tyler on September 09, 2012, 01:29:PM
and some people.......are nutters.  ;D
How dare you call Campion a "nutter",who the hell do you think you are?
Campion senior (if that was indeed him posting),is one very intelligent man with a brilliant mind.
I do hope that you see fit to apologise!

Campion.........Im sorry but I cannot help you.I do not fully understand the layout of the house,but fortunately it is clear that Mike does,and he appears to be on the same wavelength as you,judging by his posts.
All I can add is that I do not believe at all that events happened that morning as have been recorded.The mess in the kitchen ie: overturned chairs etc,was supposed to have occurred by way of the killer fighting with Neville.But Ron Cook (I think it was him) says in his COLP interview that the raid team made the mess and that he doesnt necessarily believe that there was any fight with Neville.Possibly that Neville was hit/beaten after he was severely wounded and therefore unable to put up any kind of fight at all.So the question therefore is........in what circumstances did the raid team trash the kitchen,if as we are led to believe,that everyone in the house were already dead?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on September 09, 2012, 01:44:PM

Lookout, I can say, quite confidently, that Jimmy wasn't a patient of Robert Jones.

Okay,April.Thanks.Saves me delving.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on September 09, 2012, 01:46:PM
Okay,April.Thanks.Saves me delving.

It would have been interesting to have had a list of his patients around that time.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on September 09, 2012, 01:56:PM
Maggie,I dont think the panic alarm was installed because of threats from Jimmy Bell.There is documentation on the forum somewhere that Neville was being threatened by someone by the name of Eden?
Thanks Tyler, I do agee with you by the way about rudeness to Campion, he deserves more respect.
Tyler, do you think that Jimmy Bell is a total red herrring, you are very knowledgeable on the case and live in the area, I believe.  I find him an interresting outside bet.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on September 09, 2012, 02:01:PM
Mike, do you believe Sheila's body was found in the kitchen with Ralph or in the back kitchen, laundry room/scullery, as has been suggested before?

This has always been a bone of contention between what was seen by PC Collins through the kitchen window, and Jeremy's interpretation of the window in which that sighting was made? Jeremy thinks the sighting was made through the other kitchen window, the one to the left of the back door, which if true takes the more recent explantion of some sort of a mix up occurring involving the body of Ralph Bamber being mistaken for the body of a dead female? But if that/this were true, it makes nonsense of the contents of the police logs which specifically say that the body of one male, and the body of one dead female, were found upon entry to the kitchen. My interpretation on that is that Ralphs body must have been found before police went onto find Sheila's body in the kitchen - if Sheila had been found in the other kitchen situated on the other side of the door, police would have reported the find of Sheila's body before making reference to Ralphs body,  but since it was reported the other way round, it puts the dampners on what Jeremy says, and it puts the dampners on the police explantion about some sort of a mix up having occurred, since, in order for such a mix up to fit in with such an explantion, police would have to report finding the body of a dead female, before any refetence to the body of a dead male...

For all these reasons, I believe that the police must have first seen Sheila's body through the kitchen window situated to the right of the external back door, but not in the same room as Ralph, but through a connecting door into the pantry part of the main kitchen. If true, then of course, PC Collins could not have mistaken Ralphs body sat on that chair behind the internal door, for the body of a dead female, because the bodies of female and male were situated in completely different rooms to one another (downstairs)...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on September 09, 2012, 02:08:PM
Thanks Mike, it is a bit confusing to say the least, so Sheila when first seen would have been in the kitchen with Ralph, blocked in by his body being on the chair in front of the door at the back of the kitchen which police had to push out of the way to enter. 
She therefore wasn't probably locked in the back part of the house with the spiral staircase and the gun cupboard as has been suggested....is that right? ???
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on September 09, 2012, 02:13:PM
And the strange thing is,that when you look through any window,you tend to look the furthest first rather than the nearest, which is why the police stated that it was the body of a female,which would be right,and as their eyes focussed nearer,they saw Neville.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on September 09, 2012, 02:22:PM
The explanation being banded about where PC Collins says he mistakenly identified Ralphs body in the kitchen for that of a dead female, simply does not hold water, for a number of different reasons, including the fact that with Ralphs body sat upright on the large wooden chair behind the internal kitchen door (before police toppled his body over onto the floor) PC Collins or anybody else would have been hard pressed to be able to see that position from the vantage point of outside the kitchen window. Furthermore, how does this fit in with two futher radio messages, one timed at 3;38am 'one dead male, one dead female', and another message timed at 7:42am, "can somebody contact the police surgeon regarding two bodies", which kind of makes complete nonsense of PC Collins explantion about mistaking one body for another, a dead male for a dead female, but most importantly, the fact that by 7:45am, police at the scene were passing additional information from the scene that one of the two bodies was being treated as a murder, whilst the second body spoken of as being a suicide...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on September 09, 2012, 02:51:PM
Thanks Mike, it is a bit confusing to say the least, so Sheila when first seen would have been in the kitchen with Ralph, blocked in by his body being on the chair in front of the door at the back of the kitchen which police had to push out of the way to enter. 
She therefore wasn't probably locked in the back part of the house with the spiral staircase and the gun cupboard as has been suggested....is that right? ???

I don't like to say that Ralph and Sheila were found in the same part of the kitchen because it sounds a bit complicated, and you could end up falling into the trap of half believing PC Collins explantion about him mistakenly identifying Ralphs body for that of a dead female...

I think Sheila's body was first spotted by PC Collins just inside the pantry door (which was/is part of the kitchen), and that PC Collins did not see Ralph Bambers body at all by that stage. What I understand to have happened is that once PC Collins saw Sheila's body in the pantry through the kitchen window, PC Collins followed the other firearms officers into the premises. It was not until that stage that PC Collins realised there was another body behind the door, the body of Ralph Bamber. This is what lies behind the content of the first radio message, and explains how at 7:37am police discovered the body of Ralph Bamber, followed by the discovery of Sheila's body in the pantry part of the kitchen. Ralphs body described at some point before 7:45am as a murder, and Sheila's body in the pantry, descibed as a suicide...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on September 09, 2012, 03:02:PM
Thankyou Mike
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on September 09, 2012, 03:09:PM
The radio log messages and other messages passed between the firearms team at the scene and the control room, and elsewhere between the control room and SOCO/police surgeon/coroners officer, during nine intense minutes (7:37 - 7:45am) deal with those first frantic moments when the raid team first came upon the dead male, the dead female, a murder and a suicide, Ralph Bamber and Sheila Caffell - and all this discovered and documented before the last seconds of the minute finger of the control room clock read 7:45...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on September 09, 2012, 03:15:PM
The radio log messages and other messages passed between the firearms team at the scene and the control room, and elsewhere between the control room and SOCO/police surgeon/coroners officer, during nine intense minutes (7:37 - 7:45am) deal with those first frantic moments when the raid team first came upon the dead male, the dead female, a murder and a suicide, Ralph Bamber and Sheila Caffell - and all this discovered and documented before the last seconds of the minute finger of the control room clock read 7:45...

Or...

Was that by 7:35am, or 7:55am?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on September 09, 2012, 03:22:PM
By 8:10am, the bodies of the other three victims (June, and her two grandchildren) were found upstairs...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on September 09, 2012, 03:26:PM
By 8:10am, the bodies of the other three victims (June, and her two grandchildren) were found upstairs...

Clear evidence that by 8:10am, two bodies found downstairs, and three further bodies upstairs - with no prospect at all of Sheila's body being on the bed in the main bedroom, or on the bedroom floor, where PC Bird later photographed it...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on September 09, 2012, 03:33:PM
By 8:10am, the bodies of the other three victims (June, and her two grandchildren) were found upstairs...

And no sign of rigor on Sheila. You don't try and put someone in the recovery position when they've got rigor mortis,,, as per peoples' assumptions pointing to Sheila having been dead for hours. No way.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Roch on September 09, 2012, 03:48:PM
IMO, it's not credible to suggest that in 38 minutes, the wrong sexing, counting and locating of bodies could not and would not have been clarified.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on September 09, 2012, 03:55:PM
IMO, it's not credible to suggest that in 38 minutes, the wrong sexing, counting and locating of bodies could not and would not have been clarified.

38 minutes of madness, which turned into another 185 minutes of pure bedlam...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: HMEssex on September 09, 2012, 04:52:PM
IMO, it's not credible to suggest that in 38 minutes, the wrong sexing, counting and locating of bodies could not and would not have been clarified.





Especially as they were both 'sans culottes'.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: guest154 on September 09, 2012, 04:52:PM
Despite Campion's ascerbic digs at certain forum members, I cannot see how it is accpetable to label him as a 'nutter'.  That's out of order.  Forum members can of course defend themselves within reason.

I used the word nutter in this topic, so I guess this post is meant to me. I wasn't calling Campion a nutter - I udnerstand how maybe it could have looked like I was but my respons was a continuation of Hartley's.

But as for campions 'digs' at members - not only have I seen this too but I came under fire of it yesterday. But three people have now told me that Campion is an offline friend of Grahame  ::) (apparently they spoke about this when Campion joined the forum. ) which now makes it clearer as to why Campion spoke to me as he did in the topic yesterday.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Bridget on September 09, 2012, 05:17:PM
And no sign of rigor on Sheila. You don't try and put someone in the recovery position when they've got rigor mortis,,, as per peoples' assumptions pointing to Sheila having been dead for hours. No way.

You can't tell from a photo whether or not there is rigour, and no one put her in the recovery position.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Buddy on September 09, 2012, 05:19:PM
And no sign of rigor on Sheila. You don't try and put someone in the recovery position when they've got rigor mortis,,, as per peoples' assumptions pointing to Sheila having been dead for hours. No way.
I may of missed something here. Who said Sheila was put in the recovery position? She was flat on her back.
The pathologist records all bodies to be in advanced state of rigor mortis.
I still believe that Sheila died where she was found. I find it difficult to understand if Sheila had fled upstairs why no blood had dripped onto the front of her nightie. Of course she could have staunched the flow with her hand.
When it was reported one dead male, and one dead female found on entry no mention was made of any firearm about her person. This being the case how did the rifle get upstairs?
Also to bear in mind the pathologist said the first wound was non fatal, and Sheila would have lived some minutes, even though her jugular vein had been lacerated. Taking into account the time of entry by the raid to gaining access to the upper floor, Sheila would have bled to death before she could have got upstairs.
I guess that just leaves Jeremy, or a third party, although Jeremy has never mentioned a third party insisting it was Sheila.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: susan on September 09, 2012, 05:22:PM
Hi Mat  I have no idea whether Campion and Grahame are friends.  The only point I was making that any dealings I have had with Campion he has been so full of information and humourous and I would think the knowledge he has on the Jeremy Bamber case is extensive when I made the post in response to Roch I did not know it was you who referred to Campion as a nutter.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on September 09, 2012, 05:32:PM
DI Cook claims he moved Sheila's right hand to enable PC Bird to photograph bloodstaining on Sheila's nightdress - photographs confirm movement of hand and right arm. Therefore, no rigor mortis present...

