Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on February 20, 2013, 07:56:PM
-
Who Bled Here:-
-
Mike,,it looks as though Sheila had spluttered,,given the random spots of blood. It's been sprayed rather than a venous collection that would have pooled.
-
Jeremy caught Sheila unawares upon entry to the master bedroom and shot her under the chin,which only stunned her much to his chagrin. It was then easy to push her down quickly to take a second shot,then scatter the bible and no doubt some of Sheila's own notes written whilst still under the influence of religion which in her case had been used for many years to make her feel guilty about sex and as a corollary an unworthy person.
Dr Peter Vanezis testified on oath that Sheila could not have moved up and downstairs between the first and second shots,and we have seen the actions of many people in psychosis since Sheila's death who have no understanding of what they are doing,do not scheme during this time and do not hide from law enforcement should they arrive on the scene. Sheila's own medication was still in her system(it was described as a therapeutic dose by Senior Scientific Officer Alexander Richard Allan)and therefore making her drowsy,to which her hectic schedule from Saturday 3rd August was testament and would have exacerbated.
Jeremy had told Julie on several occasions that he wanted to commit the perfect crime and this necessarily involved blaming Sheila. However it was difficult to get all family members under the same roof,where they would be sitting ducks for Jeremy the practical joker with malice aforethought and therefore difficult to read by a Julie who like most normal people would have abhorred such a scheme and would have not have wished it mentioned again in our presence.
Jeremy had the motive,he had the opportunity,he had no alibi. He had been in and out of a farmhouse window by slipping the catch and banging on the window on exit,a means he did after the murders on September 17 in an effort to contaminate even more forensic evidence which he had cleverly asked DCI Taff Jones to destroy only days after the murders.
Any cursory examination of the crime scene suggests that Sheila could not have created such havoc without leaving some forensic traces behind,yet there were none. The purported telephone call from Nevill is uncorroborated and there is Julie's statement which remains intact to this day.
It's time to put pressure on Jeremy to confess and to apologize to those people whose life he has affected in a detrimental way,not to afford this man celebrity status through new mass media unthought of at the time of his incarceration,and which sustain and buttress this evil man daily,whereas in reality he should be paying recompense to his victims,particularly Colin in whatever small way he is able,instead of fostering uncertainty in everyone's mind which is an extension of the psychological mind games he played with Julie and others for the past twenty seven years with(by his warped standards) some degree of success.
-
Steve,,,there's every chance that when Jeremy was telling JM all his plans,,,that somebody overheard.?
-
Steve,,,there's every chance that when Jeremy was telling JM all his plans,,,that somebody overheard.?
I think it was on a small number of occasions during the many months they were together and it seems worse when they're all put together. Of course Julie was at fault and I bet there's not a day goes by without her bitterly regretting her actions or lack of them during that period of her life as a 20 year old,when it's very easy to be led astray,particulary someone with Julie's history.
Jeremy thought he could control Julie:he controlled her bodily already so why not her mind? But Julie was in a different category to his other conquests and he was sorely mistaken.
-
I think it was on a small number of occasions during the many months they were together and it seems worse when they're all put together. Of course Julie was at fault and I bet there's not a day goes by without her bitterly regretting her actions or lack of them during that period of her life as a 20 year old,when it's very easy to be led astray,particulary someone with Julie's history.
Jeremy thought he could control Julie:he controlled her bodily already so why not her mind? But Julie was in a different category to his other conquests and he was sorely mistaken.
You see Jeremy as the arch manipulator. Many of us believe that role to be Julie's. She certainly scores as many, if not more, points than Jeremy on the psychopathy scale, but Jeremy has been found not to be psychopathic.
-
I think it was on a small number of occasions during the many months they were together and it seems worse when they're all put together. Of course Julie was at fault and I bet there's not a day goes by without her bitterly regretting her actions or lack of them during that period of her life as a 20 year old,when it's very easy to be led astray,particulary someone with Julie's history.
Jeremy thought he could control Julie:he controlled her bodily already so why not her mind? But Julie was in a different category to his other conquests and he was sorely mistaken.
A " somebody " could literally have got away with murder by pinning it on Jeremy. There's no honour among thieves and Jeremy was pretty naive. You've heard of the saying " walls have ears ". How very true. Our Jeremy wasn't exactly trench material,,he had a lot to learn.
-
Another expert, Professor Knight, testifed during the trial that sheila could have moved around for a considerable amount of time after the first shot - which contradicts what others are saying the pathologist Peter Venezis has said. Well, whilst on the subject of Peter Venezis and the integrity of his testimony and evidence in general - he states that the original PV/20 bullet was badly fragmented as of 7th August 1985, whewn he removed it from Sheila's neck. Yet about six weeks later, it had become transformed into a whole bullet to allow the ballistic expert to link it to the anshulz rifle. So, why hasn't Peter Venezis spoken out about the state of the original bullet (PV/20), and its miraculous transformation from badly fragmented ,to a whole one in about six weeks?
-
Another expert, Professor Knight, testifed during the trial that sheila could have moved around for a considerable amount of time after the first shot - which contradicts what others are saying the pathologist Peter Venezis has said. Well, whilst on the subject of Peter Venezis and the integrity of his testimony and evidence in general - he states that the original PV/20 bullet was badly fragmented as of 7th August 1985, whewn he removed it from Sheila's neck. Yet about six weeks later, it had become transformed into a whole bullet to allow the ballistic expert to link it to the anshulz rifle. So, why hasn't Peter Venezis spoken out about the state of the original bullet (PV/20), and its miraculous transformation from badly fragmented ,to a whole one in about six weeks?
How does a bullet been fragmented convert back into a whole bullet again?? its like saying a total smashed up car was recovered by police, then week later in courts its a brand new car recovered!!
-
How does a bullet been fragmented convert back into a whole bullet again?? its like saying a total smashed up car was recovered by police, then week later in courts its a brand new car recovered!!
Yes,,all lies,PB.
