Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: keepers on November 26, 2012, 06:39:AM
-
One of the things I still have a problem with is the sound made by the rifle if it has no sound moderator fitted. How loud actually is it. Is it loud enough that a single shot would wake people up? I have many ideas and theories and this is one of the things I'm not totally sure of. It also seems that this is not a totally reliable weapon and most definitely not designed as an assassins rifle asking the question would jeremy have really chosen this weapon if he was intending to carry out the atrocity?
-
Good morning, Keepers. I have been reliably informed that the sound made by the rifle would have been no louder than a handclap. You raise a very pertinant point about its' suitability as a murder weapon. We hear how Jeremy had been planning this for some time, if that was the case, surely he knew enough about weapons, or enough people who did, to choose something more suitable.
-
Good morning, Keepers. I have been reliably informed that the sound made by the rifle would have been no louder than a handclap. You raise a very pertinant point about its' suitability as a murder weapon. We hear how Jeremy had been planning this for some time, if that was the case, surely he knew enough about weapons, or enough people who did, to choose something more suitable.
How could it be more suitable ? 5 people dead suggests it was not a bad choice of weapon...
-
How could it be more suitable ? 5 people dead suggests it was not a bad choice of weapon...
Hi boheme, I would think to plan to kill 5 people, 3 of them adults with a 22 rifle was a huge risk.
I accept the element of surprise was important but still doesn't fully explain how Nevill allowed it to happen. There were available guns in that house but none appeared to have been used against the murderer.??
-
Hi boheme, I would think to plan to kill 5 people, 3 of them adults with a 22 rifle was a huge risk.
I accept the element of surprise was important but still doesn't fully explain how Nevill allowed it to happen. There were available guns in that house but none appeared to have been used against the murderer.??
That is a good point..... The children were killed in their bed, Ralph was killed before he had time to act and June was also shot and incapacitated, leaving only Sheila, who was probably to terrified to do anything other than follow the killers instructions to lie down...
-
Hi boheme, I would think to plan to kill 5 people, 3 of them adults with a 22 rifle was a huge risk.
I accept the element of surprise was important but still doesn't fully explain how Nevill allowed it to happen. There were available guns in that house but none appeared to have been used against the murderer.??
I would have thought that if Jeremy bought a gun intending to kill people and not vermin that he would under pretence have bought another kind of weapon a bit larger that a .22, which from what others have said on the forum was just a bit more powerful than an air gun? One hell of a chance to take if he was intending to kill 5 people? There would be good chances that he would not have been successful in his plan. Also it is clearly evident that he had never shewn any violence to anyone before that date and from people I know testify that he was a bit of a whimp and found it difficult to kill even a small animal. In fact what these people I know said about him completely contradicts the evidence of Julie Mugford.
-
I would have thought that if Jeremy bought a gun intending to kill people and not vermin that he would under pretence have bought another kind of weapon a bit larger that a .22, which from what others have said on the forum was just a bit more powerful than an air gun? One hell of a chance to take if he was intending to kill 5 people? There would be good chances that he would not have been successful in his plan. Also it is clearly evident that he had never shewn any violence to anyone before that date and from people I know testify that he was a bit of a whimp and found it difficult to kill even a small animal. In fact what these people I know said about him completely contradicts the evidence of Julie Mugford.
Exactly Lugg. The .22 was far more likely to injure than to kill, you had to mean real business to kill with it.
As you say, no sign of past violence in a person suggests a gentle person, even in prison apart from early on when he says he was really angry, understandably so, if wrongly convicted, Jeremy has never shown any sign of violence. The crime doesn't fit the person imo.
-
Exactly Lugg. The .22 was far more likely to injure than to kill, you had to mean real business to kill with it.
As you say, no sign of past violence in a person suggests a gentle person, even in prison apart from early on when he says he was really angry, understandably so, if wrongly convicted, Jeremy has never shown any sign of violence. The crime doesn't fit the person imo.
But you could apply the same logic to Sheila ?
-
But you could apply the same logic to Sheila ?