Furthermore, non of the police mention that her body was stiff...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: guest154 on September 09, 2012, 05:36:PM
when I made the post in response to Roch I did not know it was you who referred to Campion as a nutter.

I didn't though.  ;D Hartley said that "Some people are eccentric, some people try to be eccentric and some people have eccentricity thrust upon them"

and I said

"and some people are nutters!"

I guess people thought I was talking about Campion because this is his topic, but I was being general.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Buddy on September 09, 2012, 05:37:PM
Hi Mat  I have no idea whether Campion and Grahame are friends.  The only point I was making that any dealings I have had with Campion he has been so full of information and humourous and I would think the knowledge he has on the Jeremy Bamber case is extensive when I made the post in response to Roch I did not know it was you who referred to Campion as a nutter.
Campion is a friend of Grahame, and he certainly not a nutter. He offers a lot to the forum.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: guest154 on September 09, 2012, 05:38:PM
I spend 50% of my time repeating myself on this forum.

I did not call Campion a nutter.

Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: HMEssex on September 09, 2012, 05:39:PM
I used the word nutter in this topic, so I guess this post is meant to me. I wasn't calling Campion a nutter - I udnerstand how maybe it could have looked like I was but my respons was a continuation of Hartley's.

But as for campions 'digs' at members - not only have I seen this too but I came under fire of it yesterday. But three people have now told me that Campion is an offline friend of Grahame  ::) (apparently they spoke about this when Campion joined the forum. ) which now makes it clearer as to why Campion spoke to me as he did in the topic yesterday.




I think you may have missed the significance of Campion.  His friendship with Grahame is by the by.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Buddy on September 09, 2012, 05:41:PM
DI Cook claims he moved Sheila's right hand to enable PC Bird to photograph bloodstaining on Sheila's nightdress - photographs confirm movement of hand and right arm. Therefore, no rigor mortis present...

Furthermore, non of the police mention that her body was stiff...
I know Mike. I was merely saying that the pathologist stated all bodies were in an advanced state of rigor.
I do find it strange that Cook never mentions moving the rifle, when it clearly was.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Bridget on September 09, 2012, 05:41:PM
DI Cook claims he moved Sheila's right hand to enable PC Bird to photograph bloodstaining on Sheila's nightdress - photographs confirm movement of hand and right arm. Therefore, no rigor mortis present...

Furthermore, non of the police mention that her body was stiff...

No, it doesn't mean no rigor mortis was present, it means it wasn't fully 'set' yet. RM is a gradual process, and the time it takes to fully set in depends on many factors. It is not the case that a body is floppy one minute, and stiff as a board the next.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: susan on September 09, 2012, 05:42:PM
Hi Buddy  I did not know about the friendship of Campion and Grahame but this does not make him a nutter.  Grahame had so many friends on the forum.  I think Campion is an out and out gentleman I take as I find not read any of the posts being talked about.  Stay off the forum after 7.30 p.m. :) But I don't think Mat meant it in the way it came over :)
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Bridget on September 09, 2012, 05:43:PM



I think you may have missed the significance of Campion.  His friendship with Grahame is by the by.

What is the significance of Campion?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: susan on September 09, 2012, 05:46:PM
Mat I have just read the post in question and you will see in my last post that I said you did not mean Campion was a nutter you were just using the term loosely and it was not directed at anyone in particular.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: guest154 on September 09, 2012, 05:46:PM
Mat I have just read the post in question and you will see in my last post that I said you did not mean Campion was a nutter you were just using the term loosely and it was not directed at anyone in particular.


 :)
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Buddy on September 09, 2012, 05:47:PM
I spend 50% of my time repeating myself on this forum.

I did not call Campion a nutter.
I didn't accuse you of doing so Mat.Chill out mate.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Roch on September 09, 2012, 05:49:PM
What is the significance of Campion?

The significance of Campion is in inverse proportion to the significance of Bridget.  I've just made that up but it sounded good.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: tyler on September 09, 2012, 05:50:PM
No, it doesn't mean no rigor mortis was present, it means it wasn't fully 'set' yet. RM is a gradual process, and the time it takes to fully set in depends on many factors. It is not the case that a body is floppy one minute, and stiff as a board the next.
Wasnt Neville said to be in an advanced state of rigor? I would have expected Sheila to have been if she had died between 3 and 4 am or even earlier.
However,I understand that once in a state of rigor,the person then comes out of it? I dont know how long that process takes?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Bridget on September 09, 2012, 05:53:PM
Wasnt Neville said to be in an advanced state of rigor? I would have expected Sheila to have been if she had died between 3 and 4 am or even earlier.
However,I understand that once in a state of rigor,the person then comes out of it? I dont know how long that process takes?

Neither do I off the top of my head but I think its more than 12 hours from onset. Re Ralph, it's entirely plausible that his RM could be more advanced because of differing factors like age, exertion etc. it's far from an exact science as Mertol will tell you.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Bridget on September 09, 2012, 05:55:PM
The significance of Campion is in inverse proportion to the significance of Bridget.  I've just made that up but it sounded good.

I'm trying to work out whether or not to feel insulted..
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Buddy on September 09, 2012, 05:56:PM
Wasnt Neville said to be in an advanced state of rigor? I would have expected Sheila to have been if she had died between 3 and 4 am or even earlier.
However,I understand that once in a state of rigor,the person then comes out of it? I dont know how long that process takes?
Rigor is different from person to person Weight ect. Also temperature. As Ralph was in a warm room [aga] I would have thought that rigor would be slower.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: susan on September 09, 2012, 05:56:PM
Wow Bridget is that a compliment Roch has just paid you :) :) :)
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Roch on September 09, 2012, 05:57:PM
I'm trying to work out whether or not to feel insulted..

I wouldn't have thought so. 
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on September 09, 2012, 06:00:PM
I spend 50% of my time repeating myself on this forum.

I did not call Campion a nutter.

I can't believe you called Campion a nutter, that's bang out of order!  >:(
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: tyler on September 09, 2012, 06:01:PM
Rigor is different from person to person Weight ect. Also temperature. As Ralph was in a warm room [aga] I would have thought that rigor would be slower.
Yes,I agree it varies from person to person and their circumstances,but I would still have expected Sheila to have been in RM by the time EP were faffing around photographing the rifle in different positions on her body if she had died hours earlier.I wondered if her medication may have slowed the process down,or maybe she really did die a lot later than is thought?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Roch on September 09, 2012, 06:01:PM
So you're saying you didn't call Campion a nutter?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Buddy on September 09, 2012, 06:04:PM
I can't believe you called Campion a nutter, that's bang out of order!  >:(
;D
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: guest154 on September 09, 2012, 07:00:PM
I can't believe you called Campion a nutter, that's bang out of order!  >:(


I think you're suffering from Nugung syndrome.  ;D
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: nugnug on September 09, 2012, 07:13:PM
did you call campion a nutter i cant believe it.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on September 09, 2012, 07:19:PM
No, it doesn't mean no rigor mortis was present, it means it wasn't fully 'set' yet. RM is a gradual process, and the time it takes to fully set in depends on many factors. It is not the case that a body is floppy one minute, and stiff as a board the next.

Rigor mortis begins as soon as the heart stops.Because Sheila was slightly built,I would estimate that her limbs would have stiffened within 2 hours,,,and especially due to her activity and the assimilation of lactic acid that she used in being active.Livor would be about 8 hours where it would have shown a marked difference in her colour.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: andrea on September 09, 2012, 08:34:PM
Jeez! That campion's a reet nutter.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: guest154 on September 09, 2012, 08:35:PM
Jeez! That campion's a reet nutter.

Rude - maybe? A nutter. No, not from that I've seen. BUT EVERYONE ELSE IS STARK RAVING MAD!
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: andrea on September 09, 2012, 08:35:PM
That was a joke, mat!!
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: guest154 on September 09, 2012, 08:36:PM
That was a joke, mat!!

How dare you call him a nutter tho.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Bridget on September 09, 2012, 08:38:PM
Rigor mortis begins as soon as the heart stops.Because Sheila was slightly built,I would estimate that her limbs would have stiffened within 2 hours,,,and especially due to her activity and the assimilation of lactic acid that she used in being active.Livor would be about 8 hours where it would have shown a marked difference in her colour.

No it doesn't. It starts after about 3 hours in our sort of climate on average.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Patti on September 09, 2012, 08:48:PM
No it doesn't. It starts after about 3 hours in our sort of climate on average.

It does occur after two hours Bridget. It also depends on age, temperature and assertion prior to death.

Use forensics....not Wiki! lol

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/rigor-mortis-and-lividity.html
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Roch on September 09, 2012, 08:52:PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutter
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Bridget on September 09, 2012, 08:54:PM
It does occur after two hours Bridget. It also depends on age, temperature and assertion prior to death.

Use forensics....not Wiki! lol

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/rigor-mortis-and-lividity.html

It can occur after 2 hours yes, that's exactly what I've said. The average in our climate is 3 hours but it varies. What it doesn't do is start as soon as the heart stops, which is what Lookout said.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Reader on September 09, 2012, 09:48:PM
How could Jeremy remove the silencer after he shot and killed Sheila, and take the silencer all the way downstairs by either route, and hide it in a box at the back of the gun cupboard in the downstairs office?
He could have gone into the bathroom on the upper floor, then unfastened the door from there into the rear storeroom, and proceeded via that storeroom into the upstairs office. From there, he could descend the back stairs and go into the rear laundry room where the gun cupboard was. He could then return upstairs by the same route (in reverse), locking the storeroom door and securing the door from the bathroom behind him. Finally, he could go downstairs via the main staircase (or via the kitchen stairs) and exit the building via a ground floor window that could be caused to latch from the outside. Note that this route also explains how the rear storeroom was locked from the inside. I doubt that this happened, but it is a possible route.

