Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mb1 on February 25, 2011, 12:58:PM
-
If Sheila did it... Just want to run through what she must have done/not done based on the evidence.
Sheila's illness was a serious one. Despite an historical lack of violence to others, she 'flipped', killed her children, parents and finally herself.
Correct anything that is countered by evidence.
1) The gun - she must have wiped down the weapon prior to use. Two poor prints from Sheila and JB. Yet Neville used the gun all the time, and JB stated he used it the night before.
2) Put on gloves - (see prints on gun) plus no prints on the cartridges.
3) Kills family with gun and silencer - there is familial blood in the silencer, whoever it comes from.
a) 6'4'' Nevill puts up a sustained fight, but Sheila suffers no injuries, her fingernails are intact etc.
b) Boys' deaths demonstrate good recoil anticipation with a gun (purchased Nov 84) that no-one has
seen her use before. She has not been known to shoot in her adult life.
4) Removes silencer and places in gun cupboard.
5) Removes clothing (unless she carried out killings wearing only knickers and tights/leggings) and
gloves as these would be contaminated by blood and gun residue. Hides these items - never
discovered.
6) Removes and washes tights, hanging these over the bannisters. Removes knickers and puts to soak
in a bucket.
7) Washes all trace of blood and gun residue from her body. Removes all traces of blood from sink/bath
used.
8) Shoots herself. This is not immediately fatal. Shoots herself again.
Everyone happy?
-
I think I have read that the weapon normally had both a sight and a silencer fitted so in point 4 the sight would also have had to have been removed at some point, if normal use included the weapon being fixed with a sight.
Additionally there is no mention of getting the Bible in preparation of shooting herself.
-
You know what confuses me? (and its so stupid im embarrased to say it outloud)
As a woman id be too ashamed to think that i would be found by a bunch of strangers wearing just a nightdress. Id be worried that id be seen half undressed by a bunch of strange men!
I know its really stupid but if i was going to commit murder/suicide id do it fully clothed!
Please dont laugh and call me a numpty!
-
In my opinion not stupid at all your example is a genuine example of how a female mind might work (and you have stated this is how your mind would work). Something a male mind may very well not consider to such a degree.
In fact until you mentioned it.........
-
You know what confuses me? (and its so stupid im embarrased to say it outloud)
As a woman id be too ashamed to think that i would be found by a bunch of strangers wearing just a nightdress. Id be worried that id be seen half undressed by a bunch of strange men!
I know its really stupid but if i was going to commit murder/suicide id do it fully clothed!
Please dont laugh and call me a numpty!
I wouldn't say you were a numpty for saying something like this, it's just the sort of everyday insight the whole thing needs, in my opinion. I have always been bothered by a similar train of thought - if Sheila was the killer she must have got changed into her nightdress beforehand, anticipating going to bed. If murder was on her mind from the conversation re: fostering earlier in the evening, why would she do this? it makes no sense.
-
I have said this all along - would Sheila have "rampaged" through the house in such a vulnerable state, totally naked except for a flimsy nightdress. No underwear, no shoes. I feel that this tells us a lot.
-
Phew thought you would all laugh!!
This is my main reason for not thinking Sheila did it! a mentally unstable woman planning a murder i feel would not bother getting undressed and going to bed. Surely in such an agitated state she would be pacing around and not knowing what to do (if this was the case i cant see her parents going to be either!!)
-
Phew thought you would all laugh!!
This is my main reason for not thinking Sheila did it! a mentally unstable woman planning a murder i feel would not bother getting undressed and going to bed. Surely in such an agitated state she would be pacing around and not knowing what to do (if this was the case i cant see her parents going to be either!!)
For the avoidance of doubt another good 'female mind' insight post.
-
Sheila was also wearing a petticoat which became heavily bloodstained, according to Mike Tesko. There is a thread on this forum with a link to a photograph of this petticoat but unfortunately the link no longer works. I have asked Mike at least three times if he could repost the photograph but I have had no response.
Aside from that, I would like to submit a further theory from a women's point of view lol. Maybe Sheila was fully clothed whilst committing the four murders but then washed and changed into her nightdress before committing suicide. I have read that sufferers of paranoid schizophrenia do undertake such ritualistic behaviour. This could also account for the lack of forensic evidence found upon her body.
-
I think Joolz is right is her thinking - many female suicides present their 'best' self as their 'last' self to the world.
Oops - forgot the Bible, rested on the arm.
I can't find the 'petticoat' mentioned.
My issue is why would someone who has 'flipped' care about fingerprints (cartridges) etc. Paranoid schizophrenics aren't 'organised killers'. They act on impulse, usually after a period of not taking their medication and withdrawing from contact. Sheila received her main medication by injection and was still mixing with people - who had previously been able to judge when outside help was needed. Why a sudden, overwhelming violent impulse?
Re another post. Camden Social Services assisted with 'day foster care' for the (pre-school age) children when Sheila first became ill at the beginning of 1979. The children were never the subject of a removal order.
-
I can't find the 'petticoat' mentioned.
This is the name of the thread which refers to the petticoat "New blood stained petticoat, clue - was Sheila wearing this over her nightdress?"
Started by mike tesko
It is currently on page 6 of the forum. I would post a link but I don't know how to do it :(
-
Sheila was also wearing a petticoat which became heavily bloodstained, according to Mike Tesko. There is a thread on this forum with a link to a photograph of this petticoat but unfortunately the link no longer works. I have asked Mike at least three times if he could repost the photograph but I have had no response.
Aside from that, I would like to submit a further theory from a women's point of view lol. Maybe Sheila was fully clothed whilst committing the four murders but then washed and changed into her nightdress before committing suicide. I have read that sufferers of paranoid schizophrenia do undertake such ritualistic behaviour. This could also account for the lack of forensic evidence found upon her body.
Possible i suppose but if Neville phoned Jeremy sometime around 3.30am (ish) and said sheila had a gun (no mention that she had shot anyone at this point ) and then police arrived before 4am i dont see she would have time to shoot her whole family, clean up the guns and then wash and change. Yeh the police didnt enter the house till 7am but if my hiuse was surrounded by armed police i wouldnt bother having a wash iz be watching exactly what was going off and not getti g distracted for even a second.
-
Sorry for any spellng mistakes by the way! Im on my phone it keeps missing letters and things!!
-
Possible i suppose but if Neville phoned Jeremy sometime around 3.30am (ish) and said sheila had a gun (no mention that she had shot anyone at this point ) and then police arrived before 4am i dont see she would have time to shoot her whole family, clean up the guns and then wash and change. Yeh the police didnt enter the house till 7am but if my hiuse was surrounded by armed police i wouldnt bother having a wash iz be watching exactly what was going off and not getti g distracted for even a second.
The police didn't enter the house until 7.35am. That gives Sheila 4 hours to finish the murders, wash, change and then kill herself.
-
Possible i suppose but if Neville phoned Jeremy sometime around 3.30am (ish) and said sheila had a gun (no mention that she had shot anyone at this point ) and then police arrived before 4am i dont see she would have time to shoot her whole family, clean up the guns and then wash and change. Yeh the police didnt enter the house till 7am but if my hiuse was surrounded by armed police i wouldnt bother having a wash iz be watching exactly what was going off and not getti g distracted for even a second.
The police didn't enter the house until 7.35am. That gives Sheila 4 hours to finish the murders, wash, change and then kill herself.
I see what your saying but if you had murdered your whole family and your house was surriunded by police would you have a wash and put your underwear in a bucket to soak?
-
I see what your saying but if you had murdered your whole family and your house was surriunded by police would you have a wash and put your underwear in a bucket to soak?
I don't know I am not a paranoid schizophrenic but prescription drugs plus non-prescription drugs might make anything possible.
-
I see what your saying but if you had murdered your whole family and your house was surriunded by police would you have a wash and put your underwear in a bucket to soak?
I don't know I am not a paranoid schizophrenic but prescription drugs plus non-prescription drugs might make anything possible.
Yeh i suppose we can speculate on tbe workings of the female mind but when you throw her illness into the mix her actions would be different to a woman without a mental illness.
-
I can't find the 'petticoat' mentioned.
This is the name of the thread which refers to the petticoat "New blood stained petticoat, clue - was Sheila wearing this over her nightdress?"
Started by mike tesko
It is currently on page 6 of the forum. I would post a link but I don't know how to do it :(
Thanks.
If Sheila went to so much care to wash, re-dress etc, why no underwear? Why lay down in such a way that her nightdress was rucked up underneath her?
That doesn't fit with her laying herself out, Ophelia style.
-
Possible i suppose but if Neville phoned Jeremy sometime around 3.30am (ish) and said sheila had a gun (no mention that she had shot anyone at this point ) and then police arrived before 4am i dont see she would have time to shoot her whole family, clean up the guns and then wash and change. Yeh the police didnt enter the house till 7am but if my hiuse was surrounded by armed police i wouldnt bother having a wash iz be watching exactly what was going off and not getti g distracted for even a second.
The police didn't enter the house until 7.35am. That gives Sheila 4 hours to finish the murders, wash, change and then kill herself.
I see what your saying but if you had murdered your whole family and your house was surriunded by police would you have a wash and put your underwear in a bucket to soak?
I don't know why anyone would put their underwear in a bucket. It's seems very strange to me.
-
I see what your saying but if you had murdered your whole family and your house was surriunded by police would you have a wash and put your underwear in a bucket to soak?
I don't know I am not a paranoid schizophrenic but prescription drugs plus non-prescription drugs might make anything possible.
Also, her underwear could have been left to soak at anytime the previous eve in order to be washed the following day and therefore nothing to do with the shootings.
-
I see what your saying but if you had murdered your whole family and your house was surriunded by police would you have a wash and put your underwear in a bucket to soak?
I don't know I am not a paranoid schizophrenic but prescription drugs plus non-prescription drugs might make anything possible.
Yeh i suppose we can speculate on tbe workings of the female mind but when you throw her illness into the mix her actions would be different to a woman without a mental illness.
Male of female mind - when a paranoid schizophrenic is in a full-on delusional stage that results in a homicidal/suicidal rage, why would they worry about fingerprints on guns or bullets?
-
I don't know why anyone would put their underwear in a bucket. It's seems very strange to me.
I am going to go out on a limb here Kaldin and guess that you are a man.
I was a teenager in the eighties and if I was caught short by my period and my knickers became blood stained, my mother used to steep them in a bucket of water before putting them in the washing machine.
Sorry if this bluntness offends anybody but I assume we are all adults on this forum!
-
I don't know why anyone would put their underwear in a bucket. It's seems very strange to me.
I am going to go out on a limb here Kaldin and guess that you are a man.
I was a teenager in the eighties and if I was caught short by my period and my knickers became blood stained, my mother used to steep them in a bucket of water before putting them in the washing machine.
Sorry if this bluntness offends anybody but I assume we are all adults on this forum!
+1
Simples...
-
I don't know why anyone would put their underwear in a bucket. It's seems very strange to me.
I am going to go out on a limb here Kaldin and guess that you are a man.
I was a teenager in the eighties and if I was caught short by my period and my knickers became blood stained, my mother used to steep them in a bucket of water before putting them in the washing machine.
Sorry if this bluntness offends anybody but I assume we are all adults on this forum!
Sorry but I just find that completely bizarre.
-
nothing bizarre about it kaldin, if something becomes blood stained it makes sense to soak the item first before washing it, more chance of getting the stain out of the garment.
-
I don't know why anyone would put their underwear in a bucket. It's seems very strange to me.
I am going to go out on a limb here Kaldin and guess that you are a man.
I was a teenager in the eighties and if I was caught short by my period and my knickers became blood stained, my mother used to steep them in a bucket of water before putting them in the washing machine.
Sorry if this bluntness offends anybody but I assume we are all adults on this forum!
Sorry but I just find that completely bizarre.
Not if you are a girl lol.
-
nothing bizarre about it kaldin, if something becomes blood stained it makes sense to soak the item first before washing it, more chance of getting the stain out of the garment.