Well, yes you could and it was used about Sheila, except we do know Sheila's medical history and the fact she had been violent, either to herself or others in the past, during a psychotic episode
We do now, know that schizophrenia has a high suicide rate and we also know now that such women suffering from such an illness who have children, tend to take their children with them.
I wouldn't believe Sheila or Jeremy capable of such a violent premeditated crime, therefore of the two of them that night, in the circumstances Sheila was far more likely to have 'lost it' than Jeremy imo.
-
But you could apply the same logic to Sheila ?
Yes I would. Firstly she didn't have the luxury to choose her weapon. This indicates a spontaneous crime and spontaneous rage. Which she was known to have done so many times which had been witnessed by several people. She was also know to have had violent moods which often frightened different people. Yes in my opinion the logic fits. Sheila picked up the weapon that was readily available to her and that weapon happened to be the .22 gun on the settle.
-
Yes I would. Firstly she didn't have the luxury to choose her weapon. This indicates a spontaneous crime and spontaneous rage. Which she was known to have done so many times which had been witnessed by several people. She was also know to have had violent moods which often frightened different people. Yes in my opinion the logic fits. Sheila picked up the weapon that was readily available to her and that weapon happened to be the .22 gun on the settle.
Couldn't agree more. Have always seen it as a situation when a paranoid schizophrenic woman in a state of psychosis picked up the most available thing to hand in a house full of available weapons and used it. It was a combination of circumstances not a planned assasination imo. xx
-
I've said all along that a .22 was no sort of a weapon to be used in a planned assassin,,hence the number of shots that had to be fired from it.
Jeremy would most definitely have got hold of a pistol if he'd have had any designs on murdering his whole family. The man is definitely not guilty.
Also another point that I've made a few times is that granny Speakman who was ill and elderly would have been the target more so because Jeremy was a regular visitor and knew how much the granny was worth and that he'd also have received the biggest slice of her estate.
Jeremy would have realised that the wait for granny to pass wouldn't be too many years away,and that he'd benefit in so many ways with possibly his very own farm. He would never have thrown that chance away,,not for anything.
-
Yes I would. Firstly she didn't have the luxury to choose her weapon. This indicates a spontaneous crime and spontaneous rage. Which she was known to have done so many times which had been witnessed by several people. She was also know to have had violent moods which often frightened different people. Yes in my opinion the logic fits. Sheila picked up the weapon that was readily available to her and that weapon happened to be the .22 gun on the settle.
I agree to a certain extent but it is a huge step from ranting and raving to picking up a gun and shooting your own family... Sheila was more at risk of harming herself than others imo..... whereas leaving a gun fully loaded on a settle seems reckless - who would leave a gun lying around with young children in the vicinity ? It is just nuts...
-
I agree to a certain extent but it is a huge step from ranting and raving to picking up a gun and shooting your own family... Sheila was more at risk of harming herself than others imo..... whereas leaving a gun fully loaded on a settle seems reckless - who would leave a gun lying around with young children in the vicinity ? It is just nuts...
Although I do agree that Bamber was reckless, especially with children in the house. But the query was that Bamber showed not history or inclination to violence. Sheila had.
-
Although I do agree that Bamber was reckless, especially with children in the house. But the query was that Bamber showed not history or inclination to violence. Sheila had.
Had Sheila ever physically harmed anyone other than herself ? ( I dont mean frightening anyone such as Freddie..or the child falling from the taxi) I never read anything like that...
-
Had Sheila ever physically harmed anyone other than herself ? ( I dont mean frightening anyone such as Freddie..or the child falling from the taxi) I never read anything like that...
Hi Boheme
I was talking to a nurse who worked with Schizophrenia's and I asked her if anyone suffering from that could kill with a rifle. The answer I got was yes....Because under her delusion, she was doing no wrong, she was not harming anybody, the rifle was the bad guy.......It is hard to understand but, how she put it across it made me think. :) :) :)
-
Hi Boheme
I was talking to a nurse who worked with Schizophrenia's and I asked her if anyone suffering from that could kill with a rifle. The answer I got was yes....Because under her delusion, she was doing no wrong, she was not harming anybody, the rifle was the bad guy.......It is hard to understand but, how she put it across it made me think. :) :) :)
Yes, yes, yes, I am sure it is theoretically possible, my question is did Sheila ever physically harm anyone !!