What seems highly implausible is for the murderer to have escaped via the skylight, as he would have had to leave the house (as described above) and re-enter the building to do so, having left two doors unlocked to make this re-entry possible. Such re-entry would have served no purpose.

I think Campion was mistaken in asserting that the back door key was missing. Instead, the back door was found locked with the key in the lock.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on October 14, 2012, 01:32:PM
  Thankyou for your observations The Jam.
  From your explanation it does appear to be a somewhat tortuos route.
  I find it strange that this arrangement was not drawn up for, or alluded to at the Trial.
   Will you kindly draw up a plan of this part of WHF to make things clear for us plebs?

I think it's pretty obvious that just because something hasn't or hadn't been shown on the forum, it isn't an indication that it didn't exist. The majority of documents posted on this forum have been posted to support an allegation, not to assist members in seeking the truth.

The strange non-existent floor plans:

(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3350.0;attach=23289;image)

(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3350.0;attach=23291;image)

Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2012, 01:41:PM
At all times information and evidence has been posted on this forum to try to assist the enquirer in getting to the truth - any poster who suggests otherwise should be treated with suspicion, since they are obviously intent on spreading misinformation about features of the case...

Be wary of such people, and thier motives...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mertol22 on October 14, 2012, 01:44:PM
At all times information and evidence has been posted on this forum to try to assist the enquirer in getting to the truth - any poster who suggests otherwise should be treated with suspicion, since they are obviously intent on spreading misinformation about features of the case...

Be wary of such people, and thier motives...
Debunkers
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on October 14, 2012, 01:51:PM
At all times information and evidence has been posted on this forum to try to assist the enquirer in getting to the truth - any poster who suggests otherwise should be treated with suspicion, since they are obviously intent on spreading misinformation about features of the case...

Be wary of such people, and thier motives...

Treat me with as much suspicion as you like, it doesn't alter the facts.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on October 14, 2012, 01:55:PM
At all times information and evidence has been posted on this forum to try to assist the enquirer in getting to the truth - any poster who suggests otherwise should be treated with suspicion, since they are obviously intent on spreading misinformation about features of the case...

Be wary of such people, and thier motives...

Don't worry Mike,I'm well aware.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2012, 01:58:PM
Treat those who do not report the true facts with suspicion, since although the truth has finally started to come out regarding how all these different parker hale silencers became merged into the same one, all of which were under the control and in the possession of relatives, police, and at the lab', some people are still trying to maintain there was only ever just the one silencer, a view which is perverse in my opinion and shows a person who supports corrupt activity no matter what - treat these persons with suspicion because they are not interested in finding out the truth...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: tonyb on October 14, 2012, 02:06:PM
At all times information and evidence has been posted on this forum to try to assist the enquirer in getting to the truth - any poster who suggests otherwise should be treated with suspicion, since they are obviously intent on spreading misinformation about features of the case...

Be wary of such people, and thier motives...
All times?...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on October 14, 2012, 02:07:PM
Until anyone's been on the receiving end of the system,then I don't see how they can say that corruption doesn't exist.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2012, 02:11:PM
Treat those who do not report the true facts with suspicion, since although the truth has finally started to come out regarding how all these different parker hale silencers became merged into the same one, all of which were under the control and in the possession of relatives, police, and at the lab', some people are still trying to maintain there was only ever just the one silencer, a view which is perverse in my opinion and shows a person who supports corrupt activity no matter what - treat these persons with suspicion because they are not interested in finding out the truth...

The COLP investigation was a waste of time, since the police who carried out that investigation behaved criminally in my opinion, because they found out about how the different silencers became merged into the same one, and they took no action to show that this is what their investigation established - COLP were/are involved in the cover up...

This is why police should not investigate other police...

They are a close knit community, who look after their own interests, and they are not interested in exposing what their colleagues get up to...

Criminals the lots of them...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mertol22 on October 14, 2012, 02:20:PM
The COLP investigation was a waste of time, since the police who carried out that investigation behaved criminally in my opinion, because they found out about how the different silencers became merged into the same one, and they took no action to show that this is what their investigation established - COLP were/are involved in the cover up...

This is why police should not investigate other police...

They are a close knit community, who look after their own interests, and they are not interested in exposing what their colleagues get up to...

Criminals the lots of them...
modern day Athos Porthos and Aramis all in it together defend the lies with the sword so to speak.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2012, 02:20:PM
I remeber when COLP came to see me at my then Barnsley home address after I was released once Manchester police had uncovered the false evidence used to help prosecute me, and after I had written to the then Home Secretary, David Waddington, on Jeremy's behalf - COLP tried to get me to say that Jeremy had put me up to writing to the Home secretary, but I insisted that he had not...

Police twist things out of all proportion when the need arises, ad you have got to remain strong when you are dealing with such a corrupted organisation, or person, or people...

The witness statement I ended up making to COLP was not written in my own words, but was paraphrased by them, by adopting a question and answer technique which allowed them to write down whatever they liked...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on October 14, 2012, 02:21:PM
All times?...

Lol, except Ali Bongo; except itemised phone bills; except photos of Sheila; except sawdust used to conceal; except Sheilas arm in a phto of the scullery; except bullet cases in the scullery; except bullet cases on the dining table; etc, etc.

They were just to further discussion.

Why is Mike frightened to post the first witness statements of the first officers to the scene? Why is Mike frightened to post PC Collins statement who looked through the kitchen window?

If Mike was interested in people seeing the truth, then why would he keep anything hidden at all?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on October 14, 2012, 02:24:PM
I think there are some things that everyone keeps hidden at times,,until that time is right to reveal all.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2012, 02:25:PM
Don't listen to people who are only interested in continuing with the cover up regarding the use of all these different parker hale silencers which the relatives, police and those at the lab', merged into the same silencer...

I will say what I want, I will do what I want, I will post what I want, I will withhold what I want, I will not stop doing what I do until every last one of these/those evil conspirators are locked up behind bars which is where each and evryone of the evil scumbags belong - and the key thrown away...

Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2012, 02:27:PM
Don't listen to people who are only interested in continuing with the cover up regarding the use of all these different parker hale silencers which the relatives, police and those at the lab', merged into the same silencer...

I will say what I want, I will do what I want, I will post what I want, I will withhold what I want, I will not stop doing what I do until every last one of these/those evil conspirators are locked up behind bars which is where each and evryone of the evil scumbags belong - and the key thrown away...


I reserve the right to use and adopt any technique/tactic or action necessary to get to the truth - I adopt such techniques in the interest of the public...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: tonyb on October 14, 2012, 02:30:PM
I reserve the right to use and adopt any technique/tactic or action necessary to get to the truth - I adopt such techniques in the interest of the public...
Quite understood.
Don't actually think it helps the cause though imo
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Roch on October 14, 2012, 02:30:PM


This is why police should not investigate other police...

They are a close knit community, who look after their own interests, and they are sometimes might not be interested in tasked with exposing what their colleagues get up to...


This is why I find it galling when some posters on here repeatedly announce their satisfaction with there having already been enquiries and investigations made.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2012, 02:31:PM
And clowns,mike. And clowns ;-)

yeah, I forgot to add that - but I reserve the right to forget, to incite, to encourage, anything which leads the public towards the inevitable truth...

Now, all these different identical looking parker hale silencers, how could they possibly all be the same one?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on October 14, 2012, 02:35:PM
And clowns,mike. And clowns ;-)

Yeah I can't believe the clowns got left out either.   :o
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2012, 02:39:PM
Yeah I can't believe the clowns got left out either.   :o

The real clowns are the corruopted relatives, bent coppers who carried out the investigation, and the COLP investigators who helped to cover up the cover up...

All these same identical looking parker hale silencers all merged into the same one, We'll show you who the clowns are, when the lot of them end up in the dock at some point - we'll see who has the last laugh clown...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: tonyb on October 14, 2012, 02:43:PM
The real clowns are the corruopted relatives, bent coppers who carried out the investigation, and the COLP investigators who helped to cover up the cover up...

All these same identical looking parker hale silencers all merged into the same one, We'll show you who the clowns are, when the lot of them end up in the dock at some point - we'll see who has the last laugh clown...
I categorically deny being a relative or past/present member of the police force.
Just thought I'd clarify...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on October 14, 2012, 03:02:PM
I categorically deny being a relative or past/present member of the police force.
Just thought I'd clarify...

I catagorically deny being a clown, the only circus I've ever been a member of is this forum.  :P
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on October 14, 2012, 03:57:PM
Another typical response from you, how can people believe you when you won't even show then the statements of the first people to the scene, a prerequisite I would have thought when when investigating a case.

Really showing your true colours here Mike, although to be fair I was only responding to your suggestion that I am somehow spreading false information, it doesn't seem to be the case now does it, one should perhaps look a little closer to home.

If you hate liars, why do you behave as you do?

Why did you turn up at Osea Leisure for a directors meeting attempting to look after Jeremys interests? What is your motivation here Mike, it's certainly not to find the truth.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Patti on October 14, 2012, 03:57:PM
I don't care what anyone thinks of me, but is all this necessary? We need some calm.... :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on October 14, 2012, 04:00:PM
I don't care what anyone thinks of me, but is all this necessary? We need some calm.... :) :) :) :)

Fair enough.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Bridget on October 14, 2012, 04:02:PM
So...er.. who's your favourite to win X factor Mike?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2012, 04:04:PM
Another typical response from you, how can people believe you when you won't even show then the statements of the first people to the scene, a prerequisite I would have thought when when investigating a case.

Really showing your true colours here Mike, although to be fair I was only responding to your suggestion that I am somehow spreading false information, it doesn't seem to be the case now does it, one should perhaps look a little closer to home.

If you hate liars, why do you behave as you do?

Why did you turn up at Osea Leisure for a directors meeting attempting to look after Jeremys interests? What is your motivation here Mike, it's certainly not to find the truth.

Fuck off, I was only acting on Jeremy's instructions when I went to the meeting, and I have a witness to prove it...

Come on then, lets hear your poxy excuse about why all these different parker hale silencers became merged into the same one?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on October 14, 2012, 04:07:PM
I was only acting on Jeremy's instructions when I went to the meeting, and I have a witness to prove it...

Come on then, lets hear your poxy excuse about why all these different parker hale silencers became merged into the same one?

You want me to explain your theory?  ???

