Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on March 09, 2011, 05:09:AM
-
Photograph of Shiela on the bed - the photographer who took the picture was stood at the foot of the bed and there was no rifle at all, on her body, or on the bed. The bible was not on the body, or the bed. Both of her arms and hands, were positioned either side of Shiela's body - the rear of her head was resting on the left hand pillows...
-
I have no recollection of seeing any blood trail leading into the left eye socket...
-
For the avoidance of doubt, I have no recollection of there being any blood coming from her mouth...
-
The photo available of the right side of the bed isn't very clear but from what I can see there doesn't appear to be much blood on the pillow. Are you suggesting that Sheila was shot and didn't bleed at all from her neck?
-
The photo available of the right side of the bed isn't very clear but from what I can see there doesn't appear to be much blood on the pillow. Are you suggesting that Sheila was shot and didn't bleed at all from her neck?
-----------------------------------------
When you speak of the right side of the bed, are you referring to the right side of the bed from the vantage point of the observer standing at the foot of the bed looking back towards the bed? Or, from the perspective of someone lying in bed?
-
From the perspective of lying in bed, ie the side where Sheila was found on the floor.
-
The photo available of the right side of the bed isn't very clear but from what I can see there doesn't appear to be much blood on the pillow. Are you suggesting that Sheila was shot and didn't bleed at all from her neck?
-------------------------------------------
There was blood on Sheila\'s neck / throat when I saw the picture of her on the bed - the back of her head was resting on the pillows, and as far as I know I do not know of any injuries that she had to the back of her head that might have caused the pillow on top to became blood stained...
The blood that was later photographed coming out of the corners of her mouth and into her left eye socket were made later when the police moved her body from the bed to the bedroom floor...
I know this must be true because there was no such blood there coming out from the corners of her mouth, or into her left eye socket, when she was on the bed...
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
-
The photo available of the right side of the bed isn't very clear but from what I can see there doesn't appear to be much blood on the pillow. Are you suggesting that Sheila was shot and didn't bleed at all from her neck?
-------------------------------------------
There was blood on Sheila\'s neck / throat when I saw the picture of her on the bed - the back of her head was resting on the pillows, and as far as I know I do not know of any injuries that she had to the back of her head that might have caused the pillow on top to became blood stained...
The blood that was later photographed coming out of the corners of her mouth and into her left eye socket were made later when the police moved her body from the bed to the bedroom floor...
I know this must be true because there was no such blood there coming out from the corners of her mouth, or into her left eye socket, when she was on the bed...
Thanks for clarifying this Mike.
There also exists a photo, doesn't there, taken at the mortuary, which shows even more blood on the face? (Although I don't know that that's particularly relevant).
-
The photo available of the right side of the bed isn't very clear but from what I can see there doesn't appear to be much blood on the pillow. Are you suggesting that Sheila was shot and didn't bleed at all from her neck?
-------------------------------------------
There was blood on Sheila\'s neck / throat when I saw the picture of her on the bed - the back of her head was resting on the pillows, and as far as I know I do not know of any injuries that she had to the back of her head that might have caused the pillow on top to became blood stained...
The blood that was later photographed coming out of the corners of her mouth and into her left eye socket were made later when the police moved her body from the bed to the bedroom floor...
I know this must be true because there was no such blood there coming out from the corners of her mouth, or into her left eye socket, when she was on the bed...
Thanks for clarifying this Mike.
There also exists a photo, doesn't there, taken at the mortuary, which shows even more blood on the face? (Although I don't know that that's particularly relevant).
-------------------------------
Such photographs do exist, but I do not have access to them...
-
Re the mortuary photo which shows what appears to be wet blood. I read a lot conflicting opinions on this forum re the potential affect of flash photography. Has any photographic expert involved in the case given a professional opinion about that particular photo?
-
The photo available of the right side of the bed isn't very clear but from what I can see there doesn't appear to be much blood on the pillow. Are you suggesting that Sheila was shot and didn't bleed at all from her neck?
-----------------------------------------
When you speak of the right side of the bed, are you referring to the right side of the bed from the vantage point of the observer standing at the foot of the bed looking back towards the bed? Or, from the perspective of someone lying in bed?
Sorry - left side if you were standing at the foot of the bed. I would expect there to be some blood there if she had been shot there.
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
Well, not just from Nevill, if Sheila's head was resting on it when the photo was taken.
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
----------------------------
There is no evidence that Neville had been sleeping or resting in that bed that night - unless you can direct me towards it...
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
----------------------------
There is no evidence that Neville had been sleeping or resting in that bed that night - unless you can direct me towards it...
Well since that was his bed I think it's reasonable to assume that he was in it at some point that night. There's no evidence that Sheila was on the bed either ....
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
Well, not just from Nevill, if Sheila's head was resting on it when the photo was taken.
The point is that there is no evidence that Sheila ever had her head on that pillow.
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
----------------------------
There is no evidence that Neville had been sleeping or resting in that bed that night - unless you can direct me towards it...