-
Had Sheila ever physically harmed anyone other than herself ? ( I dont mean frightening anyone such as Freddie..or the child falling from the taxi) I never read anything like that...
It's not something that I've heard of, but there are others here more knowledgable than I, however I would like to say that just because it has not been heard of doesn't mean it never happened. I feel we may have the impression that the facts (and fictions!!!) surrounding the murders make up the sum total of the Bamber lives, but they are soundbites taken from a much larger picture. We have no way of knowing how far June and Neville went to keep to themselves knowledge of the extent of Sheila's illness and judging by the letter Sheila sent to Ann from St Andrews Hospital, in which she says she is only there because of general stress, she too, may have been encouraged to stay silent about the real nature of her illness. Whilst I believe it isn't IMpossible that Sheila, on occasions attacked one or other of her parents, I'm totally convinced they would have kept it to themselves.
-
Yes, yes, yes, I am sure it is theoretically possible, my question is did Sheila ever physically harm anyone !!
I don't know. I do know the social services were involved due to marks on one of the twins legs, which is documented. I have not read anything that said, she was violent to people around her; only reports that she frightened them. I suppose she hurt herself mainly, by thumping the wall and putting her hand through the window. :-\
-
And another document.
-
I don't know. I do know the social services were involved due to marks on one of the twins legs, which is documented. I have not read anything that said, she was violent to people around her; only reports that she frightened them. I suppose she hurt herself mainly, by thumping the wall and putting her hand through the window. :-\
Many thanks for the post...
-
I would have thought that if Jeremy bought a gun intending to kill people and not vermin that he would under pretence have bought another kind of weapon a bit larger that a .22, which from what others have said on the forum was just a bit more powerful than an air gun? One hell of a chance to take if he was intending to kill 5 people? There would be good chances that he would not have been successful in his plan. Also it is clearly evident that he had never shewn any violence to anyone before that date and from people I know testify that he was a bit of a whimp and found it difficult to kill even a small animal. In fact what these people I know said about him completely contradicts the evidence of Julie Mugford.
Two points here Lugg. The .22 is very much more powerful than an airgun. In fact it has been used as a sniping weapon. A .22 has probably got 3 times the range of an airgun.Believe me that one shot from a .22 is capable of killing a person with one shot. I am sure NGB will be able to confirm that statement.
With this in mind it was the weapon of choice.
Had the killer used a double barrelled shotgun he would have needed to reload more than once, and have a pocketful of ammo.
Jeremy can not have been the wimp that is suggested, as he was about to kill some rabbits that he had seen, so that rules that out.
Apparently Ralph had lost interest with shooting, so I wonder why he bought the .22 in the first place complete with a moderater, after all he was happy with the boom of a twelve bore. most farmers use this weapon because even if they miss the sound sends rabbits scurrying, and you will not see another rabbit for 30 minutes at least.
Can I be clear that I am a Bamber supporter, but will not agree to misinformation.
-
Buddy's just gave Lugg a thick ear :D
-
In a nice way Dave. I welcome theories, and Lugg has my admiration. I am only trying to be honest.
I know a little about weapons, so can give a measured response.
Keep on Lugg I honestly like you.
-
In a nice way Dave. I welcome theories, and Lugg has my admiration. I am only trying to be honest.
I know a little about weapons, so can give a measured response.
Keep on Lugg I honestly like you.
Yeah I was just kidding Buddy. It's interesting reading from both of you.
-
Yeah I was just kidding Buddy. It's interesting reading from both of you.
I know you was Dave.
Hope Lugg is as forgiving as you. No offence intended in my post. In fact I love the interaction.
It is nice to remain on topic for once.
Lugg I love you 8)
-
I don't know. I do know the social services were involved due to marks on one of the twins legs, which is documented. I have not read anything that said, she was violent to people around her; only reports that she frightened them. I suppose she hurt herself mainly, by thumping the wall and putting her hand through the window. :-\
Very interesting Patti!! - I'm sure Steve will have something to say in this regard :)
-
Although I do agree that Bamber was reckless, especially with children in the house. But the query was that Bamber showed not history or inclination to violence. Sheila had.