-
You see Jeremy as the arch manipulator. Many of us believe that role to be Julie's. She certainly scores as many, if not more, points than Jeremy on the psychopathy scale, but Jeremy has been found not to be psychopathic.
I've heard this so many times before it's maybe your turn to change the record. Julie was offered a flat by June,I'm sure she could have arranged to get pregnant by affluent-to-be Jeremy yet she declined in both instances. The continual accusation that Julie is a psychopath is really unworthy of anyone let alone a Moderator,and how her two sons would feel about reading it I'm pretty sure they would be upset by the comments.
-
Mike,,it looks as though Sheila had spluttered,,given the random spots of blood. It's been sprayed rather than a venous collection that would have pooled.
Or--------------something could have been shaken,causing the droplets of blood on the rug. It should have been examined,not burned.
-
I've heard this so many times before it's maybe your turn to change the record. Julie was offered a flat by June,I'm sure she could have arranged to get pregnant by affluent-to-be Jeremy yet she declined in both instances. The continual accusation that Julie is a psychopath is really unworthy of anyone let alone a Moderator,and how her two sons would feel about reading it I'm pretty sure they would be upset by the comments.
Steve, I think I have many miles to go before I can even MATCH you for repetition.
I can offer you several reasons why Julie declined June's offer, one of which is that she may have been aiming for bigger things. Another is that it may have amused her to know that her presence discomforted June. I can offer little reason for absence of pregnancy (other than good contraception) I can only think that babies didn't fit her plans AND they were both very young.
As to my comments about her scoring points on the psychopathy chart, I hasten to assure you that I didn't write the chart so I can take no responsibility for those who score points on it. In fact many of us were admitting that we scored several. I also recall saying that although it was said that Jeremy, too, scored points, he was deemed NOT to be a psychopath. My views are not uncommon with other members so I feel sorry that you are suggesting that, as a Moderator, I don't have the same right as other members to voice my opinion.
I rather feel an attempt is being made to tug at my heartstrings regarding the remote possibilty of Julie's children reading what is said of her. Certainly, one day they may, but I very much doubt that Julie will speak to them about what happened, her own part in what happened not exactly being squeaky clean, but if/when they do get to know about it, I think by that time they will know who/what their mother is/was more intimately than you or I...............Good Night, Steve. Sweet dreams
-
I don´t think the drops of blood are Sheila´s. If they had been hurled there by caughing or spatting from fast motion, they would have a "tail", the ones on the pictures are round, which means they are from a person NOT IN MOTION OR VERY (very) SLOW MOTION. That said, Sheila might have shot herself/been shot standing, then, when the first shot did not kill her, she might have just stood there for a while bleeding; because those drops are from a person standing, sitting or walking EXTREMELY slowly, as I said. They could be from June - Neville - Sheila.... we´ll never know - they made a bonfire of the evidence....
Mike, have these photos been looked at by a blood-spatter analyst? I think an expert would be able to interpret a lot from them.
-
Another expert, Professor Knight, testifed during the trial that sheila could have moved around for a considerable amount of time after the first shot - which contradicts what others are saying the pathologist Peter Venezis has said. Well, whilst on the subject of Peter Venezis and the integrity of his testimony and evidence in general - he states that the original PV/20 bullet was badly fragmented as of 7th August 1985, whewn he removed it from Sheila's neck. Yet about six weeks later, it had become transformed into a whole bullet to allow the ballistic expert to link it to the anshulz rifle. So, why hasn't Peter Venezis spoken out about the state of the original bullet (PV/20), and its miraculous transformation from badly fragmented ,to a whole one in about six weeks?
Can you post professor knight's evidence please? I've been asking for months now. The only reference to him I can find is in the appeal decision which says:
Professor Knight, another defence witness, lent support to Dr Bradley's evidence as to the feature of excessive violence in parental killings. He also spoke of instances where the murderer (having killed their spouses in most cases) has then gone about some mundane or "ritualistic" task, such as cleaning up before committing suicide. In cross-examination he accepted the proposition contained in an article, which he himself had written some years earlier, that "women almost never commit suicide by shooting".
-
Can you post professor knight's evidence please? I've been asking for months now. The only reference to him I can find is in the appeal decision which says:
Professor Knight, another defence witness, lent support to Dr Bradley's evidence as to the feature of excessive violence in parental killings. He also spoke of instances where the murderer (having killed their spouses in most cases) has then gone about some mundane or "ritualistic" task, such as cleaning up before committing suicide. In cross-examination he accepted the proposition contained in an article, which he himself had written some years earlier, that "women almost never commit suicide by shooting".
Chapter 35 Blood Relations(Roger Wilkes):
"Defence pathologist Professor Bernard Knight told the court that he'd known many cases of women killing their children then committing suicide. A Bible,he said was part of the ritualistic scenario of suicide. It was also known,he went on,for killers to tidy up after committing murder before turning the gun on themselves. Professor Knight said Sheila Caffell had been upright-probably sitting on a bed or leaning against it while sitting on the floor-when the gun was fired.As there was so much blood on her nightdress,there must have been some delay-up to a few minutes-between the two wounds."
Did Jeremy lead his sister into the master bedroom to take a Bible class with her mother June? Did he catch her unawares in the first shot and realize with horror that he had not yet killed her? Did the alternatives run through his mind of leaving Sheila there with just the one shot hoping that this would prove fatal,then realizing that he had to make sure as he loaded the gun with one remaining bullet and forced himself to fire a second shot,which this time had to be fatal.
Did Jeremy finally come to realize what death involved that warm August morning,just as those politicians like Tony Blair who had no prior knowledge of the battlefield must finally have realized what forces they had unleashed as they signed away hundreds of thousands of lives at the stroke of a pen? Does the scene at White House Farm still haunt Jeremy,does he have flashbacks every time he sees blood or espies a young long-haired brunette like his pretty sister Sheila?
