Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: tyler on December 15, 2012, 10:24:AM
-
This is a particular aspect of the case that intrigues me.
According to BW's testimony,Nevill had a premonition that his life was about to be cut short.He appeared to be depressed and worried prior to the murders and speculated that his life would be ended in a "shooting accident".
He had been receiving threats from someone that clearly was not Jeremy.A friend of Nevill's made a statement that he had been present in Nevill's office when Nevill had taken at least two calls from "this someone " who was threatening him and that Nevill had appeared to be frightened following the calls.
I say clearly not Jeremy as,regardless of what RWB and the likes of him would like to have us believe,the evidence tells us that at the time of the murders,Nevill was very happy with the way in which Jeremy was shaping up to be a farmer.He had relayed this to the HS trust during their inspection of whf........and.........he had recently gifted Jeremy a small farm telling him it was "just in case anything goes wrong with whf. Why should anything go wrong with whf? What, and more importantly WHO was Nevill afraid of????
-
This is a particular aspect of the case that intrigues me.
According to BW's testimony,Nevill had a premonition that his life was about to be cut short.He appeared to be depressed and worried prior to the murders and speculated that his life would be ended in a "shooting accident".
He had been receiving threats from someone that clearly was not Jeremy.A friend of Nevill's made a statement that he had been present in Nevill's office when Nevill had taken at least two calls from "this someone " who was threatening him and that Nevill had appeared to be frightened following the calls.
I say clearly not Jeremy as,regardless of what RWB and the likes of him would like to have us believe,the evidence tells us that at the time of the murders,Nevill was very happy with the way in which Jeremy was shaping up to be a farmer.He had relayed this to the HS trust during their inspection of whf........and.........he had recently gifted Jeremy a small farm telling him it was "just in case anything goes wrong with whf. Why should anything go wrong with whf? What, and more importantly WHO was Nevill afraid of????
Tyler,,I think so too,,and he'd probably have had another threat on the night of the murders as I can only assume that was why he was " short " on the phone that night as his worries/concerns,returned.
Latterly,there were concerns about the " unsavoury friends " that Sheila had befriended too.
It was obvious that Neville was grooming Jeremy for a life on the farm,as though he did have a premonition that whatever happened,that land had to stay in the family for future investment.
-
Tyler, You'r a Diamond, Club Hearts with a Spade!!!!
-
Tyler, You'r a Diamond, Club Hearts with a Spade!!!!
Tyler's a top poster,campion. A no-nonsense truthful one at that.
-
Tyler,,I think so too,,and he'd probably have had another threat on the night of the murders as I can only assume that was why he was " short " on the phone that night as his worries/concerns,returned.
Latterly,there were concerns about the " unsavoury friends " that Sheila had befriended too.
It was obvious that Neville was grooming Jeremy for a life on the farm,as though he did have a premonition that whatever happened,that land had to stay in the family for future investment.
Lookout,that is interesting.I admit that I did not know that there were concerns regarding friends of Sheila? Was Nevill concerned? And are you referring to Sheila's druggie friends?
It is very possible that Nevill was being blackmailed? I've never considered this before! He did appear to be worrying about finances prior to the murders.In particular he appeared anxious about the bank loan that he had taken out to finance the conversion of his late mother's house into apartments.
-
lookout I agree tyler is the tops inspite of not telling us who Mason Doyle is :) :) :) :) :) :)
-
Tyler, You'r a Diamond, Club Hearts with a Spade!!!!
I cannot always decipher your posts Campion,you are far too intelligent for the likes of me,........but if what you have posted is a compliment,then thank you! x
-
lookout I agree tyler is the tops inspite of not telling us who Mason Doyle is :) :) :) :) :) :)
Who is Mason Doyle? x
-
Lookout,that is interesting.I admit that I did not know that there were concerns regarding friends of Sheila? Was Nevill concerned? And are you referring to Sheila's druggie friends?
It is very possible that Nevill was being blackmailed? I've never considered this before! He did appear to be worrying about finances prior to the murders.In particular he appeared anxious about the bank loan that he had taken out to finance the conversion of his late mother's house into apartments.
Yes,Tyler,,I had read somewhere about Sheilas' erratic behaviour concerning these new-found friends who June was really showing her objections to,,and who probably tried her best to rid Sheila of them. Those who knew Sheila,weren't impressed either.
You never know,Neville could have been being blackmailed,especially if any of these " cronies " had actually been inside WHF at some point, taking in its contents,etc.
My bet is that Jeremy didn't know half of what was going on,and remained totally oblivious and innocent.
Surely the police would have had a list of dealers,etc and worked from that.Names,etc.
-
lookout I agree tyler is the tops inspite of not telling us who Mason Doyle is :) :) :) :) :) :)
Susan,I would never press anyone to tell of their " secrets ".
-
Who is Mason Doyle? x
Ah,I know who you mean now Susan,now I have re-read his intro in the foyer.
I will pm you x
-
Yes,Tyler,,I had read somewhere about Sheilas' erratic behaviour concerning these new-found friends who June was really showing her objections to,,and who probably tried her best to rid Sheila of them. Those who knew Sheila,weren't impressed either.
You never know,Neville could have been being blackmailed,especially if any of these " cronies " had actually been inside WHF at some point, taking in its contents,etc.
My bet is that Jeremy didn't know half of what was going on,and remained totally oblivious and innocent.
Surely the police would have had a list of dealers,etc and worked from that.Names,etc.
Thanks for that info Lookout. If Nevill was indeed being blackmailed (of which we have absolutely no proof),then I'm inclined to go with "others" rather than Sheil's 'unsavoury' friends.Which brings me back to my own suspicions regarding who was responsible for the murders! :-X
-
This is a particular aspect of the case that intrigues me.
According to BW's testimony,Nevill had a premonition that his life was about to be cut short.He appeared to be depressed and worried prior to the murders and speculated that his life would be ended in a "shooting accident".
He had been receiving threats from someone that clearly was not Jeremy.A friend of Nevill's made a statement that he had been present in Nevill's office when Nevill had taken at least two calls from "this someone " who was threatening him and that Nevill had appeared to be frightened following the calls.
I say clearly not Jeremy as,regardless of what RWB and the likes of him would like to have us believe,the evidence tells us that at the time of the murders,Nevill was very happy with the way in which Jeremy was shaping up to be a farmer.He had relayed this to the HS trust during their inspection of whf........and.........he had recently gifted Jeremy a small farm telling him it was "just in case anything goes wrong with whf. Why should anything go wrong with whf? What, and more importantly WHO was Nevill afraid of????
Good post Tyler, the telephone call alone by Jeremy's admission tends to rule out third party for me?
-
Good post Tyler, the telephone call alone by Jeremy's admission tends to rule out third party for me?
Thankyou :)
I can understand why the phone call rules out a third party theory for many,including yourself and respect that. But,for me,I remain open minded to the idea that Nevill could have been forced into making the call.
-
Thankyou :)
I can understand why the phone call rules out a third party theory for many,including yourself and respect that. But,for me,I remain open minded to the idea that Nevill could have been forced into making the call.
Particularly as he was immediately cut off from saying what he must have wanted to say. Without doubt,Jeremy was needed at WHF------------------------------to be shot.
-
Thankyou :)
I can understand why the phone call rules out a third party theory for many,including yourself and respect that. But,for me,I remain open minded to the idea that Nevill could have been forced into making the call.
[/quote I think everyone should have an open mind as well the only thing anyone has to go on is what we read or interpret. One instance take the time jeremy robbed the caravan park his own family, people might say poor jeremy he was put up to it by Julie he says he was testing security, I say greedy b?????d.
-
This is a particular aspect of the case that intrigues me.
According to BW's testimony,Nevill had a premonition that his life was about to be cut short.He appeared to be depressed and worried prior to the murders and speculated that his life would be ended in a "shooting accident".
He had been receiving threats from someone that clearly was not Jeremy.A friend of Nevill's made a statement that he had been present in Nevill's office when Nevill had taken at least two calls from "this someone " who was threatening him and that Nevill had appeared to be frightened following the calls.
I say clearly not Jeremy as,regardless of what RWB and the likes of him would like to have us believe,the evidence tells us that at the time of the murders,Nevill was very happy with the way in which Jeremy was shaping up to be a farmer.He had relayed this to the HS trust during their inspection of whf........and.........he had recently gifted Jeremy a small farm telling him it was "just in case anything goes wrong with whf. Why should anything go wrong with whf? What, and more importantly WHO was Nevill afraid of????
I love reading your posts Tyler :) What you are saying is of great importance and has never fully been looked into by the police, for they concentrated too much in the conviction that it was JB.
NB also had a panic button installed a few weeks prior the tragedy, so it fits in with what you are saying. I wonder if there was any such evidence held by the police surrounding any threats made to NB? Was this avenue of policing followed?
I would never rule out the fact that a third party could be involved, I think NB being forced into making a call should never be overlooked as impossible. :) :) :) :)
-
My conclusions are that someone wanted ALL the Bambers wiped out, Jeremy too,hence the call to him,,which would speak for itself if Neville didn't contact the police.
-
Hi lookout I would never press anyone either to tell me their secrets. If I was told by their own volition the secret would stay with me that I can guarantee. :)
-
My conclusions are that someone wanted ALL the Bambers wiped out, Jeremy too,hence the call to him,,which would speak for itself if Neville didn't contact the police.
Again lookout if it was a third party and someone made neville phone jeremy to kill him i think someone would have said what ever you do dont phone the police?
-
Again lookout if it was a third party and someone made neville phone jeremy to kill him i think someone would have said what ever you do dont phone the police?
why not jeremy could you come over quickly your mum has took ill
-
why not jeremy could you come over quickly your mum has took ill
Yes that would make more sense, but I struggle with why and who would want the whole family dead in the first place.
-
Yes that would make more sense, but I struggle with why and who would want the whole family dead in the first place.
Who would want the twins dead and plan for them to be there?
-
I cannot always decipher your posts Campion,you are far too intelligent for the likes of me,........but if what you have posted is a compliment,then thank you! x
I think the word you need is "enigmatic" Tyler? ;D
-
Again lookout if it was a third party and someone made neville phone jeremy to kill him i think someone would have said what ever you do dont phone the police?
Neville would have phoned the police while the killer was otherwise distracted,could possibly have been caught and that's when he suffered a bashing.
I still can't understand why the panic button wasn't used though,as June would have known where it was even if nobody else did.
-
My conclusions are that someone wanted ALL the Bambers wiped out, Jeremy too,hence the call to him,,which would speak for itself if Neville didn't contact the police.
..and yet the murder weapon was left out by Jeremy with only two of his prints and one of Sheila's found. Nevill wanted a panic button installed(though there's still no firm evidence there was one except someone's word on this site),we have Nevill changing the safe key because someone was snooping around(I wonder who that could have been?) and we have Nevill's remarks that "if Jeremy buys that 5 bore shotgun we'll all have to look out".
-
Who would want the twins dead and plan for them to be there?
In the context of third parties, no one that I can think of..
-
Hello Bridget I don't think a third party was involved at all.
-
Hello Bridget I don't think a third party was involved at all.
Me neither Susan.
-
..and yet the murder weapon was left out by Jeremy with only two of his prints and one of Sheila's found. Nevill wanted a panic button installed(though there's still no firm evidence there was one except someone's word on this site),we have Nevill changing the safe key because someone was snooping around(I wonder who that could have been?) and we have Nevill's remarks that "if Jeremy buys that 5 bore shotgun we'll all have to look out".
;)
The weapon was also examined for fingerprints. A print from the appellant's right forefinger was found on the breech end of the barrel, above the stock and pointing across the gun and Sheila Caffell's right ring fingerprint was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. There were three further finger marks on the rifle, each of insufficient detail for identification purposes.
Which means she had to have touched the thick end of the handle on the gun. But, nothing has been mentioned about this...her finger pointing towards the barrel of the gun. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Hello steve uk you take my word for it a panic button was installed at WHF but due to security reasons for the family I am not able to divulge its whereabouts.
-
steve uk don't forget your earlier quote where Ralph Bamber said I must never turn my back on that young man.
-
..and yet the murder weapon was left out by Jeremy with only two of his prints and one of Sheila's found. Nevill wanted a panic button installed(though there's still no firm evidence there was one except someone's word on this site),we have Nevill changing the safe key because someone was snooping around(I wonder who that could have been?) and we have Nevill's remarks that "if Jeremy buys that 5 bore shotgun we'll all have to look out".
We have the word of Vidvic that the panic alarm was installed. He is certainly someone who has accurate information because of his connections with the family. Vidvic's word is certainly good enough for me.
What is your source for Nevill's alleged remark? By the way, there is no such thing as a 5 bore shotgun. I have let this pass several times but I think it should be corrected now.
-
We have the word of Vidvic that the panic alarm was installed. He is certainly someone who has accurate information because of his connections with the family. Vidvic's word is certainly good enough for me.
What is your source for Nevill's alleged remark? By the way, there is no such thing as a 5 bore shotgun. I have let this pass several times but I think it should be corrected now.
And there was me thinking it was some sort of cannon... ;)
-
Bridget you are naughty but I like you :) :) :) :) :)
-
..and yet the murder weapon was left out by Jeremy with only two of his prints and one of Sheila's found. Nevill wanted a panic button installed(though there's still no firm evidence there was one except someone's word on this site),we have Nevill changing the safe key because someone was snooping around(I wonder who that could have been?) and we have Nevill's remarks that "if Jeremy buys that 5 bore shotgun we'll all have to look out".
Yes.Jeremy admitted that he left the murder weapon out.He didn't have to admit to this....in fact,if guilty,one would have thought that he wouldn't have mentioned it at all? How do we know that Nevill did not return the rifle to the gun cupboard some time later that evening? And weapons appeared to lay around the farmhouse anyway. Didn't AP say that his weapons were kept in the downstairs loo or shower room? Doesn't quite equate to us being told that Nevill was scrupulous regarding the security of his weapons,does it?
-
And there was me thinking it was some sort of cannon... ;)
A loose one at that?
-
And there was me thinking it was some sort of cannon... ;)
It would be! ::)
-
;)
The weapon was also examined for fingerprints. A print from the appellant's right forefinger was found on the breech end of the barrel, above the stock and pointing across the gun and Sheila Caffell's right ring fingerprint was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. There were three further finger marks on the rifle, each of insufficient detail for identification purposes.
Which means she had to have touched the thick end of the handle on the gun. But, nothing has been mentioned about this...her finger pointing towards the barrel of the gun. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Yet the Defence's case is that she killed four people with it,including a struggle with Nevill where a ceiling light got broken,necessitating even the Jeremy supporters' grudging acceptance surely that at that stage Sheila is holding the rifle with two hands.
Here is Jeremy back at the farm,under suffrance after bumming around Australia and New Zealand until the money runs out,then taking employment at Little Chef off the A10 rather than get stuck into farm work. Maybe Jeremy airs his grievances with June at the unfair treatment between himself and Sheila who has been bought a flat in a fashionable area of London and is receiving assistance through June's Osea Road dividend.
So June lets Jeremy have Bourtree Cottage rent free:not what Jeremy had in mind exactly but at least he has a degree of independence and can entertain whomever he likes there without his parents involvement-until that is June catches Julie there one day and calls her a "harlot" to her face. An offer of a flat in London is turned down by Julie who is besotted by Jeremy and sticks by him at this stage.
Jeremy is back working on the farm and is paid well for his age,but with his lavish tastes whilst dining out and other sundry expenditure on the cottage he finds his wage is inadequate,which is why he resorts to earning money on the side by drug dealing. He becomes more and more resentful that he is expected to work for a living and is stuck in an Essex backwater whilst he regards Sheila as living it up in London.
Jeremy's resentment comes out in the odd remark to friends-the James Richards comment said with vehemence on several occasions:"I f***ing hate my parents" and to Doris, the wife of farmworker Len Foalkes to whom he remarks:"I'm not sharing anything with Sheila". If this is not an indication that he has seen the provisions of his mother's will whereby this is exactly what he would be doing then I don't know what is.
Of course Jeremy is still the major beneficiary of Nevill's will,as long as he farms to the satisfaction of the trustees upon Nevill's death,and this is the reason why Jeremy has settled down to farming because it would be the last year of Nevill's life,after which Jeremy would no longer be tied to the farm and he could do what he pleased,inheriting the lion's share of both his parents' wills in the process.
-
Yet the Defence's case is that she killed four people with it,including a struggle with Nevill where a ceiling got broken,necessitating even the Jeremy supporters' grudging acceptance surely that at that stage Sheila is holding the rifle with two hands.
Here is Jeremy back at the farm,under suffrance after bumming around Australia and New Zealand until the money runs out,then taking employment at Little Chef off the A10 rather than get stuck into farm work. Maybe Jeremy airs his grievances with June at the unfair treatment between himself and Sheila who has been bought a flat in a fashionable area of London and is receiving assistance through June's Osea Road dividend.
So June lets Jeremy have Bourtree Cottage rent free:not what Jeremy had in mind exactly but at least he has a degree of independence and can entertain whomever he likes there without his parents involvement-until that is June catches Julie there one day and calls her a "harlot" to her face. An offer of a flat in London is turned down by Julie who is besotted by Jeremy and sticks by him at this stage.
Jeremy is back working on the farm and is paid well for his age,but with his lavish tastes whilst dining out and other sundry expenditure on the cottage he finds his wage is inadequate,which is why he resorts to earning money on the side by drug dealing. He becomes more and more resentful that he is expected to work for a living and is stuck in an Essex backwater whilst he regards Sheila as living it up in London.
Jeremy's resentment comes out in the odd remark to friends-the James Richards comment said with vehemence on several occasions:"I f***ing hate my parents" and to Doris, the wife of farmworker Len Foalkes to whom he remarks:"I'm not sharing anything with Sheila". If this is not an indication that he has seen the provisions of his mother's will whereby this is exactly what he would be doing then I don't know what is.