Well since that was his bed I think it's reasonable to assume that he was in it at some point that night. There's no evidence that Sheila was on the bed either ....
---------------------------------
There are only womens clothes on the chairs in the bedroom, nothing to suggest that a man such as Ralph had removed his clothes in the bedroom and got into bed...
Only womens clothing in the bedroom...
It gives a big clue...
in my opinion...
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
Well, not just from Nevill, if Sheila's head was resting on it when the photo was taken.
The point is that there is no evidence that Sheila ever had her head on that pillow.
---------------------------------
Photograph exits to prove it, and there was an indent upon the pillow where Sheila's head was resting...
Plus, DC Clark told Ann Eaton within an hour of him seeing Sheila's body ion the bed, that her body was found on the bed - why would he lie about something like that?
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
----------------------------
There is no evidence that Neville had been sleeping or resting in that bed that night - unless you can direct me towards it...
Well since that was his bed I think it's reasonable to assume that he was in it at some point that night. There's no evidence that Sheila was on the bed either ....
---------------------------------
There are only womens clothes on the chairs in the bedroom, nothing to suggest that a man such as Ralph had removed his clothes in the bedroom and got into bed...
Only womens clothing in the bedroom...
It gives a big clue...
in my opinion...
The socks could be men's socks. Also we know Ralph at least changed into his pyjamas. And it was a cold night, so had he been asleep elsewhere in the house I would imagine he'd have needed blankets. Would they have even collected/looked for evidence of where he had been asleep? I realise that some of the policemen speculated that Sheila may have been sitting with June reading the bible (although I don't know where this is stated), but is there any evidence of further speculation regarding what Ralph was doing?
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
Well, not just from Nevill, if Sheila's head was resting on it when the photo was taken.
The point is that there is no evidence that Sheila ever had her head on that pillow.
---------------------------------
Photograph exits to prove it, and there was an indent upon the pillow where Sheila's head was resting...
Plus, DC Clark told Ann Eaton within an hour of him seeing Sheila's body ion the bed, that her body was found on the bed - why would he lie about something like that?
But such a photograph is not available so it's just hearsay at the moment. To state that the indent is where her head was is misleading.
DC Clark might not have lied. Perhaps he misunderstood what someone told him, or perhaps Ann Eaton misunderstood what he told her.
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
----------------------------
There is no evidence that Neville had been sleeping or resting in that bed that night - unless you can direct me towards it...
Well since that was his bed I think it's reasonable to assume that he was in it at some point that night. There's no evidence that Sheila was on the bed either ....
---------------------------------
There are only womens clothes on the chairs in the bedroom, nothing to suggest that a man such as Ralph had removed his clothes in the bedroom and got into bed...
Only womens clothing in the bedroom...
It gives a big clue...
in my opinion...
I don't think it's possible to see exactly what clothes were in the room.
According to Woodcock, a bed in Sheila's room had been used. Do you think that Nevill might have used it?
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
Well, not just from Nevill, if Sheila's head was resting on it when the photo was taken.
The point is that there is no evidence that Sheila ever had her head on that pillow.
---------------------------------
Photograph exits to prove it, and there was an indent upon the pillow where Sheila's head was resting...
Plus, DC Clark told Ann Eaton within an hour of him seeing Sheila's body ion the bed, that her body was found on the bed - why would he lie about something like that?
But such a photograph is not available so it's just hearsay at the moment. To state that the indent is where her head was is misleading.
DC Clark might not have lied. Perhaps he misunderstood what someone told him, or perhaps Ann Eaton misunderstood what he told her.
As long as that photo is being withheld, it is possible for people to speculate that ether DC Clark mispoke/misunderstood or Ann Eaton misunderstood, which for whatever reason is presumably what EP want, since the album which contains/ed the photograph which Mike refers to was disclosed on a confidential basis.
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
Well, not just from Nevill, if Sheila's head was resting on it when the photo was taken.
The point is that there is no evidence that Sheila ever had her head on that pillow.
---------------------------------
Photograph exits to prove it, and there was an indent upon the pillow where Sheila's head was resting...
Plus, DC Clark told Ann Eaton within an hour of him seeing Sheila's body ion the bed, that her body was found on the bed - why would he lie about something like that?
But such a photograph is not available so it's just hearsay at the moment. To state that the indent is where her head was is misleading.
DC Clark might not have lied. Perhaps he misunderstood what someone told him, or perhaps Ann Eaton misunderstood what he told her.
----------------------------------
Photograph of Sheila on the bed exists, and it will be produced, I feel confident about that because although it is currently being withheld under pii rules, it is possible to get such material released if its content would tend to, or might, help to prove or establish someones innocence - well, my point on this is that because there was no blood running from the corners of Sheila's mouth when she was photographed on the bed, and there was no blood running into her left eye socket, what this means is that the police must have moved her body from the bed to the floor and stage managed it there. The photograph which I have seen and which I am talking about, would prove beyond doubt that Jeremy Bamber could not have killed his sister in the bedroom and stage managed her body on the floor by the side of the bed, because of the absence of blood running from the corners of her mouth, and into her eye socket when she was photographed on the bed...