Or is the truth more prosaic,as told to Julie in a cafe in one of the rarer moments after the murders they were alone together. Jeremy felt nothing he told her. Maybe there was something wrong with him,but there was no remorse. They were all mercy killings,marionettes to be disposed of at Jeremy's will as he looked at the bigger picture and took the lion's share of his parents' estate. All those years in proximity,yet living as intimate strangers,until the final forces inside Jeremy were unleashed and wreaked their terrible revenge on people he regarded as unfeeling,uncaring and no more than sub-human in Jeremy's mind.
-
Actualy there is no evidence of him spendi.g any inheritence money at all.he never got a penny steve.and we only have julies word for what was said between in the cafe steve.the white porshe he bought was only a replica worth a fraction of the money it was supposed to be worth.all the witnesses benifited finsncialy.what will your opinion be if he ever gets aquited.or any of the files stored by essex police get accidrntly sent to jeremies lawyer.and he gets aquited.i suppose you are the type of person that said hang the guidford. 4.and birmingham. 6.
-
I don´t think the drops of blood are Sheila´s. If they had been hurled there by caughing or spatting from fast motion, they would have a "tail", the ones on the pictures are round, which means they are from a person NOT IN MOTION OR VERY (very) SLOW MOTION. That said, Sheila might have shot herself/been shot standing, then, when the first shot did not kill her, she might have just stood there for a while bleeding; because those drops are from a person standing, sitting or walking EXTREMELY slowly, as I said. They could be from June - Neville - Sheila.... we´ll never know - they made a bonfire of the evidence....
Mike, have these photos been looked at by a blood-spatter analyst? I think an expert would be able to interpret a lot from them.
That is a very good point actually. It may very well explain why Sheila had blood streaks running down her arm, which would not happen if she was lying flat?
-
Actualy there is no evidence of him spendi.g any inheritence money at all.he never got a penny steve.and we only have julies word for what was said between in the cafe steve.the white porshe he bought was only a replica worth a fraction of the money it was supposed to be worth.all the witnesses benifited finsncialy.what will your opinion be if he ever gets aquited.or any of the files stored by essex police get accidrntly sent to jeremies lawyer.and he gets aquited.i suppose you are the type of person that said hang the guidford. 4.and birmingham. 6.
No I'm not in favour of the death penalty,and besides were it a matter of life and death for Jeremy in 1986 another jury member may have been swayed and we'd have had the Jeremy and Anji Greaves story which doesn't bear thinking about.
I'm afraid Jeremy is guilty,but I really don't get any satisfaction out of saying it,because as David Boutflour said:"Nobody wins..you can't bring them back.."
-
I don´t think the drops of blood are Sheila´s. If they had been hurled there by caughing or spatting from fast motion, they would have a "tail", the ones on the pictures are round, which means they are from a person NOT IN MOTION OR VERY (very) SLOW MOTION. That said, Sheila might have shot herself/been shot standing, then, when the first shot did not kill her, she might have just stood there for a while bleeding; because those drops are from a person standing, sitting or walking EXTREMELY slowly, as I said. They could be from June - Neville - Sheila.... we´ll never know - they made a bonfire of the evidence....
Mike, have these photos been looked at by a blood-spatter analyst? I think an expert would be able to interpret a lot from them.
They were looked at by Professor Herbert Leon Macdonnell, who concluded that Sheila did not commit suicide.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,264.0.html
-
They were looked at by Professor Herbert Leon Macdonnell, who concluded that Sheila did not commit suicide.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,264.0.html
Unfortunately he had only the photographs to go by. He was at several disadvantages, in that he could not really tell if the blood spots were made by mrs Bamber walking around the room or Sheila Caffell as he could not test the different blood groups.
Also if the blood streaks from Sheila's right arm were travelling downwards towards her elbow then this indicates that her arm was vertical at that time. Therefore she could not have received the first shot lying down.
Again he was at a disadvantage in that he could not tell if the palm or thumb of her right hand was bloodied or not. Therefore how could his findings be conclusive?
-
They were looked at by Professor Herbert Leon Macdonnell, who concluded that Sheila did not commit suicide.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,264.0.html
Thanks, I will read that when I fisish working.
-
Actually,Macdonnell concluded that Sheila did not commit suicide as he was led to believe it was a FACT that a silencer was on the murder weapon.I have read somewhere that he has since changed his opinion.
-
Actually,Macdonnell concluded that Sheila did not commit suicide as he was led to believe it was a FACT that a silencer was on the murder weapon.I have read somewhere that he has since changed his opinion.
He investigated until the money ran out. So much for the professional integrity of this real-life Sherlock Holmes.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1162115/New-evidence-Bamber-killings-murderer-makes-appeal-conviction.html
-
Remember the case of the " Cardiff Three ".? Back in '88 they were falsely imprisoned for the murder of a prostitute,who'd been stabbed over 50 times. Two years later they were cleared on appeal after DNA techniques were used on evidence which was taken from the crime scene.
Nine retired police officers and three who were still serving,were arrested and questioned for false imprisonment,conspiracy to pervert the course of justice,along with misconduct in public office.
2011 saw the entire case collapse because the judge had ruled that the police officers couldn't be given a fair trial due to the previous publicity.
Do as I say,,not as I do.One rule for them,,another for us. Is this justice .?
Less than four years after Jeremy was imprisoned,,DNA testing was available,,so why wasn't it put into practice before vital evidence was destroyed.? Call that a fair trial.?
-
They were looked at by Professor Herbert Leon Macdonnell, who concluded that Sheila did not commit suicide.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,264.0.html
But his report did not address all the evidence it was simply a report to advise. :-* :-* :-*
-
But his report did not address all the evidence it was simply a report to advise. :-* :-* :-*
You must be reading a different report to me then.
-
You must be reading a different report to me then.
Am i reading the first paragraph wring then? When he states that:
I have completed a preliminary study of the photographs and reports that were sent to this laboratory relative to the above sited case. It must be emphasized that this is a preliminary report does not address all evidence, reports and photographs which have been made available. It has been issued simply to advice you of the finding thus far. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Am i reading the first paragraph wring then? When he states that:
I have completed a preliminary study of the photographs and reports that were sent to this laboratory relative to the above sited case. It must be emphasized that this is a preliminary report does not address all evidence, reports and photographs which have been made available. It has been issued simply to advice you of the finding thus far. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Oh sorry, you're right, that's what he says. But I think you also need to read the letter at the end of the report in which he says that there is no question as to the manner of Sheil's death and describes his findings as 'obvious' (in other words, don't waste your money on further reports).