Of course Jeremy is still the major beneficiary of Nevill's will,as long as he farms to the satisfaction of the trustees upon Nevill's death,and this is the reason why Jeremy has settled down to farming because it would be the last year of Nevill's life,after which Jeremy would no longer be tied to the farm and he could do what he pleased,inheriting the lion's share of both his parents' wills in the process.
Hi Steve :)
Can we stick to the rifle and finger prints please. You said that there were two prints from Jeremy, this is not so, there was only one. The other fingerprint on the butt of the rifle was of Sheila's right ring finger, pointing downwards towards the barrel. Can you please explain how this could have happened. :-\ :-\
-
Yes.Jeremy admitted that he left the murder weapon out.He didn't have to admit to this....in fact,if guilty,one would have thought that he wouldn't have mentioned it at all? How do we know that Nevill did not return the rifle to the gun cupboard some time later that evening? And weapons appeared to lay around the farmhouse anyway. Didn't AP say that his weapons were kept in the downstairs loo or shower room? Doesn't quite equate to us being told that Nevill was scrupulous regarding the security of his weapons,does it?
But the weapon was loaded,to make it look as if all Sheila had to do was take it and fire it. Possibly Jeremy didn't realize how many bullets it would take for a rifle destined to kill vermin to kill five people,and anyway he let slip to Julie that Nevill putting up a fight had irritated him so much that he pumped more bullets into him after death as retribution. Had Nevill got a hand to the gun Jeremy would not want the complication of his fingerprints on the murder weapon as any suggestion of a struggle would work against Sheila being the culprit. Jeremy's piece de resistance was scattering the religious messages left around the house by June and some possibly written in Sheila's hand that last evening,as he had done when he scattered papers round the office at Osea Road to make it look as if there had been a burglary from an exterior source instead of the inside jobs both crimes were.
-
Steve,,Jeremy wouldn't have had both murder and financial gain on his mind,,as he would realise you can't have both. Once you get those handcuffs on,any legacy becomes null and void,,to which Jeremy would have known that,so he wasn't going to muck up his own life by setting out to murder his family.
-
But the weapon was loaded,to make it look as if all Sheila had to do was take it and fire it. Possibly Jeremy didn't realize how many bullets it would take for a rifle destined to kill vermin to kill five people,and anyway he let slip to Julie that Nevill putting up a fight had irritated him so much that he pumped more bullets into him after death as retribution. Had Nevill got a hand to the gun Jeremy would not want the complication of his fingerprints on the murder weapon as any suggestion of a struggle would work against Sheila being the culprit. Jeremy's piece de resistance was scattering the religious messages left around the house by June and some possibly written in Sheila's hand that last evening,as he had done when he scattered papers round the office at Osea Road to make it look as if there had been a burglary from an exterior source instead of the inside jobs both crimes were.
I think the injuries to Ralph and the state of the kitchen did more than enough to suggest a struggle..
-
Hi Steve :)
Can we stick to the rifle and finger prints please. You said that there were two prints from Jeremy, this is not so, there was only one. The other fingerprint was of Sheila's right ring finger, pointing downwards towards the barrel. Can you please explain how this could have happened. :-\ :-\
No one print from Sheila when Jeremy put her finger there after death,two from Jeremy which he failed to wipe off and three possibly from Police who did move the rifle,how many times we do not know.
-
Lovely Susan, POST#30, reading your delicate mind, we now know the Panic Button was in the 'Panic Room'.This place of refuge was the little room above the front door portico. The very room which was said to be called the 'Sewing Room', and Lookout poignantly asked if that was where Jeremy was stitched up.
What you can tell us, Susan is- why is the Panic Button still insitu, if there is no fearful Magistrate in residence?
-
Steve,,Jeremy wouldn't have had both murder and financial gain on his mind,,as he would realise you can't have both. Once you get those handcuffs on,any legacy becomes null and void,,to which Jeremy would have known that,so he wasn't going to muck up his own life by setting out to murder his family.
Im affraid thats why a lot of murders take place lookout finacial gain
-
No one print from Sheila when Jeremy put her finger there after death,two from Jeremy which he failed to wipe off and three possibly from Police who did move the rifle,how many times we do not know.
Where on the police photograph's does it show you Sheila touching the butt end of the rifle? :) :) :)
-
We have the word of Vidvic that the panic alarm was installed. He is certainly someone who has accurate information because of his connections with the family. Vidvic's word is certainly good enough for me.
What is your source for Nevill's alleged remark? By the way, there is no such thing as a 5 bore shotgun. I have let this pass several times but I think it should be corrected now.
He also says that he and Hartley also knows where it is. You have two witnesses that back up each other and both know the family personally.
-
But the weapon was loaded,to make it look as if all Sheila had to do was take it and fire it. Possibly Jeremy didn't realize how many bullets it would take for a rifle destined to kill vermin to kill five people,and anyway he let slip to Julie that Nevill putting up a fight had irritated him so much that he pumped more bullets into him after death as retribution. Had Nevill got a hand to the gun Jeremy would not want the complication of his fingerprints on the murder weapon as any suggestion of a struggle would work against Sheila being the culprit. Jeremy's piece de resistance was scattering the religious messages left around the house by June and some possibly written in Sheila's hand that last evening,as he had done when he scattered papers round the office at Osea Road to make it look as if there had been a burglary from an exterior source instead of the inside jobs both crimes were.
Steve,you keep telling us that Sheila knew nothing about guns,so how would she know it was loaded? And you also keep telling us that Jeremy wiped the rifle clean.If this was so,then how come there were still prints left on it? All other prints on the rifle were smudged was they not? Which is hardly surprising since goodness knows how many police officers handled the gun before it was fingerprinted!
-
Steve,,Jeremy wouldn't have had both murder and financial gain on his mind,,as he would realise you can't have both. Once you get those handcuffs on,any legacy becomes null and void,,to which Jeremy would have known that,so he wasn't going to muck up his own life by setting out to murder his family.
Jeremy's life was lived for the here and now;like a child who would stay at the fairground all day he bummed around the Antipodes until the money ran out,and that font of money came from his parents until it dried up. Jeremy's main concern was always money,just he assuaged his conscience by thinking that he'd be doing everyone a favour as they were all mercy killings.
-
And there was me thinking it was some sort of cannon... ;)
A twelve bore and a punt gun are more like cannons. ;D If I bought one of those everyone would have to look out. Because I am a rotten shot just like Jeremy was.
-
Yes.Jeremy admitted that he left the murder weapon out.He didn't have to admit to this....in fact,if guilty,one would have thought that he wouldn't have mentioned it at all? How do we know that Nevill did not return the rifle to the gun cupboard some time later that evening? And weapons appeared to lay around the farmhouse anyway. Didn't AP say that his weapons were kept in the downstairs loo or shower room? Doesn't quite equate to us being told that Nevill was scrupulous regarding the security of his weapons,does it?
Logical as usual Tyler. :)
-
Hello my dear are you saying the panic button is located upstairs in the sewing room? I suppose it is still in situ as the family fear for their lives if Jeremy is ever released. That is what I am given to believe.If he goes after them with his 5 bore shotgun they can press the button.
-
He also says that he and Hartley also knows where it is. You have two witnesses that back up each other and both know the family personally.
I'm not doubting their veracity,but the information is practically useless without knowing its exact location.
-
Hello my dear are you saying the panic button is located upstairs in the sewing room? I suppose it is still in situ as the family fear for their lives if Jeremy is ever released. That is what I am given to believe.If he goes after them with his 5 bore shotgun they can press the button.
or his punt gun or hand cannon.
-
Or water pistol.
-
steve I know the location but I'm not telling you what good will it do you to know. You are adamant Jeremy is guilty so how would this information change your views.
-
Stevie Wonder, That is at least the 4th time you have claimed that Jeremy worked at the Little Chef along the A10. I SHALL TELL YOU ONLY ONCE, - the A10 is in Hertfordshire.
Susan will put you on the naughty step, until you get it in your thick head it is indeed alongside the A12.
-
I think the injuries to Ralph and the state of the kitchen did more than enough to suggest a struggle..
Hi Bridget.
I agree with you regarding Nevill's injuries.It does indeed appear as though the poor man fought hard for his life :(
However,regarding the state of he kitchen,it has since been acknowledged that most of that mess had been made by the raid team.
In one of Ron Cook's statements (maybe to COLP)?,he admits that he doesn't actually believe that there was much of a struggle/fight at all.He believes that Nevill was already far too injured at that point.
-
Im affraid thats why a lot of murders take place lookout finacial gain
Sadly,very very true!
However,I have often wondered how many children are murdered for financial gain?
-
Stevie Wonder, That is at least the 4th time you have claimed that Jeremy worked at the Little Chef along the A10. I SHALL TELL YOU ONLY ONCE, - the A10 is in Hertfordshire.
Susan will put you on the naughty step, until you get it in your thick head it is indeed alongside the A12.
lol ;D
-
Hi tyler I have thought now for awhile that Ralph Bamber was near death when he was beaten. A man of his statue would have been able to fight for his life had he not been injured. He was a strong looking man contrary to what steve has posted that he was old and frail he was neither. I think he was sat in the chair where he was found and he was battered with the butt of the rifle and was totally helpless :(
-
Steve,you keep telling us that Sheila knew nothing about guns,so how would she know it was loaded? And you also keep telling us that Jeremy wiped the rifle clean.If this was so,then how come there were still prints left on it? All other prints on the rifle were smudged was they not? Which is hardly surprising since goodness knows how many police officers handled the gun before it was fingerprinted!
Sheila had nothing to do with the murder weapon on the Tuesday evening or the following morning. DS Jones says there were no prints of Jeremy's there during his interrogation on Wednesday 11 September. This would corroborate Julie's statement. There were three further unidentified prints only along with one of Sheila's which is just not enough if all the Jeremy supporters' theories about wonderwoman Sheila during those last few hours are true.
-
Stevie Wonder, That is at least the 4th time you have claimed that Jeremy worked at the Little Chef along the A10. I SHALL TELL YOU ONLY ONCE, - the A10 is in Hertfordshire.
Susan will put you on the naughty step, until you get it in your thick head it is indeed alongside the A12.
It is at Feering on the A12. If it is the same Little Chef?
-
Hi tyler I have not heard of cases where children are murdered for financial gain. Children are often murdered because of sexual abuse or by the Mother who thinks she must protect them from evil or she is frightened they are going to be taken away. In the case of Contract killing I don't think many would be willing to shoot two innocent little boys sleeping for any amount of money. So where does this leave us I don't really know.
-
Hi tyler I have thought now for awhile that Ralph Bamber was near death when he was beaten. A man of his statue would have been able to fight for his life had he not been injured. He was a strong looking man contrary to what steve has posted that he was old and frail he was neither. I think he was sat in the chair where he was found and he was battered with the butt of the rifle and was totally helpless :(
No because there were bloodstains at chest height on the wallpaper in the hallway suggesting that Jeremy shot him there as Nevill made his way downstairs to try and reach the kitchen telephone. More blood on the kitchen floor by the telephone but no blood on the kitchen telephone itself.
-
Sheila had nothing to do with the murder weapon on the Tuesday evening or the following morning. DS Jones says there were no prints of Jeremy's there during his interrogation on Wednesday 11 September. This would corroborate Julie's statement. There were three further unidentified prints only along with one of Sheila's which is just not enough if all the Jeremy supporters' theories about wonderwoman Sheila during those last few hours are true.
Which of course messes up your other claim that Jeremy pressed her finger onto the rifle. You would think if he had done that he would have made sure it was entirely covered with her prints? Easy enough to do? So why didn't he do that?
-
Hi Bridget.
I agree with you regarding Nevill's injuries.It does indeed appear as though the poor man fought hard for his life :(
However,regarding the state of he kitchen,it has since been acknowledged that most of that mess had been made by the raid team.
In one of Ron Cook's statements (maybe to COLP)?,he admits that he doesn't actually believe that there was much of a struggle/fight at all.He believes that Nevill was already far too injured at that point.
I tend to agree with that, there is certainly confusion as to what part of the mess was caused by the raid team. There is still the broken light though.
-
Which of course messes up your other claim that Jeremy pressed her finger onto the rifle. You would think if he had done that he would have made sure it was entirely covered with her prints? Easy enough to do? So why didn't he do that?
He panicked after the unexpected encounter with Nevill and the necessity of having to shoot Sheila twice.
-
He panicked after the unexpected encounter with Nevill and the necessity of having to shoot Sheila twice.
That of course is only your opinion Steve and unfortunately a very weak explanation. He had plenty of time to do what he wanted to do. If he had time to imprint one fingerprint. He had time to plaster the whole gun with them.
-
steve please tell me where in my post did I mention one word about where Ralph was shot and I said nothing at all about telephones. I have been given to understand Ralph was shot on the landing and half way down the stairs and again in the kitchen. I understand blood was found on the work surface near the phone in the kitchen. If you as an individual were fearing for your life would you bother with phones with a panic button in the house. I don't think so.
-
Hi Bridget I wonder how low was the light hanging down was it hit by the rifle as somebody was wielding it aiming at poor Ralph or was it very high up. My light in my kitchen is low enough to give it a whack and break it.
-
Hi Bridget I wonder how low was the light hanging down was it hit by the rifle as somebody was wielding it aiming at poor Ralph or was it very high up. My light in my kitchen is low enough to give it a whack and break it.
Ceilings were/are pretty high in both Georgian and Victorian properties,Susan.
-
That of course is only your opinion Steve and unfortunately a very weak explanation. He had plenty of time to do what he wanted to do. If he had time to imprint one fingerprint. He had time to plaster the whole gun with them.
After killing five people in cold blood his mind was on making the telephone call in the kitchen to his answerphone at Goldhanger,cycling back there unobserved and cleaning up,in addition to a pathetic attempt to rope Julie in as an accessory with the second telephone call,which the Defence have still not fully explained.
-
No because there were bloodstains at chest height on the wallpaper in the hallway suggesting that Jeremy shot him there as Nevill made his way downstairs to try and reach the kitchen telephone. More blood on the kitchen floor by the telephone but no blood on the kitchen telephone itself.
Aside from the kitchen,the twins room and the main bedroom,blood was found on the landing outside Sheilas bedroom,up the wallpaper on the staircase (this matched Nevills blood group) and on the door jam of the door leading to the kitchen.
-
It is at Feering on the A12. If it is the same Little Chef?
I thought it was at Boreham Services?
Their food is so expensive my husband refers to them as 'Little Thief ' !!!
-
Steve,,Jeremy knew WHF like the back of his hand,right.? Why were half the lights on do you think.? Possibly knowing that there could be a chance that someone could walk past the farmhouse and make out figures from the windows.Do you think he'd have taken such a chance.?
-
Steve,,Jeremy knew WHF like the back of his hand,right.? Why were half the lights on do you think.? Possibly knowing that there could be a chance that someone could walk past the farmhouse and make out figures from the windows.Do you think he'd have taken such a chance.?
The bodies had to be discovered,but not too soon. This is why Nevill's body was dragged to its position behind the door.If anyone observed a light then all well and good that they could vouch for an early time,when Jeremy had vacated the property.
-
After killing five people in cold blood his mind was on making the telephone call in the kitchen to his answerphone at Goldhanger,cycling back there unobserved and cleaning up,in addition to a pathetic attempt to rope Julie in as an accessory with the second telephone call,which the Defence have still not fully explained.
You're not getting my reasoning Steve. If his mind was on all these things why did he plant one of Sheila's fingerprints on the gun? You're weakening your own argument by saying this. If he was intent on putting the blame firmly on Sheila, why spend a lot of time cleaning the gun and then put only one fingerprint on the gun? But a real question would be did the police wear gloves when they themselves handled the weapon? And why were there so few of their prints?
-
You're not getting my reasoning Steve. If his mind was on all these things why did he plant one of Sheila's fingerprints on the gun? You're weakening your own argument by saying this. If he was intent on putting the blame firmly on Sheila, why spend a lot of time cleaning the gun and then put only one fingerprint on the gun? But a real question would be did the police wear gloves when they themselves handled the weapon? And why were there so few of their prints?
Well he couldn't play around with the body after death could he? It had to look like Sheila had fired shots into herself and then fallen back.
-
You're not getting my reasoning Steve. If his mind was on all these things why did he plant one of Sheila's fingerprints on the gun? You're weakening your own argument by saying this. If he was intent on putting the blame firmly on Sheila, why spend a lot of time cleaning the gun and then put only one fingerprint on the gun? But a real question would be did the police wear gloves when they themselves handled the weapon? And why were there so few of their prints?
Didn't the police say they picked it up by the hooks wear a strap attaches or something? It seems certain that whoever checked it was safe would have had to have had a better grasp than that.
-
Hi steve if Jeremy's mind was on getting back to Goldhanger quickly for his clean up and roping Julie into his plan why waste time heating a rifle and burning three marks on Ralphs back one would think he wanted out of there as quick as possible. If he wanted to make sure Ralph was dead he could have given him another beating around the head would have been quicker than heating up the rifle. God rest your soul Ralph.
-
Hi Bridget how do you think the light was broken. Was something thrown and hit the light do you think.
-
Hi steve if Jeremy's mind was on getting back to Goldhanger quickly for his clean up and roping Julie into his plan why waste time heating a rifle and burning three marks on Ralphs back one would think he wanted out of there as quick as possible. If he wanted to make sure Ralph was dead he could have given him another beating around the head would have been quicker than heating up the rifle. God rest your soul Ralph.
These marks do need explaining and I've read that they have been impossible to duplicate just by heating a rifle in an Aga. Was it in Andrew Hunter's book draft..not sure.