I've never suggested such a merger took place, quite the opposite in fact.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2012, 04:08:PM
You want me to explain your theory?  ???

I've never suggested such a merger took place, quite the opposite in fact.

What a load of bollocks.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2012, 04:11:PM
What a load of bollocks

Shame you are gonna miss all the other material I am about to post on the forum which shows you lot in a bad light...

Think I might just ban you, that way you ain't ever coming back, but I will give you the opportunity to leave of your own accord, first...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on October 14, 2012, 04:11:PM
What a load of bollocks

I wouldn't upset yourself,Mike. Nobody's worth getting upset over.

At least I know the difference in what's right,,and what isn't,and this case stinks to high heaven.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on October 14, 2012, 04:12:PM
What a load of bollocks, ain't it about time you fucked off....

I'm not sure that is a particularly strong argument.

I don't think asking people to prove your own theories is going to further your cause either.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on October 14, 2012, 04:15:PM
Shame you are gonna miss all the other material I am about to post on the forum which shows you lot in a bad light...

Think I might just ban you, that way you ain't ever coming back, but I will give you the opportunity to leave of your own accord, first...

Thought you wanted the truth, banning people for disagreeing with you is certainly one way of removing the opposition.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on October 14, 2012, 04:16:PM
Thought you wanted the truth, banning people for disagreeing with you is certainly one way of removing the opposition.

No need to antagonise though,is there.?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on October 14, 2012, 04:17:PM
No need to antagonise though,is there.?

Surely that should be addressed to Mike right?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on October 14, 2012, 04:24:PM
Surely that should be addressed to Mike right?

If I'd have meant it for Mike,then I'd have addressed him.  It wasn't,so it's all yours.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on October 14, 2012, 05:01:PM
Anyway, moving on. An edited bump.

I think it's pretty obvious that just because something hasn't or hadn't been shown on the forum, it isn't an indication that it didn't exist.

Campion, Mike has kindly supplied these plans which may assist you in understanding the layout a little better:

(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3350.0;attach=23289;image)

(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3350.0;attach=23291;image)
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: jon on October 14, 2012, 07:06:PM
Another typical response from you, how can people believe you when you won't even show then the statements of the first people to the scene, a prerequisite I would have thought when when investigating a case.

Really showing your true colours here Mike, although to be fair I was only responding to your suggestion that I am somehow spreading false information, it doesn't seem to be the case now does it, one should perhaps look a little closer to home.

If you hate liars, why do you behave as you do?

Why did you turn up at Osea Leisure for a directors meeting attempting to look after Jeremys interests? What is your motivation here Mike, it's certainly not to find the truth.
You once claimed you was a former policeman in ' The Met ' , was you lying then or was you lying a few month's later when you claimed you was a architect ?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: -Harters- on October 14, 2012, 07:11:PM
I know I said I will lay off from Mike, and I will.

I would however like to highlight my original point simply by inviting people to read the post below, and then view the floor plans posted by Mike and copied in my post above.

This isn't intended to insult or antagonise, but is a direct result of defending myself against Mikes claims that he has made in this thread.

People can judge for themselves.

I think the questions raised by Campion about the ommision or misrepresentation of the so called back stairs at whf is a very interesting one, and that Essex police had a reason for not providing information to allow other mere mortals to understand and fathom out what went wrong with the firearms operation once police forced entry into the premises from 7:30am, onward...

Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 08, 2013, 10:36:PM
Please forgive me for 'bumping' this topic
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 08, 2013, 10:49:PM
Please forgive me for 'bumping' this topic

Nothing to forgive!! But did you have a reason?  ;D ;D
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 08, 2013, 11:28:PM
Thank you Caroline, yes I wrote a long post(which disappeared). Basically it was referring to Abs picture 13 in the WHF gallery, of the interior shot of the Back Kitchen or that which Jeremy refers to as the 'Laundry Room'
Looking thro' a powerful lens, I think I see, at the end of the settle, a pair of light blue socks. Then I can make bent legs as of a body on its back. Then a risen up bluey .coloured nightdress. I cannot make out the head, which would be in the vicinity of the threshold of the open backdoor.
Or is it a peculiar apparition from Time immemorial?

Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 08, 2013, 11:48:PM
Thank you Caroline, yes I wrote a long post(which disappeared). Basically it was referring to Abs picture 13 in the WHF gallery, of the interior shot of the Back Kitchen or that which Jeremy refers to as the 'Laundry Room'
Looking thro' a powerful lens, I think I see, at the end of the settle, a pair of light blue socks. Then I can make bent legs as of a body on its back. Then a risen up bluey .coloured nightdress. I cannot make out the head, which would be in the vicinity of the threshold of the open backdoor.
Or is it a peculiar apparition from Time immemorial?

This one?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on August 08, 2013, 11:49:PM
Thank you Caroline, yes I wrote a long post(which disappeared). Basically it was referring to Abs picture 13 in the WHF gallery, of the interior shot of the Back Kitchen or that which Jeremy refers to as the 'Laundry Room'
Looking thro' a powerful lens, I think I see, at the end of the settle, a pair of light blue socks. Then I can make bent legs as of a body on its back. Then a risen up bluey .coloured nightdress. I cannot make out the head, which would be in the vicinity of the threshold of the open backdoor.
Or is it a peculiar apparition from Time immemorial?
Hi Campion, how are you counting photo #13, have tried to look at it but not sure which pic you are speaking of. ;) ;)
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on August 08, 2013, 11:59:PM
The interesting feature of this photograph, concerns a vital piece of evidence to which Jeremy spoke about to police in one or other of his first witness statements, and I think, later on in one or other of his police interviews at the beginning of September 1985...

I am surprised no-one has picked up on this crucial point before...

Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 09, 2013, 12:05:AM
Yes Maggie, thank you, that is the one -kitchen 13. This picture is atad clearer. I can make out the dark haired head near or on the doorstep. The left arm, near the door,  has a flash of white( or light on it) making it more imprecise. I am sure now that there is a form (or body) there.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 09, 2013, 12:09:AM
Mike, is it that the door does not appear to have been damaged by Woody's sledge hammer?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on August 09, 2013, 12:13:AM
Yes Maggie, thank you, that is the one -kitchen 13. This picture is atad clearer. I can make out the dark haired head near or on the doorstep. The left arm, near the door,  has a flash of white( or light on it) making it more imprecise. I am sure now that there is a form (or body) there.

You are referring to area inside yellow circle?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on August 09, 2013, 12:14:AM
Mike, is it that the door does not appear to have been damaged by Woody's sledge hammer?

Door knocked off its hinges (inward)...

If that be Sheila's body, it could only have got into that position, after the door had been smashed open by the police sledge hammer, meaning that Sheila could not have been dead upstairs in the bedroom at the time police first entered the farmhouse, she was in fact, behind the door that police smashed open...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on August 09, 2013, 12:19:AM
Door knocked off its hinges (inward)...

If that be Sheila's body, it could only have got into that position, after the door had been smashed open by the police sledge hammer, meaning that Sheila could not have been dead upstairs in the bedroom at the time police first entered the farmhouse, she was in fact, behind the door that police smashed open...
Sorry campion/mike, I can't see it.  I can see something blue by the bin??
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on August 09, 2013, 12:20:AM
Door knocked off its hinges (inward)...

If that be Sheila's body, it could only have got into that position, after the door had been smashed open by the police sledge hammer, meaning that Sheila could not have been dead upstairs in the bedroom at the time police first entered the farmhouse, she was in fact, behind the door that police smashed open...

Did PC Collins look into the kitchen through the window shown in the same image, and did he report seeing a female body behind the door shown which has been smashed open by its hinges?

Food for thought...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on August 09, 2013, 12:22:AM
Mike, is it that the door does not appear to have been damaged by Woody's sledge hammer?

No, no, no, I wasn't referring to the door, or what might turn out to be a body on the floor...

I was referring to...

This:-
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 09, 2013, 12:31:AM
Thank you Mike for highlighting the apparent supine figure in yellow. It is conceivable that the flash on the left arm is from light emitted from a flashbulb striking a watch glass. Ditto for flashes of white near the head, caused by earrings?
Through the window by which Collins observed a female, is that the farm Sherpa van?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 09, 2013, 12:40:AM
Sorry guys, I don't see a person shaped figure - looks more like a tree branch!!
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on August 09, 2013, 12:41:AM
No, no, no, I wasn't referring to the door, or what might turn out to be a body on the floor...

I was referring to...

This:-

Jeremy told police that he had removed the ammunition magazine from the anshulz rifle, and the single round in the breach, and deposited them on the settle in the kitchen. Now, because three different rooms inside whf were often referred to by the family as "the Kitchen", unless you know the difference between each of these kitchens, it becomes confusing about where exactly Jeremy deposited the ammunition magazine before going home on evening of 6th August...

Kitchen
Back kitchen (Diary)
Main kitchen

Jeremy has always maintained to the police and myself, that he removed the ammunition magazine from the anshulz rifle, before going home to his cottage on evening of 6th August 1985, and that it was full of bullets. He deposited the ammunition magazine on the settle in the kitchen, not the main kitchen, or the back kitchen, but to be specific, he has always maintained that he placed the ammunition magazine on the settle in the kitchen...

Any way...

Police photographed the settle in the kitchen, with the ammunition magazine on the settle, just where Jeremy said he had left it, in the kitchen, not the back kitchen, not the main kitchen, but the kitchen...

Now, this is where the comments passed by the trial judge who once sentenced me to a total of 52 years comes into its own:-

He said, before imposing such barbaric sentences upon me - " The picture I have of you, is of a highly intelligent, cunning, resourceful, and illusive crook"...

Can somebody, please explain to me, how the magazine to the anshulz rifle was photographed on the settle by police, exactly where Jeremy has always maintained he had placed it before leaving whf for the last time before any body got shot, and yet later (by 10 O'clock) the anshulz rifle is being photographed on top of Sheila's body on the main bedroom floor, with its ammunition magazine slotted into position in the rifle, with the fingers of Sheila's right hand upon the magazine in question?

How did it become transformed from the settle in the kitchen, onto the gun in the bedroom - who moved it and fitted it into the rifle, and everything else that was done during the stage managing process - NOT JEREMY, surely...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on August 09, 2013, 12:43:AM
Sorry guys, I don't see a person shaped figure - looks more like a tree branch!!
I see what you mean but even taking perspective into account it looks really small??
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on August 09, 2013, 12:45:AM
I see what you mean but even taking perspective into account it looks really small??