-
Oh sorry, you're right, that's what he says. But I think you also need to read the letter at the end of the report in which he says that there is no question as to the manner of Sheil's death and describes his findings as 'obvious' (in other words, don't waste your money on further reports).
I'm reading it Bridget ;).....I have seen this document before and to be fair I can tare strips off it from start to finish...I could have done better with a chemistry set from Toys 'R' Us..... :D :D :D :D :D
Where did me wring come form lol
-
I'm reading it Bridget ;).....I have seen this document before and to be fair I can tare strips off it from start to finish...I could have done better with a chemistry set from Toys 'R' Us..... :D :D :D :D :D
Where did me wring come form lol
Ok then, I dunno why the defence didnt just ask you then? ;)
-
Ok then, I dunno why the defence didnt just ask you then? ;)
Beats me why! :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
-
Beats me why! :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
But, he makes his final diagnosis based on the fact that the rifle had a sound moderator attached. I am amazed that he did not have sufficient time to make any further analysis. Maybe he was a busy man? His advice was not so concrete really was it....He only answered a specific question put to him by the CPS...I think his analysis is incomplete...it does not address the whole picture. :-\ ;) :) :) :)
-
But, he makes his final diagnosis based on the fact that the rifle had a sound moderator attached. I am amazed that he did not have sufficient time to make any further analysis. Maybe he was a busy man? His advice was not so concrete really was it....He only answered a specific question put to him by the CPS...I think his analysis is incomplete...it does not address the whole picture. :-\ ;) :) :) :)
He was engaged by the defence, not the CPS. It seems clear from his letter that the issue wasn't so much time, as the money required to pay for more time. He seems to be saying that he'd already done work in excess of that which he'd agreed to do. The defence could have paid him to do more, but he appears to be telling them not to bother.
-
He was engaged by the defence, not the CPS. It seems clear from his letter that the issue wasn't so much time, as the money required to pay for more time. He seems to be saying that he'd already done work in excess of that which he'd agreed to do. The defence could have paid him to do more, but he appears to be telling them not to bother.
So who is Nick Robinson, any ideas? :-\ ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
So who is Nick Robinson, any ideas? :-\ ;) ;) ;) ;)
I don't think it has nothing to do with the CPS or the defence....Fleet street more than likely. Or someone who is writing a book...or doing a piece for a magazine. I might be wrong but why would a publisher be asking these questions and why would that said publisher have crime scene photographs? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
I don't think it has nothing to do with the CPS or the defence....Fleet street more than likely. Or someone who is writing a book...or doing a piece for a magazine. I might be wrong but why would a publisher be asking these questions and why would that said publisher have crime scene photographs? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
This letter to JB predates the report by more than two years, maybe the publisher was paying in return for an exclusive.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=3217;image)
-
This letter to JB predates the report by more than two years, maybe the publisher was paying in return for an exclusive.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=3217;image)
That means nothing though Bridget. That heading FAO MR ES could have been sent to him for many reasons....Why fax it? why not send him the original? I think its suspicious...did Ewan ever use the document? Why would Ewan submit a question relating to the moderator being on the rifle? Why would a publisher pay for it? I know what you mean about a scoop, but Ewan, was working in defence of Jeremy not against him..and to me it raises more questions...Was there a scoop? I don't think there was...was there? :) :) :) :)
-
That means nothing though Bridget. That heading FAO MR ES could have been sent to him for many reasons....Why fax it? why not send him the original? I think its suspicious...did Ewan ever use the document? Why would Ewan submit a question relating to the moderator being on the rifle? Why would a publisher pay for it? I know what you mean about a scoop, but Ewan, was working in defence of Jeremy not against him..and to me it raises more questions...Was there a scoop? I don't think there was...was there? :) :) :) :)
Are you seriously trying to argue that MacDonnell was not engaged by JB or someone acting on his behalf or with his agreement?
-
Well well well.....would you believe it. Bridget you are a darling....I have found the connection and you would not believe it....
Right... Robinson publishers....on Shepherd Street published Roger Wilkes book....WOW! Now that is no coincidence is it? The plot thickens. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well well well.....would you believe it. Bridget you are a darling....I have found the connection and you would not believe it....
Right... Robinson publishers....on Shepherd Street published Roger Wilkes book....WOW! Now that is no coincidence is it? The plot thickens. ;D ;D ;D ;D
The one I have is published by Penguin, but there's an acknowledgement to a Nick Robinson "for his encouragement and guidance".
-
The one I have is published by Penguin, but there's an acknowledgement to a Nick Robinson "for his encouragement and guidance".
Soooooooooooooo Could it be that Robinson assisted Wilkes in his book then sent the said forensic document to Ewan by fax....
-
Soooooooooooooo Could it be that Robinson assisted Wilkes in his book then sent the said forensic document to Ewan by fax....
So if that said document was produced by the CPS it could have been Ewan that gave it too them.... :'(
-
There's a description of what happened on pages 412 - 414 of Wilkes book, basically, JB wanted to commission Macdonnell and did a deal with the Sunday Sport to raise money (wouldn't have thought that was possible). The money was shared between himself and a go between but JBs share soon ran out. Wilkes then did a deal with JB whereby he would have access to the defence files in return for commissioning the report to JBs specification.
-
So if that said document was produced by the CPS it could have been Ewan that gave it too them.... :'(
I don't think the report has ever been used by anyone has it? There's no mention of it in the appeal decision.
-
There's a description of what happened on pages 412 - 414 of Wilkes book, basically, JB wanted to commission Macdonnell and did a deal with the Sunday Sport to raise money (wouldn't have thought that was possible). The money was shared between himself and a go between but JBs share soon ran out. Wilkes then did a deal with JB whereby he would have access to the defence files in return for commissioning the report to JBs specification.