As soon as that photograph is released, that will spell the end of Jeremy's incarceration as far as I am concerned - the agencies of the state will not be able to get away with it a moment longer...
And...
Ewen Smith (Now a Commissioner with the CCRC) was convinced in 2003 that after he went to see DR Craig (police surgeon) that Sheila was found on the bed, not on the floor, and that Dr Craig and PI "Bob" Miller, had both made false witness statements about where Sheila's body was allegedly found, and examined by him?
-
Why would they have put June on the floor in that particular position then?
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
Well, not just from Nevill, if Sheila's head was resting on it when the photo was taken.
The point is that there is no evidence that Sheila ever had her head on that pillow.
---------------------------------
Photograph exits to prove it, and there was an indent upon the pillow where Sheila's head was resting...
Plus, DC Clark told Ann Eaton within an hour of him seeing Sheila's body ion the bed, that her body was found on the bed - why would he lie about something like that?
But such a photograph is not available so it's just hearsay at the moment. To state that the indent is where her head was is misleading.
DC Clark might not have lied. Perhaps he misunderstood what someone told him, or perhaps Ann Eaton misunderstood what he told her.
----------------------------------
Photograph of Sheila on the bed exists, and it will be produced, I feel confident about that because although it is currently being withheld under pii rules, it is possible to get such material released if its content would tend to, or might, help to prove or establish someones innocence - well, my point on this is that because there was no blood running from the corners of Sheila's mouth when she was photographed on the bed, and there was no blood running into her left eye socket, what this means is that the police must have moved her body from the bed to the floor and stage managed it there. The photograph which I have seen and which I am talking about, would prove beyond doubt that Jeremy Bamber could not have killed his sister in the bedroom and stage managed her body on the floor by the side of the bed, because of the absence of blood running from the corners of her mouth, and into her eye socket when she was photographed on the bed...
As soon as that photograph is released, that will spell the end of Jeremy's incarceration as far as I am concerned - the agencies of the state will not be able to get away with it a moment longer...
And...
Ewen Smith (Now a Commissioner with the CCRC) was convinced in 2003 that after he went to see DR Craig (police surgeon) that Sheila was found on the bed, not on the floor, and that Dr Craig and PI "Bob" Miller, had both made false witness statements about where Sheila's body was allegedly found, and examined by him?
I hope you're right Mike, I really do. I don't think you're making it up, but without that picture your theory is going nowhere.
Not sure about Dr Craig. He said that Sheila had dried blood on her face which had come from her mouth when he saw her.
-
Why would they have put June on the floor in that particular position then?
-----------------------
They must have taken them both off the bed and put June up against the bedroom door, but her body slipped down into the position it ended up being photographed in, by PC Bird (SOC) at around 10 O'clock, and Sheila was put onto the floor - possibly so that they could check the bed for evidence...
-
Why would they have put June on the floor in that particular position then?
-----------------------
They must have taken them both off the bed and put June up against the bedroom door, but her body slipped down into the position it ended up being photographed in, by PC Bird (SOC) at around 10 O'clock, and Sheila was put onto the floor - possibly so that they could check the bed for evidence...
Why would they put June up against the bedroom door? They would have had to have put her in a very awkward position for her to to have slipped down that way.
-
Also, there was blood all over the bedroom floor, and it's been said it was June's blood. Did she get out of bed and then get in again before she was fatally shot?
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
Well, not just from Nevill, if Sheila's head was resting on it when the photo was taken.
The point is that there is no evidence that Sheila ever had her head on that pillow.
---------------------------------
Photograph exits to prove it, and there was an indent upon the pillow where Sheila's head was resting...
Plus, DC Clark told Ann Eaton within an hour of him seeing Sheila's body ion the bed, that her body was found on the bed - why would he lie about something like that?
But such a photograph is not available so it's just hearsay at the moment. To state that the indent is where her head was is misleading.
DC Clark might not have lied. Perhaps he misunderstood what someone told him, or perhaps Ann Eaton misunderstood what he told her.
----------------------------------
Photograph of Sheila on the bed exists, and it will be produced, I feel confident about that because although it is currently being withheld under pii rules, it is possible to get such material released if its content would tend to, or might, help to prove or establish someones innocence - well, my point on this is that because there was no blood running from the corners of Sheila's mouth when she was photographed on the bed, and there was no blood running into her left eye socket, what this means is that the police must have moved her body from the bed to the floor and stage managed it there. The photograph which I have seen and which I am talking about, would prove beyond doubt that Jeremy Bamber could not have killed his sister in the bedroom and stage managed her body on the floor by the side of the bed, because of the absence of blood running from the corners of her mouth, and into her eye socket when she was photographed on the bed...