Well I think it's bizarre - especially leaving it in the kitchen.
-
kaldin what i find bizarre is the fact that anne eaton took the knickers home with her, now that really is strange!
-
nothing bizarre about it kaldin, if something becomes blood stained it makes sense to soak the item first before washing it, more chance of getting the stain out of the garment.
Well I think it's bizarre - especially leaving it in the kitchen.
They would leave it close to where washing machine is im guessing living in a farm house in early/mid 80s that they may not have had an automatic washing machine anx certainly didnt have stain removing washing powders like we do now! Soiled garments would need to be soaked.
Can remember my auntie having a nappy bucket in her kitchen for soaking my cousins nappies in.
-
If Sheila went to so much care to wash, re-dress etc, why no underwear? Why lay down in such a way that her nightdress was rucked up underneath her?
That doesn't fit with her laying herself out, Ophelia style.
I cannot offer an explanation at this stage as to why she was not wearing underwear when found by the police but what I will say is I don't believe her nightdress would be in such a position when or if she shot herself. I don't believe she was found "Ophelia style". Do you not find it strange that June was also photographed in this position? I find it highly unlikely that either of them would have fallen in these respective postions after being shot.
-
kaldin what i find bizarre is the fact that anne eaton took the knickers home with her, now that really is strange!
Yes, that's even more bizarre. :-\
-
nothing bizarre about it kaldin, if something becomes blood stained it makes sense to soak the item first before washing it, more chance of getting the stain out of the garment.
Well I think it's bizarre - especially leaving it in the kitchen.
They would leave it close to where washing machine is im guessing living in a farm house in early/mid 80s that they may not have had an automatic washing machine anx certainly didnt have stain removing washing powders like we do now! Soiled garments would need to be soaked.
Can remember my auntie having a nappy bucket in her kitchen for soaking my cousins nappies in.
To leave it in the kitchen though with the men around? Nah.
-
If Sheila went to so much care to wash, re-dress etc, why no underwear? Why lay down in such a way that her nightdress was rucked up underneath her?
That doesn't fit with her laying herself out, Ophelia style.
I cannot offer an explanation at this stage as to why she was not wearing underwear when found by the police but what I will say is I don't believe her nightdress would be in such a position when or if she shot herself. I don't believe she was found "Ophelia style". Do you not find it strange that June was also photographed in this position? I find it highly unlikely that either of them would have fallen in these respective postions after being shot.
Yes! I do find that odd.
-
nothing bizarre about it kaldin, if something becomes blood stained it makes sense to soak the item first before washing it, more chance of getting the stain out of the garment.
Well I think it's bizarre - especially leaving it in the kitchen.
They would leave it close to where washing machine is im guessing living in a farm house in early/mid 80s that they may not have had an automatic washing machine anx certainly didnt have stain removing washing powders like we do now! Soiled garments would need to be soaked.
Can remember my auntie having a nappy bucket in her kitchen for soaking my cousins nappies in.
To leave it in the kitchen though with the men around? Nah.
It wasn't 'men' around. It would have been her father and two young boys. And I don't think they were in the main kitchen but in the 'scullery' - so out of sight from everyone.
-
Think was definitely the norm especially all those years ago to put soiled items in a bucket in either the kitchen or bathroom regardless if there were men in the house or not and can remember lots of other people doing this when I was younger. Work in mental health and can say that paranoid schizophrenics are usually really chaotic and is highly unlikely that Sheila would be so unwell as to murder her whole family after being rational enough to think about soaking her soiled clothes.
-
If Sheila went to so much care to wash, re-dress etc, why no underwear? Why lay down in such a way that her nightdress was rucked up underneath her?
That doesn't fit with her laying herself out, Ophelia style.
I cannot offer an explanation at this stage as to why she was not wearing underwear when found by the police but what I will say is I don't believe her nightdress would be in such a position when or if she shot herself. I don't believe she was found "Ophelia style". Do you not find it strange that June was also photographed in this position? I find it highly unlikely that either of them would have fallen in these respective postions after being shot.
There is speculation that June managed to pull herself up by holding on to the door, then slid back down against it, presumably to topple over, or receive the final forehead shot and be pushed aside into that position.
-
Think was definitely the norm especially all those years ago to put soiled items in a bucket in either the kitchen or bathroom regardless if there were men in the house or not and can remember lots of other people doing this when I was younger. Work in mental health and can say that paranoid schizophrenics are usually really chaotic and is highly unlikely that Sheila would be so unwell as to murder her whole family after being rational enough to think about soaking her soiled clothes.
To be even handed, June could have soaked the knickers and rinsed the tights earlier. In which case, what was Sheila wearing, if anything?
My problem with the Sheila scenario is, how can she be both organised and - your good word - chaotic?
-
there may have been a lid on the bucket
-
To leave it in the kitchen though with the men around? Nah.
OMG I am guessing you have no sisters and had quite a sheltered upbringing! My mother was at work when I had my first period and dad was at home on back shift. I also announced the fact to my older brother who was there. My dad had to go to the shop and buy me some sanitary towels which he did without batting an eyelid. My husband was similarly relaxed when our daughter recently statred her periods.
Get over the fact that blood stained knickers in a bucket of cold water in the kitchen, where washing machines usually are, is not a big deal. It is quite normal, especially in an eighties farmhouse!
Me sheltered? You sound like an exhibitionist to me.
Oh well, never mind.
-
nothing bizarre about it kaldin, if something becomes blood stained it makes sense to soak the item first before washing it, more chance of getting the stain out of the garment.
Well I think it's bizarre - especially leaving it in the kitchen.
They would leave it close to where washing machine is im guessing living in a farm house in early/mid 80s that they may not have had an automatic washing machine anx certainly didnt have stain removing washing powders like we do now! Soiled garments would need to be soaked.
Can remember my auntie having a nappy bucket in her kitchen for soaking my cousins nappies in.
To leave it in the kitchen though with the men around? Nah.
It wasn't 'men' around. It would have been her father and two young boys. And I don't think they were in the main kitchen but in the 'scullery' - so out of sight from everyone.
Why does everyone keep saying they were in the kitchen then?
No wonder nobody can work out what happened - nobody knows which room is which!
-
If Sheila went to so much care to wash, re-dress etc, why no underwear? Why lay down in such a way that her nightdress was rucked up underneath her?
That doesn't fit with her laying herself out, Ophelia style.
I cannot offer an explanation at this stage as to why she was not wearing underwear when found by the police but what I will say is I don't believe her nightdress would be in such a position when or if she shot herself. I don't believe she was found "Ophelia style". Do you not find it strange that June was also photographed in this position? I find it highly unlikely that either of them would have fallen in these respective postions after being shot.
There is speculation that June managed to pull herself up by holding on to the door, then slid back down against it, presumably to topple over, or receive the final forehead shot and be pushed aside into that position.
It's the way their legs are dead straight - I dunno, there's something odd about it all.
-
The knickers were in a bucket, close to the kitchen door through which the police gained entry.
I've seen a photo of a washing machine in the scullery.
-
[/quote
Me sheltered? You sound like an exhibitionist to me.
Oh well, never mind.
I can assure you I am not an exhibitionist and I believe I have some very sound theories about what happened in White House Farm that night. I choose not to share these entirely because often speculation clouds the issue.
-
I can assure you I am not an exhibitionist and I believe I have some very sound theories about what happened in White House Farm that night. I choose not to share these entirely because often speculation clouds the issue.
OK, so the knickers were in a bucket. When did Sheila put them there, or her mother? Didn't Sheila go to bed when Pam was on the phone to June?
-
OK, so the knickers were in a bucket. When did Sheila put them there, or her mother? Didn't Sheila go to bed when Pam was on the phone to June?
June said Sheila was going to bed. This could just have been a polite explanation to Pamela for Sheila being so distant/disinterested on the telephone.
-
The rucked up nightdress is easily explained. Shiela first sat on the floor leaning against the bedside cabinet. Read the bible, then shuffled forward to get into a lying position. Maybe?
-
are we missing the point that Sheila s body was supposed to have been moved. If this was the case it would explain why the night dress was rucked up. some one could have pulled the body by the feet.
-
I don't think the rucked up nightdress is relevant. It could have got that way by her sitting on the floor regardless of who shot her.
-
I was only making the point that people are saying that Sheila would not have wished to be found with her nightdress rucked up.
-
If Sheila went to so much care to wash, re-dress etc, why no underwear? Why lay down in such a way that her nightdress was rucked up underneath her?
That doesn't fit with her laying herself out, Ophelia style.
I cannot offer an explanation at this stage as to why she was not wearing underwear when found by the police but what I will say is I don't believe her nightdress would be in such a position when or if she shot herself. I don't believe she was found "Ophelia style". Do you not find it strange that June was also photographed in this position? I find it highly unlikely that either of them would have fallen in these respective postions after being shot.
There is speculation that June managed to pull herself up by holding on to the door, then slid back down against it, presumably to topple over, or receive the final forehead shot and be pushed aside into that position.
It's the way their legs are dead straight - I dunno, there's something odd about it all.
It's odd I agree, but odd 'either way'.
If she shot herself, I can see her sitting in a 'proper' manner, legs parallel etc, but her final resting position seems rather odd that she was neither sat up (back to the bedside table, or lying down with enough room for head)
If she was murdered and placed then that's a logic reason for straight legs, but the head angle still looks questionable for someone putting a body in place.
I do wonder what the effect of recoil and impact would be on her head position, IF she lay down with just enough headroom, then pulled the trigger... maybe this would cause the awkward tilt of the head?
-
It's pointless speculating about what she was or wasn't wearing. People having delusions often walk about naked or strangely dressed, they don't realise they are.
-
It's pointless speculating about what she was or wasn't wearing. People having delusions often walk about naked or strangely dressed, they don't realise they are.
Absolutely.But youd think that if Sheila was having her period,then shed at least be wearing some knickers? Also,there was a pair of jogging bottoms soaking in the bucket and evidence that the shower had been used.Maybe she got caught short,went off for a shower whilst her mother put the item in to soak.Its just the kind of thing a 61 year old woman would do.
-
Sheila was also wearing a petticoat which became heavily bloodstained, according to Mike Tesko. There is a thread on this forum with a link to a photograph of this petticoat but unfortunately the link no longer works. I have asked Mike at least three times if he could repost the photograph but I have had no response.
Aside from that, I would like to submit a further theory from a women's point of view lol. Maybe Sheila was fully clothed whilst committing the four murders but then washed and changed into her nightdress before committing suicide. I have read that sufferers of paranoid schizophrenia do undertake such ritualistic behaviour. This could also account for the lack of forensic evidence found upon her body.
She must have manicured all her nails too and done all this to frame Bamber..All this is nonsense I'm afraid.
Remember Bamber says she was unconscious in the Kitchen, so all this she must have done behind the backs of a house full of Police and not one of them Knowing or hearing anything.
-
Possible i suppose but if Neville phoned Jeremy sometime around 3.30am (ish) and said sheila had a gun (no mention that she had shot anyone at this point ) and then police arrived before 4am i dont see she would have time to shoot her whole family, clean up the guns and then wash and change. Yeh the police didnt enter the house till 7am but if my hiuse was surrounded by armed police i wouldnt bother having a wash iz be watching exactly what was going off and not getti g distracted for even a second.
The police didn't enter the house until 7.35am. That gives Sheila 4 hours to finish the murders, wash, change and then kill herself.
There was an open phone line being monitured and no sounds were heard.
They would have head two shotds dont you think.
There was an open phone line being monitored and no sounds were heard.
They would have head two shots don't you think as well.
-
Either Sheila shot them all naked, or she miraculously disposed of her stained clothes, changed into a nightdress and shot herself.
-
Possible i suppose but if Neville phoned Jeremy sometime around 3.30am (ish) and said sheila had a gun (no mention that she had shot anyone at this point ) and then police arrived before 4am i dont see she would have time to shoot her whole family, clean up the guns and then wash and change. Yeh the police didnt enter the house till 7am but if my hiuse was surrounded by armed police i wouldnt bother having a wash iz be watching exactly what was going off and not getti g distracted for even a second.