I don't think its possible Bridget, surely this is not the case....You said it was the defence that used this document, yet it incriminates Jeremy. Its utter crap if you ask me. I think there is a bit of fobbing off here where Wilkes and Robinson are concerned...it strikes me that something more fishy was going on....What a find though...lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't think its possible Bridget, surely this is not the case....You said it was the defence that used this document, yet it incriminates Jeremy. Its utter crap if you ask me. I think there is a bit of fobbing off here where Wilkes and Robinson are concerned...it strikes me that something more fishy was going on....What a find though...lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
I didn't say the defence used it, I said they commissioned it. Clearly it wasn't any use to them! Nothing fishy, JB asked for a report in return for access to files. It wasn't Wilkes fault JB didn't like the results!
-
I didn't say the defence used it, I said they commissioned it. Clearly it wasn't any use to them! Nothing fishy, JB asked for a report in return for access to files. It wasn't Wilkes fault JB didn't like the results!
So why wasn't the report sent to JB...Why Robinson publishers...Surely JB would not insist that the forensic findings would only include the rifle with the moderator on... :-\ :-\ :-\
Its clear that JB must have had contact with him....I do believe that in the end Wilkes had more to do with the relatives than he did with Jeremy in the end. I know for sure he visited them, but I wont reveal my source...Sorry for being a pain....I sometimes miss posts and when I go back, my questions have already been answered....sorry for that.... :o :D :D :D :D
-
So why wasn't the report sent to JB...Why Robinson publishers...Surely JB would not insist that the forensic findings would only include the rifle with the moderator on... :-\ :-\ :-\
Robinsons were paying, and I guess acting as his agent in the dealings with Macdonnell. I think at the time JB decided to commission this report his line was that the silencer was used, but that the blood within it was not Sheila's, rather it was a mixture of Neville and June's.
-
Robinsons were paying, and I guess acting as his agent in the dealings with Macdonnell. I think at the time JB decided to commission this report his line was that the silencer was used, but that the blood within it was not Sheila's, rather it was a mixture of Neville and June's.
I think that the reason Robinson was involved was make sure his company had sales for a book by Roger Wilkes.
Its clear that JB must have had contact with Mcdonnell and sent him some photographic evidence.....I do believe that in the end Wilkes turned his back on him and, had more to do with the relatives than he did with Jeremy. I know for sure he visited them, but I wont reveal my source...Sorry for being a pain....I sometimes miss posts and when I go back, my questions have already been answered....sorry for that.... :-[ :D :D :D :D
It just means that Sheila could not have shot herself with the silencer on....we already knew that was likely to be impossible...I suppose I have to congratulate Wilkes that he went that extra mile to gather evidence for his book....I wonder what McDonnell would have said in his findings if there was no mention of a silencer....would he have said it was possible for Sheila to have shot herself, because it is likely that she could have... :D :D :D
-
Its clear that JB must have had contact with him....I do believe that in the end Wilkes had more to do with the relatives than he did with Jeremy in the end. I know for sure he visited them, but I wont reveal my source...Sorry for being a pain....I sometimes miss posts and when I go back, my questions have already been answered....sorry for that.... :o :D :D :D :D
Any bias Wilkes may or may not have had is pretty irrelevant. It seems that MacDonnell was considered practically god when it came to forensic ballistics and bloodstain interpretation.
-
Patti,Jeremy wanted to commission Macdonnell and used his share of money from Wilkes book to do so.I would have thought that he believed it was fact that the silencer was on for the shots to Sheila as that's what was concluded in court and is pretty much what convicted him.Macdonnell didn't even bother looking at all the photographs that he was sent!As I posted earlier,I read somewhere that Macdonnell has since changed his stance.You are correct re:Wilkes,he is still in contact with the relatives.
-
Any bias Wilkes may or may not have had is pretty irrelevant. It seems that MacDonnell was considered practically god when it came to forensic ballistics and bloodstain interpretation.
So you don't think it was bias to ask for an advisory report which only included the silencer being attached to the rifle? Like I say I admire Wilkes for his strength in going that extra mile...but I think at the end of the day JB backed or Ewan backed out for some reason.....and, Robinson and Wilkes did there own bit of research...That's my opinion anyway! Unless you are right and Robinson was a go between for JB and ES, but sounds unlikely...for Macdonnell would have sent the report to Ewan or Jeremy and not to Robinson.
Thank you btw! ;D ;D
-
So you don't think it was bias to ask for an advisory report which only included the silencer being attached to the rifle? Like I say I admire Wilkes for his strength in going that extra mile...but I think at the end of the day JB backed or Ewan backed out for some reason.....and, Robinson and Wilkes did there own bit of research...That's my opinion anyway! Unless you are right and Robinson was a go between for JB and ES, but sounds unlikely...for Macdonnell would have sent the report to Ewan or Jeremy and not to Robinson.
Thank you btw! ;D ;D
The deal was that JB would give Wilkes / Robinson access to the files in return for them commissioning a report to JBs specification. He (JB) dictated what was to be asked.
No problem ;)
-
Patti,Jeremy wanted to commission Macdonnell and used his share of money from Wilkes book to do so.I would have thought that he believed it was fact that the silencer was on for the shots to Sheila as that's what was concluded in court and is pretty much what convicted him.Macdonnell didn't even bother looking at all the photographs that he was sent!As I posted earlier,I read somewhere that Macdonnell has since changed his stance.You are correct re:Wilkes,he is still in contact with the relatives.
Hi Tyler :)
So why did Macdonnell write to Nick Robinson of Robinson publishers who published Wilkes's book and not to Ewan or Jeremy....2 years later than the letter dated to Jeremy form Mcdonnell? I don't think ES and JB took anything up in the end with Macdonnell, it might have been too costly......I think Robinson funded it all in the end for Wilkes so that his book had a better chance of selling...Its a fact that publishers like their clients to research properly because it helps sell their books....mind boggles...lol :) :) :)
-
The deal was that JB would give Wilkes / Robinson access to the files in return for them commissioning a report to JBs specification. He (JB) dictated what was to be asked.