-
Well he couldn't play around with the body after death could he? It had to look like Sheila had fired shots into herself and then fallen back.
Steve,,if Jeremy had been near bodies,,the sniffer dog outside the farmhouse would have been going mad.
-
Steve,,if Jeremy had been near bodies,,the sniffer dog outside the farmhouse would have been going mad.
I don't know lookout but hadn't Jeremy had a shower and put on a load of clothes.
-
I don't know lookout but hadn't Jeremy had a shower and put on a load of clothes.
Steve,neither a bath nor a shower would hide the scent of a trained dog at sniffing corpses.
A dog was present,but not interested.
-
Steve,neither a bath nor a shower would hide the scent of a trained dog at sniffing corpses.
A dog was present,but not interested.
Depending on whether the smell of death was there after the short time it took for Jeremy to kill them all and then remove himself from the premises.
-
steve forgive me if I am wrong but I thought the tests on the pig skin which is the nearest to our own proved to be very much like the marks on Ralphs back and they were carried out by the experts from Arizona. I could be getting mixed up. It is my honest opinion that the marks on Ralphs back could have been made with a large lit cigar the type that Sheila smoked. It does not take long or require great heat to burn through the skin and leave a scar for life. This I have experienced myself.
-
steve forgive me if I am wrong but I thought the tests on the pig skin which is the nearest to our own proved to be very much like the marks on Ralphs back and they were carried out by the experts from Arizona. I could be getting mixed up. It is my honest opinion that the marks on Ralphs back could have been made with a large lit cigar the type that Sheila smoked. It does not take long or require great heat to burn through the skin and leave a scar for life. This I have experienced myself.
I'm open to suggestion on this susan;it's an inexplicable part of the case.
-
Depending on whether the smell of death was there after the short time it took for Jeremy to kill them all and then remove himself from the premises.
Those dogs are specially trained Steve.They can sniff out a body even if it's been buried,so it's no difficulty for them to follow the trail for ages after the event. It wouldn't matter how many articles of clothing were worn.
-
steve the dog is trained not to smell death but the residue from gunshots and washing does not remove this from a person immediately.Makes no difference if he had 10 jumpers on the dog would sniff around but showed no interest. This is what I have read anyway on the forum.
-
Hi steve if Jeremy's mind was on getting back to Goldhanger quickly for his clean up and roping Julie into his plan why waste time heating a rifle and burning three marks on Ralphs back one would think he wanted out of there as quick as possible. If he wanted to make sure Ralph was dead he could have given him another beating around the head would have been quicker than heating up the rifle. God rest your soul Ralph.
Yes Susan. We must keep reminding ourselves that these were real people and victims of a terrible tragedy. Or crime if Jeremy is indeed guilty?
-
Hi Lugg I find at times I feel quite uncomfortable talking about these sad deaths as if I am somehow not being respectful to these innocent victims.
-
It's just such a pity that Neville wasn't as respected as he might have been. He reminded me a lot of my late pa-in-law,that's why I can relate to the family. Generous to a fault.
-
Susan, Can you tell us if there was a gas poker available in the kitchen, and could it have caused the burn marks on Nevill's neck? Are the marks symbolic, or were they merely a source of persuasion?
Talking about flowers ( Red Hot Pokers ), can Lugg? put up the symbolic picture, from the Archive, of Nevill and June in front of the blooming roses?
-
Hi Bridget how do you think the light was broken. Was something thrown and hit the light do you think.
I imagine it was someone wielding the rifle whilst clumping Neville with it.
Those dogs are specially trained Steve.They can sniff out a body even if it's been buried,so it's no difficulty for them to follow the trail for ages after the event. It wouldn't matter how many articles of clothing were worn.
As far as I know this wasn't a cadaver dog, it was trained to detect firearms or firearm residue. I don't think I've ever seen any evidence that the dog was ever tasked with sniffing Jeremy, and they are trained to only indicate the presence of residue when set to work.
-
steve it has been suggested that the burns were made to Ralph's back with the butt of a rifle heated in the solid fuel Aga. The point that has to be addressed now did heating up the rifle affect the bluing process carried out on the rifle during manufacture. Was the end of the rifle discoloured or not the only way we would know that is to be allowed to have the rifle examined which I believe is with EP in their Museum. Not likely. I have done some research into the process of bluing and it would appear that the object has to be heated to a really high temperature for the metal to become discoloured but then again we don't know the heat of the Aga but as it was summertime the Aga would be set low. I posted up during the week that many years ago I had the back of my hand burnt with a lit cigarette I remember the burn appeared very quickly and was quite deep not just a surface burn. I still have a round white scar on my hand where the burn was inflicted. This is why I feel the burn marks could have been done with a lit large cigar as the burns were much bigger looking than the one I have. That is food for thought steve. We have to ask ourselves steve why were these burns inflicted was it a sadistic gesture or somekind of ritual with religious connotations. The figure 3 is featured quite alot on the note found upstairs where the figure 3 is written 5 times the three burn marks. Caroline came up with some valuable information regarding this but I will need for her to post it up when she is available. In the meantime I would appreciate your thoughts on this subject. I am assuming the Aga was solid fuel.
-
Steve is in demand lol
I am still waiting for Steve to reply...to this:
Shelia's right ring fingerprint was found on the butt of the rifle. No pictures exist of her touching this part of gun, yet her print was found on it, so she must have touched the butt end of the rifle. How? I feel like a parrot.... :D :D :D :D
Where on the police photograph's does it show you Sheila touching the butt end of the rifle? :-\
-
Hi campion I honestly think the three burn marks on Ralphs back were indeed symbolic. Had they been put there to try and persuade Ralph to do something he would not have sat still whilst the rifle or whatever was being heated to burn him. Symbolic and I now need you to work out what is the significance of the three as I said to steve it was written on the note upstairs 5 times. If you are murdering your family for an inheritance you don't hang about heating up an instrument and burning your victims back. Could it have been a cigar. Don't know if they had gas at the farm but I think the burns were too regular in shape to have been done with a gas poker it does not take long to burn through the skin and end up with a bad burn don't try it take my word for it. With regard your red hot pokers I wont tell you where to stick them but don't spoil my beautiful Yorkshire White Roses. :) :) :)Yes he can put up the photo's of Ralph as I prefer to call him and June infront of my roses.
-
Hi Patti better to be a parrot than a budgie like me twittering on and everyone ignoring me. :) :) :)
-
Hello campion not sure if you were serious about putting up a photo of Ralph and June with my roses but if you were, on reflection it would not be appropriate as I don't have their consent and it would be wrong of me to say yes and I would not feel comfortable with it. Stick with the White Rose of Yorkshire my friend :) wonder what you have done with your red hot pokers.
-
Hi campion I honestly think the three burn marks on Ralphs back were indeed symbolic. Had they been put there to try and persuade Ralph to do something he would not have sat still whilst the rifle or whatever was being heated to burn him. Symbolic and I now need you to work out what is the significance of the three as I said to steve it was written on the note upstairs 5 times. If you are murdering your family for an inheritance you don't hang about heating up an instrument and burning your victims back. Could it have been a cigar. Don't know if they had gas at the farm but I think the burns were too regular in shape to have been done with a gas poker it does not take long to burn through the skin and end up with a bad burn don't try it take my word for it. With regard your red hot pokers I wont tell you where to stick them but don't spoil my beautiful Yorkshire White Roses. :) :) :)Yes he can put up the photo's of Ralph as I prefer to call him and June infront of my roses.
The three burnmarks could have had a Christian meaning,Father,Son and Holy Spirit.
-
Hi lookout yes we did discuss that it was a Christian meaning. It was a special day can't remember what but Caroline knows all about it and she will tell us when she comes on the forum.
-
Hi lookout yes we did discuss that it was a Christian meaning. It was a special day can't remember what but Caroline knows all about it and she will tell us when she comes on the forum.
Of course,Susan,I remember now.There could be an element of truth in it.
-
Hi Patti better to be a parrot than a budgie like me twittering on and everyone ignoring me. :) :) :)
Squeak, Squeak! lol :) :) :) :) :) :)
-
I don't know the answers to these questions. Did a forensic pathologist come up with any ideas on the burn marks? As for Sheila's fingerprint,maybe Jeremy placed her finger there after the first shot.
-
I don't know the answers to these questions. Did a forensic pathologist come up with any ideas on the burn marks? As for Sheila's fingerprint,maybe Jeremy placed her finger there after the first shot.
Or maybe she actually held the rifle Steve? If he was going to plant her fingerprints on the rifle butt he would have made sure they were all over the place....surely? not just one solitary fingerprint. You witness the photo with her all her right fingers on the rifle, but they were never found...I'd love to know why this is.... :( :( :( :(
-
Hi Patti better to be a parrot than a budgie like me twittering on and everyone ignoring me. :) :) :)
Doctor doctor I get the feeling everyone is ignoring me.. Next patient please.
-
Susan I can empathise with you being a sweet lickle budgie, as long as you don't fall off your rod, POLE, or perch.
-
These marks do need explaining and I've read that they have been impossible to duplicate just by heating a rifle in an Aga. Was it in Andrew Hunter's book draft..not sure.
Not true Steve_UK. In fact the opposite is true. It is probable that the burns were caused by the application of the end of the rifle barrel, without either the end cap or silencer fitted, having been heated in the Aga.
-
Is it certain those marks were caused by the rifle being heated on the aga?
Am i right in thinking that the rifle didnt reach the temperature required by being fired ?
-
Is it certain those marks were caused by the rifle being heated on the aga?
Am i right in thinking that the rifle didnt reach the temperature required by being fired ?
It is not certain, but it is probable. The rifle barrel would not reach the required temerature (approximately 200 degrees C.) simply by being fired, some additional heat source was necessary.
-
So, experts think that the rifle or silencer was heated in the Aga, then Nevile "branded" for want of a better word? Those marks were caused on the night of his death, for sure?
-
It is not certain, but it is probable. The rifle barrel would not reach the required temerature (approximately 200 degrees C.) simply by being fired, some additional heat source was necessary.
What makes it probable, rather than just possible?
-
Hallo Bridget :)
-
Hallo Bridget :)
Hi Andi, long time no see! :)
-
Hi Andi, long time no see! :)
Im busy, busy, busy!
-
What makes it probable, rather than just possible?
The expert examination of the photographs of the burns, in the light of the tests carried out in Arizona in January this year.
-
1. So, experts think that the rifle or silencer was heated in the Aga, then Nevile "branded" for want of a better word? 2. Those marks were caused on the night of his death, for sure?
1. Yes - for what reason we can only guess. Some have suggested a religeous significance. My personal view is that it was in order to check if Nevill was dead.
2. Almost certainly - the first of the burns in particular is quite nasty and would have required treatment.
-
The expert examination of the photographs of the burns, in the light of the tests carried out in Arizona in January this year.
So are you saying that they could pretty much rule out any other cause?
-
So are you saying that they could pretty much rule out any other cause?
Further tests are necessary to reach that level of certainty.
-
Further tests are necessary to reach that level of certainty.
Will further tests be carried out NGB? Are you all set for Christmas by the way?
-
Will further tests be carried out NGB? Are you all set for Christmas by the way?
Yes, further tests will be carried out. There are several areas where further work is needed. The difficulty in January was lack of time and also funding. These tests and experts' reports are very expensive and there is of course no legal aid available. The CCRC could commission tests at their expense but it is difficult to persuade them to do so.
Christmas for me is always a last minute rush. I am usually buying presents on Christmas Eve. I always promise myself that next year I will plan ahead and avoid the stress, but I never do! We do have the goose ready, which takes that pressure away.
-
Yes, further tests will be carried out. There are several areas where further work is needed. The difficulty in January was lack of time and also funding. These tests and experts' reports are very expensive and there is of course no legal aid available. The CCRC could commission tests at their expense but it is difficult to persuade them to do so.
Christmas for me is always a last minute rush. I am usually buying presents on Christmas Eve. I always promise myself that next year I will plan ahead and avoid the stress, but I never do! We do have the goose ready, which takes that pressure away.
What further tests and reports need to be carried out?
How much do they cost?
Has a quote been obtained?
-
Yes, further tests will be carried out. There are several areas where further work is needed. The difficulty in January was lack of time and also funding. These tests and experts' reports are very expensive and there is of course no legal aid available. The CCRC could commission tests at their expense but it is difficult to persuade them to do so.
Christmas for me is always a last minute rush. I am usually buying presents on Christmas Eve. I always promise myself that next year I will plan ahead and avoid the stress, but I never do! We do have the goose ready, which takes that pressure away.
NGB
What further tests and reports need to be carried out?
How much do they cost?
Has a quote been obtained?
-
NGB
What further tests and reports need to be carried out?
How much do they cost?
Has a quote been obtained?
Some tests are continuations of the ones conducted in January last year in the US. There are others which I believe are contemplated, some relating to ballistics and others in relation to different matters.
The tests and reports are always expensive because high calibre experts have to be instructed and the conclusions have to be properly validated and peer reviewed as they have to form the basis for evidence which would stand up in court. In order to do all that I would consider desirable several tens of thousands of pounds would be required. I know some quotes have been obtained. There are other new submissions which are based upon documents.
-
Some tests are continuations of the ones conducted in January last year in the US. There are others which I believe are contemplated, some relating to ballistics and others in relation to different matters.
The tests and reports are always expensive because high calibre experts have to be instructed and the conclusions have to be properly validated and peer reviewed as they have to form the basis for evidence which would stand up in court. In order to do all that I would consider desirable several tens of thousands of pounds would be required. I know some quotes have been obtained. There are other new submissions which are based upon documents.
Circa £20,000 ?/ £30,000 ?/ £40,000 ? / £50,000 ? or more
-
Circa £20,000 ?/ £30,000 ?/ £40,000 ? / £50,000 ? or more
In order to do everything which I believe ideally should be done at least £100,000 would be required.
-
In order to do everything which I believe ideally should be done at least £100,000 would be required.
Blimey! Whatever needs doing, i'll do it for half that!
-
In order to do everything which I believe ideally should be done at least £100,000 would be required.
An estimated £100,000 to do all the tests required WOW. Would there be a 100,000 reasons why only some of the tests were done for the CCRC submissions of last January?
How much did the tests costs that were included within the CCRC submission and the basis of the TV documentary?
-
An estimated £100,000 to do all the tests required WOW. Would there be a 100,000 reasons why only some of the tests were done for the CCRC submissions of last January?
How much did the tests costs that were included within the CCRC submission and the basis of the TV documentary?
The main reason why only some of the tests were completed for the CCRC submissions was shortage of time. Simon McKay was only instructed in September 2011 and had to work to a final deadline of 31st January 2012.
The tests and reports referred to in the submissions and in the Mark Williams-Thomas documentary cost several tens of thousands of pounds in total. I do not have an exact figure.
-
I don't know why the amount can't be deducted from the compensation that Jeremy is due anyway,,for his wrongful and very unsafe conviction and dodgy trial.
-
The main reason why only some of the tests were completed for the CCRC submissions was shortage of time. Simon McKay was only instructed in September 2011 and had to work to a final deadline of 31st January 2012.
The tests and reports referred to in the submissions and in the Mark Williams-Thomas documentary cost several tens of thousands of pounds in total. I do not have an exact figure.
As Simon McKay was only instructed in September 2011 and time was an issue given the final deadline of 31st January were the tests a late addition to the CCRC submission at Simon's request or were they being planned prior to McKay law being instructed?
If so what was the main focus of the submission prior Simon McKay's involvement.
-
Blimey! Whatever needs doing, i'll do it for half that!
I share your feelings in that one Vic. Let me just say though that I do admire those people who gave money towards those tests. This is a reflection on their good natures in my opinion and the fact they believe in Bamber's innocence to give so much of their hard earned cash into proving his innocence. This is one of those things that cause me to stop and think that maybe he is innocent and that this case may just be one of the greatest miscarriages of justice on the 20th and 21st centuries?
-
I don't know why the amount can't be deducted from the compensation that Jeremy is due anyway,,for his wrongful and very unsafe conviction and dodgy trial.
My view is that if he is found to be innocent then then the Crown should pay.
-
My view is that if he is found to be innocent then then the Crown should pay.
Somebody should,Lugg,,as it's my firm belief that he is innocent,there's no doubt in my mind at all.
-
Somebody should,Lugg,,as it's my firm belief that he is innocent,there's no doubt in my mind at all.
Well I'm inclined to believe that he is innocent myself. But who really knows? Only Bamber knows whether he is innocent or not. What causes me to question his guilt is the fact that so many students of law and even qualified lawyers themselves say so as well.
-
Well I'm inclined to believe that he is innocent myself. But who really knows? Only Bamber knows whether he is innocent or not. What causes me to question his guilt is the fact that so many students of law and even qualified lawyers themselves say so as well.
Lugg,,I believe it was the two women in that house,,and that June had grabbed the rifle after having been shot in her bed 5 times before she got up and shot Sheila. There were signs of a struggle between both women,with Sheila being bruised as was June who also had marks of a " dug-in " fingernail/s.
-
Lugg,,I believe it was the two women in that house,,and that June had grabbed the rifle after having been shot in her bed 5 times before she got up and shot Sheila. There were signs of a struggle between both women,with Sheila being bruised as was June who also had marks of a " dug-in " fingernail/s.
Hmm, interesting.
-
As Simon McKay was only instructed in September 2011 and time was an issue given the final deadline of 31st January were the tests a late addition to the CCRC submission at Simon's request or were they being planned prior to McKay law being instructed?
If so what was the main focus of the submission prior Simon McKay's involvement.
The tests and reports commissioned from experts in the US were not planned prior to Simon McKay being instructed.
There were a number of submissions made before Simon McKay was instructed, including those based upon Peter Sutherst's reports about the scratches.