The police didn't enter the house until 7.35am. That gives Sheila 4 hours to finish the murders, wash, change and then kill herself.
There was an open phone line being monitured and no sounds were heard.
They would have head two shotds dont you think.
There was an open phone line being monitored and no sounds were heard.
They would have head two shots don't you think as well.
We've established that shot with the silencer are incredibly quiet, without, would be unlikely to be heard if the shots where upstairs and the phone in the kitchen.
-
Possible i suppose but if Neville phoned Jeremy sometime around 3.30am (ish) and said sheila had a gun (no mention that she had shot anyone at this point ) and then police arrived before 4am i dont see she would have time to shoot her whole family, clean up the guns and then wash and change. Yeh the police didnt enter the house till 7am but if my hiuse was surrounded by armed police i wouldnt bother having a wash iz be watching exactly what was going off and not getti g distracted for even a second.
The police didn't enter the house until 7.35am. That gives Sheila 4 hours to finish the murders, wash, change and then kill herself.
There was an open phone line being monitured and no sounds were heard.
They would have head two shotds dont you think.
There was an open phone line being monitored and no sounds were heard.
They would have head two shots don't you think as well.
We've established that shot with the silencer are incredibly quiet, without, would be unlikely to be heard if the shots where upstairs and the phone in the kitchen.
It was impossible to shoot herself with the silencer on and they would have heard her rushing around the house on the phone with all the washing going on i think.
-
The barking dog could be heard on the open line - it was discovered upstairs, under the main bed.
I'm assuming whoever was listening in - BT alone or accompanied by officers sent to the exchange? - was really listening.
The phone was feet away from the bucket with soaking underwear. Wouldn't they have heard that being carried and placed on the floor?
Dr Pal - by washing, do you mean SC showering and dressing, laundering her blood-spattered clothes and gloves, or both?
-
Sheila was also wearing a petticoat which became heavily bloodstained, according to Mike Tesko. There is a thread on this forum with a link to a photograph of this petticoat but unfortunately the link no longer works. I have asked Mike at least three times if he could repost the photograph but I have had no response.
Aside from that, I would like to submit a further theory from a women's point of view lol. Maybe Sheila was fully clothed whilst committing the four murders but then washed and changed into her nightdress before committing suicide. I have read that sufferers of paranoid schizophrenia do undertake such ritualistic behaviour. This could also account for the lack of forensic evidence found upon her body.
She must have manicured all her nails too and done all this to frame Bamber..All this is nonsense I'm afraid.
Remember Bamber says she was unconscious in the Kitchen, so all this she must have done behind the backs of a house full of Police and not one of them Knowing or hearing anything.
Where does Bamber say she was unconscious in the kitchen ?
-
The barking dog could be heard on the open line - it was discovered upstairs, under the main bed.
I'm assuming whoever was listening in - BT alone or accompanied by officers sent to the exchange? - was really listening.
The phone was feet away from the bucket with soaking underwear. Wouldn't they have heard that being carried and placed on the floor?
Dr Pal - by washing, do you mean SC showering and dressing, laundering her blood-spattered clothes and gloves, or both?
Dog was found in a cupboard in the main bedroom,and it was removed quickly so as to not disturb the scene.
-
The barking dog could be heard on the open line - it was discovered upstairs, under the main bed.
I'm assuming whoever was listening in - BT alone or accompanied by officers sent to the exchange? - was really listening.
The phone was feet away from the bucket with soaking underwear. Wouldn't they have heard that being carried and placed on the floor?
Dr Pal - by washing, do you mean SC showering and dressing, laundering her blood-spattered clothes and gloves, or both?
Dog was found in a cupboard in the main bedroom,and it was removed quickly so as to not disturb the scene.
Read elsewhere - possibly this forum - that it was under the bed.
Cupboard 'says' something different to me.
Also occurs to me - why not shoot the dog?
-
Where does Bamber say she was unconscious in the kitchen ?
On his own website http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/defence-case
"I put it that Sheila had shot herself once and was unconscious in the kitchen when the firearms officers broke into the kitchen. They somehow missed the fact that she was still alive and continued to search the house."
-
Possible i suppose but if Neville phoned Jeremy sometime around 3.30am (ish) and said sheila had a gun (no mention that she had shot anyone at this point ) and then police arrived before 4am i dont see she would have time to shoot her whole family, clean up the guns and then wash and change. Yeh the police didnt enter the house till 7am but if my hiuse was surrounded by armed police i wouldnt bother having a wash iz be watching exactly what was going off and not getti g distracted for even a second.
The police didn't enter the house until 7.35am. That gives Sheila 4 hours to finish the murders, wash, change and then kill herself.
There was an open phone line being monitured and no sounds were heard.
They would have head two shotds dont you think.
There was an open phone line being monitored and no sounds were heard.
They would have head two shots don't you think as well.
We've established that shot with the silencer are incredibly quiet, without, would be unlikely to be heard if the shots where upstairs and the phone in the kitchen.
It was impossible to shoot herself with the silencer on and they would have heard her rushing around the house on the phone with all the washing going on i think.
It was not impossible to shoot herself with the silencer on - just as technical point there.
The police undertook, and photographed a series of shots demonstrating that it was possible... they are available on the forum.
I don't believe the silencer was used... but just saying.. it WAS possible if a little awkward
-
The barking dog could be heard on the open line - it was discovered upstairs, under the main bed.
I'm assuming whoever was listening in - BT alone or accompanied by officers sent to the exchange? - was really listening.
The phone was feet away from the bucket with soaking underwear. Wouldn't they have heard that being carried and placed on the floor?
Dr Pal - by washing, do you mean SC showering and dressing, laundering her blood-spattered clothes and gloves, or both?
Dog was found in a cupboard in the main bedroom,and it was removed quickly so as to not disturb the scene.
Read elsewhere - possibly this forum - that it was under the bed.
Cupboard 'says' something different to me.
Also occurs to me - why not shoot the dog?
If you go to the thread titled "trial evidence of PC Myall and DI Cook,......DI Cook testifies that the dog was found in a bedroom cupboard,
-
Are you sure the police "undertook, and photographed a series of shots demonstrating that it was possible"?
Seems a strange thing for the police to be doing in 2003.
-
Sheila was also wearing a petticoat which became heavily bloodstained, according to Mike Tesko. There is a thread on this forum with a link to a photograph of this petticoat but unfortunately the link no longer works. I have asked Mike at least three times if he could repost the photograph but I have had no response.
Aside from that, I would like to submit a further theory from a women's point of view lol. Maybe Sheila was fully clothed whilst committing the four murders but then washed and changed into her nightdress before committing suicide. I have read that sufferers of paranoid schizophrenia do undertake such ritualistic behaviour. This could also account for the lack of forensic evidence found upon her body.
She must have manicured all her nails too and done all this to frame Bamber..All this is nonsense I'm afraid.
Remember Bamber says she was unconscious in the Kitchen, so all this she must have done behind the backs of a house full of Police and not one of them Knowing or hearing anything.
Where does Bamber say she was unconscious in the kitchen ?
he says one male and one dead woman were in the kichen when the Police broke in and then she made her way upstaires without them knowing.
-
From the TFG description of entry, it appears they were employing a clear/secure.forward tactic. They opened windows to create exits for officers should they need to retreat.
If SC was alive in the kitchen her only opportunity to move unseen would have been when the TFG began moving upstairs. If she used the kitchen stairs, they would have seen her on the landing. Put frankly, they would have shot her and it wouldn't have been an uppercut to the chin.
Why would they lie if this occurred?
TFUs/TFGs kill people waving chair legs and toy guns without feeling the need to lie.
Why hide the fact that they had shot a woman who had just slaughtered her children and parents?
If Sheila managed to evade them and get to the bedroom, the TFG would have returned to siege mode whether or not they heard a shot. Once again, WHF would have been a no-go area for some considerable time.
Again, why would they lie if this occurred?
Simply cannot see any strand of logic in this line of reasoning.
-
Possible i suppose but if Neville phoned Jeremy sometime around 3.30am (ish) and said sheila had a gun (no mention that she had shot anyone at this point ) and then police arrived before 4am i dont see she would have time to shoot her whole family, clean up the guns and then wash and change. Yeh the police didnt enter the house till 7am but if my hiuse was surrounded by armed police i wouldnt bother having a wash iz be watching exactly what was going off and not getti g distracted for even a second.
The police didn't enter the house until 7.35am. That gives Sheila 4 hours to finish the murders, wash, change and then kill herself.
There was an open phone line being monitured and no sounds were heard.
They would have head two shotds dont you think.
There was an open phone line being monitored and no sounds were heard.
They would have head two shots don't you think as well.
We've established that shot with the silencer are incredibly quiet, without, would be unlikely to be heard if the shots where upstairs and the phone in the kitchen.
It was impossible to shoot herself with the silencer on and they would have heard her rushing around the house on the phone with all the washing going on i think.
It was not impossible to shoot herself with the silencer on - just as technical point there.
The police undertook, and photographed a series of shots demonstrating that it was possible... they are available on the forum.
I don't believe the silencer was used... but just saying.. it WAS possible if a little awkward
The photographs on this site are from defence sources.
They do not state the height or arm reach of the model used, or depict measurements of these.
Mike Tesko will recall if it is exactly the same Anschutz gun (longer than most .22s) and moderator.
-
The photographs were taken at Birdwell Armoury in 2003 using a duplicate rifle / silencer and model of similar proportion to Sheila.
But I must correct my earlier statement - the instigator of these photos isn't known (to me) and therefore likely NOT to have been the police themselves.
-
The photographs were taken at Birdwell Armoury in 2003 using a duplicate rifle / silencer and model of similar proportion to Sheila.
But I must correct my earlier statement - the instigator of these photos isn't known (to me) and therefore likely NOT to have been the police themselves.
to be honest...if she did shoot herself, after the first shot i don't think she would have had the strength to do a second one!
-
From the TFG description of entry, it appears they were employing a clear/secure.forward tactic. They opened windows to create exits for officers should they need to retreat.
If SC was alive in the kitchen her only opportunity to move unseen would have been when the TFG began moving upstairs. If she used the kitchen stairs, they would have seen her on the landing. Put frankly, they would have shot her and it wouldn't have been an uppercut to the chin.
Why would they lie if this occurred?
TFUs/TFGs kill people waving chair legs and toy guns without feeling the need to lie.
Why hide the fact that they had shot a woman who had just slaughtered her children and parents?
If Sheila managed to evade them and get to the bedroom, the TFG would have returned to siege mode whether or not they heard a shot. Once again, WHF would have been a no-go area for some considerable time.
Again, why would they lie if this occurred?
Simply cannot see any strand of logic in this line of reasoning.
The problem Bamber has now.... he has come up with that many different stories to say what happened with every little new evidence, he has now lost any little credibility he had.
He has attacked everybody saying they are lying from the farm hands, police and prosecution etc that I'm sure that nothing new released would ever change matters for him now, as why would they if it was only going to drop them in it.
He's tried to dig himself out of a massive hole since day one with his arrogance and all the legal experts who matter in this case can see it.
-
Possible i suppose but if Neville phoned Jeremy sometime around 3.30am (ish) and said sheila had a gun (no mention that she had shot anyone at this point ) and then police arrived before 4am i dont see she would have time to shoot her whole family, clean up the guns and then wash and change. Yeh the police didnt enter the house till 7am but if my hiuse was surrounded by armed police i wouldnt bother having a wash iz be watching exactly what was going off and not getti g distracted for even a second.
The police didn't enter the house until 7.35am. That gives Sheila 4 hours to finish the murders, wash, change and then kill herself.
There was an open phone line being monitured and no sounds were heard.
They would have head two shotds dont you think.
There was an open phone line being monitored and no sounds were heard.