So does the white van in the background...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on August 09, 2013, 12:54:AM
So does the white van in the background...
I see what you mean, I am really sorry Mike, but I don't know what a magazine looks like, where is it on the settle?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 09, 2013, 09:23:AM
Dear Maggie, Your post #150' - are you confusing logs with legs? The magazine for Jeremy's Anschutz rifle, is laying on the settle (in the forefront of the photograph), under what appear to be kites (not red ones). It is the grey metal canister a few inches long. As Mike says, this photo corroborates where Jeremy said he left it.
I was always under the wrong impression that Jeremy claimed he left the loaded rifle on the settle!
With regard to the apparent body in the doorway, on its back, and with legs bent, I fully expected Mat to ejaculate 'Bo...cks'! In fact, on closer inspection, where her 'shortie nightie' has ridden up one can identify by the dark hair that the female is lacking underwear.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Patti on August 09, 2013, 09:27:AM
Is it a case if I want to see things in that photograph or is it a clear cut case that I can see things in that photograph, because I can't see anything like a rifle magazine on the settle nor can I see a dead person...Just saying!  :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on August 09, 2013, 09:44:AM
Hi Campion, I see a grey canister on the settle where are the pale blue socks?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 09, 2013, 10:54:AM
Right Maggie, You have now identified the Anschutz magazine, just as Mike pointed it out. This now poses a problem. How could it have been used in the Bamber rifle if it is
evident in this photograph, obviously taken after police entry into the back-kitchen (laundry room), after their initial entry thro' the back door of WHF.
The light blue objects immediately in front of the washing machine look mightily like the blue socks, near Sheila's body in the staged scenario in the master bedroom.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on August 09, 2013, 11:07:AM
Right Maggie, You have now identified the Anschutz magazine, just as Mike pointed it out. This now poses a problem. How could it have been used in the Bamber rifle if it is
evident in this photograph, obviously taken after police entry into the back-kitchen (laundry room), after their initial entry thro' the back door of WHF.
The light blue objects immediately in front of the washing machine look mightily like the blue socks, near Sheila's body in the staged scenario in the master bedroom.
I see something light blue by the bin?  The perspective is all wrong tho' they look enormous for 2 socks imo???
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 09, 2013, 11:14:AM
Not too enormous if as they appear to be long bed socks.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on August 09, 2013, 11:20:AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>must get my magnifyer.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on August 09, 2013, 11:36:AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>must get my magnifyer.





Too strong,as it's a jewellers mag.glass. I can't make out the object in the doorway ( flowerpot man ),but noticed the magazine and also slippers/socks by the waste bin.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 09, 2013, 12:40:PM
Not too enormous if as they appear to be long bed socks.

Looks like one of those J Cloth's to me??
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 09, 2013, 01:04:PM
A further question requires some thought. If, as is now apparent, the Anschutz magazine remained on the settle, then which magazine was fitted onto that rifle at the claimed 'stage managing of Sheila's suicide?
 Was that magazine checked to be empty for the 'informative s'?
How comes it that a round was left, or placed in the breech of the automatic rifle?
For whom was this bullet intended, which accidentally actually was the cause of Sheila's death?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on August 09, 2013, 01:05:PM
Looks like one of those J Cloth's to me??
The socks next to Sheila's body in the bedroom were not big bedsocks, they were just a pair of  pale blue socks. I would hazard a guess they belonged to Sheila or June, unlikely that Neville would have worn pale blue sox but all things are possible.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 09, 2013, 01:18:PM
A further question requires some thought. If, as is now apparent, the Anschutz magazine remained on the settle, then which magazine was fitted onto that rifle at the claimed 'stage managing of Sheila's suicide?
 Was that magazine checked to be empty for the 'informative s'?
How comes it that a round was left, or placed in the breech of the automatic rifle?
For whom was this bullet intended, which accidentally actually was the cause of Sheila's death?

But how is it apparent? That could be anything, it's not a good quality photograph so you can't say for definite what it is??
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Lugg on August 09, 2013, 05:51:PM
Yes Maggie, thank you, that is the one -kitchen 13. This picture is atad clearer. I can make out the dark haired head near or on the doorstep. The left arm, near the door,  has a flash of white( or light on it) making it more imprecise. I am sure now that there is a form (or body) there.
I am told that if you look at Mars for long enough through a telescope you can see canals as well. That says just how clear this photograph is. As for me it just makes me go bosseyed.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: tyler on August 09, 2013, 06:41:PM
Blue item does not look like socks to me! It has white material attached like it is a skirt or petticoat? Is it trailing out of yet another bucket?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 09, 2013, 06:49:PM
Blue item does not look like socks to me! It has white material attached like it is a skirt or petticoat? Is it trailing out of yet another bucket?

That's why I thought looked like a one of those blue and white disposable cloths.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on August 09, 2013, 06:55:PM
Ammunition magazine, was photographed on the kitchen settle, exactly where Jeremy told the firearms team that he had left it, before going home to his cottage, at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, on the settle in the kitchen - so, how many bullets were still inside the ammunition magazine, photographed? ...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on August 09, 2013, 06:58:PM
Ammunition magazine, was photographed on the kitchen settle, exactly where Jeremy told the firearms team that he had left it, before going home to his cottage, at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, on the settle in the kitchen - so, how many bullets were still inside the ammunition magazine, photographed? ...

The police plot, thickens...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on August 09, 2013, 07:08:PM
Hey, let me draw your attention to the following FACTS - A full magazine of bullets, photographed on the settle in the kitchen by police...

Sheila's hand covering the ammunition magazine, to prevent anyone from being able to tell if the ammunition magazine had still got rounds loaded into it...


10 bullets not linked to anshulz rifle...

14 bullet cases, identified by exhibit mark, MDF/100 kept at lab...

At least 1 shot fired by police...

Total number of shots fired during shootings, 25...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 09, 2013, 07:34:PM
Hey, let me draw your attention to the following FACTS - A full magazine of bullets, photographed on the settle in the kitchen by police...

Sheila's hand covering the ammunition magazine, to prevent anyone from being able to tell if the ammunition magazine had still got rounds loaded into it...


10 bullets not linked to anshulz rifle...

14 bullet cases, identified by exhibit mark, MDF/100 kept at lab...

At least 1 shot fired by police...

Total number of shots fired during shootings, 25...

Hi Mike, I thought there were 26 shots fired? 8 Neville, 7 June, 9 The twins and 2 Sheila - which is 26?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Patti on August 09, 2013, 07:52:PM
Hi Mike, I thought there were 26 shots fired? 8 Neville, 7 June, 9 The twins and 2 Sheila - which is 26?

I think its 8 for the twins Caroline...there were 8 cases and 1 bullet found in there room. I will check thought... ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yeah it was 8....which is 25 shots in all.....I think Lomax comes up with 26 as well.  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 09, 2013, 07:57:PM
I think its 8 for the twins Caroline...there were 8 cases and 1 bullet found in there room. I will check thought... ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes, you're right, Daniel 5, Nicholas 3 
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Patti on August 09, 2013, 08:05:PM
Yes, you're right, Daniel 5, Nicholas 3

Me and Harltey's Jam did a lot of research on it....and believe me he didn't have it his way....In the end we both collapsed and hid in the fridge with the beers lol  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 09, 2013, 08:24:PM
Me and Harltey's Jam did a lot of research on it....and believe me he didn't have it his way....In the end we both collapsed and hid in the fridge with the beers lol  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Don't know why I had it in my mind that Nicholas was shot 4 times but it might be from one of the drawings that documents the bullet cases.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Patti on August 09, 2013, 08:40:PM
Don't know why I had it in my mind that Nicholas was shot 4 times but it might be from one of the drawings that documents the bullet cases.

There is only one thing that bothers me Caroline and please don't run away because I wont harp on it, its Friday night.  There are 25 shots, 25 case shells found.  Nevill was shot 8 times 6 of them were head shots 2 to the jaw and, 4 fatal wounds to head, yet there were only 3 case shells found in the kitchen.  I know the simple explanation to this is that one of the case shells attached its self to the underside of one of the raid teams boot.  If this is the case then its a miracle that the case shell landed in the main bedroom...Its can't be the case shell on the top of the stairs because that has to be one of the two downward shots to Nevill's shoulder.  Right I will bugger off now...lol  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 09, 2013, 09:06:PM
There is only one thing that bothers me Caroline and please don't run away because I wont harp on it, its Friday night.  There are 25 shots, 25 case shells found.  Nevill was shot 8 times 6 of them were head shots 2 to the jaw and, 4 fatal wounds to head, yet there were only 3 case shells found in the kitchen.  I know the simple explanation to this is that one of the case shells attached its self to the underside of one of the raid teams boot.  If this is the case then its a miracle that the case shell landed in the main bedroom...Its can't be the case shell on the top of the stairs because that has to be one of the two downward shots to Nevill's shoulder.  Right I will bugger off now...lol  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes, it is quite odd, it's quite a big thing to get stuck in your boot, I'd have though anyone with that stuck to their shoe would realise?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on August 10, 2013, 03:03:AM
Hey, let me draw your attention to the following FACTS - A full magazine of bullets, photographed on the settle in the kitchen by police...

Sheila's hand covering the ammunition magazine, to prevent anyone from being able to tell if the ammunition magazine had still got rounds loaded into it...


10 bullets not linked to anshulz rifle...

14 bullet cases, identified by exhibit mark, MDF/100 kept at lab...

At least 1 shot fired by police...

Total number of shots fired during shootings, 25...

who put the ammunition magazine back onto the anshulz rifle, after police photographed it on the settle in the kitchen, in time for PC Bird to photograph it re-attached to the rifle placed by police onto Sheila's body laid on the floor next to the bed in the main bedroom?

How many bullets were still in the magazine at that stage?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 10, 2013, 08:35:AM
Mike, a simple but I feel a relevant question for yourself, or NGB. Are the magazines for the Bamber Anschulz automatic  and the Pargeter 'bolt action' rifles, interchangeable?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: ngb1066 on August 10, 2013, 11:53:AM
Mike, a simple but I feel a relevant question for yourself, or NGB. Are the magazines for the Bamber Anschulz automatic  and the Pargeter 'bolt action' rifles, interchangeable?