-
The tests and reports commissioned from experts in the US were not planned prior to Simon McKay being instructed.
There were a number of submissions made before Simon McKay was instructed, including those based upon Peter Sutherst's reports about the scratches.
Hi ngb,
Were Sutherst’s Aga surround findings (previously dismissed by the CCRC) re-submitted with new photographic evidence as part of SMack’s appeal?
It's difficult to understand Sutherst “expert” opinion v’s the CCRC’s "expert" opinion.
There are either scratches, or there aren’t scratches!
I believe the CCRC suggested Sutherst’s findings were based on the wrong part of the Aga surround, or wrong angle??
Did Sutherst (with SMack) attempt to overcome the CCRC’s response?
-
The tests and reports commissioned from experts in the US were not planned prior to Simon McKay being instructed.
There were a number of submissions made before Simon McKay was instructed, including those based upon Peter Sutherst's reports about the scratches.
I have read on other threads on the forum that Peter Sutherst did not resist the CCRC’s response to the content of his submission. As such one could read into the situation Peter Sutherst took the money for doing a report within some limited terms of reference but has not since reinforced that report when it was challenged by a counter viewpoint / argument from the CCRC.
I think it has been stated Peter Sutherst is no longer being retained by the defence for the purposes of Jeremy’s bid for freedom / campaign. Such action could indicate the defence do not have much faith in their own strategy or have since lost faith with the argument being presented.
Wherever one looks in this case it appears it is still all about the money.
Sutherst takes the money to do the work but is unable to push his work over the finishing line….. more tests need to be done which I would imagine would mean more fees and yet more money.
I suspect when Simon McKay was instructed he knew / soon became aware the Sutherst angle was an effective dead duck before the CCRC…….. Hence another angle needed to be looked into in order to add some weight to what was fast becoming Jeremy’s ailing CCRC submission. Otherwise it would be back to the beginning of the queue with another further application together with many more years of wait as a new application is progressed.
However, in the meantime the CCRC are playing a blinder.... they offer Jeremy’s team numerous extensions to the CCRC detailed time limits for responses to be prepared. The CCRC also allow more content to be added to the submissions.
If Jeremy was to be successful in getting his conviction quashed I think all would agree a claim for compensation could result in many millions of pounds being received. Not to mention any potential civil claims that might be made on members of the family.
This could be a good business opportunity for a return if someone was prepared to initiate and invest in some forensic tests which could cast some doubt on the safety of Jeremy’s conviction. (Note we are not talking about proving Jeremy to be innocent or proving Sheila to be guilty only the casting of enough doubt on the safety of the conviction which would lead to the conviction being quashed before the Court of Appeal……. then the claims for compensation could begin. Given the historical claims for money that have been made by Jeremy in the civil courts I think it is a very reasonable to assume various claims for compensation would be made by Jeremy if released……… Again all about the money)
Business in general is about a view to risk and the opportunity of making some money in return. As such depending upon the view to risk some may think it might be worth taking a punt on funding some forensic tests in the case of Jeremy Bamber.
Lets play the game...... a budget is allocated.
Should the allocated budget be spent on doing further tests with Peter Sutherst………. No
However, the burn marks on Neville’s back remained unexplained. Could there be any mileage in doing some tests which could provide a possible explanation and cast some doubt on Jeremy’s conviction?
Take a punt.
Spend the allocated budget of say £10,000 on some preliminary tests in Arizona and see what comes back. The full tests could be £100,000 or more which in most people’s book would be a lot of money………In all honesty probably more money than the punt would be worth although this would depend upon ones view to risk and the amount of disposable money available……….. Again all about the money.
The limited Arizona firing tests with pig skin specifically relating to the burn marks on Nevill’s back are conducted. Maybe the allocated budget will generate reports which could provide a possible explanation for the burn marks which would then undermine the original case as heard before the court etc.
The test reports, as issued by the experts, are included within the CCRC submission. The issued reports detail more tests are needed. Such tests I would imagine would need to be funded…………… Again all about the money.
The CCRC issue their final decision / report and detail they will not be referring Jeremy’s conviction to the Court of Appeal.
The CCRC decision becomes the subject of a Judicial Review which is both on paper and then before the Court. The Judicial Review fails and a transcript of the hearing is available and has since been published on the forum.
Maybe if the initial punt money budget had been closer to £100,000 then all the Arizona tests could have been done and a more complete submission could have been made to the CCRC. (However, there is no telling what conclusions all of the necessary Arizona tests would have reached. Such conclusions may have been no good to Jeremy’s defence and may not have cast any doubt on the safety of the conviction)
According to the case of the prosecution the original motive was all about the money.
In my opinion after 27 years nothing appears to have really changed.
However with the passage and in the fullness of time it may be the case Jeremy will need to share any possible compensation with some or a single benefactor who would be prepared to fund some very expensive forensic tests……………. Again all about the money.
-
Hi ngb,
Were Sutherst’s Aga surround findings (previously dismissed by the CCRC) re-submitted with new photographic evidence as part of SMack’s appeal?
It's difficult to understand Sutherst “expert” opinion v’s the CCRC’s "expert" opinion.
There are either scratches, or there aren’t scratches!
I believe the CCRC suggested Sutherst’s findings were based on the wrong part of the Aga surround, or wrong angle??
Did Sutherst (with SMack) attempt to overcome the CCRC’s response?
Hi Nick, I don't mean to answer for NGB, but from what I understood Simon Mackay didn't submit or resubmit anything that had been preliminarily refused, i.e he only dealt with submitting new silencer/burns evidence and didn't respond the the preliminary refused items. If that makes sense? :-\
-
Hi ngb,
Were Sutherst’s Aga surround findings (previously dismissed by the CCRC) re-submitted with new photographic evidence as part of SMack’s appeal?
No. Simon Makay's submissions were entirely new and not based upon anything submitted previously.
It's difficult to understand Sutherst “expert” opinion v’s the CCRC’s "expert" opinion.
There are either scratches, or there aren’t scratches!
I believe the CCRC suggested Sutherst’s findings were based on the wrong part of the Aga surround, or wrong angle??
The CCRC's expert suggested that Sutherst's conclusion that there was no scratch at the time the original crime scene photographs were taken was flawed in that Sutherst had not established that the specific photographs he had examined depicted the correct area of the Aga surround. Further work would be required to establish this. Some of that work has been undertaken but a planned inspection at WHF did not take place.
Did Sutherst (with SMack) attempt to overcome the CCRC’s response?
No. Simon Mckay focussed his attention on the silencer evidence which he regarded as the fundamental element of the prosecution case. He undertook no further work on Sutherst's report.
-
Hi Nick, I don't mean to answer for NGB, but from what I understood Simon Mackay didn't submit or resubmit anything that had been preliminarily refused, i.e he only dealt with submitting new silencer/burns evidence and didn't respond the the preliminary refused items. If that makes sense? :-\
Yes, that makes sense, and confirms the Sutherst Photographic issue to be a dead end.
I had a particular interest in this point, as it was Sutherts findings that prompted the Sunday Times Article 11/07/10, which in turn got me interested in the case.
-
I have read on other threads on the forum that Peter Sutherst did not resist the CCRC’s response to the content of his submission. As such one could read into the situation Peter Sutherst took the money for doing a report within some limited terms of reference but has not since reinforced that report when it was challenged by a counter viewpoint / argument from the CCRC.
I think it has been stated Peter Sutherst is no longer being retained by the defence for the purposes of Jeremy’s bid for freedom / campaign. Such action could indicate the defence do not have much faith in their own strategy or have since lost faith with the argument being presented.
Wherever one looks in this case it appears it is still all about the money.
Sutherst takes the money to do the work but is unable to push his work over the finishing line….. more tests need to be done which I would imagine would mean more fees and yet more money.
I suspect when Simon McKay was instructed he knew / soon became aware the Sutherst angle was an effective dead duck before the CCRC…….. Hence another angle needed to be looked into in order to add some weight to what was fast becoming Jeremy’s ailing CCRC submission. Otherwise it would be back to the beginning of the queue with another further application together with many more years of wait as a new application is progressed.
However, in the meantime the CCRC are playing a blinder.... they offer Jeremy’s team numerous extensions to the CCRC detailed time limits for responses to be prepared. The CCRC also allow more content to be added to the submissions.
If Jeremy was to be successful in getting his conviction quashed I think all would agree a claim for compensation could result in many millions of pounds being received. Not to mention any potential civil claims that might be made on members of the family.
This could be a good business opportunity for a return if someone was prepared to initiate and invest in some forensic tests which could cast some doubt on the safety of Jeremy’s conviction. (Note we are not talking about proving Jeremy to be innocent or proving Sheila to be guilty only the casting of enough doubt on the safety of the conviction which would lead to the conviction being quashed before the Court of Appeal……. then the claims for compensation could begin. Given the historical claims for money that have been made by Jeremy in the civil courts I think it is a very reasonable to assume various claims for compensation would be made by Jeremy if released……… Again all about the money)
Business in general is about a view to risk and the opportunity of making some money in return. As such depending upon the view to risk some may think it might be worth taking a punt on funding some forensic tests in the case of Jeremy Bamber.
Lets play the game...... a budget is allocated.
Should the allocated budget be spent on doing further tests with Peter Sutherst………. No
However, the burn marks on Neville’s back remained unexplained. Could there be any mileage in doing some tests which could provide a possible explanation and cast some doubt on Jeremy’s conviction?
Take a punt.
Spend the allocated budget of say £10,000 on some preliminary tests in Arizona and see what comes back. The full tests could be £100,000 or more which in most people’s book would be a lot of money………In all honesty probably more money than the punt would be worth although this would depend upon ones view to risk and the amount of disposable money available……….. Again all about the money.
The limited Arizona firing tests with pig skin specifically relating to the burn marks on Nevill’s back are conducted. Maybe the allocated budget will generate reports which could provide a possible explanation for the burn marks which would then undermine the original case as heard before the court etc.
The test reports, as issued by the experts, are included within the CCRC submission. The issued reports detail more tests are needed. Such tests I would imagine would need to be funded…………… Again all about the money.
The CCRC issue their final decision / report and detail they will not be referring Jeremy’s conviction to the Court of Appeal.
The CCRC decision becomes the subject of a Judicial Review which is both on paper and then before the Court. The Judicial Review fails and a transcript of the hearing is available and has since been published on the forum.
Maybe if the initial punt money budget had been closer to £100,000 then all the Arizona tests could have been done and a more complete submission could have been made to the CCRC. (However, there is no telling what conclusions all of the necessary Arizona tests would have reached. Such conclusions may have been no good to Jeremy’s defence and may not have cast any doubt on the safety of the conviction)
According to the case of the prosecution the original motive was all about the money.
In my opinion after 27 years nothing appears to have really changed.
However with the passage and in the fullness of time it may be the case Jeremy will need to share any possible compensation with some or a single benefactor who would be prepared to fund some very expensive forensic tests……………. Again all about the money.
Good post Curious!!
-
Yes, that makes sense, and confirms the Sutherst Photographic issue to be a dead end.
I had a particular interest in this point, as it was Sutherts findings that prompted the Sunday Times Article 11/07/10, which in turn got me interested in the case.
The reports and media releases regarding Suthersts evidence was quite compelling and convincing on the face of it. Clearly given the outcome to date, it wasn't quite as portrayed in the media.
I suspect that if further tests were carried out to respond to the CCRCs points of refusal, then Sutherst or another expert could further this line of enquiry in a future application perhaps.
I agree with you that I personally think it is a dead end, regardless of any future work.
-
Good post Curious!!
Thank you Nick(os)
-
Hi All :)
It's already proven that silencer was not on the rifle when Sheila was shot. So what does that tell us? Does it tell us that Sheila sat and waited for the killer to take the silencer off the rifle? There was no signs of a struggle was there!
I keep harping on about the cushions, but no one appears curious as to why they were there, or who put them there. They are placed on the top of a pair of trousers and a white tea shirt. They have blood transfer stains on them. This means that someone had sat on them or laid on them in front of the Aga. You normally place your head or your bum on cushions...yeah?
Behind those cushions is a door on the Aga a very hot door, which holds the ashes. Above that is a drum which holds the coals. Nevill smoked, yet we see no ash tray in the kitchen...So where did he put his cigarettes and where did Sheila put hers?????
The rifle could have been placed on the top of the Aga which is very hot, or could have been used to poke something into the coals to burn.....Could Nevill have sat there? Could Sheila have sat on the cushions? There were blood on the back of Sheila's nightdress at the bottom....it is said to have been June's....Did forensics ever take the cushions to tested? I guess not! So we will never know. Just thinking out loud lol :) :) :)
-
Hi All :)
It's already proven that silencer was not on the rifle when Sheila was shot. So what does that tell us? Does it tell us that Sheila sat and waited for the killer to take the silencer off the rifle? There was no signs of a struggle was there!
t we see no ash tray in the kitchen...So where did he put his cigarettes and where did Sheila put hers?????
Eh? ???
-
Eh? ???
Yes....The test shown was done with and without the silencer fitted and it was the experts opinion that the silencer was not fitted when Sheila was shot. The only thing that tells the court is that it was likely that the killer took it off, knowing that she would not be able to reach with the silencer fitted.... So, this is why they the defence needs to prove that the silencer was not fitted when Nevill was shot and, this is why they are trying to prove that the burn marks on Nevill's back were made without the silencer on....Does that make sense, or shall i give up and concentrate on my day job lol :) :) :) :)
-
Yes....The test shown was done with and without the silencer fitted and it was the experts opinion that the silencer was not fitted when Sheila was shot. The only thing that tells the court is that it was likely that the killer took it off, knowing that she would not be able to reach with the silencer fitted.... So, this is why they the defence needs to prove that the silencer was not fitted when Nevill was shot and, this is why they are trying to prove that the burn marks on Nevill's back were made without the silencer on....Does that make sense, or shall i give up and concentrate on my day job lol :) :) :) :)
I don't understand, are you referring to the recently dismissed evidence? ???
-
I don't understand, are you referring to the recently dismissed evidence? ???
No I am relating to the shots under the chin Hartley. The other evidence relating to the burn marks was dismissed..for the muzzle of the rifle did not heat up enough to have caused the burn marks.... :) :) :)
-
Yes....The test shown was done with and without the silencer fitted and it was the experts opinion that the silencer was not fitted when Sheila was shot. The only thing that tells the court is that it was likely that the killer took it off, knowing that she would not be able to reach with the silencer fitted.... So, this is why they the defence needs to prove that the silencer was not fitted when Nevill was shot and, this is why they are trying to prove that the burn marks on Nevill's back were made without the silencer on....Does that make sense, or shall i give up and concentrate on my day job lol :) :) :) :)
I think that all they needed to prove was that the silencer was not fitted when Sheila was shot. But I can't remember why the CCRC dismissed the tests?
-
No I am relating to the shots under the chin Hartley. The other evidence relating to the burn marks was dismissed..for the muzzle of the rifle did not heat up enough to have caused the burn marks.... :) :) :)
I'm afraid that is not the case Patti, Sheilas blood was found in the silencer.
It most certainly has not been proven that the silencer was not present when she was shot. I think you are getting in a muddle on this. :-\
-
Hi All :)
It's already proven that silencer was not on the rifle when Sheila was shot. So what does that tell us? Does it tell us that Sheila sat and waited for the killer to take the silencer off the rifle? There was no signs of a struggle was there!
I keep harping on about the cushions, but no one appears curious as to why they were there, or who put them there. They are placed on the top of a pair of trousers and a white tea shirt. They have blood transfer stains on them. This means that someone had sat on them or laid on them in front of the Aga. You normally place your head or your bum on cushions...yeah?
Behind those cushions is a door on the Aga a very hot door, which holds the ashes. Above that is a drum which holds the coals. Nevill smoked, yet we see no ash tray in the kitchen...So where did he put his cigarettes and where did Sheila put hers?????
The rifle could have been placed on the top of the Aga which is very hot, or could have been used to poke something into the coals to burn.....Could Nevill have sat there? Could Sheila have sat on the cushions? There were blood on the back of Sheila's nightdress at the bottom....it is said to have been June's....Did forensics ever take the cushions to tested? I guess not! So we will never know. Just thinking out loud lol :) :) :)
Hi Patti,,,the spent cigs and cigars would have been thrown into the fire,,,and the rifle,minus silencer,would have rested upon the aga. There would have been a " scrap " as to who picked the rifle up,,but poor Neville was beaten to it.
A cushion would have been on the chair,maybe both,,and were removed to the floor where I would have said,put there by Sheila who probably sat on them,or were used to stem blood from an injury.
Chances are,,,as usual,,,the cushions were never forensically tested for grouping/matching.
My thoughts are that one or two officers present, knew that Sheila was involved but because it was never accepted that women could,or were capable of such a massacre,,,that nobody said anything and instead,followed what others went along with.
-
Am I missing something...Listen to Philip Boyce. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeLsEeE0zTI
Off swimming....I will be back lol :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Patti,,,the spent cigs and cigars would have been thrown into the fire,,,and the rifle,minus silencer,would have rested upon the aga. There would have been a " scrap " as to who picked the rifle up,,but poor Neville was beaten to it.
A cushion would have been on the chair,maybe both,,and were removed to the floor where I would have said,put there by Sheila who probably sat on them,or were used to stem blood from an injury.
Chances are,,,as usual,,,the cushions were never forensically tested for grouping/matching.
My thoughts are that one or two officers present, knew that Sheila was involved but because it was never accepted that women could,or were capable of such a massacre,,,that nobody said anything and instead,followed what others went along with.
Just caught your post Lookout and Lugg, but have to out, will be back later...................I'm out of the door...lol
-
I'm afraid that is not the case Patti, Sheilas blood was found in the silencer.