As soon as that photograph is released, that will spell the end of Jeremy's incarceration as far as I am concerned - the agencies of the state will not be able to get away with it a moment longer...
And...
Ewen Smith (Now a Commissioner with the CCRC) was convinced in 2003 that after he went to see DR Craig (police surgeon) that Sheila was found on the bed, not on the floor, and that Dr Craig and PI "Bob" Miller, had both made false witness statements about where Sheila's body was allegedly found, and examined by him?
I hope you're right Mike, I really do. I don't think you're making it up, but without that picture your theory is going nowhere.
Not sure about Dr Craig. He said that Sheila had dried blood on her face which had come from her mouth when he saw her.
---------------------------
Other officers who allegedly saw Sheila after DR Craig carried out his very brief examination, described the blood that was coming out from the corner of her mouth as running and leaking...
What you have got to remember is that Dr Craig, and PI Miller, made a false witness statement about Sheila only having one wound? So, which wound was that one then?
-
Other officers who allegedly saw Sheila after DR Craig carried out his very brief examination, described the blood that was coming out from the corner of her mouth as running and leaking...
What you have got to remember is that Dr Craig, and PI Miller, made a false witness statement about Sheila only having one wound? So, which wound was that one then?
They may have meant that it had run and leaked. I don't think they used those actual words did they?
-
Am I now to believe that Dr Craig was in on the conspiracy?
-
Why would they have put June on the floor in that particular position then?
-----------------------
They must have taken them both off the bed and put June up against the bedroom door, but her body slipped down into the position it ended up being photographed in, by PC Bird (SOC) at around 10 O'clock, and Sheila was put onto the floor - possibly so that they could check the bed for evidence...
Why would they put June up against the bedroom door? They would have had to have put her in a very awkward position for her to to have slipped down that way.
-----------------------
Look at the bedroom door, blood smears - she was propped up against that door and slipped down into her last resting position - the poor woman died a horrible painful death...
-
Am I now to believe that Dr Craig was in on the conspiracy?
--------------------------------
Why don't you contact Ewen Smith at the CCRC, and ask him...
-
Why would they have put June on the floor in that particular position then?
-----------------------
They must have taken them both off the bed and put June up against the bedroom door, but her body slipped down into the position it ended up being photographed in, by PC Bird (SOC) at around 10 O'clock, and Sheila was put onto the floor - possibly so that they could check the bed for evidence...
Why would they put June up against the bedroom door? They would have had to have put her in a very awkward position for her to to have slipped down that way.
-----------------------
Look at the bedroom door, blood smears - she was propped up against that door and slipped down into her last resting position - the poor woman died a horrible painful death...
And why would she still be bleeding at that time?
-
Am I now to believe that Dr Craig was in on the conspiracy?
--------------------------------
Why don't you contact Ewen Smith at the CCRC, and ask him...
Yes, Mr Smith is really going to tell me that isn't he? ;D
-
I noticed a smear of blood but I am not convinced it could have got there so long after she was killed. I accept that Sheila was photographed on the bed. I accept that Dr Craig's statement about where Sheila was when he view her body may be false. I can only guess why this would have been necessary. But I do find it difficult to believe that June could have been was found in bed unless she was moved into the bed by the killer, which seems equally implausible whichever sibling one assumes was responsible.
-
Am I now to believe that Dr Craig was in on the conspiracy?
--------------------------------
Why don't you contact Ewen Smith at the CCRC, and ask him...
Yes, Mr Smith is really going to tell me that isn't he? ;D
--------------------
I doubt it, but he knows the truth because he told me about what DR Craig had to say when he went to speak to him in 2003...
Sheila was on the bed when he and PI Miller got to whf (before 9 O'clock...
Iv'e seen the picture, so I know its true - she did not have any blood running from the corners of her mouth or into her left eye socket. That is good enough for me, it tells me that the police moved Sheila's body from the bed to the floor, it couldn't haver happened any other way...
Jeremy could not / did not kill his sister and he did not / could not have stage managed her body to make it look like a suicide, it was the police who are responsible for doing that...
-
Am I now to believe that Dr Craig was in on the conspiracy?
--------------------------------
Why don't you contact Ewen Smith at the CCRC, and ask him...
Yes, Mr Smith is really going to tell me that isn't he? ;D
--------------------
I doubt it, but he knows the truth because he told me about what DR Craig had to say when he went to speak to him in 2003...
Sheila was on the bed when he and PI Miller got to whf (before 9 O'clock...
Iv'e seen the picture, so I know its true - she did not have any blood running from the corners of her mouth or into her left eye socket. That is good enough for me, it tells me that the police moved Sheila's body from the bed to the floor, it couldn't haver happened any other way...
Jeremy could not / did not kill his sister and he did not / could not have stage managed her body to make it look like a suicide, it was the police who are responsible for doing that...
So are you doing anything to convince them of that? You're the one who saw a photograph that nobody else admits to seeing.