I thought they were likely to be interchangeable as magazines are often made to a standard design.  However, when some time ago I posted my opinion on this Hartley replied saying that he had made enquiries and they were not interchangeable.  I am therefore not sure.

 
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on August 10, 2013, 01:04:PM
Mike, a simple but I feel a relevant question for yourself, or NGB. Are the magazines for the Bamber Anschulz automatic  and the Pargeter 'bolt action' rifles, interchangeable?

It turns out, that the ammunition magazine belonging to Anthony pargeters .22 bolt action rifle, when checked in 2002, did not fit, and was not interchangeable so that it fitted the other Bamber owned silencer...

However, no checks were conducted to exclude for the possibility that the ammunition magazine belonging to the Bamber owned anshulz rifle, did not fit Anthiny Pargeters .22 Bruno bolt action rifle...

Hope this helps...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 10, 2013, 01:13:PM
I thought they were likely to be interchangeable as magazines are often made to a standard design.  However, when some time ago I posted my opinion on this Hartley replied saying that he had made enquiries and they were not interchangeable.  I am therefore not sure.

Excuse my ignorance in these matters but how do these semi-automatic rifles work? If you keep your finger on the trigger, do they just keep firing?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: ngb1066 on August 10, 2013, 01:31:PM
Excuse my ignorance in these matters but how do these semi-automatic rifles work? If you keep your finger on the trigger, do they just keep firing?

No, only a fully automatic rifle will do that.  With a semiautomatic each time the trigger is pulled (or more correctly squeezed) a shot is fired.  Each round is chambered and the spent case ejected automatically, using the recoil.

Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mike tesko on August 10, 2013, 07:08:PM
No, only a fully automatic rifle will do that.  With a semiautomatic each time the trigger is pulled (or more correctly squeezed) a shot is fired.  Each round is chambered and the spent case ejected automatically, using the recoil.

With a bolt action rifle, like the one owned by Anthony Pargeter, you have to manually work the bolt, and squeeze the trigger to fire each shot..
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 10, 2013, 10:41:PM
Mike, your post #181 - Would it be helpful to ascertain from armoury specialists(e.g. Ratcliffes of Colchester, from whom the Bamber weapon was purchased), what the interchangeable characteristics of the respective rifles and their magazines were in the early 1980's.
It does come to mind that the bullets were removed from the Bamber rifle, prior to the Special Forces informative 'training', -for safety reasons?, but unfortunately fate intervened.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 10, 2013, 11:43:PM
Mike, your post #181 - Would it be helpful to ascertain from armoury specialists(e.g. Ratcliffes of Colchester, from whom the Bamber weapon was purchased), what the interchangeable characteristics of the respective rifles and their magazines were in the early 1980's.
It does come to mind that the bullets were removed from the Bamber rifle, prior to the Special Forces informative 'training', -for safety reasons?, but unfortunately fate intervened.

Someone posted that info a while back. I think there's a statement from the guy that sold them the rifle because it was argued that the sights were zeroed in when it was sold. However, this turned out not to be true. I'll see if I can find it
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 10, 2013, 11:49:PM
It was a post by Buddy (here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3927.0.html). He went to the shop and spoke to the guy who sold it to the Bambers. I thought there was a statement but apparently he wasn't asked to make one.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 10, 2013, 11:57:PM
Thank you for that Caroline. I must congratulate you and the other Forum ladies for digging the 'big hole' for poor ole Stevie. Wonderful how he surreptitiously put the backhanded culpability on Juicy Julie by misquoting Wilkes' Chapter 31 for the 'blood in the car' contretemps.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 11, 2013, 12:01:AM
Thank you for that Caroline. I must congratulate you and the other Forum ladies for digging the 'big hole' for poor ole Stevie. Wonderful how he surreptitiously put the backhanded culpability on Juicy Julie by misquoting Wilkes' Chapter 31 for the 'blood in the car' contretemps.

Ha, ha!! I think it was a Freudian slip - chapters 30 and 31 must be worn out on his copy!! :)
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Reader on August 11, 2013, 01:01:PM
The socks in the bedroom appear fairly dark, but have been referred to as "actually light blue", despite the fact that other colours in the main bedroom photographs seem to be approximately correct. How is the true colour of the socks in the bedroom known?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on August 11, 2013, 01:09:PM
The socks in the bedroom appear fairly dark, but have been referred to as "actually light blue", despite the fact that other colours in the main bedroom photographs seem to be approximately correct. How is the true colour of the socks in the bedroom known?




Hi Reader,,in one or two pics that have appeared,I've actually seen those socks as a light blue colour. It depends which camera was used I think and whether there was a shutter which regulated light and dark pics. A good Minolta of its time would have showed the true colour.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Reader on August 11, 2013, 01:17:PM
I think it's mainly the lighting conditions that can selectively affect apparent colour sometimes. If anyone can link to a photograph that shows the socks as light blue, I'd like to see it.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 12, 2013, 08:47:AM
Good Morning Mr Reader,  Thankyou for your imput, from which it appears that you have capabilities in technical matters.  Is that from experience of working in a Police Socko capacity?
It surely is interesting to read that different cameras (and varying photographic film?)  produce different colour reproduction, as per your, and Lookout's comments about the shade of socks.
What is to the point, to my mind, can you identify that the strange 'bluey' objects near the red bin may be the bed socks which are later shown upstairs near Sheila's body depicted on the floor of the Master bedroom?

One further point whilst I am addressing your forgoing post :-  the picture which is the subject of this Topic, and otherwise referred to as 'the enigmatic picture',  - from the white border to that picture, and it's accepted inferior quality, could it be a copy from a print  made by means of a Kodak Instammatic camera with inbuilt flash facilities?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 12, 2013, 02:23:PM
Hello again Reader, If the picture of the interior of the 'back- kitchen' was from an Instammatic camera, would the white areas occurring on the 'body' likely to have been caused by reflection from the inbuilt flash facility?
The flash points seem to correspond to jewellery worn by Sheila' I.e. rings on each hand, a watch, earrings and possibly her necklace?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Reader on August 13, 2013, 01:09:AM
My views are not based on my work. The camera's main task is to focus the light and control the exposure time. However, the exposure time will not be ideal for the entire scene if the lighting is poor, which can easily be the case if most of the light is from a flashlight. Note that producing a colour print from a negative is also a photographic process, and the final colours can be varied during that process.

I can't identify the "bluey" objects. The entire picture isn't sharp enough for easy identification of many of the objects in view. There must be reasons for the poor quality and the bright "flash points", but I don't know what they are.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 13, 2013, 01:34:AM
My views are not based on my work. The camera's main task is to focus the light and control the exposure time. However, the exposure time will not be ideal for the entire scene if the lighting is poor, which can easily be the case if most of the light is from a flashlight. Note that producing a colour print from a negative is also a photographic process, and the final colours can be varied during that process.

I can't identify the "bluey" objects. The entire picture isn't sharp enough for easy identification of many of the objects in view. There must be reasons for the poor quality and the bright "flash points", but I don't know what they are.

I think it's because they aren't the original crime scene photographs and are pictures of pictures.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 14, 2013, 09:41:AM
So, from whence did this 'crime scene photograph' originate?
The 'flash points' appear to correspond with the jewellery known to have been worn by Sheila, as evidenced in other photographs.
in the 'Instammatic?' Picture,  due to the position from which the wielder of the camera took this picture, one must take into account the foreshortening of the body, behind the nearly upright lower limbs, as they appear to me to be.
It seems to be agreed that there is 'something' lying between the end of the settle and the doorway. Just why would there be anything in that darkened position?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on August 14, 2013, 09:47:AM
Do you think it's the artificial light,Campion.? Because the room seems dark,lighting would have been used most of the time,,and casts shadows ( if it's not a pearl bulb )
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 14, 2013, 04:09:PM
You have a point here, lookout.
Will you please turn to the Ground Floor Plan, depicting the rooms at the rear of WHF, kindly put up by Hartley.
In the Laundryroom (back-kitchen or 'den''), opposite the open back door, where it may be that Sheila is supine, you will notice thare is another exterior door(allegedly unused). In the event of this door having been breached by TFOfficer Woodcock (with his sledge hammer), then the early morning light flooding in from that eastern doorway, is likely to produce the illuminated situation in the mystery photograph. I.e. the floor area, beyond the settle, will understandably be in darkness. Does this make sense as to why the form! Is difficult to
Distinguish?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Patti on August 14, 2013, 07:00:PM
You're not telling me that there was not a light on in the main bedroom.  The lights were on in the twins room and the kitchen, it makes sense that the light was on the main bedroom.  Miledenhall says so in his statement and he is very precise about it.  Therefore there could not be a trick of light its impossible....

I think the 3rd door was bricked up..you will see this on the photographs.  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: HMEssex on August 14, 2013, 08:49:PM
You are referring to area inside yellow circle?






It's funny how the eye can play tricks. 

It does look like it could be the shape of a person lying in doorway - but is that really likely? 

At the same time, the first thing I 'saw' when looking at the photo was the figure of someone, wearing a white shirt, pointing a gun through the window on the right!  Obviously, it is not (the white is vehicle in courtyard), but everytime I look at it that's all I 'see'!  Can anyone else see what I mean?  ???
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on August 14, 2013, 08:55:PM





It's funny how the eye can play tricks. 

It does look like it could be the shape of a person lying in doorway - but is that really likely? 

At the same time, the first thing I 'saw' when looking at the photo was the figure of someone, wearing a white shirt, pointing a gun through the window on the right!  Obviously, it is not (the white is vehicle in courtyard), but everytime I look at it that's all I 'see'!  Can anyone else see what I mean?  ???





Yes,HMEssex,,I can see what you see,,and he's wearing a cap as well.!
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on August 14, 2013, 09:01:PM





It's funny how the eye can play tricks. 

It does look like it could be the shape of a person lying in doorway - but is that really likely? 

At the same time, the first thing I 'saw' when looking at the photo was the figure of someone, wearing a white shirt, pointing a gun through the window on the right!  Obviously, it is not (the white is vehicle in courtyard), but everytime I look at it that's all I 'see'!  Can anyone else see what I mean?  ???
Hi HME, I can't see a man looking through the window but I can see a man running past the window in a white tshirt and shorts.  ;D ;D  Strange how your eyes deceive you.  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: HMEssex on August 14, 2013, 09:01:PM




Yes,HMEssex,,I can see what you see,,and he's wearing a cap as well.!