It most certainly has not been proven that the silencer was not present when she was shot. I think you are getting in a muddle on this. :-\
The defence counter argument on this at the original trial was the blood in the silencer was a mixture of Nevill and June's blood as opposed to being exclusively Sheila's blood. As such the defence are accepting the silencer would have been on the gun when both Nevill and June had been shot.
How can the silencer be on the gun when Nevill is shot as a defence explanation for the blood as found in the silencer and then the silencer not be on the gun when Nevill is shot as a possible explanation for the presence of the unexplained burn marks on Nevill ?
-
Am I missing something...Listen to Philip Boyce. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeLsEeE0zTI
Off swimming....I will be back lol :) :) :) :)
Yes, if it was accepted that the silencer was not fitted during either of sheilas two wounds, then we would be currently waiting to hear a date for the appeal.
-
The defence counter argument on this at the original trial was the blood in the silencer was a mixture of Nevill and June's blood as opposed to being exclusively Sheila's blood. As such the defence are accepting the silencer would have been on the gun when both Nevill and June had been shot.
How can the silencer be on the gun when Nevill is shot as a defence explanation for the blood as found in the silencer and then the silencer not on the gun when Nevill is shot as a possible explanation for the presence of the unexplained burn marks on Nevill ?
As I understood it ngb explained at the time that all the defence had to prove by these tests was that the silencer was not fixed to the gun when Sheila was shot and that was sufficient for the CCRC to refer the case back to the court of appeal? This was done. But the CCRC still ruled against the new evidence because the tests were incomplete. A big cop our if you ask me. A judgment which they were not qualified to make. But two judges obviously ruled that they were qualified to make that judgment.
-
Hi curiousessex maybe two different rifles were used in the shootings. One with silencer fitted one without.
-
As I understood it ngb explained at the time that all the defence had to prove by these tests was that the silencer was not fixed to the gun when Sheila was shot and that was sufficient for the CCRC to refer the case back to the court of appeal? This was done. But the CCRC still ruled against the new evidence because the tests were incomplete. A big cop our if you ask me. A judgment which they were not qualified to make. But two judges obviously ruled that they were qualified to make that judgment.
Well the defence has not proven the silencer was not fixed to the gun when Sheila was shot. All the defence has done is effectively paid for experts who have written reports / appeared on a broadcast documentary within which it has been stated in the opinion of the expert the images of Sheila's wounds do not, in the opinion of the expert, look like they have been caused by the end of a gun which has a silencer fitted. Nothing else
As such this could have been an argument to be presented at the original trial as opposed to the suggestion the blood in the silencer was a mixture of blood from Nevill and Sheila. The defence could have countered the prosecution's case that the silencer was fitted when Sheila's was shot by stating no silencer was fitted as is demonstrated by the images of the wounds to Sheila's neck. As it was the defence, at the time of the original trial, chose not to take this approach.
-
A lot of unnecessary feet-dragging if you ask me.
-
Hi curiousessex maybe two different rifles were used in the shootings. One with silencer fitted one without.
Do you mean all victims will have been shot by two people at the same time. These two people were using two different guns one of which had a silencer fitted and the other one without a silencer fitted?
Could the two shooters have been both Jeremy and Sheila with Jeremy then turning his gun (with or without a silencer fitted) on Sheila????
-
curiousessex you have lost me but that is not difficult. What I meant was could a killer have used two different rifles. If and I am not saying this happened Sheila killed the family with a rifle with a silencer on. Then used another rifle to heat in the Aga to make the burn marks on Ralphs back then the same rifle to kill herself. With this theory I have to ask myself why was the silencer removed and hid in the back of the cupbaord. Not making sense and I am more confused than ever now. :'(
-
curiousessex you have lost me but that is not difficult. What I meant was could a killer have used two different rifles. If and I am not saying this happened Sheila killed the family with a rifle with a silencer on. Then used another rifle to heat in the Aga to make the burn marks on Ralphs back then the same rifle to kill herself. With this theory I have to ask myself why was the silencer removed and hid in the back of the cupbaord. Not making sense and I am more confused than ever now. :'(
Susan
Not according to the defence.
The defence and Jeremy's permanent position is that Sheila and Sheila alone committed the act and then killed herself. Sheila had used a single gun Jeremy had foolishly left out having loaded a full magazine for the gun together with leaving an amble supply of ammunition in the kitchen having not shot any rabbits which he had seen earlier. Sheila goes berserk with the gun (not two guns) according to what Jeremy says Nevill has told him in an early morning telephone call.
In order to integrate a single killer using two different guns Sheila would need to get another gun. Where did this second gun disappear to and why did Nevill not mention guns (plural) in his call to Jeremy?
-
Was the silencer already on the rifle when Jeremy left it on the settle before returning home.?
-
Was the silencer already on the rifle when Jeremy left it on the settle before returning home.?
Jeremy says not and without the telescopic sight fitted either.
However, I seem to recall Pargeter said the gun had both the silencer and the telescopic sight fitted the weekend before when he visited WHF.
The silencer / sound moderator normally being used when shooting vermin such as rabbits........ I believe the silencer / sound moderator helps in stopping the vermin from running away so quickly after a first shot is fired.
-
The defence counter argument on this at the original trial was the blood in the silencer was a mixture of Nevill and June's blood as opposed to being exclusively Sheila's blood. As such the defence are accepting the silencer would have been on the gun when both Nevill and June had been shot.
How can the silencer be on the gun when Nevill is shot as a defence explanation for the blood as found in the silencer and then the silencer not be on the gun when Nevill is shot as a possible explanation for the presence of the unexplained burn marks on Nevill ?
That's a good point actually, Nevills blood was found in the silencer, were the US experts aware of this fact?
-
Well the defence has not proven the silencer was not fixed to the gun when Sheila was shot. All the defence has done is effectively paid for experts who have written reports / appeared on a broadcast documentary within which it has been stated in the opinion of the expert the images of Sheila's wounds do not, in the opinion of the expert, look like they have been caused by the end of a gun which has a silencer fitted. Nothing else
As such this could have been an argument to be presented at the original trial as opposed to the suggestion the blood in the silencer was a mixture of blood from Nevill and Sheila. The defence could have countered the prosecution's case that the silencer was fitted when Sheila's was shot by stating no silencer was fitted as is demonstrated by the images of the wounds to Sheila's neck. As it was the defence, at the time of the original trial, chose not to take this approach.
I'm just telling you what I thought ngb said. He may be able to explain it better than?
-
Hi curiousessex I have to tread carefully as I know very little about guns or silencers. It was discussed some weeks back that a second gun may have been at the farm belonging to a relative name beginning with P can't remember the other letters. If Ralph phoned Jeremy he would not say your sister has gone berserk with two guns as she would only handle one at a time. The thing that really confuses me is if Jeremy Bamber carried out these horrendous murders and he was such a devious evil person why did he leave a silencer behind with blood trace on it. He would have cleaned it steve uk said last week that a relative had said Jeremy had tried to clean the silencer with a tampax this would have been far to big to insert into a silencer of such a small diameter. Could he not have washed it under the tap then hid back in the cupboard. Why the three burn marks on Ralphs back. This was a killing for an inheritance so it was said not some kind of sadistic act. The whole thing just leaves me with so many doubts. If Sheila had carried out these murders why would she go to the trouble of hiding the silencer at the back of a cupboard why just not leave it thrown around unless she was trying to implicate Jeremy. Who knows.
-
That's a good point actually, Nevills blood was found in the silencer, were the US experts aware of this fact?
And June's apparently? Were any of June's and Nevill's contact shots do you know?
-
And June's apparently? Were any of June's and Nevill's contact shots do you know?
Yes, both had contact shots according to Vanezis.
-
Yes, both had contact shots according to Vanezis.
And obviously the relatives couldn't possibly had known that when they found the silencer?
-
And obviously the relatives couldn't possibly had known that when they found the silencer?
Well, I don't know, I very much doubt it though. :-\
-
Jeremy says not and without the telescopic sight fitted either.
However, I seem to recall Pargeter said the gun had both the silencer and the telescopic sight fitted the weekend before when he visited WHF.
The silencer / sound moderator normally being used when shooting vermin such as rabbits........ I believe the silencer / sound moderator helps in stopping the vermin from running away so quickly after a first shot is fired.
The reason I ask is that if it had been left on,,,just the silencer,that is,,,then Sheila had already used the rifle downstairs,,,found that it was too cumbersome with the silencer on,removed it with bloodied hands ( reason why her blood was in the silencer ) then put it in the cupboard,or even left it around and someone else put it away. The sight,I could more or less guarantee,wouldn't have been attached as it needs a philips or specialised screwdriver to remove it and I don't think Sheila would have been up to that.
I don't even think that Sheila would have put the silencer in the cupboard,,as it would have been just left anywhere,possibly found later on the floor somewhere. However, it wasn't used. No wonder it was contaminated the amount of times it had been handled.
-
Well, I don't know, I very much doubt it though. :-\
Well if it is so, then it is a plus in their favour, that's all I am saying.
-
Well if it is so, then it is a plus in their favour, that's all I am saying.
Well I think the thing which should really do it, is if you were going to plant evidence (which is what I think you are implying), then would you call the police to see the silencer in the gun cupboard, or would you get the police to collect it from Oak Farm? Which is the better option when planting evidence?
-
Yes, both had contact shots according to Vanezis.
Do you have the documents to support this Yeltrah? Roger Wilkes' book doesn't specifically confirm it.
-
Well I think the thing which should really do it, is if you were going to plant evidence (which is what I think you are implying), then would you call the police to see the silencer in the gun cupboard, or would you get the police to collect it from Oak Farm? Which is the better option when planting evidence?
That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that.
-
Do you have the documents to support this Yeltrah? Roger Wilkes' book doesn't specifically confirm it.
I'll have a look.
-
Hello Bridget pardon my ignorance but where did the Police collect the silencer.
-
Hello Bridget pardon my ignorance but where did the Police collect the silencer.
From oak farm, Ann & Peter's house.
-
Hi Bridget why would they have thought it necessary to remove the silencer from WHF. Surely if it was considered evidence it should hav been left in situ.
-
Hi Bridget why would they have thought it necessary to remove the silencer from WHF. Surely if it was considered evidence it should hav been left in situ.
That's a good question, maybe they didnt realise the significance of it until they'd had a closer look.
-
That's a good question, maybe they didnt realise the significance of it until they'd had a closer look.
I suppose also the fact that the house had been handed over and effectively wasn't a controlled crime scene anymore, there shouldn't have been anything of evidential value remaining.
-
Well I think the thing which should really do it, is if you were going to plant evidence (which is what I think you are implying), then would you call the police to see the silencer in the gun cupboard, or would you get the police to collect it from Oak Farm? Which is the better option when planting evidence?
No, I wasn't implying that they planed evidence. I was actually saying that this backs up their story and indicates that they "did not" plant it.
In fact I have never implied that they planted the evidence. What I have said though on many occasions is that the silencer evidence should have been thrown out of court because of the way it was found with no independant party present, ie a police or someone who was completely independent of the family. My stand against the trial is and always has been a legal one. And the silencer evidence as it was presented in court should not have been accepted. Furthermore the judge should not have summed up as he did concerning the silencer about blood being found in it. But rather has this silencer evidence been corrupted.
What I am saying here though is that the fact that June and Ralph's blood was found in the silencer helps to confirm that they did not concoct the evidence. It is not a view that accuses the relatives at all. But a view that is looking at evidence as it should have been presented. But as it was the court made its judgment so it is all academic anyway.
-
Do you have the documents to support this Yeltrah? Roger Wilkes' book doesn't specifically confirm it.
I can't locate it at the moment, I actually think it was Fletcher who reports the shot distances rather that Vanezis.
-
Hi Bridget why would they have thought it necessary to remove the silencer from WHF. Surely if it was considered evidence it should hav been left in situ.
Possibly because they thought perhaps someone else might come and remove it before the police came?
-
Is there an explanation why Sheila's blood but not DNA was found in the silencer..also a strong possibility of June's DNA. There's another angle discussed in Andrew Hunter's book draft which might be a good read for new members. The silencer discussion starts on page 20 for those interested.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2441.0
-
Possibly because they thought perhaps someone else might come and remove it before the police came?
So, who is the someone else?
Anyhow, I thought there was more than one silencer!
-
So, who is the someone else?
Anyhow, I thought there was more than one silencer!
Not at the scene, although some think Pargeters was there.
-
Yes, both had contact shots according to Vanezis.
Hi Yeltrah
As far as I can see, as per pm reports, it was only Sheila who received near contact or contact shots?
-
Hi Yeltrah
As far as I can see, as per pm reports, it was only Sheila who received near contact or contact shots?
I will try to find where I read it, 7 to the twins, 4 to Nevill, 1 to June and 2 to Sheila were contact or close contact shots.
(Caveat: I'm going from memory here)
-
I will try to find where I read it, 7 to the twins, 4 to Nevill, 1 to June and 2 to Sheila were contact or close contact shots.
(Caveat: I'm going from memory here)
If this was true. (1) that Sheila, Ralph and June all received contact shots and (2) the silencer that the relatives found had a mixture of all three victims bloods. If this be true, then I am satisfied in my own mind that because the relatives could never have forseen this mixture of bloods. Unless of course they physically placed all three bloods into the silencer? That the relatives did actually find the silencer and did not manufacture that piece of evidence.
-
I can't locate it at the moment, I actually think it was Fletcher who reports the shot distances rather that Vanezis.
Its in the general examination documents, I have it on somewhere. I will see If I can find it. :)
-
Its in the general examination documents, I have it on somewhere. I will see If I can find it. :)
Hi Patti
(Hey Patti checked out that address and its just under 4 miles from Old Trafford. What a result...it's in the genes ;D. You're a star. Thanks again.)
I only re-checked Vanezis pm reports but if you and Yeltrah are correct doesn't it beg the ? as to why no blood from the poor little twins was found especially given the number of shots? Also why would Vanezis state that the shots to SC were near contact or contact but not state this for the other victims?
-
Hi Patti
(Hey Patti checked out that address and its just under 4 miles from Old Trafford. What a result...it's in the genes ;D. You're a star. Thanks again.)
I only re-checked Vanezis pm reports but if you and Yeltrah are correct doesn't it beg the ? as to why no blood from the poor little twins was found especially given the number of shots? Also why would Vanezis state that the shots to SC were near contact or contact but not state this for the other victims?
I was going to say what address, but I have just clicked. I have the original record if you want it.
I'm not saying that Fletcher does say contact shots, but if memory serves me right some are very close....the furthest away being two feet...could be yards. I have the doc on a memory stick and I am too shattered to get it out, plus I have several and don't know which one it is on......Its on here somewhere....I do wish someone would put docs in the archives...life would be lovely...
Those two truly lovely scrumptious darlings Caroline and April might help? :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Patti
(Hey Patti checked out that address and its just under 4 miles from Old Trafford. What a result...it's in the genes ;D. You're a star. Thanks again.)
I only re-checked Vanezis pm reports but if you and Yeltrah are correct doesn't it beg the ? as to why no blood from the poor little twins was found especially given the number of shots? Also why would Vanezis state that the shots to SC were near contact or contact but not state this for the other victims?
There was another unidentifiable male blood detected, but not enough to group, it is suggested that this was from the twins.
-
There was another unidentifiable male blood detected, but not enough to group, it is suggested that this was from the twins.
The twins shared the same ABO as Nevill. But I do remember reading something on the lines that, because the twins were upstairs in bed, then the blood had to be that of Nevill's....Not sure, where it was referring to....my guess it was on the stairs? :-\ :-\ :-\
-
The twins shared the same ABO as Nevill. But I do remember reading something on the lines that, because the twins were upstairs in bed, then the blood had to be that of Nevill's....Not sure, where it was referring to....my guess it was on the stairs? :-\ :-\ :-\
Yes that was about the blood on the wallpaper on the stairs.
I still can't find the shot distances, am I going mad? You recall seeing them right? :-\
-
Yes that was about the blood on the wallpaper on the stairs.
I still can't find the shot distances, am I going mad? You recall seeing them right? :-\
Yes I do recall seeing them, I think you posted them, when I was doing the PV'S but, its not there I have just looked. I know I have it....but its ni nights time for me :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Yes I do recall seeing them, I think you posted them, when I was doing the PV'S but, its not there I have just looked. I know I have it....but its ni nights time for me :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Part timer. ;D
Okay, well night night. :)
-
Susan, Back to the scenario of the burn marks on Nevill's back.
I was always, as I am sure most readers were, of the view, that the said burn marks were in a horizontal line.
Was it not NGB, who broached the alternative, that the marks may well have been in a vertical line.
If this were in fact the case, then the top burn mark, if made when Nevill's head was lolling down, then when his head was brought into the erect position, the circular burn mark would become an elLIPtical shape, as shewn in the crime scene photograph. I.e. the mark would have taken up a different shape, owing to the folding of the skin, at the nape of his neck.
I trust SSusan, you will appreciate this, as they say in Pleshey -'It is surely grist to the Mill!!!!! XXXX
-
Hi campion I always thought the burn marks wre made in a vertical line and I think Ralph's head would have dropped forward and all the burn marks would have been inflicted whilst in this position. I think the burns marks would all be slightly different in shape as the temperature of the heat of the rifle dropped. I think poor Ralph was dead or near death at this time :( :( :(
-
Susan, Back to the scenario of the burn marks on Nevill's back.
I was always, as I am sure most readers were, of the view, that the said burn marks were in a horizontal line.
Was it not NGB, who broached the alternative, that the marks may well have been in a vertical line.
If this were in fact the case, then the top burn mark, if made when Nevill's head was lolling down, then when his head was brought into the erect position, the circular burn mark would become an elLIPtical shape, as shewn in the crime scene photograph. I.e. the mark would have taken up a different shape, owing to the folding of the skin, at the nape of his neck.