If DC Clark was correct about Sheila being on the bed, one has to assume he was also correct about June being on the bed, and I just don't see that as feasible. Like I said, there was blood all over the floor and they said it was her blood. Do you think it wasn't her blood, and that it was Nevill's?
-
I noticed a smear of blood but I am not convinced it could have got there so long after she was killed. I accept that Sheila was photographed on the bed. I accept that Dr Craig's statement about where Sheila was when he view her body may be false. I can only guess why this would have been necessary. But I do find it difficult to believe that June could have been was found in bed unless she was moved into the bed by the killer, which seems equally implausible whichever sibling one assumes was responsible.
-----------------------
Alex, I have not seen a photograph of June on the bed, I am only going on what DC Clark told Ann Eaton at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, on the morning of 7th August 1985...
According to the evidence, June got out of bed and walked around a bit, and she could have been the figure who was seen by the two police officers and Jeremy walking across the bedroom window, because spots of her blood, in a trail were found on the bedroom carpet in that location...
A bare footprint impression was also found on the pile of the bedroom carpet, walking in the general direction away from where June Bambers body ended up. This could be evidence that Sheila walked across and away from Junes body after she had killed her or finished her off - and why the gun ended up at the bedroom window, because the bare foot impression appears to be walking in that general direction...
In my opinion...
-
Am I now to believe that Dr Craig was in on the conspiracy?
--------------------------------
Why don't you contact Ewen Smith at the CCRC, and ask him...
Yes, Mr Smith is really going to tell me that isn't he? ;D
--------------------
I doubt it, but he knows the truth because he told me about what DR Craig had to say when he went to speak to him in 2003...
Sheila was on the bed when he and PI Miller got to whf (before 9 O'clock...
Iv'e seen the picture, so I know its true - she did not have any blood running from the corners of her mouth or into her left eye socket. That is good enough for me, it tells me that the police moved Sheila's body from the bed to the floor, it couldn't haver happened any other way...
Jeremy could not / did not kill his sister and he did not / could not have stage managed her body to make it look like a suicide, it was the police who are responsible for doing that...
So are you doing anything to convince them of that? You're the one who saw a photograph that nobody else admits to seeing.
If DC Clark was correct about Sheila being on the bed, one has to assume he was also correct about June being on the bed, and I just don't see that as feasible. Like I said, there was blood all over the floor and they said it was her blood. Do you think it wasn't her blood, and that it was Nevill's?
-------------------------
They must have found some of Sheila's blood in the bedroom, but officially they did not - how most peculiar...
-
I noticed a smear of blood but I am not convinced it could have got there so long after she was killed. I accept that Sheila was photographed on the bed. I accept that Dr Craig's statement about where Sheila was when he view her body may be false. I can only guess why this would have been necessary. But I do find it difficult to believe that June could have been was found in bed unless she was moved into the bed by the killer, which seems equally implausible whichever sibling one assumes was responsible.
-----------------------
Alex, I have not seen a photograph of June on the bed, I am only going on what DC Clark told Ann Eaton at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, on the morning of 7th August 1985...
According to the evidence, June got out of bed and walked around a bit, and she could have been the figure who was seen by the two police officers and Jeremy walking across the bedroom window, because spots of her blood, in a trail were found on the bedroom carpet in that location...
A bare footprint impression was also found on the pile of the bedroom carpet, walking in the general direction away from where June Bambers body ended up. This could be evidence that Sheila walked across and away from Junes body after she had killed her or finished her off - and why the gun ended up at the bedroom window, because the bare foot impression appears to be walking in that general direction...
In my opinion...
OK, thanks.
-
Could sheila not have died as commonly held, on the floor with the blood on her face etc, but have been lifted to the bad after initial forensics, to look at her reverse, and the floor underneath her. Having had the faced cleaned up a little and photographed on the bed?
IF the photo on the bed exists - and let us believe it does...
then how do we know the time frame of it?
-
Could sheila not have died as commonly held, on the floor with the blood on her face etc, but have been lifted to the bad after initial forensics, to look at her reverse, and the floor underneath her. Having had the faced cleaned up a little and photographed on the bed?
IF the photo on the bed exists - and let us believe it does...
then how do we know the time frame of it?
-----------------------------------------
clock on bedside cabinet...
-
I noticed a smear of blood but I am not convinced it could have got there so long after she was killed. I accept that Sheila was photographed on the bed. I accept that Dr Craig's statement about where Sheila was when he view her body may be false. I can only guess why this would have been necessary. But I do find it difficult to believe that June could have been was found in bed unless she was moved into the bed by the killer, which seems equally implausible whichever sibling one assumes was responsible.
-----------------------
Alex, I have not seen a photograph of June on the bed, I am only going on what DC Clark told Ann Eaton at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, on the morning of 7th August 1985...
According to the evidence, June got out of bed and walked around a bit, and she could have been the figure who was seen by the two police officers and Jeremy walking across the bedroom window, because spots of her blood, in a trail were found on the bedroom carpet in that location...