They would have head two shots don't you think as well.
We've established that shot with the silencer are incredibly quiet, without, would be unlikely to be heard if the shots where upstairs and the phone in the kitchen.
It was impossible to shoot herself with the silencer on and they would have heard her rushing around the house on the phone with all the washing going on i think.
It was not impossible to shoot herself with the silencer on - just as technical point there.
The police undertook, and photographed a series of shots demonstrating that it was possible... they are available on the forum.
I don't believe the silencer was used... but just saying.. it WAS possible if a little awkward
The photographs on this site are from defence sources.
They do not state the height or arm reach of the model used, or depict measurements of these.
Mike Tesko will recall if it is exactly the same Anschutz gun (longer than most .22s) and moderator.
The problem Bamber has now, is that he has come up with that many different stories to say what happened with every little new evidence, he has now lost any little credibility he had.
He has attacked everybody saying they are lying from the farm hands, police and prosecution etc that I'm sure that nothing new released would ever change matters for him now, as why would they if it was only going to drop them in it.
He's tried to dig himself out of a massive hole since day one with his arrogance and all the legal experts who matter in this case can see it.
Well, I'm more reasonably heavily on the guilty side but.....
In his defence:
1) Not all the claims are his - see Mike Tesko about that!!
2) IF you've been stitched up, then to be fair, the evidence to prove your innocence isn't going to be particularly forthcoming, and so you would clutch at every possible straw you could.
3) IF he didn't do it, then he's no wiser than us lot (well not much) - so HE has to work out how sheila did it too!... no mean feat. Can't blame him if he goes down a number of paths.... I've done that too!
On the prosecution side:
1) He was arrogant then, and thought he could get away with it, and he still is, and will try anything to get out of it.
2) His attempts at discrediting virtually everyone but himself go from the sublime to the ridiculous
3) He's been repeatedly 'proven' wrong - and why should the British justice system continuously pander to his follow and self promotion?
-
From the TFG description of entry, it appears they were employing a clear/secure.forward tactic. They opened windows to create exits for officers should they need to retreat.
If SC was alive in the kitchen her only opportunity to move unseen would have been when the TFG began moving upstairs. If she used the kitchen stairs, they would have seen her on the landing. Put frankly, they would have shot her and it wouldn't have been an uppercut to the chin.
Why would they lie if this occurred?
TFUs/TFGs kill people waving chair legs and toy guns without feeling the need to lie.
Why hide the fact that they had shot a woman who had just slaughtered her children and parents?
If Sheila managed to evade them and get to the bedroom, the TFG would have returned to siege mode whether or not they heard a shot. Once again, WHF would have been a no-go area for some considerable time.
Again, why would they lie if this occurred?
Simply cannot see any strand of logic in this line of reasoning.
The problem Bamber has now.... he has come up with that many different stories to say what happened with every little new evidence, he has now lost any little credibility he had.
He has attacked everybody saying they are lying from the farm hands, police and prosecution etc that I'm sure that nothing new released would ever change matters for him now, as why would they if it was only going to drop them in it.
He's tried to dig himself out of a massive hole since day one with his arrogance and all the legal experts who matter in this case can see it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-officers-charged-over-cardiff-three-miscarriage-of-justice-1636833.html Sometimes it takes a long time !!
-
The photograph doesn't show that Amy could reach the rifle's trigger, as her raised leg blocks the view. However, mike tesko has claimed that the video that was also made gives a clearer view.
If SC was alive in the kitchen her only opportunity to move unseen would have been when the TFG began moving upstairs. If she used the kitchen stairs, they would have seen her on the landing. Put frankly, they would have shot her and it wouldn't have been an uppercut to the chin.
Why would they lie if this occurred?
As you say, Sheila had an opportunity to go upstairs before the TFG got there. The defence theory is that the police decided to conceal their own blunders, so any lying would have occurred some time later, on orders from their superiors.
if she did shoot herself, after the first shot i don't think she would have had the strength to do a second one!
You don't know how much loss of blood the first wound caused, or how much pain it caused. Whether she felt too faint to shoot herself again is therefore completely unknowable on that basis.
-
Sheila did well to get past the Armed Response Team though...
These guys would be listening for every noise they could... since nobody fancies being shot at... and of course, she's not on top form... having just aroused (from shooting herself) and carrying a weapon of that size.
No wonder her feet were clean, she was exceptionally light on them.
-
I agree. It's much more likely that Sheila went upstairs after the TFG had visited all the unlocked rooms. At that stage, they may, unwisely, have ceased to monitor the whole of the first floor adequately, and they had to make noise to break into an upstairs room that was locked.
-
Let's say TFG went in the house expected a count of 5 persons.
They count 2 in the kitchen, one of whom is Sheila...(would they know it's her?... quite probably given Jeremy's description)...
COULD they have 'switched' off at the point thinking "right, two dead, one's the daughter"... then hurriedly looked for the kids and June (and found them).
Let's suppose they relaxed a little at this point and radioed that all 5 found - dead. There's at least 4 in the house, possibly 6, but we'll stick with 4 men, at least ONE of whom is upstairs, but probably 2, and theoretically as many as 4.
It's still quite difficult to see her sneaking past them AND getting into the bedroom and pulling the trigger.I know it's a big house, but the upstairs section is far less so... more like a good sized detached family home. She's just come round from being unconscious, possibly dazed, but possibly not, and she's pretty badly injured. She's luckily managed to have a bullet left in the gun (so she shot herself the first time with at LEAST 2 bullets remaining).
Why is she bothering to sneak past them? she has the gun, she can do it there and then. If she's hell bent on killing herself, why risk being prevented from doing so by TFG (even with a wounding shot)?
She has ALL she needs, right with her in the kitchen.
-
Let's say TFG went in the house expected a count of 5 persons.
They count 2 in the kitchen, one of whom is Sheila...(would they know it's her?... quite probably given Jeremy's description)...
COULD they have 'switched' off at the point thinking "right, two dead, one's the daughter"... then hurriedly looked for the kids and June (and found them).
Let's suppose they relaxed a little at this point and radioed that all 5 found - dead. There's at least 4 in the house, possibly 6, but we'll stick with 4 men, at least ONE of whom is upstairs, but probably 2, and theoretically as many as 4.
It's still quite difficult to see her sneaking past them AND getting into the bedroom and pulling the trigger.I know it's a big house, but the upstairs section is far less so... more like a good sized detached family home. She's just come round from being unconscious, possibly dazed, but possibly not, and she's pretty badly injured. She's luckily managed to have a bullet left in the gun (so she shot herself the first time with at LEAST 2 bullets remaining).
Why is she bothering to sneak past them? she has the gun, she can do it there and then. If she's hell bent on killing herself, why risk being prevented from doing so by TFG (even with a wounding shot)?
She has ALL she needs, right with her in the kitchen.
Yes. I don't understand where the gun is supposed to be in Mike's scenario. Is it leaning against the bedroom window as in Julie Jeapes's statement? If so, then how did Sheila shoot herself in the kitchen?
-
she had a long piece of string attached to the trigger and aligned the gun to to make a bullet ricochet off the lamp shade, down the spiral staircase and under the neck. To be fair, it's no wonder it took two goes... tricky shot that ;-)
-
From the TFG description of entry, it appears they were employing a clear/secure.forward tactic. They opened windows to create exits for officers should they need to retreat.
If SC was alive in the kitchen her only opportunity to move unseen would have been when the TFG began moving upstairs. If she used the kitchen stairs, they would have seen her on the landing. Put frankly, they would have shot her and it wouldn't have been an uppercut to the chin.
Why would they lie if this occurred?
TFUs/TFGs kill people waving chair legs and toy guns without feeling the need to lie.
Why hide the fact that they had shot a woman who had just slaughtered her children and parents?
If Sheila managed to evade them and get to the bedroom, the TFG would have returned to siege mode whether or not they heard a shot. Once again, WHF would have been a no-go area for some considerable time.
Again, why would they lie if this occurred?
Simply cannot see any strand of logic in this line of reasoning.
The problem Bamber has now.... he has come up with that many different stories to say what happened with every little new evidence, he has now lost any little credibility he had.
He has attacked everybody saying they are lying from the farm hands, police and prosecution etc that I'm sure that nothing new released would ever change matters for him now, as why would they if it was only going to drop them in it.
He's tried to dig himself out of a massive hole since day one with his arrogance and all the legal experts who matter in this case can see it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-officers-charged-over-cardiff-three-miscarriage-of-justice-1636833.html Sometimes it takes a long time !!
That terrible case involves bully-boy police officers and supposedly 'bullied' witnesses - helped by the fact that the force later convicted the correct killer, allowing these appellants to be freed and this case to begin.
However, truly bad as it was, it didn't involve collusion of the forensics labs, ballistics experts, relatives, will executor, BT, uncle Tom Cobley and all...
I go back to my original question - if the TFU make a hash of the entry to WHF and allow Sheila to shoot herself, why lie? She had just slaughtered (allegedly) her children and parents. Who would have cared what happened to her?
-
Actually, they could just have said "she got up, by the time we'd seen, she shot herself" - which is pretty much 'the botch up'.
Exactly as you say... what's to hide?
Even if they'd shot her... what's to hide?
I'm more in favour of the family colluding than I am of the Police covering up a (non) mess.
The only embarrassment the Police needed to ever cover up was the taking of Jeremy at his word about what happened (and they had no evidence to assume anything other than his being truthful), and the woeful gathering of evidence at the crime scene which (probably) actually led to this mess. I believe there was probably a fair good chance of finding tangible evidence that very morning on Jeremy, at his home, and in the house... HAD they treated it as a 5 murders.
They took the easy option (and probably 'tactful' too), and made a mistake.
-
Actually, they could just have said "she got up, by the time we'd seen, she shot herself" - which is pretty much 'the botch up'.
Exactly as you say... what's to hide?
Even if they'd shot her... what's to hide?
I'm more in favour of the family colluding than I am of the Police covering up a (non) mess.
The only embarrassment the Police needed to ever cover up was the taking of Jeremy at his word about what happened (and they had no evidence to assume anything other than his being truthful), and the woeful gathering of evidence at the crime scene which (probably) actually led to this mess. I believe there was probably a fair good chance of finding tangible evidence that very morning on Jeremy, at his home, and in the house... HAD they treated it as a 5 murders.
They took the easy option (and probably 'tactful' too), and made a mistake.
I agree. They took the easy suicide/murder option and failed to investigate thoroughly - but they have been criticized for this ever since!
It was much harder for them to do a U-turn and admit 5 murders.
Even without the family, the forensics coming back were not supporting suicide so they did have to think again.
I think alarm bells rang for the family when they realised JB had told the police that Sheila 'could shoot and had used all the guns' which they knew to be patently untrue.
If family, it would have made me stop and consider as well, particularly if I thought the police were all too ready to jump to a conclusion that had been planted in their heads by the very person telling fibs...
-
From the TFG description of entry, it appears they were employing a clear/secure.forward tactic. They opened windows to create exits for officers should they need to retreat.
If SC was alive in the kitchen her only opportunity to move unseen would have been when the TFG began moving upstairs. If she used the kitchen stairs, they would have seen her on the landing. Put frankly, they would have shot her and it wouldn't have been an uppercut to the chin.
Why would they lie if this occurred?
TFUs/TFGs kill people waving chair legs and toy guns without feeling the need to lie.
Why hide the fact that they had shot a woman who had just slaughtered her children and parents?
If Sheila managed to evade them and get to the bedroom, the TFG would have returned to siege mode whether or not they heard a shot. Once again, WHF would have been a no-go area for some considerable time.
Again, why would they lie if this occurred?
Simply cannot see any strand of logic in this line of reasoning.
The problem Bamber has now.... he has come up with that many different stories to say what happened with every little new evidence, he has now lost any little credibility he had.
He has attacked everybody saying they are lying from the farm hands, police and prosecution etc that I'm sure that nothing new released would ever change matters for him now, as why would they if it was only going to drop them in it.