I trust SSusan, you will appreciate this, as they say in Pleshey -'It is surely grist to the Mill!!!!! XXXX
A good point campion. Pleshey? I didn't think there was enough people in Pleshey to say anything? :D
-
Susan, Back to the scenario of the burn marks on Nevill's back.
I was always, as I am sure most readers were, of the view, that the said burn marks were in a horizontal line.
Was it not NGB, who broached the alternative, that the marks may well have been in a vertical line.
If this were in fact the case, then the top burn mark, if made when Nevill's head was lolling down, then when his head was brought into the erect position, the circular burn mark would become an elLIPtical shape, as shewn in the crime scene photograph. I.e. the mark would have taken up a different shape, owing to the folding of the skin, at the nape of his neck.
This is a diagram I produced some time ago in respect of the positioning of burn marks on Nevills back (and endorsed by ngb)
-
This is a diagram I produced some time ago in respect of the positioning of burn marks on Nevills back (and endorsed by ngb)
Do we think they are similar?
-
Do we think they are similar?
I don't think the comparison burns marks are similar.
The diagram below is what I produced (re position).
-
I don't think the comparison burns marks are similar.
The diagram below is what I produced (re position).
I have to agree with you here. Personally I don't think the test burns are similar to Ralph's burns. 100,000 quid? Blimey.
-
I have to agree with you here. Personally I don't think the test burns are similar to Ralph's burns. 100,000 quid? Blimey.
I think they were similar. However, it does not matter what I think, the important point is that Dr Caruso, a leading burns specialist, thought they were similar.
-
I think they were similar. However, it does not matter what I think, the important point is that Dr Caruso, a leading burns specialist, thought they were similar.
Unfortunately those that had power to refer Jeremy to the court of appeal apparently did not think so? And you know how the two judges ruled that all the panel at the CCRC were qualified and scientifically trained to make a perfect deduction upon this evidence. ::) (I'm being sarcastic of course. The CCRC being the butt of my sarcasm)
-
I was going to say what address, but I have just clicked. I have the original record if you want it.
I'm not saying that Fletcher does say contact shots, but if memory serves me right some are very close....the furthest away being two feet...could be yards. I have the doc on a memory stick and I am too shattered to get it out, plus I have several and don't know which one it is on......Its on here somewhere....I do wish someone would put docs in the archives...life would be lovely...
Those two truly lovely scrumptious darlings Caroline and April might help? :) :) :) :)
Hi Patti
Yeltrah has made available the very sad info re the shots (plse see thread) from the ballistics expert. According to this poor little Nicholas was the only victim to have received a definite contact shot. In fact he received two. So surely statistically there would be a much greater probability of his blood finding its way into the silencer/gun via back spatter than that of the other victims? There appears to be conflicting evidence of SC's blood and/or an intimate mixture of June and NB's blood with no firm evidence of contact shots? Vanezis pm reports state SC's wounds were contact or near contact and he makes no ref to the other victims. As I understand it back spatter is normally only possible with contact shots. :-\ :-\ :-\
Blood test results:
ABO PGM EAP AK Hp
Nevill Bamber O PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
June Bamber A PGM1+ EAP BA AK2-1 Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Nicholas Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Sheila Caffell A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
Blood Sample A Nil EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
-
I think they were similar. However, it does not matter what I think, the important point is that Dr Caruso, a leading burns specialist, thought they were similar.
We all see things differently I guess.
I see the burn marks to Nevill as being more indented (dipped) in the middle, and imo caused by a more solid and round ended implement (e.g. a poker)
The test burns from a gun barrel as presented in the photo , even at 200 deg c., have only caused circular (edge only) burns, and have not actually penetrated the skin (as with Nevills burns).
-
Hi Patti
Yeltrah has made available the very sad info re the shots (plse see thread) from the ballistics expert. According to this poor little Nicholas was the only victim to have received a definite contact shot. In fact he received two. So surely statistically there would be a much greater probability of his blood finding its way into the silencer/gun via back spatter than that of the other victims? There appears to be conflicting evidence of SC's blood and/or an intimate mixture of June and NB's blood with no firm evidence of contact shots? Vanezis pm reports state SC's wounds were contact or near contact and he makes no ref to the other victims. As I understand it back spatter is normally only possible with contact shots. :-\ :-\ :-\
Blood test results:
ABO PGM EAP AK Hp
Nevill Bamber O PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
June Bamber A PGM1+ EAP BA AK2-1 Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Nicholas Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Sheila Caffell A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
Blood Sample A Nil EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
Dr Fowler, of the recent JR fame, indicates in the judgement in paragraph 34, that Ralph had residue consistant with contact shots.
Also the 2002 appeal and the associated blood evidence indicates that Sheila, Ralph & Junes blood was present in the silencer. I also thought I had read that another male blood had been detected which they attributed to one of the twins, but I can't seem to find where I read that now. :-\
-
I think they were similar. However, it does not matter what I think, the important point is that Dr Caruso, a leading burns specialist, thought they were similar.
Caruso's evidence was quite brief wasn't it? Consisting of two very short letters, one a quarter of a page long, the second even shorter.
Is there any prospect of seeing his evidence on the forum. His evidence hasn't actually been accepted or contested has it?
-
Caruso's evidence was quite brief wasn't it? Consisting of two very short letters, one a quarter of a page long, the second even shorter.
Is there any prospect of seeing his evidence on the forum. His evidence hasn't actually been accepted or contested has it?
Dr Caruso's report was a preliminary one. It was nevertheless very clear.
The report has not been published by the defence yet. I anticipate further work being carried out leading to a full and final report. I anticipate that at some stage this will be made public. Obviously until that stage it would not be appropriate to post this material on the forum, although personally I would have no objection to it being made public now.
-
Dr Caruso's report was a preliminary one. It was nevertheless very clear.
The report has not been published by the defence yet. I anticipate further work being carried out leading to a full and final report. I anticipate that at some stage this will be made public. Obviously until that stage it would not be appropriate to post this material on the forum, although personally I would have no objection to it being made public now.
Okay, it was worth a try. ;)
-
And I see those burns as being those of a lit cigar because of the definition of them. Sheila smoked the larger ones,,which,with each drag,burning bright red, would have perhaps resembled the end of a rifle placed on bare flesh, but would have left the indentations such as are photographed.
-
Lookout I agree with you cigar burns would have made marks similar to those on Ralphs back or the heated rifle but not for the poker idea too pointed the end.
-
Lookout I agree with you cigar burns would have made marks similar to those on Ralphs back or the heated rifle but not for the poker idea too pointed the end.
I doubt that there'd be any time wasted in heating up the rifle,Susan. Sheila would have been puffing away in between delivering chapter and verse to her father.Easy enough to get rid of the evidence with the Aga being there. There wasn't any discolouration to the guns barrel as having been heated.
-
I doubt that there'd be any time wasted in heating up the rifle,Susan. Sheila would have been puffing away in between delivering chapter and verse to her father.Easy enough to get rid of the evidence with the Aga being there. There wasn't any discolouration to the guns barrel as having been heated.
There would not necessarily be any disclolouration if the end of the barrel was heated to around 200 degrees C.
-
Lookout I agree with you cigar burns would have made marks similar to those on Ralphs back or the heated rifle but not for the poker idea too pointed the end.
Based solely on the visual appearance in the image posted by Nickos, they do not appear similar, I don't know about a cigar/cigarette burn, I think the marks are too severe and a cigar might not be robust enough to make all three marks.
A poker still seems plausable depending on the shape and they did find one in the gun cupboard next to the silencer, so maybe. :-\
Of course I'm no burns expert, so what do I know.
-
Yeltrah you are as much as a burns expert as the rest of us. Burns too big for a cigarette burn but I think maybe a cigar could do it but the poker would have to have a rounded end I would have thought but I also think he rifle could have been responsible sadly we will never really know :( Did the Police ever give an explanation for the burns. Wonder why these burn marks were inflicted.
-
Based solely on the visual appearance in the image posted by Nickos, they do not appear similar, I don't know about a cigar/cigarette burn, I think the marks are too severe and a cigar might not be robust enough to make all three marks.
A poker still seems plausable depending on the shape and they did find one in the gun cupboard next to the silencer, so maybe. :-\
Of course I'm no burns expert, so what do I know.
I just feel Simon McKay and his team surely must have done a certain amount of research before spending the precious money on the American tests. I go with the idea that the highest burn was done when Nevill's head was dropped forward and his skin was taught, hence the different shape when his head was in an upright position....gather the photo was taken when he was lying on his front. Can't go with the poker idea it's the wrong shape and the cigar....not sure of the circumference of a large cigar but I agree I don't think it would be robust enough to withstand three burns. imo
-
Based solely on the visual appearance in the image posted by Nickos, they do not appear similar, I don't know about a cigar/cigarette burn, I think the marks are too severe and a cigar might not be robust enough to make all three marks.
A poker still seems plausable depending on the shape and they did find one in the gun cupboard next to the silencer, so maybe. :-\
Of course I'm no burns expert, so what do I know.
Hartley,,,I worked on a childrens' ward where children who were abused by cigarette burns were treated. A cigarette burn is exactly the same as Nevilles' burns,and the only difference is the circumference,which I say is a cigar.
Needless to say,,a hardened nurse like myself cried every time.
-
Yeltrah you are as much as a burns expert as the rest of us. Burns too big for a cigarette burn but I think maybe a cigar could do it but the poker would have to have a rounded end I would have thought but I also think he rifle could have been responsible sadly we will never really know :( Did the Police ever give an explanation for the burns. Wonder why these burn marks were inflicted.
They just said they could have been caused by a poker, but I don't think that opinion had any scientific base to it.
It was left alone by the defence and prosecution, so it's a mystery.
We could always ask Jeremy how they were caused, there is a chance he would know? :-\
-
Hartley,,,I worked on a childrens' ward where children who were abused by cigarette burns were treated. A cigarette burn is exactly the same as Nevilles' burns,and the only difference is the circumference,which I say is a cigar.
Needless to say,,a hardened nurse like myself cried every time.
What a world we live in hey?. :(
-
Dr Fowler, of the recent JR fame, indicates in the judgement in paragraph 34, that Ralph had residue consistant with contact shots.
Also the 2002 appeal and the associated blood evidence indicates that Sheila, Ralph & Junes blood was present in the silencer. I also thought I had read that another male blood had been detected which they attributed to one of the twins, but I can't seem to find where I read that now. :-\
Hi Yeltrah
Yes BUT the initial findings in 1985 by Vanezis and the ballistics expert (Malcolm Fletcher) show only Nicholas as having definite contact shots. I can find no documentary evidence of his blood being present in the silencer or gun, or any suggestion of an intimate mix, which is what I would have expected to have found given that Sheila's and/or an initimate mix of Nevill and June's blood is said to have been found from shots that seem to have some ambiguity surrounding them in terms of whether they were contact or near contact or not.
Assuming Sheila, Nevill and June received shots sufficient for back spatter to occur then why did back spatter not occur with Nicholas given his two confirmed contact shots? Maybe anatomy plays a role :-\
-
Yeltrah bet he would'ent tell us ???
-
They just said they could have been caused by a poker, but I don't think that opinion had any scientific base to it.
It was left alone by the defence and prosecution, so it's a mystery.
We could always ask Jeremy how they were caused, there is a chance he would know? :-\
The three circles do have connections with various spiritual beliefs from witchcraft to christianity. I find it hard to believe that Jeremy Bamber would be aware of such things, but feel pretty sure Sheila would.
-
Hi Mags we have discussed this in detail about religious connotations before re: the burn marks. Caroline told us it was a special day Feast of ........ we will have to ask her when she comes on it was quite a significant religious feast.
-
Lookout I agree with you cigar burns would have made marks similar to those on Ralphs back or the heated rifle but not for the poker idea too pointed the end.
Trouble is of course we are none of us experts as ngb has reminded us. Come to think of it neither are the CCRC.
-
Hartley,,,I worked on a childrens' ward where children who were abused by cigarette burns were treated. A cigarette burn is exactly the same as Nevilles' burns,and the only difference is the circumference,which I say is a cigar.
Needless to say,,a hardened nurse like myself cried every time.
Who would cause such suffering to a child? Some of these things are beyond me.
-
Hi Mags we have discussed this in detail about religious connotations before re: the burn marks. Caroline told us it was a special day Feast of ........ we will have to ask her when she comes on it was quite a significant religious feast.
Hi susie, yes I think it was the Transfiguration that was celebrated on that day and the bible was open at the page marking that day.
Of course they may only be marks to see if Neville was alive but the way they are placed in a line appears to possibly be symbolic to my mind.
-
Maggie I think there was more to it that jsut seeing if poor Ralph was still alive it was symbolic in someway poor man :(
-
Hi Yeltrah
Yes BUT the initial findings in 1985 by Vanezis and the ballistics expert (Malcolm Fletcher) show only Nicholas as having definite contact shots. I can find no documentary evidence of his blood being present in the silencer or gun, or any suggestion of an intimate mix, which is what I would have expected to have found given that Sheila's and/or an initimate mix of Nevill and June's blood is said to have been found from shots that seem to have some ambiguity surrounding them in terms of whether they were contact or near contact or not.
Assuming Sheila, Nevill and June received shots sufficient for back spatter to occur then why did back spatter not occur with Nicholas given his two confirmed contact shots? Maybe anatomy plays a role :-\
It does seem strange. Malcolm Fletcher at trial put forward the explanation that the first shot to Nicholas may not have been contact in nature yet may still have proved fatal,therefore stopping any further blood flow.
-
By the way I don't have something on the top righthand side of my screen to correct an error in my post they forgot to give me one :'( :'( :'(
-
The three circles do have connections with various spiritual beliefs from witchcraft to christianity. I find it hard to believe that Jeremy Bamber would be aware of such things, but feel pretty sure Sheila would.
Maggie,,,in Buddhism,,the three burns represent the Foguangshan Monastic ordination.
Usually 3 pieces of burning incense are placed on a Monastics head,thus producing circular scars.
The 3 burns represent :
1) The triple gem : The Buddha,The Dharma and the Sangha.
2) The three vows of ridding oneself of bad habits and thoughts cultivating good,and having wisdom to help release others from suffering.
3) The 3 trainings : Morality/Discipline ,Concentration and Wisdom.
I'm thinking of Sheilas' nightmare visit to the monastery.
-
Maggie,,,in Buddhism,,the three burns represent the Foguangshan Monastic ordination.
Usually 3 pieces of burning incense are placed on a Monastics head,thus producing circular scars.
The 3 burns represent :
1) The triple gem : The Buddha,The Dharma and the Sangha.
2) The three vows of ridding oneself of bad habits and thoughts cultivating good,and having wisdom to help release others from suffering.
3) The 3 trainings : Morality/Discipline ,Concentration and Wisdom.
I'm thinking of Sheilas' nightmare visit to the monastery.
That is true lookout, I was forgetting about Buddha's belt and the triple gem....I certainly should know about that. It's true that is another spiritual symbol. It's hard to think these circular burns were not symbolic. Hope you're well lookout ;D
-
Lugg these people who cause suffering to a child have a very low mentality and these parents murder their children in a slow abusive way like baby P and are quite obviously unstable as are Mothers and Fathers who murder their children then take their own life but they are doing it for a different reason than the abusers they think they are saving their children from evil and keeping them safe, :(
-
Lugg these people who cause suffering to a child have a very low mentality and these parents murder their children in a slow abusive way like baby P and are quite obviously unstable as are Mothers and Fathers who murder their children then take their own life but they are doing it for a different reason than the abusers they think they are saving their children from evil and keeping them safe, :(
Very true, susiexx
-
Maggie,,,in Buddhism,,the three burns represent the Foguangshan Monastic ordination.
Usually 3 pieces of burning incense are placed on a Monastics head,thus producing circular scars.
The 3 burns represent :
1) The triple gem : The Buddha,The Dharma and the Sangha.
2) The three vows of ridding oneself of bad habits and thoughts cultivating good,and having wisdom to help release others from suffering.
3) The 3 trainings : Morality/Discipline ,Concentration and Wisdom.
I'm thinking of Sheilas' nightmare visit to the monastery.
I doubt that was a Buddhist monastery lookout. I'm thinking more of Jeremy's contemplation of going to India with a distant relative after the killings.
-
Maggie,,,in Buddhism,,the three burns represent the Foguangshan Monastic ordination.
Usually 3 pieces of burning incense are placed on a Monastics head,thus producing circular scars.
The 3 burns represent :
1) The triple gem : The Buddha,The Dharma and the Sangha.
2) The three vows of ridding oneself of bad habits and thoughts cultivating good,and having wisdom to help release others from suffering.
3) The 3 trainings : Morality/Discipline ,Concentration and Wisdom.
I'm thinking of Sheilas' nightmare visit to the monastery.
I see where you're coming from, lookout, but the brothers at the monestery are extremely hirsute devotees of the Orthodox faith. I wonder if they were interviewed after Sheila left there in a distress state and did that visit occur in the week running up to the tragedy?
-
Hi Mags/lookout we were discussing this earlier and april (are you there) seem to think that Sheila would not have the mental capacity to deal with all this and figure it out. She will pounce on me any moment now and say my facts are not quite correct but they are a wee bit.
-
I doubt that was a Buddhist monastery lookout. I'm thinking more of Jeremy's contemplation of going to India with a distant relative after the killings.
Steve, surely India is a hindu country far more than buddhist, although it is the buirthplace of Gautama. Sri Lanka on the other hand is a buddhist country....don't think he ever mentioned Ceylon as it was called then???....think you're splitting hairs steve. ;D
-
Hi Mags/lookout we were discussing this earlier and april (are you there) seem to think that Sheila would not have the mental capacity to deal with all this and figure it out. She will pounce on me any moment now and say my facts are not quite correct but they are a wee bit.