A bare footprint impression was also found on the pile of the bedroom carpet, walking in the general direction away from where June Bambers body ended up. This could be evidence that Sheila walked across and away from Junes body after she had killed her or finished her off - and why the gun ended up at the bedroom window, because the bare foot impression appears to be walking in that general direction...
In my opinion...
OK, thanks.
---------------------------------
June Bambers body was placed here in my opinion, by the police (I have edited copy of original), you can see the bare footprint impression on the carpet that I am talking about, there are others..
-
Why would they have put June on the floor in that particular position then?
-----------------------
They must have taken them both off the bed and put June up against the bedroom door, but her body slipped down into the position it ended up being photographed in, by PC Bird (SOC) at around 10 O'clock, and Sheila was put onto the floor - possibly so that they could check the bed for evidence...
Why would they put June up against the bedroom door? They would have had to have put her in a very awkward position for her to to have slipped down that way.
-----------------------
Look at the bedroom door, blood smears - she was propped up against that door and slipped down into her last resting position - the poor woman died a horrible painful death...
Does this post refer to June or Sheila?
If its June then can these things be clarified:
When the police arrive in the bedroom is June alive (just) and on the bed?
The police then pick her up off the bed and prop her up against the door to die a horrible painful death?
-
You can tell by looking at the above photograph that June Bamber appears to have been laid face down after she died, and that whoever placed her on the floor next to the door, set her down there on her back - you can see the white patches where the legs had been in contact with a surface, and tell by the way her legs have started to discolor...
-
I cant see the footprints just what looks to be subtle swirls/nap of the carpet
-
You can tell by looking at the above photograph that June Bamber appears to have been laid face down after she died, and that whoever placed her on the floor next to the door, set her down there on her back - you can see the white patches where the legs had been in contact with a surface, and tell by the way her legs have started to discolor...
The white patches are indicative of blood drain during livor motis when the blood is fluid still but will start to settle according to gravity (more or less), youu can see the purple accumulation of blood in her calf....
however, blood will still flow and settle if moved during this stage (couple of hours) after that, the blood no longer flows with regard to position.
Basically you can't see anything from this pic, BUT it does support her being on her back. The white marks certainly don't suggest she's been on her front (IF she was on her front for over 2 hours after death)
-
You can tell by looking at the above photograph that June Bamber appears to have been laid face down after she died, and that whoever placed her on the floor next to the door, set her down there on her back - you can see the white patches where the legs had been in contact with a surface, and tell by the way her legs have started to discolor...
The white patches are indicative of blood drain during livor motis when the blood is fluid still but will start to settle according to gravity (more or less), youu can see the purple accumulation of blood in her calf....
however, blood will still flow and settle if moved during this stage (couple of hours) after that, the blood no longer flows with regard to position.
Basically you can't see anything from this pic, BUT it does support her being on her back. The white marks certainly don't suggest she's been on her front (IF she was on her front for over 2 hours after death)
-----------------------------------
I think the opposite - I think the white areas show where the body was in contact with something, and that she was laid face down somewhere, before being moved...
-
I think Mike is referring to the fact that livor mortis doesn't happen in tissue which is contact with the ground or bed or whatever because of compression. That photo does not indicate she was lying on her front though. You can't see the area of her legs which are in contact with the ground.
-
I think it is impossible to say for definate what position June was in from this picture we would have to see a picture of the back of her legs. As far as i understand livor presentation, blood pools at the lowest point first, but not in the places that are in contact with a surface (correct me if i'm wrong). With that in mind i would say it looks like June was on her back as the livor marks would be further to the front of her legs if she was on her front.
-
Sorry kaldin i didn't see your post, i have so many diferent topics opened in tabs on my browser! :D
-
Sorry kaldin i didn't see your post, i have so many diferent topics opened in tabs on my browser! :D
No problem. Anyway, as you can see, I agree with you. ;D
-
I think Mike is referring to the fact that livor mortis doesn't happen in tissue which is contact with the ground or bed or whatever because of compression. That photo does not indicate she was lying on her front though. You can't see the area of her legs which are in contact with the ground.
... There is a marked absence of livor mortis at the top part of both legs, which gives a good indication that June was iaid differently to that shown...
-
I think Mike is referring to the fact that livor mortis doesn't happen in tissue which is contact with the ground or bed or whatever because of compression. That photo does not indicate she was lying on her front though. You can't see the area of her legs which are in contact with the ground.
... There is a marked absence of livor mortis at the top part of both legs, which gives a good indication that June was iaid differently to that shown...
There wouldn't be livor mortis on the top part of her legs because the blood sinks to the lowest point. She was on her back so therefore there was no livor mortis on the top of her legs.
-
I think Mike is referring to the fact that livor mortis doesn't happen in tissue which is contact with the ground or bed or whatever because of compression. That photo does not indicate she was lying on her front though. You can't see the area of her legs which are in contact with the ground.