I'm with boheme on this issue. I would add that Jeremy had lived with Suzette Ford and her children for a couple of years and would realize the danger a loaded rifle would pose. Maybe Mike could go back to Pages Lane of an evening and check for the presence of rabbits,as again we only have Jeremy's word for it that they were there.
-
steve-uk I would suggest to you that during the summer months it would be most unusual not to find rabbits on a farm. I am not suggesting Jeremy heard them as they are usually not heard just seen.
-
Yes, yes, yes, I am sure it is theoretically possible, my question is did Sheila ever physically harm anyone !!
We really don't know the answer to that boheme, just because it wasn't reported we don't know what went on within the family on other occasions tho' I would imagine there was never an issue with guns as Ralph would surely have had them locked away after such an episode.
However, Sheila was a psychotic and Jeremy was not, neither of them would have been violent to others until they were....if you see what I mean? Theoretically, Sheila would be more likely to harm someone, when psychotic. imo
-
steve-uk I would suggest to you that during the summer months it would be most unusual not to find rabbits on a farm. I am not suggesting Jeremy heard them as they are usually not heard just seen.
It's all very convenient for Jeremy isn't it-it all falls nicely for him. Father asks him to come over and doesn't telephone the Police directly,yet Jeremy does the exact opposite-eventually. Five people dead for whom Jeremy doesn't care two hoots,and then he's there like a scene from T.S Eliot's Macavity.
-
It's all very convenient for Jeremy isn't it-it all falls nicely for him. Father asks him to come over and doesn't telephone the Police directly,yet Jeremy does the exact opposite-eventually. Five people dead for whom Jeremy doesn't care two hoots,and then he's there like a scene from T.S Eliot's Macavity.
You have no idea who Jeremy did or didn't care two hoots for Steve. :o
-
With regards to the .22 being an excellent rifle that can kill with one shot and is used by snipers my querie is this, why would it take so many bullets to kill two elderly people, two babies, and a deranged women in the throes of psychosis unless it was in the hands of someone whose experience with guns was limited.
-
steve why are you attacking me all I said was on a farm during summer months rabbits would be in quite large numbers. Never mentioned rifles as I know absolutely nothing about them nor did I suggest Jeremy did or did not care two hoots about 5 members of his family being dead. You are firing at the wrong person here steve :o
-
With regards to the .22 being an excellent rifle that can kill with one shot and is used by snipers my querie is this, why would it take so many bullets to kill two elderly people, two babies, and a deranged women in the throes of psychosis unless it was in the hands of someone whose experience with guns was limited.
I was thinking the same thing!
-
With regards to the .22 being an excellent rifle that can kill with one shot and is used by snipers my querie is this, why would it take so many bullets to kill two elderly people, two babies, and a deranged women in the throes of psychosis unless it was in the hands of someone whose experience with guns was limited.
Jeremy was on a high,keepers-he lived for kicks. He told Julie "tonight's the night" and as he finally reached the farm and ascended the stairs he would be trigger happy with the first number of shots. Let's just hope the twins didn't suffer. As Jeremy drove DS Stan Jones and Miller away from Pages Lane that Wednesday morning(strange that the shock had passed)he was bent on a new phase of his life,the only thing inside the house of which he was desirous being the antiques,the reason why he didn't burn down the farm the previous Christmas.
-
It's all very convenient for Jeremy isn't it-it all falls nicely for him. Father asks him to come over and doesn't telephone the Police directly,yet Jeremy does the exact opposite-eventually. Five people dead for whom Jeremy doesn't care two hoots,and then he's there like a scene from T.S Eliot's Macavity.
Convenient? I wonder if he would call 27 years in prison 'convenient'?
-
With regards to the .22 being an excellent rifle that can kill with one shot and is used by snipers my querie is this, why would it take so many bullets to kill two elderly people, two babies, and a deranged women in the throes of psychosis unless it was in the hands of someone whose experience with guns was limited.