Deal with all what susie....do you mean the circles and the spiritual stuff? :-\ :-\ In it's simplest terms it's the three in one....thats not hard ?????
-
Maggie don't tell april I told you but she did pass some comment but forgot what it was. Maybe she will remember ;)
-
That is true lookout, I was forgetting about Buddha's belt and the triple gem....I certainly should know about that. It's true that is another spiritual symbol. It's hard to think these circular burns were not symbolic. Hope you're well lookout ;D
Hi Maggie,,I'm well thankyou. Hope you're on the mend and feeling better.
As you can see,I'm determined to find the answer to those burns. They either mean something,,perhaps seen at the monastery,,,or else just an act of the continued " torture ". Which I hardly think Jeremy would have done had he killed them.Speed would have been of the essence as he wouldn't have hung around adding further injuries.
-
Hi Maggie,,I'm well thankyou. Hope you're on the mend and feeling better.
As you can see,I'm determined to find the answer to those burns. They either mean something,,perhaps seen at the monastery,,,or else just an act of the continued " torture ". Which I hardly think Jeremy would have done had he killed them.Speed would have been of the essence as he wouldn't have hung around adding further injuries.
But the whole essence of the plan was to frame Sheila,which may put things in a different light.
-
Hi Mags/lookout we were discussing this earlier and april (are you there) seem to think that Sheila would not have the mental capacity to deal with all this and figure it out. She will pounce on me any moment now and say my facts are not quite correct but they are a wee bit.
Susan, hi, I'm here and you are totally correct, imo. We can't have this both ways. Either, we have Sheila in the grip of psychosis, responding to instructions only she can hear OR we have Sheila who has calculated every move she makes, is hell bent on saving her children from a worse fate than death, and has prepared to eliminate anyone who tries to prevent her.
-
april very well put now where do we go from here. :(
-
Susan, hi, I'm here and you are totally correct, imo. We can't have this both ways. Either, we have Sheila in the grip of psychosis, responding to instructions only she can hear OR we have Sheila who has calculated every move she makes, is hell bent on saving her children from a worse fate than death, and has prepared to eliminate anyone who tries to prevent her.
The above consideration has never stopped all of you in the past,so why break the habit of a lifetime?
-
Susan, hi, I'm here and you are totally correct, imo. We can't have this both ways. Either, we have Sheila in the grip of psychosis, responding to instructions only she can hear OR we have Sheila who has calculated every move she makes, is hell bent on saving her children from a worse fate than death, and has prepared to eliminate anyone who tries to prevent her.
Or it may just be as the jury found before the court with Jeremy being the guilty party.
-
Hi Maggie,,I'm well thankyou. Hope you're on the mend and feeling better.
As you can see,I'm determined to find the answer to those burns. They either mean something,,perhaps seen at the monastery,,,or else just an act of the continued " torture ". Which I hardly think Jeremy would have done had he killed them.Speed would have been of the essence as he wouldn't have hung around adding further injuries.
Yes thanks lookout, getting there thank you. I think the monastery is catholic lookout but the fact is three is very symbolic in spiritual teachings no matter what denomination. The etheric body, the earthly body and the spiritual body is very ancient. The circles about continuing life etc are also of great importance. Hard to know if it was done for a different reason which had nothing to do with symbolism or not.
-
Hi curiousessex Jeremy was convicted by a majority verdict not a unanimous one. This leaves an element of doubt in my mind.
-
april very well put now where do we go from here. :(
The above consideration has never stopped all of you in the past,so why break the habit of a lifetime?
Susan, as we are never going to know the answer, we can only speculate, although others may present speculation as fact. By the way, did you become aware of a disparaging comment about us? For a moment I thought I may have done but ithink it was probably just the wind blowing.
-
april so strange I never he knew he was here till you pointed the fact out to me. Was he nice to us ;) ;) ;)
-
april so strange I never he knew he was here till you pointed the fact out to me. Was he nice to us ;) ;) ;)
Maybe when hell freezes over, Susan dear ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
And I see those burns as being those of a lit cigar because of the definition of them. Sheila smoked the larger ones,,which,with each drag,burning bright red, would have perhaps resembled the end of a rifle placed on bare flesh, but would have left the indentations such as are photographed.
I'm getting the picture,
So Shelia has the gun, smoking a cigar and blasting them all - I think you're getting confused with Bonnie Parker (Bonnie & Clyde) ;) ;D
-
I'm getting the picture,
So Shelia has the gun, smoking a cigar and blasting them all - I think you're getting confused with Bonnie Parker (Bonnie & Clyde) ;) ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubOI9yY55JU
-
I'm getting the picture,
So Shelia has the gun, smoking a cigar and blasting them all - I think you're getting confused with Bonnie Parker (Bonnie & Clyde) ;) ;D
Nickos,,you might well jest,,but if you google some images of what a cigar burn looks like,,it's likened to the experiment with the pigskin,,,complete with " halo " around the burn,,,,except that Nevilles' burns weren't done with a rifle with or without the moderator.
-
I'm getting the picture,
So Shelia has the gun, smoking a cigar and blasting them all - I think you're getting confused with Bonnie Parker (Bonnie & Clyde) ;) ;D
Nickos,,you might well jest,,but if you google some images of what a cigar burn looks like,,it's likened to the experiment with the pigskin,,,complete with " halo " around the burn,,,,except that Nevilles' burns weren't done with a rifle with or without the moderator.
-
( laptop has hiccups.)
-
Nickos stop being the Court Jester :-* :-* :-*
-
I'm getting the picture,
So Shelia has the gun, smoking a cigar and blasting them all - I think you're getting confused with Bonnie Parker (Bonnie & Clyde) ;) ;D
About as outrageous as Jeremy cycling like mad across country, wearing a wet suit and a marigold glove!
-
Hi Caroline I think our friend Nickos maybe extracting the urine ;) and I am glad you used the singular with the marigold glove but then again steve said Jeremy burnt them in the Aga. So confused ;D
There you go Susan! ;D
-
Hi Caroline I have been trying to amend my post for it to read Aga instead of Ada it would appear I don't have the facility on my screen :'(
-
Hi Caroline I have been trying to amend my post for it to read Aga instead of Ada it would appear I don't have the facility on my screen :'(
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Caroline I have been trying to amend my post for it to read Aga instead of Ada it would appear I don't have the facility on my screen :'(
Tis done!! :)
-
Caroline what tis done and Maggie is so pleased they gave her one and not me probably because they knew I had appeared on Master Mind and would not have the need ;)
-
Caroline what tis done and Maggie is so pleased they gave her one and not me probably because they knew I had appeared on Master Mind and would not have the need ;)
Susie, what are you talking about? What did who give me? :o :o :o
-
Maggie ask Caroline what tis done means ;) then you will know what the forum gave you and not me ;D
-
Maggie I have decided I just don't want one I shall be more careful ;)
-
Maggie I have decided I just don't want one I shall be more careful ;)
I think I know what tis done means???
-
Maggie ask Caroline what tis done means ;) then you will know what the forum gave you and not me ;D
'Tis done' means it is done - meaning that I changed ada to aga in your post! Have you been at the gin Susie? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Caroline my posts 25 26 27 all say Ada not changed on my screen, :'( :'( :'(
-
Hi Caroline my posts 25 26 27 all say Ada not changed on my screen, :'( :'( :'(
I only changed the original
-
Really Caroline where does that leave me and Maggie. Where is the original. Think I will take up your suggestion and hit the bottle it will make my life so much easier ;)
-
Hi Caroline my posts 25 26 27 all say Ada not changed on my screen, :'( :'( :'(
You must have a 'modify' button that allows you to amend your posts?
-
You must have a 'modify' button that allows you to amend your posts?
Caroline I have tried to explain to susie but she's dialup and I can't remember how that works?? ;D ;D
I don't understand why I am involved in Susie's Ada problems?? ;D ;D ;D
-
Really Caroline where does that leave me and Maggie. Where is the original. Think I will take up your suggestion and hit the bottle it will make my life so much easier ;)
Susie, have pmd you telling you to click on thread heading at top of your post whic should take you to the original....that is if dialup works the same???? ;D ;D
-
Hi Caroline please tell me where my modify button is Dial Up cannot be blamed it is discrimination against Scotland ;D ;D ;D ;D I have done that has it worked.
-
Caroline I have tried to explain to susie but she's dialup and I can't remember how that works?? ;D ;D
I don't understand why I am involved in Susie's Ada problems?? ;D ;D ;D
Maggie, I think the answer to your first question is "Verrrrrrrrrrry sloooooooooooooowly" I don't know the answer to your second question, I became quite lost :D :D :D :D :D
-
Hi Maggie by jove I did it and it worked I added something on the post and it has now appeared on the screen.I am dancing for joy as I have wanted to do for months. Maggie thank you I can change all my posts now if I don't like them what fun I shall have must do it with this one so I will spell Maggie wrong and go and correct it. Must have another glass of gin. ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie, I think the answer to your first question is "Verrrrrrrrrrry sloooooooooooooowly" I don't know the answer to your second question, I became quite lost :D :D :D :D :D
Hi April, hope you are keeping warm. I know it's hard to remember how it works and what the differences are. We used to think it was fast when it first started and now we think wireless is too slow....we are an impatient breed!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Caroline I have tried to explain to susie but she's dialup and I can't remember how that works?? ;D ;D
I don't understand why I am involved in Susie's Ada problems?? ;D ;D ;D
Hi Maggie, I don't think it makes any difference if you use dial up or not - I think our Susan has now found the modify button and has sorted out her own ada! ;D ;D
-
Hi Maggie by jove I did it and it worked I added something on the post and it has now appeared on the screen.I am dancing for joy as I have wanted to do for months. Maggie thank you I can change all my posts now if I don't like them what fun I shall have must do it with this one so I will spell Maggie wrong and go and correct it. Must have another glass of gin. ;D ;D ;D
Susie, you are a nutter!!!! :o :o ;D ;D
-
Hi Maggie, I don't think it makes any difference if you use dial up or not - I think our Susan has now found the modify button and has sorted out her own ada! ;D ;D
Thank goodness for that Caroline, lets hope she keeps her Ada to herself in future ;D ;D ;D
-
Thank goodness for that Caroline, lets hope she keeps her Ada to herself in future ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Caroline/Maggie I realise now that I am not as dim as I thought. The forum should could with a manual. I asked Roch to show me how to BUMP but he did not seem to want to ;) don't think it was too much to ask of a man do you. But I will be bumping soon wait and see ;) ;) ;)
-
Just click on the quote button and then write "bump" and then click on post.
-
My Dear april if you are lost I will find you my child (gin kicking in now) ;) ;) ;)
-
Just click on the quote button and then write "bump" and then click on post.bump
-
Hi Lugg thanks for that. Would this apply to a previous post or thread and why would I want to bump. ;D
-
My Dear april if you are lost I will find you my child (gin kicking in now) ;) ;) ;)
Susie Dear, is there ANYTHING to beat a gin&tonic or 4 ;D ;D and a good friend to share with. DO NOT ANSWER THAT ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
[quote ;)author=Nickos link=topic=3687.msg153265#msg153265 date=1358003811]
I'm getting the picture,
So Shelia has the gun, smoking a cigar and blasting them all - I think you're getting confused with Bonnie Parker (Bonnie & Clyde) ;) ;D
[/quote]
Nick, i didnt know Sheila smoked cigars, did you? If so, point me to the evidence, i cant seem to find any ;)
-
My dear april it must be 30 years ago since I tasted a gin and tonic always makes me cry what is it called Mother's ruin ;D Maybe better sticking to water think I could go out of control under the influence and get banned from the forum ;) ;) ;)
-
Hi Andrea I think Nickos is taking the p**s out of a post put up by lookout I think. I have read she smoked cigars I will get Patti onto it when she comes on and see if she knows about it.
-
Andrea, I've repied to you over there>>>>>>
-
Andrea, I've repied to you over there>>>>>>
Got it Jo, thanks x
-
Hi Andrea I think Nickos is taking the p**s out of a post put up by lookout I think. I have read she smoked cigars I will get Patti onto it when she comes on and see if she knows about it.
Hi
She smoked cigarella's and rolled her own cigarettes. Not sure what cigarell's are, but I think they are a type of cigar, not the huge bulky things, I don't think. You can find this evidence in Colin's book, In her cousins statement in the archives and in AE's statement. Hope this helps! :) :) :) :)
-
Hi
She smoked cigarella's and rolled her own cigarettes. Not sure what cigarell's are, but I think they are a type of cigar, not the huge bulky things, I don't think. You can find this evidence in Colin's book, In her cousins statement in the archives and in AE's statement. Hope this helps! :) :) :) :)
Hi Patti, I think cigarellas are those small cigars you could buy in a box but I thoughtI had read somewhere that she smoked the big fat ones on special occasins but can't rem,ember where I read it. ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Patti, I think cigarellas are those small cigars you could buy in a box but I thoughtI had read somewhere that she smoked the big fat ones on special occasins but can't rem,ember where I read it. ;D ;D ;D
I'm not sure of the large cigars maggie....I must say I have not read any evidence of her smoking them, only the cigarella things. :-\ :) :) :) :)
-
Hi
She smoked cigarella's and rolled her own cigarettes. Not sure what cigarell's are, but I think they are a type of cigar, not the huge bulky things, I don't think. You can find this evidence in Colin's book, In her cousins statement in the archives and in AE's statement. Hope this helps! :) :) :) :)
Patti, you're correct. Cigarella's where a more feminine way of smoking cigars. I think you could call them a hybrid. I used to smoke Sobrane cocktails, Russian blacks and St Moritz and if I could only get bog standards I used a very long holder. Ahh me!!! Those were the days :D :D :D
-
Patti, you're correct. Cigarella's where a more feminine way of smoking cigars. I think you could call them a hybrid. I used to smoke Sobrane cocktails, Russian blacks and St Moritz and if I could only get bog standards I used a very long holder. Ahh me!!! Those were the days :D :D :D
Oh I remember, I used to smoke St Moritz, the green minty ones and oh when we were young we'd go mad and buy those cocktail ciggies!!
Patti/April, I read it or was told it on this forum because I remember thinking she would smoke the small cigars like Mannikin etc but was surprised when I realised it was the large ones, unless someone made a mistake.??
-
Oh I remember, I used to smoke St Moritz, the green minty ones and oh when we were young we'd go mad and buy those cocktail ciggies!!
Patti/April, I read it or was told it on this forum because I remember thinking she would smoke the small cigars like Mannikin etc but was surprised when I realised it was the large ones, unless someone made a mistake.??
Maggie, I imagine that she thought it was more of a talking point to smoke larger ones. No different from us with our cocktails and Russian Blacks, really ;D ;D ;D Didn't we think we were IT? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie, I imagine that she thought it was more of a talking point to smoke larger ones. No different from us with our cocktails and Russian Blacks, really ;D ;D ;D Didn't we think we were IT? ;D ;D ;D ;D
I always thought I was IT when I was young april ;D ;D
-
I always thought I was IT when I was young april ;D ;D
You thought you were Information technology? ???
-
You thought you were Information technology? ???
That as well Lugg....a whole cheese hahaha ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie, I imagine that she thought it was more of a talking point to smoke larger ones. No different from us with our cocktails and Russian Blacks, really ;D ;D ;D Didn't we think we were IT? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh Gawd! Me too - thought I was so posh :-[
I still like a menthol now and then...
-
Oh Gawd! Me too - thought I was so posh :-[
I still like a menthol now and then...
Didn't we all, mind you I remember our first go at a ciggie when my friend and I were about 14. We bought some Heath and Heather herbal cigarettes and nearly caught fire or choked to death!!
I totally and finally gave up a year ago. I am so pleased with myself, the thought of a fag now makes me feel really sick. However, if you can just have the odd menthol.....enjoy!! ;D ;D
-
Maggie, I imagine that she thought it was more of a talking point to smoke larger ones. No different from us with our cocktails and Russian Blacks, really ;D ;D ;D Didn't we think we were IT? ;D ;D ;D ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ_c2UaccJE
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ_c2UaccJE
I was thinking about that earlier Lugg, when we were talking about the cigarellos!! ;D
-
Erm still learning and reading, one problem for me is I recall that the Secretary of Neville stated after the trial that he told her 'one day i will be killed by Jeremy'. I recall that very well even after 20+ years. This lady was just an ordinary woman with no axe to grind. What I can't get past is the lie detector because nobody can fool that can they?. Or can they?
-
Erm still learning and reading, one problem for me is I recall that the Secretary of Neville stated after the trial that he told her 'one day i will be killed by Jeremy'. I recall that very well even after 20+ years. This lady was just an ordinary woman with no axe to grind. What I can't get past is the lie detector because nobody can fool that can they?. Or can they?
Of course they can otherwise we wouldn't need police or courts! Lie detector tests can also produce false indicators of dishonesty were there's none.
-
Erm still learning and reading, one problem for me is I recall that the Secretary of Neville stated after the trial that he told her 'one day i will be killed by Jeremy'. I recall that very well even after 20+ years. This lady was just an ordinary woman with no axe to grind. What I can't get past is the lie detector because nobody can fool that can they?. Or can they?
Coll,,it depends what/where you read up on the case. There are bias's on both sides of the fence.
I don't recollect Mrs Wilson having heard those words from Neville. We can only assume that some things were said as there was a lot of hearsay involved.
Jeremy had asked for years about wanting a lie-detector to prove his innocence,,,until his request was granted,but I don't know if it was ever an arranged appointment as opposed to a random one.
-
Coleen I have never heard that been said I have heard it said that Ralph said "I must never turn my back on that young man") my take on that statement is he meant Jeremy had been given up by his birth parents and Ralph was meaning I will always be there for Jeremy. I personally think that polygraph testing is to a degree accurate but like anything else always room for error. Just like the Jury system always room there for error as man is not infallible.