Thank Gawd for that!
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: HMEssex on August 14, 2013, 09:04:PM
Hi HME, I can't see a man looking through the window but I can see a man running past the window in a white tshirt and shorts.  ;D ;D  Strange how your eyes deceive you.  ;D ;D ;D




Crikey!  I can't see that...
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on August 14, 2013, 09:11:PM



Crikey!  I can't see that...
;D ;D ;D ;D just goes to show, HME  ;D. I haven't had a drop,  promise.  8) 8)
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on August 14, 2013, 09:16:PM



Crikey!  I can't see that...




And all I've had is a cup of tea.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mertol22 on August 14, 2013, 09:20:PM
Who would switch lights on at that time of night in the chance the victim surviveing such a ordeal should survive and identify the shooter?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on August 14, 2013, 09:31:PM
Who would switch lights on at that time of night in the chance the victim surviveing such a ordeal should survive and identify the shooter?




It wouldn't matter if indeed the shooter was dead,Mertol.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: mertol22 on August 14, 2013, 09:38:PM



It wouldn't matter if indeed the shooter was dead,Mertol.
just my case Lookout there is no real proof the shooter was dead prior to the raid at ot around 07.30 am
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on August 14, 2013, 09:52:PM
just my case Lookout there is no real proof the shooter was dead prior to the raid at ot around 07.30 am





I get you,Mertol.There wasn't any proof at all.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 15, 2013, 08:39:AM
Hi Patti, Your Post #200  - your comment " the third door is bricked up"- you must be referring to the aerial view of WHF yard and farmhouse, in all probability taken by Neville or a passenger, from an aeroplane, prior to the horrendous event. That photograph has different foliage and vehicles in the yard. The traffic cones observed by Lugg are visible here.
My  own theory of that 'bricked up doorway is that it had been the rear access into the farmstead. The. Lower 2-storey  part to the left is that which will have been a bake house and smokery, heated from the massive fireplace, as these buildings used to have.
The door to which I was referring, in connection with the SECOND attempt by The TFG to enter the building,is shown on Hartley's subsequently drawn plans. Apart from Jeremy's hastily (very sketchy but a credit to him) drawn plans, there were was no infomation provided on this area at the Trial. This omission has always concerned me.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 15, 2013, 12:00:PM
I refer to HMEssex's Post #201.
It is reassuring that he/she can make out a figure on the floor between the end of the settle and the doorway.
Now will you bear with me whilst I summarise how  I theorise what happened at WHF after the arrival of the Initial reconnoitre of the EP TFG, summoned by Bews, after being sh.t scarred by the 'so-called 'trick of light' ?

Collins saw(by means of a mirror?) a female (Sheila?), through the laundry room window, located above the washing machine, and to the left of the backdoor as viewed from the yard.
It has become light as of this time. We know dawn on 7august 1985 occurred at approx 5.30a.m.
Having made known to Ch Super George Harris, their observations, Harris wants Jeremy out of earshot for the intended breaching of the doorway.
Thus Harris suggests to Jeremy that he may like call someone. N.B. he does not offer Jeremy the facilities of the police communications. Instead he gets him out of the way for the impending assault on the back door.
This was roughly at 6 O'clock. Unfortunately this went 'pear-shaped', when Woodcock clashed with Sheila in the doorway (hence we see the figure in the darkened doorway)
After this horrendous debacle, it is necessary for the Commander of the operation to reassess the situation.
They cannot re-enter the Farmhouse through the open doorway, because of Sheila laying there, and this situation being likely to be the subject of an investigation by CID.
Through the now open doorway someone notices a door opposite and it follows that it is decided to make the entry through that doorway, in order to obviate disturbing a crime scene.
To put this into effect, at approx 7.30 a.m.? it is once again necessary to get Jeremy out of earshot. This is surreptitiously achieved by the 'friendly' George Harris requesting Jeremy to show him the Opium field, some distance away(we know not where).
With the breaching of the other back door, the 'Raid Team are enabled to enter the premises, and then meet up with the problem of getting through the kitchen door, with Neville's body blocking it. Such is life and ..... !
I trust some of you may now see my reasoning for the lighting conditions of the enigmatic photo.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on August 15, 2013, 12:15:PM
I understand fully,Campion.
 It's a thousand pities that Jeremy wasn't as wise then as he is now,to have noticed that he may have asked too many questions at that time. Though a good job he realised the " face at the window " incident,,which was nicely covered up.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 15, 2013, 12:35:PM
Phew! Thank you for reading my long-winded post. It fair wore me out. There must be other questions to be considered, and hopefully it will be put into perspective why it took the selected Raid Team, supposedly two and a half hours,or so, to officially effect the entry to WHF.
It does cause me some consternation, as to why, if Special Branch were involved since the night before, the massacre was allowed to 'happen'. Oh yes that is why so much of this case is subject to Secrecy Rules, and the Operation is called Stokenchurch, after the communications system which was then becoming 'operative'.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on August 15, 2013, 12:53:PM
Campion,,I love reading your posts,,they're superb and put things in perspective.
A great pity that only the police knew of the Special Branch involvement,as it gave them their well-needed break from getting their collars felt by those above them for the unsolved crimes in the area at the time. The police were over a barrel working on the WHF case,and with a little help from " their friends " were able to cobble together events that took place.

Something that did strike me was because there was involvement with Special Branch and Secrecy Rules,etc,,that nothing in the way of a letter was found inside the house regarding injury/death.
My brother who worked for the government before he retired,had to carry a letter at all times in case of accident or indeed death. This letter had to be passed/presented to the nearest police station in the event of such. Information that brother had on his person was top secret,so briefcase had to be handcuffed to him at times when he travelled abroad.
However,,I still maintain that because of Nevilles' past involvements,,there should have been some form of notification and it would have been in his safe.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 15, 2013, 02:31:PM
I refer to HMEssex's Post #201.
It is reassuring that he/she can make out a figure on the floor between the end of the settle and the doorway.
Now will you bear with me whilst I summarise how  I theorise what happened at WHF after the arrival of the Initial reconnoitre of the EP TFG, summoned by Bews, after being sh.t scarred by the 'so-called 'trick of light' ?

Collins saw(by means of a mirror?) a female (Sheila?), through the laundry room window, located above the washing machine, and to the left of the backdoor as viewed from the yard.
It has become light as of this time. We know dawn on 7august 1985 occurred at approx 5.30a.m.
Having made known to Ch Super George Harris, their observations, Harris wants Jeremy out of earshot for the intended breaching of the doorway.
Thus Harris suggests to Jeremy that he may like call someone. N.B. he does not offer Jeremy the facilities of the police communications. Instead he gets him out of the way for the impending assault on the back door.
This was roughly at 6 O'clock. Unfortunately this went 'pear-shaped', when Woodcock clashed with Sheila in the doorway (hence we see the figure in the darkened doorway)
After this horrendous debacle, it is necessary for the Commander of the operation to reassess the situation.
They cannot re-enter the Farmhouse through the open doorway, because of Sheila laying there, and this situation being likely to be the subject of an investigation by CID.
Through the now open doorway someone notices a door opposite and it follows that it is decided to make the entry through that doorway, in order to obviate disturbing a crime scene.
To put this into effect, at approx 7.30 a.m.? it is once again necessary to get Jeremy out of earshot. This is surreptitiously achieved by the 'friendly' George Harris requesting Jeremy to show him the Opium field, some distance away(we know not where).
With the breaching of the other back door, the 'Raid Team are enabled to enter the premises, and then meet up with the problem of getting through the kitchen door, with Neville's body blocking it. Such is life and ..... !
I trust some of you may now see my reasoning for the lighting conditions of the enigmatic photo.
So Sheila manages to limp upstairs after escaping from four Police Officers and having shot herself once in the neck,climbing over the body of her mother's corpse before finally shooting herself a second time by the bedside cabinet,or she is shot by Police there according to your preference..
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on August 15, 2013, 02:35:PM
If Sheila was posing a threat,armed with a rifle,then there's little alternative.One has to think of their own safety in a situation like that if that's how it ended.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: HMEssex on August 15, 2013, 02:48:PM
I refer to HMEssex's Post #201.
It is reassuring that he/she can make out a figure on the floor between the end of the settle and the doorway.
Now will you bear with me whilst I summarise how  I theorise what happened at WHF after the arrival of the Initial reconnoitre of the EP TFG, summoned by Bews, after being sh.t scarred by the 'so-called 'trick of light' ?

Collins saw(by means of a mirror?) a female (Sheila?), through the laundry room window, located above the washing machine, and to the left of the backdoor as viewed from the yard.
It has become light as of this time. We know dawn on 7august 1985 occurred at approx 5.30a.m.
Having made known to Ch Super George Harris, their observations, Harris wants Jeremy out of earshot for the intended breaching of the doorway.
Thus Harris suggests to Jeremy that he may like call someone. N.B. he does not offer Jeremy the facilities of the police communications. Instead he gets him out of the way for the impending assault on the back door.
This was roughly at 6 O'clock. Unfortunately this went 'pear-shaped', when Woodcock clashed with Sheila in the doorway (hence we see the figure in the darkened doorway)
After this horrendous debacle, it is necessary for the Commander of the operation to reassess the situation.
They cannot re-enter the Farmhouse through the open doorway, because of Sheila laying there, and this situation being likely to be the subject of an investigation by CID.
Through the now open doorway someone notices a door opposite and it follows that it is decided to make the entry through that doorway, in order to obviate disturbing a crime scene.
To put this into effect, at approx 7.30 a.m.? it is once again necessary to get Jeremy out of earshot. This is surreptitiously achieved by the 'friendly' George Harris requesting Jeremy to show him the Opium field, some distance away(we know not where).
With the breaching of the other back door, the 'Raid Team are enabled to enter the premises, and then meet up with the problem of getting through the kitchen door, with Neville's body blocking it. Such is life and ..... !
I trust some of you may now see my reasoning for the lighting conditions of the enigmatic photo.






That's an interesting theory. The other back door is always obscured by trees in any photographs so it's hard to tell.

(I'm definitely a 'she' by the way  :))
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 15, 2013, 09:37:PM
Thank you Lady HMEssex for your erudite comments and personal info.