Good point, keepers. I have always assumed it was an inadequate weapon which is why so many bullets were used (and the wounds are so tiny) but equally that could be due to the shooter being inexperienced
-
Jeremy was on a high,keepers-he lived for kicks. He told Julie "tonight's the night" and as he finally reached the farm and ascended the stairs he would be trigger happy with the first number of shots. Let's just hope the twins didn't suffer. As Jeremy drove DS Stan Jones and Miller away from Pages Lane that Wednesday morning(strange that the shock had passed)he was bent on a new phase of his life,the only thing inside the house of which he was desirous being the antiques,the reason why he didn't burn down the farm the previous Christmas.
Kicks? What kicks? He'd been working since the early hours and only returned home after 9pm - he'd have been shattered!
-
Good point, keepers. I have always assumed it was an inadequate weapon which is why so many bullets were used (and the wounds are so tiny) but equally that could be due to the shooter being inexperienced
And also in a frenzy,Boo.
-
steve why are you attacking me all I said was on a farm during summer months rabbits would be in quite large numbers. Never mentioned rifles as I know absolutely nothing about them nor did I suggest Jeremy did or did not care two hoots about 5 members of his family being dead. You are firing at the wrong person here steve :o
No you're right Susan I can't disprove it,neither can I disprove the conversation about fostering the twins,threatening Sheila with NHS care,Jeremy telling Ann Eaton that Sheila was on the hard stuff and that he had taken the sights off the gun because it wouldn't fit into the gun cupboard without them. It seems to me that Jeremy had rehearsed some of his story in his mind the preceding months on the tractor but hadn't quite got every detail polished,and as soon as DS Stan Jones gets to work then it all starts to unravel and Jeremy becomes horribly exposed.
-
Jeremy was on a high,keepers-he lived for kicks. He told Julie "tonight's the night" and as he finally reached the farm and ascended the stairs he would be trigger happy with the first number of shots. Let's just hope the twins didn't suffer. As Jeremy drove DS Stan Jones and Miller away from Pages Lane that Wednesday morning(strange that the shock had passed)he was bent on a new phase of his life,the only thing inside the house of which he was desirous being the antiques,the reason why he didn't burn down the farm the previous Christmas.
Where is your proof that such a fatuous phrase was ever used. It was alleged to have been said, by someone who may have been smoking grass, and was so concerned by it that she went back to bed.
-
steve why are you attacking me all I said was on a farm during summer months rabbits would be in quite large numbers. Never mentioned rifles as I know absolutely nothing about them nor did I suggest Jeremy did or did not care two hoots about 5 members of his family being dead. You are firing at the wrong person here steve :o
Perhaps he should have bought a machine gun with all them pesky wabbits?
-
Hi Lugg I thought at first you were saying steve should have bought a machine gun for all us pesky posters Ha Ha. but he would be lost without us.
-
Hi Lugg I thought at first you were saying steve should have bought a machine gun for all us pesky posters Ha Ha. but he would be lost without us.
Strange as it may seem I like Steve. He is always polite and never abusive to people. He is also well read. Even though I believe he is mistaken on several things? ;D
-
Lugg I agree I like steve too sometimes I feel he can be a little too direct but on the whole he is a perfect gentleman and I may make him my Heathcliff :)
-
Kicks? What kicks? He'd been working since the early hours and only returned home after 9pm - he'd have been shattered!
He had to put some spade work in Caroline or he would have forfeited the farm under the terms of his father's will. I'm afraid sometimes it's all too plain as a pikestaff to me how Jeremy's mind is working,though admittedly I have never murdered anyone or committed any crime.
-
Strange as it may seem I like Steve. He is always polite and never abusive to people. He is also well read. Even though I believe he is mistaken on several things? ;D
Hi Lugg I thought at first you were saying steve should have bought a machine gun for all us pesky posters Ha Ha. but he would be lost without us.
Lugg, equally strangely and for reasons which escape me, I share your views. Well, most of them :) and dear Susie, he would indeed be lost without us. It's much more fun to disagree with others who are willing to respond, than to disagree with oneself ;D ;D ;D
-
Lugg I agree I like steve too sometimes I feel he can be a little too direct but on the whole he is a perfect gentleman and I may make him my Heathcliff :)
NAUGHTY Susie >:( You'll break poor Campion's heart :'( :'(
-
He had to put some spade work in Caroline or he would have forfeited the farm under the terms of his father's will. I'm afraid sometimes it's all too plain as a pikestaff to me how Jeremy's mind is working,though admittedly I have never murdered anyone or committed any crime.