... There is a marked absence of livor mortis at the top part of both legs, which gives a good indication that June was iaid differently to that shown...
There wouldn't be livor mortis on the top part of her legs because the blood sinks to the lowest point. She was on her back so therefore there was no livor mortis on the top of her legs.
... I think the opposite - I think she could have been laid face down on top of the ruffled quilt, and that the reason for the white patches on the upper part of her legs, as shown in the image, is because those parts of her legs were in contact with the quilt and because of compression asserting its influence. Although you cannot see the back of her legs in this picture, it is possible that some form of livor mortis existed there, to one extent or another...
-
I think Mike is referring to the fact that livor mortis doesn't happen in tissue which is contact with the ground or bed or whatever because of compression. That photo does not indicate she was lying on her front though. You can't see the area of her legs which are in contact with the ground.
... There is a marked absence of livor mortis at the top part of both legs, which gives a good indication that June was iaid differently to that shown...
There wouldn't be livor mortis on the top part of her legs because the blood sinks to the lowest point. She was on her back so therefore there was no livor mortis on the top of her legs.
... I think the opposite - I think she could have been laid face down on top of the ruffled quilt, and that the reason for the white patches on the upper part of her legs, as shown in the image, is because those parts of her legs were in contact with the quilt and because of compression asserting its influence. Although you cannot see the back of her legs in this picture, it is possible that some form of livor mortis existed there, to one extent or another...
No ..... I don't agree with that at all. That's pure speculation and not even very scientific.
-
I think Mike is referring to the fact that livor mortis doesn't happen in tissue which is contact with the ground or bed or whatever because of compression. That photo does not indicate she was lying on her front though. You can't see the area of her legs which are in contact with the ground.
... There is a marked absence of livor mortis at the top part of both legs, which gives a good indication that June was iaid differently to that shown...
There wouldn't be livor mortis on the top part of her legs because the blood sinks to the lowest point. She was on her back so therefore there was no livor mortis on the top of her legs.
... I think the opposite - I think she could have been laid face down on top of the ruffled quilt, and that the reason for the white patches on the upper part of her legs, as shown in the image, is because those parts of her legs were in contact with the quilt and because of compression asserting its influence. Although you cannot see the back of her legs in this picture, it is possible that some form of livor mortis existed there, to one extent or another...
No ..... I don't agree with that at all. That's pure speculation and not even very scientific.
... I am not speculating, you can see the white patches on the top part of her legs, which is consistant with my explanation - but you cannot see the back part of her legs, so if anyone is speculating, it is you. I think there is a good chance that June was on the bed, in keeping with what DC Clark told Ann Eaton...
-
Going back to the comment Mike made about June could have walked around the room and she was maybe the figure that the 2 police officers and JB thought that they saw in the window.Im a bit confused about this.Did the main bedroom at the front of the house also have a rear window within the same room? Because it has been stated that the room as to which they were referring to as having maybe seen someone moving around in was actually the top right hand window at the rear of the house!
-
I think Mike is referring to the fact that livor mortis doesn't happen in tissue which is contact with the ground or bed or whatever because of compression. That photo does not indicate she was lying on her front though. You can't see the area of her legs which are in contact with the ground.
... There is a marked absence of livor mortis at the top part of both legs, which gives a good indication that June was iaid differently to that shown...
There wouldn't be livor mortis on the top part of her legs because the blood sinks to the lowest point. She was on her back so therefore there was no livor mortis on the top of her legs.
... I think the opposite - I think she could have been laid face down on top of the ruffled quilt, and that the reason for the white patches on the upper part of her legs, as shown in the image, is because those parts of her legs were in contact with the quilt and because of compression asserting its influence. Although you cannot see the back of her legs in this picture, it is possible that some form of livor mortis existed there, to one extent or another...
No ..... I don't agree with that at all. That's pure speculation and not even very scientific.
... I am not speculating, you can see the white patches on the top part of her legs, which is consistant with my explanation - but you cannot see the back part of her legs, so if anyone is speculating, it is you. I think there is a good chance that June was on the bed, in keeping with what DC Clark told Ann Eaton...
The white patches are consistent with her lying on her back and the blood draining to the lower part of her legs. That's not speculation - that's going on what I see in the photograph. On the other hand, you are speculating about what's not in the photo - ie, the parts of her legs which are not visible.
-
Going back to the comment Mike made about June could have walked around the room and she was maybe the figure that the 2 police officers and JB thought that they saw in the window.Im a bit confused about this.Did the main bedroom at the front of the house also have a rear window within the same room? Because it has been stated that the room as to which they were referring to as having maybe seen someone moving around in was actually the top right hand window at the rear of the house!
No. The main bedroom had one window I think. There is a window at the side, but I think that must be in the bedroom next to the main one - the room between the main bedroom and the boys' room - that room can be accessed by a door next to the bed.
I agree that PS Bews said the movement was at a completely different window, so I have no idea where this story about figures walking across windows has come from or why it was not mentioned at the trial.