STEVE UK, Thankyou for your delusional theory of how Sheila got from the back-kitchen doorway to be found upstairs, in the Master Bedroom, to apparently be re posing on the mat, by the bed, in order to be photographed in differing positions, having somehow been shot fatally by a second shot from a gun that should have been made safe , by those in charge of the informatives.
Can you possibly see that it is highly likely that Sheila was rolled up in the carpet, adjacent to where she was laying in the back kitchen?. Then the simple answer is that she was carried bodily upstairs to be initially placed on the bed by unrolling the carpet, which was then placed on the floor by the bed .
Later for the 'informatives', she was placed on that carpet, 'at the far side of the bed'.
Subsequently, she was shot by the bullet, which was placed in the breech of the weapon, by an unknown person, and not checked out.
DO YOU READ THIS LOUD & CLEAR?
Roger and out.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on August 15, 2013, 09:40:PM
Excellent.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 16, 2013, 12:06:PM
Thank you Lady HMEssex for your erudite comments and personal info.

STEVE UK, Thankyou for your delusional theory of how Sheila got from the back-kitchen doorway to be found upstairs, in the Master Bedroom, to apparently be re posing on the mat, by the bed, in order to be photographed in differing positions, having somehow been shot fatally by a second shot from a gun that should have been made safe , by those in charge of the informatives.
Can you possibly see that it is highly likely that Sheila was rolled up in the carpet, adjacent to where she was laying in the back kitchen?. Then the simple answer is that she was carried bodily upstairs to be initially placed on the bed by unrolling the carpet, which was then placed on the floor by the bed .
Later for the 'informatives', she was placed on that carpet, 'at the far side of the bed'.
Subsequently, she was shot by the bullet, which was placed in the breech of the weapon, by an unknown person, and not checked out.
DO YOU READ THIS LOUD & CLEAR?
Roger and out.
I thought Sheila was reading the Bible,not Plutarch's Lives,though maybe she thought she was Cleopatra as they both gave birth to twins and asked the Police present to roll her up in a carpet. I suppose the silencer mark on Sheila's neck can be explained away somehow,along with going back to the master bedroom when if she's as potty as you make her out to be she would have lain with her sons before law enforcement arrived.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Jane on August 16, 2013, 05:08:PM
I thought Sheila was reading the Bible,not Plutarch's Lives,though maybe she thought she was Cleopatra as they both gave birth to twins and asked the Police present to roll her up in a carpet. I suppose the silencer mark on Sheila's neck can be explained away somehow,along with going back to the master bedroom when if she's as potty as you make her out to be she would have lain with her sons before law enforcement arrived.



Steve, how I long to believe you wrote that with amused irony, but I suspect to be disappointed. Plutarch's Lives of Noble Greeks and Romans is otherwise known as Parallel Lives. As an adoptee, like Sheila, it has often crossed my mind that I and other adoptees ALL lead lives parallel to those we might have led but for circumstances. It's dependent only on the throw of the celestial dice as to whether our lives are better, worse or simply other.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 16, 2013, 10:17:PM
Steve, I sincerely believe from what you write (right), that you are shown to be the 'potty' person.
I grant Cleopatra also had twins, but find it remarkable that, according to you, she requested her police to roll her up in a carpet (surely a rugged lady).
Nowhere have I, or indeed anyone, suggested Sheila asked to be rolled up in a carpet. You yourself come over as potty, or else you are on some other substance.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 16, 2013, 11:04:PM
Steve, I sincerely believe from what you write (right), that you are shown to be the 'potty' person.
I grant Cleopatra also had twins, but find it remarkable that, according to you, she requested her police to roll her up in a carpet (surely a rugged lady).
Nowhere have I, or indeed anyone, suggested Sheila asked to be rolled up in a carpet. You yourself come over as potty, or else you are on some other substance.
And you need to know your place,Sonny.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: maggie on August 16, 2013, 11:14:PM
And you need to know your place,Sonny.
That's a bit harsh Steve,  Campion is our elder statesman and deserves some respect imo. :) :)
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Jane on August 17, 2013, 06:51:AM
That's a bit harsh Steve,  Campion is our elder statesman and deserves some respect imo. :) :)




Maggie, it would appear that showing respect and humility are "No can do's" as far as Steve is concerned. One can only hope that his students don't emulate his behaviour in order to curry favour.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 17, 2013, 11:35:AM
I thought Sheila was reading the Bible,not Plutarch's Lives,though maybe she thought she was Cleopatra as they both gave birth to twins and asked the Police present to roll her up in a carpet. I suppose the silencer mark on Sheila's neck can be explained away somehow,along with going back to the master bedroom when if she's as potty as you make her out to be she would have lain with her sons before law enforcement arrived.

What silencer marK? This was never evidence at the trial!! Had there been a silencer mark it most certainly would have been  used to support the idea of the silencer being used!!
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 17, 2013, 02:42:PM
What silencer marK? This was never evidence at the trial!! Had there been a silencer mark it most certainly would have been  used to support the idea of the silencer being used!!
Then the photograph I have seen on this site is a fake,along with Andrew Hunter's book draft. Why do you think Mike is put in the ludicrous position of having to argue that not only did the Police shoot Sheila but they shot her with a Police-issue silencer?
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 17, 2013, 02:46:PM



Maggie, it would appear that showing respect and humility are "No can do's" as far as Steve is concerned. One can only hope that his students don't emulate his behaviour in order to curry favour.
If you believe #220 and #224 show humility and respect along with videos shown in a similar vein yesterday then maybe I will begin to question my membership of this site. Having seceded from Betnod because my mental health was questioned the last thing I need on this site is some creepy a$$cracker  making similar allegations.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 17, 2013, 03:02:PM
Then the photograph I have seen on this site is a fake,along with Andrew Hunter's book draft. Why do you think Mike is put in the ludicrous position of having to argue that not only did the Police shoot Sheila but they shot her with a Police-issue silencer?

I've seen the photograph that you're referring to, however, I see not such silencer mark. I didn't ask you for 'opinion' be it yours or Andrew Hunter's!! Where is the EVIDENCE to support your claim that there is a silencer mark on Sheila's wound? If such evidence existed, we wouldn't be arguing the toss of whether Jeremy is guilty or not!!
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 17, 2013, 03:24:PM
I've seen the photograph that you're referring to, however, I see not such silencer mark. I didn't ask you for 'opinion' be it yours or Andrew Hunter's!! Where is the EVIDENCE to support your claim that there is a silencer mark on Sheila's wound? If such evidence existed, we wouldn't be arguing the toss of whether Jeremy is guilty or not!!
All I can say is the photograph must be a fake,and you'll have to ask Mike about the Police-issue silencer because I have lost track of where Sheila is supposed to have shot herself and what the sequence of events was subsequently.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 17, 2013, 03:36:PM
All I can say is the photograph must be a fake,and you'll have to ask Mike about the Police-issue silencer because I have lost track of where Sheila is supposed to have shot herself and what the sequence of events was subsequently.

The photo isn't fake but it is simply 'opinion' in respect to a silencer mark being present. I see no silencer mark and it was never mentioned at the trial - you frequently confuse 'opinions' with facts and evidence.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Jane on August 17, 2013, 03:48:PM
If you believe #220 and #224 show humility and respect along with videos shown in a similar vein yesterday then maybe I will begin to question my membership of this site. Having seceded from Betnod because my mental health was questioned the last thing I need on this site is some creepy a$$cracker  making similar allegations.


Steve, I think you need to lighten up a little. NOBODY here, to my knowledge, has questioned your MENTAL health and NOBODY has questioned your intelligence. However I AM questioning your lack of manners and I find it frankly CHILDISH beyond reason for an adult of your intelligence to take a standpoint of "If you're rude to me, I'll be rude to you back." Two wrongs DON'T make a right.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Caroline R on August 17, 2013, 03:58:PM

Steve, I think you need to lighten up a little. NOBODY here, to my knowledge, has questioned your MENTAL health and NOBODY has questioned your intelligence. However I AM questioning your lack of manners and I find it frankly CHILDISH beyond reason for an adult of your intelligence to take a standpoint of "If you're rude to me, I'll be rude to you back." Two wrongs DON'T make a right.

And lack of supporting evidence!!  ;D ;D

Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: Jane on August 17, 2013, 04:24:PM
And lack of supporting evidence!!  ;D ;D




YES, Caroline, that too. Thankyou :D
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: lookout on August 17, 2013, 06:58:PM
Just been reading about Angela Vane who strangled and stabbed her two year old child.The woman suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and when she appeared in court,,the court had great sympathy for her saying that she'd suffered a psychosis and was very unwell. Angela had two other sons in their 20's who were also compassionate.

The Detective Inspector had stated that it was the saddest and most tragic cases he'd dealt with in 24 years. Angela was stopped from jumping off a bridge,by a passer-by who took her to the police station.
As the DI said,,,there were no winners in this case.Angela is being held in a secure psychiatric unit.
Title: Re: The RIDDLE of the BACK STAIRCASE.
Post by: campion on August 17, 2013, 11:07:PM
To whom it may concern, I do find it rather flippant to be referred to as 'Sonny'.
'Junior' would not appear so patronising and condescending. Indeed Indiana Jones' father so refers to him in 'The Last Crusade'! One can be classed as a Junior Reporter, or a Junior School Teacher, without deference.
Can someone help me with the mention of 'Bet/Nod', or was it 'Net/Bod'? 
Is that a Spoonerism? That may account for a propensity for stirring.

Howsomeever, back on Topic in a roundabout manner. As a left handed golfer uses left handed clubs, would a left-

handed rifelman suffer the ejected bullet cases whistling across his visage. Would a left handed door smasher -inner need a
left handed sledge hammer?

Indeed he would not.  From information in Police manuals and guidance videos, the 'Breacher of the door' I.e. assaulter Woodcock, as is proclaimed, will have the latest in the then building breaching technology. This would have been an effective ram, applied in the lock vicinity of the door. The result of this is to effect opening, by the keeper in the door jamb being smashed off.
Hopefully it will be agreed that there does not appear to much damage to have been caused to the open door in enigmatic Picture Kitchen 13.
In my considered opinion TFG officer Woodcock, wielding the 'ram', may not have been first through the door. It is likely to have been Collins, who is reported to have looked through the window, thus seeing a 'female', and having the advantage of already seeing the layout of the interior of the Laundryroom/scullery.
Please remember dawn occurred at 5.30a.m., and it is estimated that entry to WHF was made at approx 6a.m., when Jeremy was taken on the 'goose chase' to Tolleshunt d'Arcy village to phone Muggy.