He's tried to dig himself out of a massive hole since day one with his arrogance and all the legal experts who matter in this case can see it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-officers-charged-over-cardiff-three-miscarriage-of-justice-1636833.html Sometimes it takes a long time !!
That terrible case involves bully-boy police officers and supposedly 'bullied' witnesses - helped by the fact that the force later convicted the correct killer, allowing these appellants to be freed and this case to begin.
However, truly bad as it was, it didn't involve collusion of the forensics labs, ballistics experts, relatives, will executor, BT, uncle Tom Cobley and all...
I go back to my original question - if the TFU make a hash of the entry to WHF and allow Sheila to shoot herself, why lie? She had just slaughtered (allegedly) her children and parents. Who would have cared what happened to her?
Relatives , i take it you didnt believe Sion Jenkins wife or his children when they said he was violent ? So do relatives lie ? Forensics , have gone wrong many times Frank Skuse , Michael Heath to name but two , BT if they hid nothing get EP to release the bill of the relevant month , Tom Cobley i will hold my hand up and say he never colluded ;D , you being a legal liberian i am sure you dont need me to remind you that there have been worse miscarriages of justice than this !!
-
It's quite true there have been miscarriages of justice - not sure I'd say "worse", but of course they exist.
But we must be careful not to pull that card out of the hat every time someone says "it was a stitch up guv!"... it's too easy to say "well, the police have done it before!".
Yep the police have done it before, and will again. But it's still a relatively small percentage compared with correct convictions (even assuming there's a few innocents still in prison, or dead).
Personally, if I had to defend Bamber, I'd not be looking at the Police as conspirators, but at the family, and even that would be at a push.
The Police caused all this with their woeful gathering of evidence, but that's known and accepted. It's remotely possible the family witnessed this opportunity and took advantage - but even then, it's quite from suspecting Jeremy to 'framing him' (and thereby risking their own liberty in the process). Not only that, but also getting lucky that other parties contributed to Jeremy's downfall (OR were also in collusion with the family).
-
From the TFG description of entry, it appears they were employing a clear/secure.forward tactic. They opened windows to create exits for officers should they need to retreat.
If SC was alive in the kitchen her only opportunity to move unseen would have been when the TFG began moving upstairs. If she used the kitchen stairs, they would have seen her on the landing. Put frankly, they would have shot her and it wouldn't have been an uppercut to the chin.
Why would they lie if this occurred?
TFUs/TFGs kill people waving chair legs and toy guns without feeling the need to lie.
Why hide the fact that they had shot a woman who had just slaughtered her children and parents?
If Sheila managed to evade them and get to the bedroom, the TFG would have returned to siege mode whether or not they heard a shot. Once again, WHF would have been a no-go area for some considerable time.
Again, why would they lie if this occurred?
Simply cannot see any strand of logic in this line of reasoning.
The problem Bamber has now.... he has come up with that many different stories to say what happened with every little new evidence, he has now lost any little credibility he had.
He has attacked everybody saying they are lying from the farm hands, police and prosecution etc that I'm sure that nothing new released would ever change matters for him now, as why would they if it was only going to drop them in it.
He's tried to dig himself out of a massive hole since day one with his arrogance and all the legal experts who matter in this case can see it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-officers-charged-over-cardiff-three-miscarriage-of-justice-1636833.html Sometimes it takes a long time !!
That terrible case involves bully-boy police officers and supposedly 'bullied' witnesses - helped by the fact that the force later convicted the correct killer, allowing these appellants to be freed and this case to begin.
However, truly bad as it was, it didn't involve collusion of the forensics labs, ballistics experts, relatives, will executor, BT, uncle Tom Cobley and all...
I go back to my original question - if the TFU make a hash of the entry to WHF and allow Sheila to shoot herself, why lie? She had just slaughtered (allegedly) her children and parents. Who would have cared what happened to her?
Relatives , i take it you didnt believe Sion Jenkins wife or his children when they said he was violent ? So do relatives lie ? Forensics , have gone wrong many times Frank Skuse , Michael Heath to name but two , BT if they hid nothing get EP to release the bill of the relevant month , Tom Cobley i will hold my hand up and say he never colluded ;D , you being a legal liberian i am sure you dont need me to remind you that there have been worse miscarriages of justice than this !!
Worse in which way?
Scale of collusion?
Time incarcerated?
Nature of crime/s alleged?
Scale of collusion?
Time spent in incarceration?
Nature of the crimes of which they were accused?
You are asking us to believe that every body - personal, governmental, professional - entered into a deliberate conspiracy, uniting varied motives to achieve a common ill, that of framing and convicting an innocent man. It follows that those succeeding these positions over the last 25 years also stand accused, compromising their roles, personal integrity and - if discovered - their careers and possible freedom.
Not a single whistleblower?
As for the SJ case - by the time of the Appeals the children A +C had reached an age when the court accepted they understood the concept of 'truth and lie' and LJ had had time to evaluate the case. The children travelled half-way across the world to give evidence on SJ's behalf. Hopefully, it gave the girls some sense of closure. It was certainly emotional and compelling, quite a new 'legal' experience for me.
As you are keen to personalise issues let me explain: my professional concern is the precedence of relevant legal argument. The bulk of my work is commissioned by chambers/counsels specialising in defence.
It is not my job, nor that of solicitors, counsel or judges, to decide guilt or innocence. That rests with juries.
I simply say that legal argument can be inferred from previous cases, but there is no automatic transference of conclusions. Steve Wright is not innocent just because Barry George was. But if you prefer to picture me as a rabid hang-em-all facist, that's fine. I'll sleep. But I will give you a case worth viewing - Gary Critchley...
-
From the TFG description of entry, it appears they were employing a clear/secure.forward tactic. They opened windows to create exits for officers should they need to retreat.
If SC was alive in the kitchen her only opportunity to move unseen would have been when the TFG began moving upstairs. If she used the kitchen stairs, they would have seen her on the landing. Put frankly, they would have shot her and it wouldn't have been an uppercut to the chin.
Why would they lie if this occurred?
TFUs/TFGs kill people waving chair legs and toy guns without feeling the need to lie.
Why hide the fact that they had shot a woman who had just slaughtered her children and parents?
If Sheila managed to evade them and get to the bedroom, the TFG would have returned to siege mode whether or not they heard a shot. Once again, WHF would have been a no-go area for some considerable time.
Again, why would they lie if this occurred?
Simply cannot see any strand of logic in this line of reasoning.
The problem Bamber has now.... he has come up with that many different stories to say what happened with every little new evidence, he has now lost any little credibility he had.
He has attacked everybody saying they are lying from the farm hands, police and prosecution etc that I'm sure that nothing new released would ever change matters for him now, as why would they if it was only going to drop them in it.
He's tried to dig himself out of a massive hole since day one with his arrogance and all the legal experts who matter in this case can see it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-officers-charged-over-cardiff-three-miscarriage-of-justice-1636833.html Sometimes it takes a long time !!
That terrible case involves bully-boy police officers and supposedly 'bullied' witnesses - helped by the fact that the force later convicted the correct killer, allowing these appellants to be freed and this case to begin.
However, truly bad as it was, it didn't involve collusion of the forensics labs, ballistics experts, relatives, will executor, BT, uncle Tom Cobley and all...
I go back to my original question - if the TFU make a hash of the entry to WHF and allow Sheila to shoot herself, why lie? She had just slaughtered (allegedly) her children and parents. Who would have cared what happened to her?
Relatives , i take it you didnt believe Sion Jenkins wife or his children when they said he was violent ? So do relatives lie ? Forensics , have gone wrong many times Frank Skuse , Michael Heath to name but two , BT if they hid nothing get EP to release the bill of the relevant month , Tom Cobley i will hold my hand up and say he never colluded ;D , you being a legal liberian i am sure you dont need me to remind you that there have been worse miscarriages of justice than this !!
Worse in which way?
Scale of collusion?
Time incarcerated?
Nature of crime/s alleged?
Scale of collusion?
Time spent in incarceration?
Nature of the crimes of which they were accused?
You are asking us to believe that every body - personal, governmental, professional - entered into a deliberate conspiracy, uniting varied motives to achieve a common ill, that of framing and convicting an innocent man. It follows that those succeeding these positions over the last 25 years also stand accused, compromising their roles, personal integrity and - if discovered - their careers and possible freedom.
Not a single whistleblower?
As for the SJ case - by the time of the Appeals the children A +C had reached an age when the court accepted they understood the concept of 'truth and lie' and LJ had had time to evaluate the case. The children travelled half-way across the world to give evidence on SJ's behalf. Hopefully, it gave the girls some sense of closure. It was certainly emotional and compelling, quite a new 'legal' experience for me.
As you are keen to personalise issues let me explain: my professional concern is the precedence of relevant legal argument. The bulk of my work is commissioned by chambers/counsels specialising in defence.
It is not my job, nor that of solicitors, counsel or judges, to decide guilt or innocence. That rests with juries.
I simply say that legal argument can be inferred from previous cases, but there is no automatic transference of conclusions. Steve Wright is not innocent just because Barry George was. But if you prefer to picture me as a rabid hang-em-all facist, that's fine. I'll sleep. But I will give you a case worth viewing - Gary Critchley...
I dont think of you as a hang - em -all facist at all , but i think you show some sign's of double standards , LJ said SJ was violent , one of his children told Trevor Mcdonald he hit them with some object think it was a belt but i am not sure , now you fought for his release , now can you answer my question was he violent ? In your opinion ?
-
The question 'was he violent' will always result in a subjective answer. It's a matter of opinion.
'Short tempered' - some will say
'Didn't suffer fools gladly' - another will say
'Firm, but gentle giant' - another will say
'Wouldn't harm a fly' - etc etc
In fact I rowed with my daughter this morning - if you were to ask her if I'm nasty there's a fair chance she'd say yes.
Ask her when I've just topped her phone up for her, and you might get a different answer!
I do appreciate that these are trivial examples, but the same principle applies on a much grander scale - a wife saying her husband wasn't violent, and children saying he was. It's a relative term in many respects.
This whole debate whoever originated from the ill-founded suggestion that because Bamber had no 'history' (however that was determined) of violence, that it added to his credibility significantly.
I would strongly disagree. I would suggest it did no harm, but it would not really count for very much when determining if he was capable of the murders. There are simply so many murders with varying degrees of violence, and motives where the perpetrator had no history nor given any indication that they might be capable of murder, that a lack of violent history accounts for nothing.
-
The question 'was he violent' will always result in a subjective answer. It's a matter of opinion.
'Short tempered' - some will say
'Didn't suffer fools gladly' - another will say
'Firm, but gentle giant' - another will say
'Wouldn't harm a fly' - etc etc
In fact I rowed with my daughter this morning - if you were to ask her if I'm nasty there's a fair chance she'd say yes.
Ask her when I've just topped her phone up for her, and you might get a different answer!
I do appreciate that these are trivial examples, but the same principle applies on a much grander scale - a wife saying her husband wasn't violent, and children saying he was. It's a relative term in many respects.
This whole debate whoever originated from the ill-founded suggestion that because Bamber had no 'history' (however that was determined) of violence, that it added to his credibility significantly.
I would strongly disagree. I would suggest it did no harm, but it would not really count for very much when determining if he was capable of the murders. There are simply so many murders with varying degrees of violence, and motives where the perpetrator had no history nor given any indication that they might be capable of murder, that a lack of violent history accounts for nothing.
My question is about Sion Jenkins ! But how much would be made of the fact JB was violent if he had been ?
-
From the TFG description of entry, it appears they were employing a clear/secure.forward tactic. They opened windows to create exits for officers should they need to retreat.
If SC was alive in the kitchen her only opportunity to move unseen would have been when the TFG began moving upstairs. If she used the kitchen stairs, they would have seen her on the landing. Put frankly, they would have shot her and it wouldn't have been an uppercut to the chin.
Why would they lie if this occurred?