No problem ;)
where is the proof of that? please don't tell me its in wilkes's book...lol sorry about not using capitals, I am getting tired...lol :) :) :) :)
-
where is the proof of that? please don't tell me its in wilkes's book...lol sorry about not using capitals, I am getting tired...lol :) :) :) :)
Well how do you suppose Wilkes got hold of the photos and reports to send to Macdonnell?
-
My poll now includes a dont know option.
-
Any bias Wilkes may or may not have had is pretty irrelevant. It seems that MacDonnell was considered practically god when it came to forensic ballistics and bloodstain interpretation.
A god with clay feet. He probably got a better offer from a richer source? ::)
-
A god with clay feet. He probably got a better offer from a richer source? ::)
Well, of course it is theoretically possible to purchase a particular opinion from an expert, although I wonder how much you'd have to pay for someone like him to risk their reputation. But it seems clear that JB was warned that he would be blunt in his findings, and he was.
-
Well, of course it is theoretically possible to purchase a particular opinion from an expert, although I wonder how much you'd have to pay for someone like him to risk their reputation. But it seems clear that JB was warned that he would be blunt in his findings, and he was.
I wrote to N. Robinson last night. What I find odd is the fact Jeremy was exchanging letters to Macdonnell 2 years prior to Nick Robinson receiving a report form Macdonnell. I feel confident in saying that 2 years to wait for a report is a long time. However, it is clear that all persons involved had their paws in liaising with Macdonnell at some point.
If Jeremy and Ewan had paid and sent all photo's etc then way didn't Macdonnell send the report to them.
I agree with you so far Bridget and that it was possible that Robinson and Roger Wilkes may have followed up their investigation and paid for the report to be done in the interest of Wilkes writing his book..2 years later after the original inquiry from Jeremy.
However, it does not alter the fact that Macdonnell was asked to evaluate the situation based on the fact that the silencer was fitted to the rifle....Macdonnell does not make any evaluation regarding the silencer not fitted...and the fact he does not address all the evidence in his preliminary report. I feel a more in depth study would have been better.
I really need to read this book.... :) :) :) :)
-
Well, of course it is theoretically possible to purchase a particular opinion from an expert, although I wonder how much you'd have to pay for someone like him to risk their reputation. But it seems clear that JB was warned that he would be blunt in his findings, and he was.
But as I explained before, his findings were incomplete.
-
But as I explained before, his findings were incomplete.
Nothing appeared to be beyond reasonable doubt to me.
-
But as I explained before, his findings were incomplete.
Yes, because his interim report didn't suit the defence and so they didn't pay for further investigation (which of course goes against the suggestion that he would say whatever the highest bidder wants him to say).
If Jeremy and Ewan had paid and sent all photo's etc then way didn't Macdonnell send the report to them.
Because the report was commissioned and paid for by Robinson / Wilkes.
-
Yes, because his interim report didn't suit the defence and so they didn't pay for further investigation (which of course goes against the suggestion that he would say whatever the highest bidder wants him to say).
Because the report was commissioned and paid for by Robinson / Wilkes.
Exactly! based on the rifle having a silencer fitted, therefore the report is a biased one and does not cover the possibility of the silencer not fitted.
Bridget does Wilkes refer to this report in depth in his book? :) :) :) :)
-
Yes, because his interim report didn't suit the defence and so they didn't pay for further investigation (which of course goes against the suggestion that he would say whatever the highest bidder wants him to say)..........
No that wasn't what I was referring to when I said they were incomplete. This is what I wrote before:
Unfortunately he had only the photographs to go by. He was at several disadvantages, in that he could not really tell if the blood spots were made by mrs Bamber walking around the room or Sheila Caffell as he could not test the different blood groups.
Also if the blood streaks from Sheila's right arm were travelling downwards towards her elbow then this indicates that her arm was vertical at that time. Therefore she could not have received the first shot lying down.
Again he was at a disadvantage in that he could not tell if the palm or thumb of her right hand was bloodied or not. Therefore how could his findings be conclusive?
-
Lugg quoted:
Unfortunately he had only the photographs to go by. He was at several disadvantages, in that he could not really tell if the blood spots were made by mrs Bamber walking around the room or Sheila Caffell as he could not test the different blood groups.
Also if the blood streaks from Sheila's right arm were travelling downwards towards her elbow then this indicates that her arm was vertical at that time. Therefore she could not have received the first shot lying down.
Again he was at a disadvantage in that he could not tell if the palm or thumb of her right hand was bloodied or not. Therefore how could his findings be conclusive?
Well said Lugg, he was at a disadvantage and in my opinion whether they regarding him as being a god in forensic science or not, he did not have the whole picture at his disposal, therefore the report is an inaccurate one...based on limited information. :) :) :) :)
-
Exactly! based on the rifle having a silencer fitted, therefore the report is a biased one and does not cover the possibility of the silencer not fitted.
Bridget does Wilkes refer to this report in depth in his book? :) :) :) :)
I wouldn't say in depth, there's a couple of pages about Macdonell himself and JB / Wilkes contact with him, and then a couple of pages which summarise the findings from the report.
Anyone not viewing the bodies in situ is clearly at a disadvantage but there's really not much that can be done about that. Whether or not his report is inaccurate would be something to be tested in court, if it ever got there, but he seems to be pretty near the top in his field. He was asked his opinion on the photos and other evidence provided to him and he gave it.
-
Never,ever view people as Gods,,,because they're not,,neither are they infallible. Look at the once famous,,now infamous Professor Sir Roy Meadow,,along with the criminal Pathologist Alan Williams. ?
-
Never,ever view people as Gods,,,because they're not,,neither are they infallible. Look at the once famous,,now infamous Professor Sir Roy Meadow,,along with the criminal Pathologist Alan Williams. ?