-
Coleen if Ralph Bamber had any thoughts that Jeremy would kill him he would have kept every gun at WHF under lock and key not leave them lying around.
-
Coleen if Ralph Bamber had any thoughts that Jeremy would kill him he would have kept every gun at WHF under lock and key not leave them lying around.
Jeremy had plenty of opportunities if he'd wanted to kill his parents. As it happened it was Sheila who sadly had the motive.That Colin,for starters wasn't going to have the boys,,,particularly as he had a new girlfriend,then June because of her fanaticism with religion,plus her father who appeared powerless to intervene in a very volatile situation.
Sheila instinctively felt let-down by everyone,,,poor demented soul.
-
Nick, i didnt know Sheila smoked cigars, did you? If so, point me to the evidence, i cant seem to find any ;)
Hi Andrea,
No, I was just picking on a post from Lookout #220 (and supported by Susan) referring to Sheila making those burn marks on Nevills back with a cigar!!
I agree with Hartley. I don’t believe a cigar to be robust enough the make the 3 marks.
I also believe a cigar (or cigarette) would leave ash in, or around, the burn mark, and this would have been picked up by the pathologist.
No, to me the burn marks were inflicted by a hot metal instrument (and not a hot rifle barrel), and I believe the reason they were inflicted will remain a mystery.
-
About as outrageous as Jeremy cycling like mad across country, wearing a wet suit and a marigold glove!
Caroline, I agree. I have never bought into the wet suit / marigold thing.
How he did dress for that night we may never know.
It's certainly one of those areas that raised the question in my mind as to how the 10 “guilty” Jury members interpreted this part of the night, and how did Rivlin tackle it in court!!
-
Hot metal like a branding iron would have gone further into the flesh,,and would have produced a far bigger " halo " around the wound,because of its severity and weight behind the object.
A lighted cigarette,,or in this case,a cigar,would indeed leave marks such as are described,after the ash has been flicked off. Short of repeating myself,,,I've seen such marks produced by cigarette burns that are on a smaller scale to cigars.
-
Hi lookout short of me repeating myself I agree with you I have the evidence of a cigarette held on the back of my hand till it burnt through the skin and caused a burn similar to the one on Ralphs back from what I can see from the one photograph I have seen. Mine happened thirty odd years ago and I still have a round scar on my hand from the burn which will stay with me. I am not saying that is how Ralphs burns were made just a suggestion as others make with pokers etc., I think maybe the heated butt of the rifle is the most likely but there again seeing a burn on a photo could look so different from seeing in the flesh. Why they were inflicted we will never know but they were inflicted for a reason as was my burn.
-
Hi lookout short of me repeating myself I agree with you I have the evidence of a cigarette held on the back of my hand till it burnt through the skin and caused a burn similar to the one on Ralphs back from what I can see from the one photograph I have seen. Mine happened thirty odd years ago and I still have a round scar on my hand from the burn which will stay with me. I am not saying that is how Ralphs burns were made just a suggestion as others make with pokers etc., I think maybe the heated butt of the rifle is the most likely but there again seeing a burn on a photo could look so different from seeing in the flesh. Why they were inflicted we will never know but they were inflicted for a reason as was my burn.
Hi Susan,,I would imagine Nevilles' burns were inflicted because he either wouldn't " conform " ,or he was caught using the phone,,,,because they were done from behind,possibly while he was bent over using the phone as best he could.
-
Nickos if you read my post again I agreed with lookout that the burns on Ralph's back could have been caused by a cigar or heated rifle but not a poker. I never said that I was of the opinion that Sheila inflicted the burns with a cigar :'(
-
Hi lookout I am of the opinion that the marks inflicted on Ralph's back were made whilst he was seated and not able to put up any kind of resistance. If the rifle had to be heated in the Aga Ralph would not stand and wait for the rifle to become hot enough to burn him unless of course two people were present other than him.
-
Hi lookout I am of the opinion that the marks inflicted on Ralph's back were made whilst he was seated and not able to put up any kind of resistance. If the rifle had to be heated in the Aga Ralph would not stand and wait for the rifle to become hot enough to burn him unless of course two people were present other than him.
It does make more sense to me that Ralph would have been seated and/or not able to move, since the burn marks are in a straight line.
If he had been able to move about, he'd have jumped straight away with the first burn as it would have been agony, and that would be the most natural reaction. Therefore, if he could move, the marks would not be in a straight line.
Of course this still doesn't explain what object made the top wound. I do think the bottom two marks look like cigarette/cigar burns.
-
Erm still learning and reading, one problem for me is I recall that the Secretary of Neville stated after the trial that he told her 'one day i will be killed by Jeremy'. I recall that very well even after 20+ years. This lady was just an ordinary woman with no axe to grind. What I can't get past is the lie detector because nobody can fool that can they?. Or can they?
So Jeremy is a murderer because Nevill had prophesied that Jeremy was going to kill him?
-
Nickos if you read my post again I agreed with lookout that the burns on Ralph's back could have been caused by a cigar or heated rifle but not a poker. I never said that I was of the opinion that Sheila inflicted the burns with a cigar :'(
Susan, x
Lookouts post: And I see those burns as being those of a lit cigar because of the definition of them. Sheila smoked the larger ones,,which,with each drag,burning bright red, would have perhaps resembled the end of a rifle placed on bare flesh, but would have left the indentations such as are photographed.
Your post: Lookout I agree with you cigar burns would have made marks similar to those on Ralphs back or the heated rifle but not for the poker idea too pointed the end.
I posted: I was just picking on a post from Lookout #220 (and supported by Susan) referring to Sheila making those burn marks on Nevills back with a cigar!!
I never said that you said that you were of the opinion that Sheila inflicted the burns with a cigar. I just posted that you supported Lookouts opinion, which you did!
Our posts are getting more complicated than this case ;) ;D
-
Probably Hamlets too. :P
-
Nickos my love
sorry if I picked you up wrong I just get a little touchy when talking about the victims who were sadly murdered.
I do still love you :-* :-* :-*
-
Hi Guys have you seen my new Avatar I am now showing my allegiance to Bonnie Scotland ;D ;D ;D
-
Caroline, I agree. I have never bought into the wet suit / marigold thing.
How he did dress for that night we may never know.
It's certainly one of those areas that raised the question in my mind as to how the 10 “guilty” Jury members interpreted this part of the night, and how did Rivlin tackle it in court!!
Just following on from that thought, what is the full official prosecution version of how JB committed the murders that night – was the wet suit theory ever presented at court?
We've got the key elements that convicted JB, but what of the rest of the story.
We have the story made up by "David Shaw" of how he belives SC did it, and JB was framed , but what of the full story version of how JB did it.
I will probably always remain baffled as to how the Jury (the 10) managed to overcome the grey areas with JB's conviction, and why Rivlin didn't make more of the prosecutions weak points.
I suppose if the key elements of the prosecution’s case were compelling enough and created a “beyond reasonable doubt” in the Jurors minds that they simply overlooked how JB managed to get to and from whf that night, and where he disposed of his bloodied clothing, and how he managed to get SC to “nearly” comply with a staged suicide etc.
For me the significant points that stack against JB are;
The shooting accuracy - more JB!
The final kill shot grouping - more JB!
The double reloading - if it happened - more JB, if mutiple magazines used - more JB!
The all too convenient story of the rabbits, and the gun left out.
The alleged phone call. Nevill imo just would not have done it with Sheila in the house with a gun.
Sheila's first attempted suicide shot to her throat - can'y buy!
Sheila tackling Nevill in such a physical manner - not for me!
But what of the full story!!
-
Nickos my love
sorry if I picked you up wrong I just get a little touchy when talking about the victims who were sadly murdered.
I do still love you :-* :-* :-*
Susan, my flower of Scotland, all is forgiven xx
I've got two trips to Scotland planned this year - I just love the place :-*
-
Just following on from that thought, what is the full official prosecution version of how JB committed the murders that night – was the wet suit theory ever presented at court?
We've got the key elements that convicted JB, but what of the rest of the story.
We have the story made up by "David Shaw" of how he belives SC did it, and JB was framed , but what of the full story version of how JB did it.
I will probably always remain baffled as to how the Jury (the 10) managed to overcome the grey areas with JB's conviction, and why Rivlin didn't make more of the prosecutions weak points.
I suppose if the key elements of the prosecution’s case were compelling enough and created a “beyond reasonable doubt” in the Jurors minds that they simply overlooked how JB managed to get to and from whf that night, and where he disposed of his bloodied clothing, and how he managed to get SC to “nearly” comply with a staged suicide etc.
For me the significant points that stack against JB are;
The shooting accuracy - more JB!
The final kill shot grouping - more JB!
The double reloading - if it happened - more JB, if mutiple magazies used - more JB!
The all too convenient story of the rabbits, and the gun left out.
The alleged phone call. Nevill imo just would not have done it with Sheila in the house with a gun.
Sheila's first attempted suicide shot to her throat - can'y buy!
Sheila tackling Nevill in such a physical manner - not for me!
But what of the full story!!
What, you mean the no forensic evidence that connects JB with the crime? All we have is the sayso of the relatives and the uncorroborated statetement of JM.
-
Wow Nickos I am so excited you may bump into me I will wear a big thistle in my hair so you can identify me ;) ;) ;) ;) :-* :-* :-*
-
Just following on from that thought, what is the full official prosecution version of how JB committed the murders that night – was the wet suit theory ever presented at court?
We've got the key elements that convicted JB, but what of the rest of the story.
We have the story made up by "David Shaw" of how he belives SC did it, and JB was framed , but what of the full story version of how JB did it.
I will probably always remain baffled as to how the Jury (the 10) managed to overcome the grey areas with JB's conviction, and why Rivlin didn't make more of the prosecutions weak points.
I suppose if the key elements of the prosecution’s case were compelling enough and created a “beyond reasonable doubt” in the Jurors minds that they simply overlooked how JB managed to get to and from whf that night, and where he disposed of his bloodied clothing, and how he managed to get SC to “nearly” comply with a staged suicide etc.
For me the significant points that stack against JB are;
The shooting accuracy - more JB!
The final kill shot grouping - more JB!
The double reloading - if it happened - more JB, if mutiple magazines used - more JB!
The all too convenient story of the rabbits, and the gun left out.
The alleged phone call. Nevill imo just would not have done it with Sheila in the house with a gun.
Sheila's first attempted suicide shot to her throat - can'y buy!
Sheila tackling Nevill in such a physical manner - not for me!
But what of the full story!!
What about.? :
The inaccurate photos which were taken by forensic which indicated that they were stage-managed.?
The overall contamination by the police,of a crime scene.?
The lies about how many officers entered WHF.43 on paper,17 more than were declared at the trial.?
The deceased weren't moved from the farmhouse until hours after they'd been found. Meaning that crucial evidence could have been removed when the photos were being taken.
Jeremy was outside WHF with the police when they saw someone moving inside the house. Logs show that a loud-hailer was used for 2 hours while police attempted to contact the person sighted.
Police logs also stated on record that " one dead male and one dead female were found on entry ",,but according to court documents,only the body of Neville was downstairs.
An analyst claimed that a small red spot which was found beneath scratch marks on the kitchen wall,,,allegedly made by the silencer of the rifle,,was not red paint as originally thought,,but nail-varnish from an injury on Sheilas' toe. Further analysis showed that it was indeed a " missing area " of varnish to her big toe. How do you think Sheila received this injury while in the kitchen that night.? Has there ever been a hint as to how this came about.?
A telephone log that proves Neville did phone the police,,but was never used at the trial.Why.?
Even a former officer with the Essex police admitted that the case had been mishandled.
There still remains to be unseen documents/photographs pertaining to the case that have yet to be disclosed. Why's that do you think.? Why are such things being withheld.?
-
What, you mean the no forensic evidence that connects JB with the crime? All we have is the sayso of the relatives and the uncorroborated statetement of JM.
Hi Lugger, well your post is sort of pointng to the story as presented by the Prosecuation, however the real thrust of my post was to highlight the "full" story that the prosecution used to convict JB - is there one?
Something detailed like the David Shaw novel, but one supporting (in detail) how JB did it.
-
Hi Lugger, well your post is sort of pointng to the story as presented by the Prosecuation, however the real thrust of my post was to highlight the "full" story that the prosecution used to convict JB - is there one?
Something detailed like the David Shaw novel, but one supporting (in detail) how JB did it.
So I take it that you thought it was a fair trial then,Nickos.? Given that this argument is rumbling on 27 years after the " event ".
-
So I take it that you thought it was a fair trial then,Nickos.? Given that this argument is rumbling on 27 years after the " event ".
Hi Lookout, there are elements of the trial that may seem unfair, but Rivlin was/is, I’m sure, a clever man, and would /should have known what he was up against.
There were aspects at trial available for Rivlin to manipulate to JB’s advantage, but he failed.
I agree that the silencer evidence is not sound (found and possibly tampered with by a relative - unbelievable!).
If this had been known at trial then this could have had a significant effect at trial.
What strikes me is that when DB mentioned handling the moderator (flake of blood on moderator etc.) which I believe was during the COLP investigation (1991), why was the silencer issue not challenged more strongly by JB’s defence at this time. I assume the COLP investigation was made public?
Did Rivlin call DB at trial and why did the handling bit not come up then – did Rivlin not question RB properly?
However, beyond the silencer and JM witness statements, it is still my opinion that these murders were carried out by a man, and the only man in the frame was/is JB.
-
Hi Lookout, there are elements of the trial that may seem unfair, but Rivlin was/is, I’m sure, a clever man, and would /should have known what he was up against.
There were aspects at trial available for Rivlin to manipulate to JB’s advantage, but he failed.
I agree that the silencer evidence is not sound (found and tampered with by a relative - unbelievable!).
If this had been known at trial (and I believe the found by element was available, but not the tampering bit – confessed to later by was it Robert Boutflour?) then this could have had a significant effect at trial.
What strikes me is that when RB “confessed” to the tampering (scraping of a flake etc.) which I believe was during the COLP investigation (1991), why was the silencer issue not challenged more strongly by JB’s defence at this time. I assume the COLP investigation was made public?
Didi Rivlin call RB at trial and why did the scraping bit not come up then – did Rivlin not question RB properly?
However, beyond the silencer and JM witness statements, it is still my opinion that these murders were carried out by a man, and the only man in the frame was/is JB.
I think you mean David Boutflour? I don't believe he has ever 'confessed' to scraping anything. He says that there was a blob large enough to be scraped with a razor blade, he does not say that he scraped it.
-
I think you mean David Boutflour? I don't believe he has ever 'confessed' to scraping anything. He says that there was a blob large enough to be scraped with a razor blade, he does not say that he scraped it.
Thanks for correcting Bridget.
-
I think you mean David Boutflour? I don't believe he has ever 'confessed' to scraping anything. He says that there was a blob large enough to be scraped with a razor blade, he does not say that he scraped it.
Bridget, am I correct in stating that Rivlin would have known at trial how the moderator was found and that it was subsequently handled by the relatives?
-
I think you mean David Boutflour? I don't believe he has ever 'confessed' to scraping anything. He says that there was a blob large enough to be scraped with a razor blade, he does not say that he scraped it.
Doesn't blood form a thin film upon metal? (As opposed to a 'blob').
-
Doesn't blood form a thin film upon metal? (As opposed to a 'blob').
I guess terminology is sometimes subjective.
It may also depend on how long the blood had been exposed to air.
If Nevill had been wounded (and I believe he was) prior to JB beating him with the rifle , then some blood on Nevill may have coagulated and been more blobby - so to speak!
-
Bridget, am I correct in stating that Rivlin would have known at trial how the moderator was found and that it was subsequently handled by the relatives?
Yes I think so. It's a shame a trial transcript isn't available but I dimly recall Robert Boutflour (who had the same blood type as Sheila) being asked at trial if he had had any cuts to his fingers at the time the silencer was found, so it must have come up.
-
I thought DB DID admit to scraping the blob of blood with a razor blade?He also said that he tried to get to the inside of the silencer but couldn't unscrew it or something similar?
-
I thought DB DID admit to scraping the blob of blood with a razor blade?He also said that he tried to get to the inside of the silencer but couldn't unscrew it or something similar?
No, he didn't admit it, I think it's in his COLP statement somewhere.. I think you're right about him trying to unscrew though.
-
Yes I think so. It's a shame a trial transcript isn't available but I dimly recall Robert Boutflour (who had the same blood type as Sheila) being asked at trial if he had had any cuts to his fingers at the time the silencer was found, so it must have come up.
Thanks Bridget, I'm sure you are following my line of enquiry here;
Rivlin knows;
The silencer was found by a relative,
The silencer was at least handled by a relative,
Rivlin should have cross examined DB more thoroughly to expose DB’s handling of the silencer.
Rivlin should have made precise enquires about the relatives position in respect of JB being found guilty.
I’m sure Rivlin could have done a better job in order to undermine the silencer as evidence - why did he not do this? - I have my suspicions ::)
-
Thanks Bridget, I'm sure you are following my line of enquiry here;
Rivlin knows;
The silencer was found by a relative,
The silencer was at least handled by a relative,
Rivlin should have cross examined DB more thoroughly to expose DB’s handling of the silencer.
Rivlin should have made precise enquires about the relatives position in respect of JB being found guilty.
I’m sure Rivlin could have done a better job in order to undermine the silencer as evidence - why did he not do this? - I have my suspicions ::)
I believe he did cross examine DB, AE and RB over their finding and handling of the silencer, but I've only seen snippets of it. I'm not sure what Rivlin asked them about their position, but the jury did ask who would inherit. Rivlin was / is hugely experienced and respected, I would think if he avoided a particular line of questioning it would be for very good reason.