TFUs/TFGs kill people waving chair legs and toy guns without feeling the need to lie.
Why hide the fact that they had shot a woman who had just slaughtered her children and parents?
If Sheila managed to evade them and get to the bedroom, the TFG would have returned to siege mode whether or not they heard a shot. Once again, WHF would have been a no-go area for some considerable time.
Again, why would they lie if this occurred?
Simply cannot see any strand of logic in this line of reasoning.
The problem Bamber has now.... he has come up with that many different stories to say what happened with every little new evidence, he has now lost any little credibility he had.
He has attacked everybody saying they are lying from the farm hands, police and prosecution etc that I'm sure that nothing new released would ever change matters for him now, as why would they if it was only going to drop them in it.
He's tried to dig himself out of a massive hole since day one with his arrogance and all the legal experts who matter in this case can see it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-officers-charged-over-cardiff-three-miscarriage-of-justice-1636833.html Sometimes it takes a long time !!
That terrible case involves bully-boy police officers and supposedly 'bullied' witnesses - helped by the fact that the force later convicted the correct killer, allowing these appellants to be freed and this case to begin.
However, truly bad as it was, it didn't involve collusion of the forensics labs, ballistics experts, relatives, will executor, BT, uncle Tom Cobley and all...
I go back to my original question - if the TFU make a hash of the entry to WHF and allow Sheila to shoot herself, why lie? She had just slaughtered (allegedly) her children and parents. Who would have cared what happened to her?
Relatives , i take it you didnt believe Sion Jenkins wife or his children when they said he was violent ? So do relatives lie ? Forensics , have gone wrong many times Frank Skuse , Michael Heath to name but two , BT if they hid nothing get EP to release the bill of the relevant month , Tom Cobley i will hold my hand up and say he never colluded ;D , you being a legal liberian i am sure you dont need me to remind you that there have been worse miscarriages of justice than this !!
Worse in which way?
Scale of collusion?
Time incarcerated?
Nature of crime/s alleged?
Scale of collusion?
Time spent in incarceration?
Nature of the crimes of which they were accused?
You are asking us to believe that every body - personal, governmental, professional - entered into a deliberate conspiracy, uniting varied motives to achieve a common ill, that of framing and convicting an innocent man. It follows that those succeeding these positions over the last 25 years also stand accused, compromising their roles, personal integrity and - if discovered - their careers and possible freedom.
Not a single whistleblower?
As for the SJ case - by the time of the Appeals the children A +C had reached an age when the court accepted they understood the concept of 'truth and lie' and LJ had had time to evaluate the case. The children travelled half-way across the world to give evidence on SJ's behalf. Hopefully, it gave the girls some sense of closure. It was certainly emotional and compelling, quite a new 'legal' experience for me.
As you are keen to personalise issues let me explain: my professional concern is the precedence of relevant legal argument. The bulk of my work is commissioned by chambers/counsels specialising in defence.
It is not my job, nor that of solicitors, counsel or judges, to decide guilt or innocence. That rests with juries.
I simply say that legal argument can be inferred from previous cases, but there is no automatic transference of conclusions. Steve Wright is not innocent just because Barry George was. But if you prefer to picture me as a rabid hang-em-all facist, that's fine. I'll sleep. But I will give you a case worth viewing - Gary Critchley...
I dont think of you as a hang - em -all facist at all , but i think you show some sign's of double standards , LJ said SJ was violent , one of his children told Trevor Mcdonald he hit them with some object think it was a belt but i am not sure , now you fought for his release , now can you answer my question was he violent ? In your opinion ?
I have said Sheila threw things and struck Colin while their relationship was breaking up.
I have said JB twisted JM's arm behind her back during an argument.
As I argued, neither of these demonstrate any prior history of 'violence' in my opinion. They were aggressive, emotional acts but I do not conclude that they actively enjoyed hurting others.
My Mother once slapped me around the face. Not a violent person at all.
Is a man who routinely beats his wife guilty of domestic violence? YMorally, yes. Legally - only if convicted.
Is the teacher who never canes a child a better teacher than the one who does? I have no idea, as we are evaluating their ability to teach, not beat.
If one of the Guildford 4 liked a Saturday night fight did that make them a bomber? No.
Are you suggesting I have to accept every criminal conviction is a potential conspiracy, otherwise I cannot accept any individual miscarriage of justice?
Would it not be equally sound to regard criminal convictions as safe unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary?
I cannot see where I am applying a double standard.
-
plenty would be made of it, and that's perfectly understandable.
It sounds like double standards, but it's not -
Very often the first time someone's caught for a serious crime, there's no previous on them.
Once they have previous, it's quite common for them to continue in the same vein somewhere down the line.
Crimes similar to the Bamber murders rarely have any prior indication (although they do subsequently invoke claims of 'he was always odd') type insights.
-
However, it is a double standard to infer that JB would not have killed his immediate family for financial gain, yet his extended family would automatically conspire/collude with murder to achieve the same.
As far I am concerned you can ascribe the money motive to every relative in this saga - except for the 5 dead people.
But only one person claimed the gun was in Sheila's hands.
I do not agree that the gun was in Sheila's hands.
To change my mind you have to supply evidence that the gun was in her hands.
I believe it is unsound to convict a deceased person - which is the suggestion - on the basis that they suffered from schizophrenia.
Just as I believe it was wrong to convict Barry George (despite previous convictions for assault on women) on the basis that he had a low I.Q. and suffered from an attention seeking personality disorder.
-
From the TFG description of entry, it appears they were employing a clear/secure.forward tactic. They opened windows to create exits for officers should they need to retreat.
If SC was alive in the kitchen her only opportunity to move unseen would have been when the TFG began moving upstairs. If she used the kitchen stairs, they would have seen her on the landing. Put frankly, they would have shot her and it wouldn't have been an uppercut to the chin.
Why would they lie if this occurred?
TFUs/TFGs kill people waving chair legs and toy guns without feeling the need to lie.
Why hide the fact that they had shot a woman who had just slaughtered her children and parents?
If Sheila managed to evade them and get to the bedroom, the TFG would have returned to siege mode whether or not they heard a shot. Once again, WHF would have been a no-go area for some considerable time.
Again, why would they lie if this occurred?
Simply cannot see any strand of logic in this line of reasoning.
The problem Bamber has now.... he has come up with that many different stories to say what happened with every little new evidence, he has now lost any little credibility he had.
He has attacked everybody saying they are lying from the farm hands, police and prosecution etc that I'm sure that nothing new released would ever change matters for him now, as why would they if it was only going to drop them in it.
He's tried to dig himself out of a massive hole since day one with his arrogance and all the legal experts who matter in this case can see it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-officers-charged-over-cardiff-three-miscarriage-of-justice-1636833.html Sometimes it takes a long time !!
That terrible case involves bully-boy police officers and supposedly 'bullied' witnesses - helped by the fact that the force later convicted the correct killer, allowing these appellants to be freed and this case to begin.
However, truly bad as it was, it didn't involve collusion of the forensics labs, ballistics experts, relatives, will executor, BT, uncle Tom Cobley and all...
I go back to my original question - if the TFU make a hash of the entry to WHF and allow Sheila to shoot herself, why lie? She had just slaughtered (allegedly) her children and parents. Who would have cared what happened to her?
Relatives , i take it you didnt believe Sion Jenkins wife or his children when they said he was violent ? So do relatives lie ? Forensics , have gone wrong many times Frank Skuse , Michael Heath to name but two , BT if they hid nothing get EP to release the bill of the relevant month , Tom Cobley i will hold my hand up and say he never colluded ;D , you being a legal liberian i am sure you dont need me to remind you that there have been worse miscarriages of justice than this !!
Worse in which way?
Scale of collusion?
Time incarcerated?
Nature of crime/s alleged?
Scale of collusion?
Time spent in incarceration?
Nature of the crimes of which they were accused?
You are asking us to believe that every body - personal, governmental, professional - entered into a deliberate conspiracy, uniting varied motives to achieve a common ill, that of framing and convicting an innocent man. It follows that those succeeding these positions over the last 25 years also stand accused, compromising their roles, personal integrity and - if discovered - their careers and possible freedom.
Not a single whistleblower?
As for the SJ case - by the time of the Appeals the children A +C had reached an age when the court accepted they understood the concept of 'truth and lie' and LJ had had time to evaluate the case. The children travelled half-way across the world to give evidence on SJ's behalf. Hopefully, it gave the girls some sense of closure. It was certainly emotional and compelling, quite a new 'legal' experience for me.
As you are keen to personalise issues let me explain: my professional concern is the precedence of relevant legal argument. The bulk of my work is commissioned by chambers/counsels specialising in defence.
It is not my job, nor that of solicitors, counsel or judges, to decide guilt or innocence. That rests with juries.
I simply say that legal argument can be inferred from previous cases, but there is no automatic transference of conclusions. Steve Wright is not innocent just because Barry George was. But if you prefer to picture me as a rabid hang-em-all facist, that's fine. I'll sleep. But I will give you a case worth viewing - Gary Critchley...
I dont think of you as a hang - em -all facist at all , but i think you show some sign's of double standards , LJ said SJ was violent , one of his children told Trevor Mcdonald he hit them with some object think it was a belt but i am not sure , now you fought for his release , now can you answer my question was he violent ? In your opinion ?
I have said Sheila threw things and struck Colin while their relationship was breaking up.
I have said JB twisted JM's arm behind her back during an argument.
As I argued, neither of these demonstrate any prior history of 'violence' in my opinion. They were aggressive, emotional acts but I do not conclude that they actively enjoyed hurting others.
My Mother once slapped me around the face. Not a violent person at all.
Is a man who routinely beats his wife guilty of domestic violence? YMorally, yes. Legally - only if convicted.
Is the teacher who never canes a child a better teacher than the one who does? I have no idea, as we are evaluating their ability to teach, not beat.
If one of the Guildford 4 liked a Saturday night fight did that make them a bomber? No.
Are you suggesting I have to accept every criminal conviction is a potential conspiracy, otherwise I cannot accept any individual miscarriage of justice?
Would it not be equally sound to regard criminal convictions as safe unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary?
I cannot see where I am applying a double standard.
Gary Critchley very sad case , Kevin Lane is one that may also interest you. Can you answer my question was SJ violent in your opinion ? I appreciate if you dont want to answer but can you just say if that is the case ?
-
Can you answer my question was SJ violent in your opinion ? I appreciate if you dont want to answer but can you just say if that is the case ?
Just out of interest, why do you want to know so badly?
-
From the TFG description of entry, it appears they were employing a clear/secure.forward tactic. They opened windows to create exits for officers should they need to retreat.
If SC was alive in the kitchen her only opportunity to move unseen would have been when the TFG began moving upstairs. If she used the kitchen stairs, they would have seen her on the landing. Put frankly, they would have shot her and it wouldn't have been an uppercut to the chin.
Why would they lie if this occurred?
TFUs/TFGs kill people waving chair legs and toy guns without feeling the need to lie.
Why hide the fact that they had shot a woman who had just slaughtered her children and parents?
If Sheila managed to evade them and get to the bedroom, the TFG would have returned to siege mode whether or not they heard a shot. Once again, WHF would have been a no-go area for some considerable time.
Again, why would they lie if this occurred?
Simply cannot see any strand of logic in this line of reasoning.
The problem Bamber has now.... he has come up with that many different stories to say what happened with every little new evidence, he has now lost any little credibility he had.
He has attacked everybody saying they are lying from the farm hands, police and prosecution etc that I'm sure that nothing new released would ever change matters for him now, as why would they if it was only going to drop them in it.
He's tried to dig himself out of a massive hole since day one with his arrogance and all the legal experts who matter in this case can see it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-officers-charged-over-cardiff-three-miscarriage-of-justice-1636833.html Sometimes it takes a long time !!
That terrible case involves bully-boy police officers and supposedly 'bullied' witnesses - helped by the fact that the force later convicted the correct killer, allowing these appellants to be freed and this case to begin.