Two once " powerful " characters in the world of crime,,,,but brought down to earth by their gross misconduct, discredited evidence and wrongful opinions,leading to the imprisonment of a few women who were wrongfully found guilty of murdering their children.Cases are still continuing,where convictions are either in dispute or have been overturned.
-
lookout I have had it from good authority that Taff Jones was a really good cop and very genuine.
-
Lets look at this comment made by Macdonell:
(8) When her arm was positioned to where it was later found, blood from her fingers, or the fingers of whoever was moving her arm, wiped against her nightgown producing the bloody finger marks that are shown in photograph 29. The large quantity of blood that had pooled between her right arm and upper body was released when her arm was moved. This blood ran down over the lateral aspects of her right arm as shown in photographs 27 and 29.
Obviously he was unaware that it was the police who moved her arm so they could see the blood stain that was behind it....If he had known this, then this comment would have been different. He could only have come to the conclusion that Sheila was the only one that could have wiped her fingers on her night dress and not the police who had moved her arm....This proves that insufficient information had been relayed to Macdonell.....He could have only been excepted to answer questions proposed to him by someone unfamiliar to the facts.... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
lookout I have had it from good authority that Taff Jones was a really good cop and very genuine.
Susan,,,believe me,,,I can see it in his face/eyes. How very sad it was, that his life ended in the way it did.
-
If we then look at this:
(12) The rifle found over Sheila Caffells body was placed in the position in which it was found. It has been reported that a rifle, found in another room in the house, had blood of the same group as Sheila Caffell in its sound moderator. The length of this rifle, from the end of the sound moderator to the trigger, is some thirty six inches. This distance is too great for Sheila Caffell to have self-inflicted her two neck wounds. Therefore, Sheila Caffell did not shoot herself. Like the other four victims, Sheila Caffell was murdered.
It is not surprising that Macdonell bases his conclusion without knowing that the police had removed the rifle and that the rifle had not got the silencer fixed to the rifle when she was found. Surely, a man of his distinction, would have noted that the photograph in question that he was looking at, had a rifle without a moderator attached. Yet he made a final analysis based believing that this was the case.
Bridget the defence would have a field day with this report...To me it is inconclusive. :) :) :)
-
Lets look at this comment made by Macdonell:
(8) When her arm was positioned to where it was later found, blood from her fingers, or the fingers of whoever was moving her arm, wiped against her nightgown producing the bloody finger marks that are shown in photograph 29. The large quantity of blood that had pooled between her right arm and upper body was released when her arm was moved. This blood ran down over the lateral aspects of her right arm as shown in photographs 27 and 29.
Obviously he was unaware that it was the police who moved her arm so they could see the blood stain that was behind it....If he had known this, then this comment would have been different. He could only have come to the conclusion that Sheila was the only one that could have wiped her fingers on her night dress and not the police who had moved her arm....This proves that insufficient information had been relayed to Macdonell.....He could have only been excepted to answer questions proposed to him by someone unfamiliar to the facts.... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Yes I agree, but JB was in control of the information given to him, so who's fault is that? If he wasn't in control of it he surely would have said so once the report was made public.
-
If we then look at this:
(12) The rifle found over Sheila Caffells body was placed in the position in which it was found. It has been reported that a rifle, found in another room in the house, had blood of the same group as Sheila Caffell in its sound moderator. The length of this rifle, from the end of the sound moderator to the trigger, is some thirty six inches. This distance is too great for Sheila Caffell to have self-inflicted her two neck wounds. Therefore, Sheila Caffell did not shoot herself. Like the other four victims, Sheila Caffell was murdered.
It is not surprising that Macdonell bases his conclusion without knowing that the police had removed the rifle and that the rifle had not got the silencer fixed to the rifle when she was found. Surely, a man of his distinction, would have noted that the photograph in question that he was looking at, had a rifle without a moderator attached. Yet he made a final analysis based believing that this was the case.
Bridget the defence would have a field day with this report...To me it is inconclusive. :) :) :)
It is strange that he didn't explore the possibility that the silencer was not attached when Sheila was shot, since even taking the arm length out of the equation Sheila could not have made the second shot and then replaced the silencer in the cupboard. I would think that had his initial report been more favourable then JB would have asked him to pursue that line.
There's not a lot of point of having a field day with the evidence of an expert you yourself have commissioned!
I think really this report supports the verdict as it was in 1985 but really adds nothing to it, and does nothing to assist either side with the position as later asserted by the defence. Which is not surprising really since that position has changed several times since the report was written.
-
Yes I agree, but JB was in control of the information given to him, so who's fault is that? If he wasn't in control of it he surely would have said so once the report was made public.
Hi Bridget :) I think JB being in full control might be an assumption 2 years after initial contact from Macdonell. Plus if he was in control, then surely Macdonell would be in contact with Jeremy and not Robinson...I do agree that it might have been likely that Robinson could have acted on behalf of Jeremy and did not disclose all relevant details surrounding the entirety of the case. :-\
I doubt we can really conclude anything else on this to be honest, other that the report is an inadequate one.... :-* :) :) :) :)
-
It is strange that he didn't explore the possibility that the silencer was not attached when Sheila was shot, since even taking the arm length out of the equation Sheila could not have made the second shot and then replaced the silencer in the cupboard. I would think that had his initial report been more favourable then JB would have asked him to pursue that line.
There's not a lot of point of having a field day with the evidence of an expert you yourself have commissioned!
I think really this report supports the verdict as it was in 1985 but really adds nothing to it, and does nothing to assist either side with the position as later asserted by the defence. Which is not surprising really since that position has changed several times since the report was written.
I agree, it is more favorable to the defence as it outlines the fact that Shelia's arm was moved or the bible or both, plus the rifle....and the fact that the silencer could not have been used if Shelia had shot herself....but could have done without the silencer being attached..maybe....
Now do you want to go through the blood analysis lolol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Wonder what Macdonell meant in his last paragraph:
Unfortunately I cannot duplicate the photographs to which I have made reference to in this report because of an agreement. Possibly permission may be obtained to do this at some later date if proper application is made.....???????????