Well, my pikestaff reads differently Steve! ;D
-
Lugg, equally strangely and for reasons which escape me, I share your views. Well, most of them :) and dear Susie, he would indeed be lost without us. It's much more fun to disagree with others who are willing to respond, than to disagree with oneself ;D ;D ;D
Yes Lugg/April, I agree Steve is one on his own but he is as you say always a gentleman and certainly enjoys debate. He frustrates the hell out of me at times but would miss him if he went. ;D ;D
-
april campion knows he is my Heathcliff I am just trying to make him jealous. :)
-
NAUGHTY Susie >:( You'll break poor Campion's heart :'( :'(
Nah. He's ok after his medication and when I've chained him into his favourite chair.
-
Nah. He's ok after his medication and when I've chained him into his favourite chair.
No S&M this side of midnight, please Lugg :)
-
Yes Lugg/April, I agree Steve is one on his own but he is as you say always a gentleman and certainly enjoys debate. He frustrates the hell out of me at times but would miss him if he went. ;D ;D
It is helpful to have people who disagree otherwise what would happen is that we all agree with each other no matter how bizzare the viewpoint. I have seen this on other topics I have followed when everyone agrees and it just become sterile.
-
It is helpful to have people who disagree otherwise what would happen is that we all agree with each other no matter how bizzare the viewpoint. I have seen this on other topics I have followed when everyone agrees and it just become sterile.
Hourglass, I hope you'll continue to find us far from sterile on this forum :) :) :)
-
Oh people here far from sterile imagination. Read into that what you like, I am Chinese so I talk in riddles. It is our practice to avoid conflict.
-
It is helpful to have people who disagree otherwise what would happen is that we all agree with each other no matter how bizzare the viewpoint. I have seen this on other topics I have followed when everyone agrees and it just become sterile.
I agree....................erm...........what do we do now? :-X
-
Well one discussion I got involved with involved nine people being killed. To me it was obvious what happened but almost without exception on that forum everyone believed UFOs or the CIA done it. It was so boring. The moment you deviated from the UFO theory everyone jumped down your throat saying "You cannot prove that UFO (or CIA) were not involved!" "Why are you here unless you believe in conspiracy?"
It is best when some people disagree. More constructive. We learn more.
So you think nobody could here rifle sounds?
-
Well one discussion I got involved with involved nine people being killed. To me it was obvious what happened but almost without exception on that forum everyone believed UFOs or the CIA done it. It was so boring. The moment you deviated from the UFO theory everyone jumped down your throat saying "You cannot prove that UFO (or CIA) were not involved!" "Why are you here unless you believe in conspiracy?"
It is best when some people disagree. More constructive. We learn more.
Wow! That was some violent discussion. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked007.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
Oh my tenses are wrong. I dont mean nine people on forum killed themselves. I mean the discussion was about nine people who got killed. In Chinese we do not conjugate verbs.
-
Oh my tenses are wrong. I dont mean nine people on forum killed themselves. I mean the discussion was about nine people who got killed. In Chinese we do not conjugate verbs.
hehe. Sorry for my bad joke. I knew what you meant. ;D
-
hehe. Sorry for my bad joke. I knew what you meant. ;D
Oh my apology. :-[
-
Oh my apology. :-[
No apology needed. It is just my warped sense of humour. :)
-
No apology needed. It is just my warped sense of humour. :)
Be fun if nine people on this forum kill each other, think of the suspects and the police investigation. Debate would last the rest of our lives.
-
Be fun if nine people on this forum kill each other, think of the suspects and the police investigation. Debate would last the rest of our lives.
Which may not be long if we are one of the nine killed? ;D
-
Which may not be long if we are one of the nine killed? ;D
I expect police would mess up. Would think clear case of nine simultaineous suicides.
Where is Sherlock when you need him?