However, truly bad as it was, it didn't involve collusion of the forensics labs, ballistics experts, relatives, will executor, BT, uncle Tom Cobley and all...
I go back to my original question - if the TFU make a hash of the entry to WHF and allow Sheila to shoot herself, why lie? She had just slaughtered (allegedly) her children and parents. Who would have cared what happened to her?
Relatives , i take it you didnt believe Sion Jenkins wife or his children when they said he was violent ? So do relatives lie ? Forensics , have gone wrong many times Frank Skuse , Michael Heath to name but two , BT if they hid nothing get EP to release the bill of the relevant month , Tom Cobley i will hold my hand up and say he never colluded ;D , you being a legal liberian i am sure you dont need me to remind you that there have been worse miscarriages of justice than this !!
Worse in which way?
Scale of collusion?
Time incarcerated?
Nature of crime/s alleged?
Scale of collusion?
Time spent in incarceration?
Nature of the crimes of which they were accused?
You are asking us to believe that every body - personal, governmental, professional - entered into a deliberate conspiracy, uniting varied motives to achieve a common ill, that of framing and convicting an innocent man. It follows that those succeeding these positions over the last 25 years also stand accused, compromising their roles, personal integrity and - if discovered - their careers and possible freedom.
Not a single whistleblower?
As for the SJ case - by the time of the Appeals the children A +C had reached an age when the court accepted they understood the concept of 'truth and lie' and LJ had had time to evaluate the case. The children travelled half-way across the world to give evidence on SJ's behalf. Hopefully, it gave the girls some sense of closure. It was certainly emotional and compelling, quite a new 'legal' experience for me.
As you are keen to personalise issues let me explain: my professional concern is the precedence of relevant legal argument. The bulk of my work is commissioned by chambers/counsels specialising in defence.
It is not my job, nor that of solicitors, counsel or judges, to decide guilt or innocence. That rests with juries.
I simply say that legal argument can be inferred from previous cases, but there is no automatic transference of conclusions. Steve Wright is not innocent just because Barry George was. But if you prefer to picture me as a rabid hang-em-all facist, that's fine. I'll sleep. But I will give you a case worth viewing - Gary Critchley...
I dont think of you as a hang - em -all facist at all , but i think you show some sign's of double standards , LJ said SJ was violent , one of his children told Trevor Mcdonald he hit them with some object think it was a belt but i am not sure , now you fought for his release , now can you answer my question was he violent ? In your opinion ?
I have said Sheila threw things and struck Colin while their relationship was breaking up.
I have said JB twisted JM's arm behind her back during an argument.
As I argued, neither of these demonstrate any prior history of 'violence' in my opinion. They were aggressive, emotional acts but I do not conclude that they actively enjoyed hurting others.
My Mother once slapped me around the face. Not a violent person at all.
Is a man who routinely beats his wife guilty of domestic violence? YMorally, yes. Legally - only if convicted.
Is the teacher who never canes a child a better teacher than the one who does? I have no idea, as we are evaluating their ability to teach, not beat.
If one of the Guildford 4 liked a Saturday night fight did that make them a bomber? No.
Are you suggesting I have to accept every criminal conviction is a potential conspiracy, otherwise I cannot accept any individual miscarriage of justice?
Would it not be equally sound to regard criminal convictions as safe unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary?
I cannot see where I am applying a double standard.
Gary Critchley very sad case , Kevin Lane is one that may also interest you. Can you answer my question was SJ violent in your opinion ? I appreciate if you dont want to answer but can you just say if that is the case ?
Jon, I lived in my home nearby. I did not live in anyone else's household.
Are you asking if I believed LJ at that time? Yes.
Are you asking if I still believe LJ's statement from that time? Yes.
I do not reason that is incompatible with anything else I believe to have been proved.
1 + 0 = 1
Does that answer your question?
-
From the TFG description of entry, it appears they were employing a clear/secure.forward tactic. They opened windows to create exits for officers should they need to retreat.
If SC was alive in the kitchen her only opportunity to move unseen would have been when the TFG began moving upstairs. If she used the kitchen stairs, they would have seen her on the landing. Put frankly, they would have shot her and it wouldn't have been an uppercut to the chin.
Why would they lie if this occurred?
TFUs/TFGs kill people waving chair legs and toy guns without feeling the need to lie.
Why hide the fact that they had shot a woman who had just slaughtered her children and parents?
If Sheila managed to evade them and get to the bedroom, the TFG would have returned to siege mode whether or not they heard a shot. Once again, WHF would have been a no-go area for some considerable time.
Again, why would they lie if this occurred?
Simply cannot see any strand of logic in this line of reasoning.
The problem Bamber has now.... he has come up with that many different stories to say what happened with every little new evidence, he has now lost any little credibility he had.
He has attacked everybody saying they are lying from the farm hands, police and prosecution etc that I'm sure that nothing new released would ever change matters for him now, as why would they if it was only going to drop them in it.
He's tried to dig himself out of a massive hole since day one with his arrogance and all the legal experts who matter in this case can see it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-officers-charged-over-cardiff-three-miscarriage-of-justice-1636833.html Sometimes it takes a long time !!
That terrible case involves bully-boy police officers and supposedly 'bullied' witnesses - helped by the fact that the force later convicted the correct killer, allowing these appellants to be freed and this case to begin.
However, truly bad as it was, it didn't involve collusion of the forensics labs, ballistics experts, relatives, will executor, BT, uncle Tom Cobley and all...
I go back to my original question - if the TFU make a hash of the entry to WHF and allow Sheila to shoot herself, why lie? She had just slaughtered (allegedly) her children and parents. Who would have cared what happened to her?
Relatives , i take it you didnt believe Sion Jenkins wife or his children when they said he was violent ? So do relatives lie ? Forensics , have gone wrong many times Frank Skuse , Michael Heath to name but two , BT if they hid nothing get EP to release the bill of the relevant month , Tom Cobley i will hold my hand up and say he never colluded ;D , you being a legal liberian i am sure you dont need me to remind you that there have been worse miscarriages of justice than this !!
Worse in which way?
Scale of collusion?
Time incarcerated?
Nature of crime/s alleged?
Scale of collusion?
Time spent in incarceration?
Nature of the crimes of which they were accused?
You are asking us to believe that every body - personal, governmental, professional - entered into a deliberate conspiracy, uniting varied motives to achieve a common ill, that of framing and convicting an innocent man. It follows that those succeeding these positions over the last 25 years also stand accused, compromising their roles, personal integrity and - if discovered - their careers and possible freedom.
Not a single whistleblower?
As for the SJ case - by the time of the Appeals the children A +C had reached an age when the court accepted they understood the concept of 'truth and lie' and LJ had had time to evaluate the case. The children travelled half-way across the world to give evidence on SJ's behalf. Hopefully, it gave the girls some sense of closure. It was certainly emotional and compelling, quite a new 'legal' experience for me.
As you are keen to personalise issues let me explain: my professional concern is the precedence of relevant legal argument. The bulk of my work is commissioned by chambers/counsels specialising in defence.
It is not my job, nor that of solicitors, counsel or judges, to decide guilt or innocence. That rests with juries.
I simply say that legal argument can be inferred from previous cases, but there is no automatic transference of conclusions. Steve Wright is not innocent just because Barry George was. But if you prefer to picture me as a rabid hang-em-all facist, that's fine. I'll sleep. But I will give you a case worth viewing - Gary Critchley...
I dont think of you as a hang - em -all facist at all , but i think you show some sign's of double standards , LJ said SJ was violent , one of his children told Trevor Mcdonald he hit them with some object think it was a belt but i am not sure , now you fought for his release , now can you answer my question was he violent ? In your opinion ?
I have said Sheila threw things and struck Colin while their relationship was breaking up.
I have said JB twisted JM's arm behind her back during an argument.
As I argued, neither of these demonstrate any prior history of 'violence' in my opinion. They were aggressive, emotional acts but I do not conclude that they actively enjoyed hurting others.
My Mother once slapped me around the face. Not a violent person at all.
Is a man who routinely beats his wife guilty of domestic violence? YMorally, yes. Legally - only if convicted.
Is the teacher who never canes a child a better teacher than the one who does? I have no idea, as we are evaluating their ability to teach, not beat.
If one of the Guildford 4 liked a Saturday night fight did that make them a bomber? No.
Are you suggesting I have to accept every criminal conviction is a potential conspiracy, otherwise I cannot accept any individual miscarriage of justice?
Would it not be equally sound to regard criminal convictions as safe unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary?
I cannot see where I am applying a double standard.
Gary Critchley very sad case , Kevin Lane is one that may also interest you. Can you answer my question was SJ violent in your opinion ? I appreciate if you dont want to answer but can you just say if that is the case ?
Jon, I lived in my home nearby. I did not live in anyone else's household.
Are you asking if I believed LJ at that time? Yes.
Are you asking if I still believe LJ's statement from that time? Yes.
I do not reason that is incompatible with anything else I believe to have been proved.
1 + 0 = 1
Does that answer your question?
Thanks , very interesting , from that i take it you truly believed in his innocence , not that you just tried to help or work on his behalf , do you put any significance on JB passing a lie detector ?
-
Thanks , very interesting , from that i take it you truly believed in his innocence , not that you just tried to help or work on his behalf , do you put any significance on JB passing a lie detector ?
Not sure you can take that. You've obviously read Mb1's posts in the other case topics such as:
As someone who (some 2 years after conviction) supported Sion, yet works within the legal profession, I have to be honest and admit that I cannot categorically state his innocence or guilt. However, given the forensic arguments - and, for me, the carrier bag - I believe justice has been served in Sion's case.
Whether justice has been served for Billie-Jo is a different issue.
So what are you getting at?
-
Anyway, moving on ..........
It's been stated by a ballistics expert that the first shot to Sheila was at a distance of up to three inches away and the second (fatal) shot was a contact shot.
I was wondering whether that first shot would be consistent with somebody shooting themselves, I would have expected both shots to be contact shots.
-
Thanks , very interesting , from that i take it you truly believed in his innocence , not that you just tried to help or work on his behalf , do you put any significance on JB passing a lie detector ?
Not sure you can take that. You've obviously read Mb1's posts in the other case topics such as:
As someone who (some 2 years after conviction) supported Sion, yet works within the legal profession, I have to be honest and admit that I cannot categorically state his innocence or guilt. However, given the forensic arguments - and, for me, the carrier bag - I believe justice has been served in Sion's case.
Whether justice has been served for Billie-Jo is a different issue.
So what are you getting at?
I would just like to know of someone in the legal profession , what they thought of JB passing a lie detector test , do they place any weight in this at all , SJ refused a lie detector test after he was cleared , do you MB believe he was right to do so if he had nothing to hide ?
-
Thanks , very interesting , from that i take it you truly believed in his innocence , not that you just tried to help or work on his behalf , do you put any significance on JB passing a lie detector ?
Not sure you can take that. You've obviously read Mb1's posts in the other case topics such as:
As someone who (some 2 years after conviction) supported Sion, yet works within the legal profession, I have to be honest and admit that I cannot categorically state his innocence or guilt. However, given the forensic arguments - and, for me, the carrier bag - I believe justice has been served in Sion's case.
Whether justice has been served for Billie-Jo is a different issue.
So what are you getting at?
I would just like to know of someone in the legal profession , what they thought of JB passing a lie detector test , do they place any weight in this at all , SJ refused a lie detector test after he was cleared , do you MB believe he was right to do so if he had nothing to hide ?
Based solely on what I've read, lie detectors are scientifically worthless. Catchy headlines though!
-
Thanks , very interesting , from that i take it you truly believed in his innocence , not that you just tried to help or work on his behalf , do you put any significance on JB passing a lie detector ?
Not sure you can take that. You've obviously read Mb1's posts in the other case topics such as:
As someone who (some 2 years after conviction) supported Sion, yet works within the legal profession, I have to be honest and admit that I cannot categorically state his innocence or guilt. However, given the forensic arguments - and, for me, the carrier bag - I believe justice has been served in Sion's case.