Was the case that Robinson had asked for photographs which had been sent to him by Jeremy?
-
Wonder what Macdonell meant in his last paragraph:
Unfortunately I cannot duplicate the photographs to which I have made reference to in this report because of an agreement. Possibly permission may be obtained to do this at some later date if proper application is made.....???????????
Was the case that Robinson had asked for photographs which had been sent to him by Jeremy?
Very much reading between the lines I'd say that whilst Robinson and co commissioned the report, Ewan smith provided the photos direct to Macdonnell with the proviso that they were not to be copied or disclosed to anyone else, which may indicate that that was the basis on which he had them in the first place. I think that fits in with what Mike has said in the past. I think it's unlikely that JB would have agreed to any assistance being given to Robinson in the form of the provision of documents and photos without ensuring that he was in full control of what was asked of the expert. The two year time gap is simply the period between JB deciding he wanted to use MacDonnell and him having the finances to do it. Wilkes wasn't around in 1990, he came along later and one or the other of them saw the potential for a bit if mutual backscratching.
-
Very much reading between the lines I'd say that whilst Robinson and co commissioned the report, Ewan smith provided the photos direct to Macdonnell with the proviso that they were not to be copied or disclosed to anyone else, which may indicate that that was the basis on which he had them in the first place. I think that fits in with what Mike has said in the past. I think it's unlikely that JB would have agreed to any assistance being given to Robinson in the form of the provision of documents and photos without ensuring that he was in full control of what was asked of the expert. The two year time gap is simply the period between JB deciding he wanted to use MacDonnell and him having the finances to do it. Wilkes wasn't around in 1990, he came along later and one or the other of them saw the potential for a bit if mutual backscratching.
This tells me then that Robinson had acted alone in his request to see the document and ask for copies of the said photographs, otherwise if he was acting on behalf of Ewan and Jeremy, he would have asked them for copies of the photographs surely.
Roger Wilkes must have been around at that time, otherwise why thank him in his book, which Robinson then published. I think its unfair to say that they did not know each other in 1992 for 3 years later Wilkes book was published and here we have a clear example of Wilkes's publisher asking a famous forensic scientist to provide a copy of a report, or a new report along with photographs from a crime scene....I wonder if by this time, Wilkes and Bamber had fell out?
I am not sure Bridget....something is not right here....I know there is proof that Macdonell had contacted Jeremy and there is proof that Jeremy had his report.....There was no scoop to be had in a newspaper was there, the only scoop was Wilkes'd book...
Anyway, it does not alter the fact that the report its self in inconclusive....and should not be used in a proper analysis....
:) :) :) :) :)
-
This tells me then that Robinson had acted alone in his request to see the document and ask for copies of the said photographs, otherwise if he was acting on behalf of Ewan and Jeremy, he would have asked them for copies of the photographs surely.
Only Ewan Smith had the photos and documents so Robinson cannot possibly have acted without his assistance and JBs agreement.
Roger Wilkes must have been around at that time, otherwise why thank him in his book, which Robinson then published. I think its unfair to say that they did not know each other in 1992 for 3 years later Wilkes book was published and here we have a clear example of Wilkes's publisher asking a famous forensic scientist to provide a copy of a report, or a new report along with photographs from a crime scene....I wonder if by this time, Wilkes and Bamber had fell out?
Wilkes book was first published in 1994 by Robinson Publishing Ltd. I said they didn't know each other in 1990 when JB first approached Macdonnell (apparently via Boyd Stephens) not 1992. JB ran out of money and then later Wilkes came along wanting to do a book. The publisher agreed to commission the report in return for access to the files. That appears to be exactly what did indeed happen and JB has never denied it to my knowledge.
I am not sure Bridget....something is not right here....I know there is proof that Macdonell had contacted Jeremy and there is proof that Jeremy had his report.....There was no scoop to be had in a newspaper was there, the only scoop was Wilkes'd book...
I have no idea what the newspaper story was that JB sold to the Sunday Sport, the book just said it concerned 'new evidence'. We know that at the time JB had just received MacDonnells first letter in which he advised that his opinion was that some of the forensic evidence given at trial was suspect, perhaps it was something to do with that.
Anyway, it does not alter the fact that the report its self in inconclusive....and should not be used in a proper analysis....
I think we've already covered that ;)
-
Incorrect Bridget. Macdonell also had photographs and, again I refer to the last paragraph in his report that was sent to Nick Robinson and that was, that he could not duplicate the photographs because of an agreement, was this agreement with Ewan and Jeremy? If so, why did Robinson ask for the photos from Macdonell? why would he ask for them if he was working hand in glove with Ewan and Jeremy, why did he not ask for photographs from them?
In their reports experts will normally produce an annex of the items they refer to within the report, or refer to them by the references originally given. Either way, the norm is that both the provider and the recipient of the report will have access to the items being referred to. MacDonnell is in the rather unusual position of receiving information from one source but having to report to another party who does not have access to the items. He is simply explaining the reason why he hasn't done as he normally would.
1994 I was a year out Bridget I understand where you are coming from. It appears that it is likely that originally JB did give Macdonell some photographs etc. There is no concrete evidence to suggest JB had run out of money between 1990 and 1992 though. Whether Wilkes and Robinson knew one another in 1990/92 or not, it suggests that in 1992 they did...for Wilkes thanks Robinson in his book in 1994....Did you also know that Wilkes is married to a Robinson.
Again, I'm not talking about when Wilkes met Robinson. They could be life long bosom buddies for all I know or care. I'm talking about when Wilkes approached JB with his idea for a book, which is when they figured out that they both wanted something from each other and the deal was agreed. This was sometime after 1990 and explains the two year gap. I think it's probably inaccurate to say that JB ran out of money after the newspaper deal, I think it's more likely that JB realised that Macdonnell would require more money than he had to undertake the work he required.
Can prisoners sell stories to newspapers?
No I don't believe so, hence the need for the go between (we don't know who that was). It was probably a back door deal in which the go between received the whole of the payment, pocketed half and spent the other half on whatever it was JB was after.