Whether justice has been served for Billie-Jo is a different issue.
So what are you getting at?
I would just like to know of someone in the legal profession , what they thought of JB passing a lie detector test , do they place any weight in this at all , SJ refused a lie detector test after he was cleared , do you MB believe he was right to do so if he had nothing to hide ?
Based solely on what I've read, lie detectors are scientifically worthless. Catchy headlines though!
mb1, can you put any meat on the bones so to speak, about what you have read that has helped you form the opinion re polygraph tests being worthless? I havent read a great deal about them my self. Was planning to do so but keep getting tied up in reading threads on here instead!
-
Thanks , very interesting , from that i take it you truly believed in his innocence , not that you just tried to help or work on his behalf , do you put any significance on JB passing a lie detector ?
Not sure you can take that. You've obviously read Mb1's posts in the other case topics such as:
As someone who (some 2 years after conviction) supported Sion, yet works within the legal profession, I have to be honest and admit that I cannot categorically state his innocence or guilt. However, given the forensic arguments - and, for me, the carrier bag - I believe justice has been served in Sion's case.
Whether justice has been served for Billie-Jo is a different issue.
So what are you getting at?
I would just like to know of someone in the legal profession , what they thought of JB passing a lie detector test , do they place any weight in this at all , SJ refused a lie detector test after he was cleared , do you MB believe he was right to do so if he had nothing to hide ?
Based solely on what I've read, lie detectors are scientifically worthless. Catchy headlines though!
Accepted in many US States , if both sides agree to do one
-
Even after all the arguments that everyone has put forward on this thread everyone seems to believe that it was not impossible for Sheila to carry out the murders.
The ccrc are continuing to look at evidence and more evidencehas come to light over the years that was previously and although I have no legal knowledge to draw from as I have said before I have experience of being a jury member in a murder trial so I look at a lot of reasoning with that in mind. I have personal experience of other people sitting on a jury when they have been forced to do so.
On the subject of violence you are saying that violence probably carries on after maybe the first 'episode' well I really can't see much said about JB in prison and being violent apart from one episode I read about. In fact he was downgraded from an a to a b after 4 years is this normal for someone that has murdered 5 people.
I believe a number of prisons have helped him in the past and I wonder why maybe they can judge someone better than most. I still think there are things hidden in this case and I would hope that everything could be disclosed to satisfy JB s defense
-
Thanks , very interesting , from that i take it you truly believed in his innocence , not that you just tried to help or work on his behalf , do you put any significance on JB passing a lie detector ?
Not sure you can take that. You've obviously read Mb1's posts in the other case topics such as:
As someone who (some 2 years after conviction) supported Sion, yet works within the legal profession, I have to be honest and admit that I cannot categorically state his innocence or guilt. However, given the forensic arguments - and, for me, the carrier bag - I believe justice has been served in Sion's case.
Whether justice has been served for Billie-Jo is a different issue.
So what are you getting at?
I would just like to know of someone in the legal profession , what they thought of JB passing a lie detector test , do they place any weight in this at all , SJ refused a lie detector test after he was cleared , do you MB believe he was right to do so if he had nothing to hide ?
Based solely on what I've read, lie detectors are scientifically worthless. Catchy headlines though!
mb1, can you put any meat on the bones so to speak, about what you have read that has helped you form the opinion re polygraph tests being worthless? I havent read a great deal about them my self. Was planning to do so but keep getting tied up in reading threads on here instead!
My personal reticence is 'money' - he who pays the piper calls the tune - although I do accept that this could apply to any 'expert for hire' scenario.
Different machines/methods - standards?
Influence of tester
Bias in questions - different words/syntax = different loading
Disposition/mental state of subject - nervous subjects can fail when telling the truth; some personality
disorders can result in passes despite lying
Time frames - the subject's short term/long term memory strengths/weaknesses
Medical conditions - depending on method used.
Accuracy - someone (believe TBM) posted statistics demonstrating lower rates than those claimed on
daytime TV
Oh, and OJ "If I Did It" Simpson passed a polygraph test...
-
Thanks , very interesting , from that i take it you truly believed in his innocence , not that you just tried to help or work on his behalf , do you put any significance on JB passing a lie detector ?
Not sure you can take that. You've obviously read Mb1's posts in the other case topics such as:
As someone who (some 2 years after conviction) supported Sion, yet works within the legal profession, I have to be honest and admit that I cannot categorically state his innocence or guilt. However, given the forensic arguments - and, for me, the carrier bag - I believe justice has been served in Sion's case.
Whether justice has been served for Billie-Jo is a different issue.
So what are you getting at?
I would just like to know of someone in the legal profession , what they thought of JB passing a lie detector test , do they place any weight in this at all , SJ refused a lie detector test after he was cleared , do you MB believe he was right to do so if he had nothing to hide ?
Based solely on what I've read, lie detectors are scientifically worthless. Catchy headlines though!
mb1, can you put any meat on the bones so to speak, about what you have read that has helped you form the opinion re polygraph tests being worthless? I havent read a great deal about them my self. Was planning to do so but keep getting tied up in reading threads on here instead!
My personal reticence is 'money' - he who pays the piper calls the tune - although I do accept that this could apply to any 'expert for hire' scenario.
Different machines/methods - standards?
Influence of tester
Bias in questions - different words/syntax = different loading
Disposition/mental state of subject - nervous subjects can fail when telling the truth; some personality
disorders can result in passes despite lying
Time frames - the subject's short term/long term memory strengths/weaknesses
Medical conditions - depending on method used.
Accuracy - someone (believe TBM) posted statistics demonstrating lower rates than those claimed on
daytime TV
Oh, and OJ "If I Did It" Simpson passed a polygraph test...
How say you MB ? Have you read below ?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E7DA163FF936A35755C0A9669C8B63
-
Thanks , very interesting , from that i take it you truly believed in his innocence , not that you just tried to help or work on his behalf , do you put any significance on JB passing a lie detector ?
Not sure you can take that. You've obviously read Mb1's posts in the other case topics such as:
As someone who (some 2 years after conviction) supported Sion, yet works within the legal profession, I have to be honest and admit that I cannot categorically state his innocence or guilt. However, given the forensic arguments - and, for me, the carrier bag - I believe justice has been served in Sion's case.
Whether justice has been served for Billie-Jo is a different issue.
So what are you getting at?
I would just like to know of someone in the legal profession , what they thought of JB passing a lie detector test , do they place any weight in this at all , SJ refused a lie detector test after he was cleared , do you MB believe he was right to do so if he had nothing to hide ?
Based solely on what I've read, lie detectors are scientifically worthless. Catchy headlines though!
mb1, can you put any meat on the bones so to speak, about what you have read that has helped you form the opinion re polygraph tests being worthless? I havent read a great deal about them my self. Was planning to do so but keep getting tied up in reading threads on here instead!
My personal reticence is 'money' - he who pays the piper calls the tune - although I do accept that this could apply to any 'expert for hire' scenario.
Different machines/methods - standards?
Influence of tester
Bias in questions - different words/syntax = different loading
Disposition/mental state of subject - nervous subjects can fail when telling the truth; some personality
disorders can result in passes despite lying
Time frames - the subject's short term/long term memory strengths/weaknesses
Medical conditions - depending on method used.
Accuracy - someone (believe TBM) posted statistics demonstrating lower rates than those claimed on
daytime TV
Oh, and OJ "If I Did It" Simpson passed a polygraph test...
Thanks for your opinions on that. Think I'll post a thread about what puzzles me about the polygraph scenario soon on here. Along with maybe one or two other points.
-
Would anybody here put their faith in a lie detector test if it was their life depending on it?
There's not big red light saying "lie", it's interpretation.
As silly as this may sound, it's like ABS on your car... it's quite good, and it can detect your wheels spinning, but it can't be sure WHY they are spinning...
In many instances it will give you the right results, but depending who's driving, it can give precisely the wrong results too.
At it's very basic level, lie detectors ALL work on the premise that when you lie, there are physiological changes in your body. The difficulty with this can be that some people don't even know they are lying, and others start to lie so much that 'lying' is not a new state for them it becomes the norm.
Many people DO exhibit physiological changes when lying - can't be denied. But the changes vary from person to person, and the levels of change are different from person to person.
However, being late for a meeting can cause physiological changes in people too. Likewise, being questioned about uncomfortable issues can affect you.
That does not mean if you sweat you must be late for something. If your GSR changes, it doesn't mean you're lying. It could be an 'indicator' that's all.
There's a final problem too... certain types of killers are able to divorce their emotions from their actions in a way the majority of us cannot - the ability to convincingly lie can be far less about 'technique' as their own belief in what they say. Once a person fails to differentiate fact from fiction in their own mind, no amount of physiological testing will detect a change.
Basically, it's useful, but no more than that.
-
Would anybody here put their faith in a lie detector test if it was their life depending on it?
There's not big red light saying "lie", it's interpretation.
As silly as this may sound, it's like ABS on your car... it's quite good, and it can detect your wheels spinning, but it can't be sure WHY they are spinning...
In many instances it will give you the right results, but depending who's driving, it can give precisely the wrong results too.
At it's very basic level, lie detectors ALL work on the premise that when you lie, there are physiological changes in your body. The difficulty with this can be that some people don't even know they are lying, and others start to lie so much that 'lying' is not a new state for them it becomes the norm.
Many people DO exhibit physiological changes when lying - can't be denied. But the changes vary from person to person, and the levels of change are different from person to person.
However, being late for a meeting can cause physiological changes in people too. Likewise, being questioned about uncomfortable issues can affect you.
That does not mean if you sweat you must be late for something. If your GSR changes, it doesn't mean you're lying. It could be an 'indicator' that's all.
There's a final problem too... certain types of killers are able to divorce their emotions from their actions in a way the majority of us cannot - the ability to convincingly lie can be far less about 'technique' as their own belief in what they say. Once a person fails to differentiate fact from fiction in their own mind, no amount of physiological testing will detect a change.
Basically, it's useful, but no more than that.
Good post. Though I'd like a 2nd opinion on that TBM. Maybe the forum could attract an independent expert on such technology and testing, if they exist. In the case of JB, I suppose some might point to certain aspects / perceived aspects of his actions / demanour after the killings to argue that he falls in to your 'detached' category. However, I'm not aware of psychological testing of JB while he's been in prison that would indicate such a personality. But then i only have the info on his official site in that respect. I'm stealing my own thunder here, coz i said i wanted to put a thread on :)
-
To make matters worse...
Eye witness statements are quite lousy too.
You really would not believe how inaccurate they are. Worse still, although not deliberate, you need to get eye witness statements before they even talk to each other... the moment they talk, their statements start to converge (natural phenomenon)
I mean most people will be able to say "I saw Jeremy climbing through the window"
But 10 minutes later, some will say it was a different window, some will say he was wearing jeans and some will say trousers. Some will say they heard 5 shots, some will say 3 and some 7. Some will say the window was already open and some say he seemed to have to leverage it.
Some really significant 'memorable' (you'd think) elements get completely screwed.
-
To make matters worse...
Eye witness statements are quite lousy too.
You really would not believe how inaccurate they are. Worse still, although not deliberate, you need to get eye witness statements before they even talk to each other... the moment they talk, their statements start to converge (natural phenomenon)
I mean most people will be able to say "I saw Jeremy climbing through the window"
But 10 minutes later, some will say it was a different window, some will say he was wearing jeans and some will say trousers. Some will say they heard 5 shots, some will say 3 and some 7. Some will say the window was already open and some say he seemed to have to leverage it.
Some really significant 'memorable' (you'd think) elements get completely screwed.
A colleague and I witnessed someone behaving strangely near public restrooms in a government building. A replica gun was found in a cistern.
Anyway, my colleague and I gave completely different descriptions and each voiced disbelief as the other relayed what they'd seen. Age was a huge bone of contention. The security officer decide to separate us!
Lord help anyone trying to draw a sketch...