-
I believe it was mentioned at trial.Im pretty sure that pc Bews gave evidence to say that that they were mistaken about seeing a figure at the window and they had all agreed that it was just the trick of a light.
-
I believe it was mentioned at trial.Im pretty sure that pc Bews gave evidence to say that that they were mistaken about seeing a figure at the window and they had all agreed that it was just the trick of a light.
Maybe that was mentioned, so then where did this story about Bews, Myall, and Jeremy seeing a figure at a window and them racing back to the car come from?
-
According to JB,the conversation and sighting DID occur.JB possibly relied on it as part of his defence.However,at trial,pc Bews told of a slightly different version of events that did not back up JBs claims.I am not surprised by this at all!
-
According to JB,the conversation and sighting DID occur.JB possibly relied on it as part of his defence.However,at trial,pc Bews told of a slightly different version of events that did not back up JBs claims.I am not surprised by this at all!
So Bews said what he said later? That Myall saw a movement which turned out to be a trick of the light? Bews and Jeremy never saw anyone at all?
So much for all this racing back to the car story then.
-
If Jeremy saw anything, he should be able to describe what he saw in detail too.
-
If Jeremy saw anything, he should be able to describe what he saw in detail too.
He very probably did.But who were the courts more likely to believe? JB or the police officer ?
-
Was Myall asked about it at the trial?
-
Jeremy could clarify therefore what he saw, male or female, tall or short? He could do that now, it would help to understand who it might have been wouldn't it?
-
Jeremy could clarify therefore what he saw, male or female, tall or short? He could do that now, it would help to understand who it might have been wouldn't it?
It would help if he clarified which window it was as well.
-
Yes, good post.
-
Was Myall asked about it at the trial?
Im pretty certain that Myall did not give evidence at the trial.
-
Was Myall asked about it at the trial?
Im pretty certain that Myall did not give evidence at the trial.
How strange. You'd think the defence would have called him ...
-
I think Mike is referring to the fact that livor mortis doesn't happen in tissue which is contact with the ground or bed or whatever because of compression. That photo does not indicate she was lying on her front though. You can't see the area of her legs which are in contact with the ground.
... There is a marked absence of livor mortis at the top part of both legs, which gives a good indication that June was iaid differently to that shown...
There wouldn't be livor mortis on the top part of her legs because the blood sinks to the lowest point. She was on her back so therefore there was no livor mortis on the top of her legs.
... I think the opposite - I think she could have been laid face down on top of the ruffled quilt, and that the reason for the white patches on the upper part of her legs, as shown in the image, is because those parts of her legs were in contact with the quilt and because of compression asserting its influence. Although you cannot see the back of her legs in this picture, it is possible that some form of livor mortis existed there, to one extent or another...
No ..... I don't agree with that at all. That's pure speculation and not even very scientific.
... I am not speculating, you can see the white patches on the top part of her legs, which is consistant with my explanation - but you cannot see the back part of her legs, so if anyone is speculating, it is you. I think there is a good chance that June was on the bed, in keeping with what DC Clark told Ann Eaton...
The white patches are consistent with her lying on her back and the blood draining to the lower part of her legs. That's not speculation - that's going on what I see in the photograph. On the other hand, you are speculating about what's not in the photo - ie, the parts of her legs which are not visible.
... No, stop trying to interpret what I'm saying to try and turn it, into what you want it to mean. The white patches on the top part of the legs, is consistent with the front part of her legs being face down against the ruffled quilt of the bed. To pv it another way, if she had been laid face down, as described, and by a reliance upon the dynamics of compression, the front part of her legs which have whìte patches, would have white patches. The white patches on the front of her legs, are therefore, suggestive that she could have been/was, laid face downwards at some point after she died. In my opinion.,
-
Well I don't agree with you. I think you're trying to make it fit with your own theories. There is nothing to indicate that June was on her stomach at any point. The top part of her legs would not have consistent white bits at all - more compression would be needed for that. Her legs are white at the top because the blood has drained to the lower parts - as per livor mortis.
Why on earth would June be on her stomach anyway?
-
Marks that may be found on the back of the leg is speculation. I think if June had been layed on her front when livor mortis formed the darkening would have been more toward the front of her legs. Also if she was on a ruffled quilt the pattern on the front of her legs would be different as the pressure would have been different in different places (if that makes any sence).
-
Marks that may be found on the back of the leg is speculation. I think if June had been layed on her front when livor mortis formed the darkening would have been more toward the front of her legs. Also if she was on a ruffled quilt the pattern on the front of her legs would be different as the pressure would have been different in different places (if that makes any sence).
Yes.
I think it's just muddying the waters to introduce new theories that she was on her stomach, especially as the photo doesn't indicate anything of the sort, and the livor mortis is compatible with her being on her back.
-
This is just more of the same old speculative unsubstantiated theory.
The currently accepted fact is that Sheila and June were found on the floor as per the photographs which are available and as per police officers witness statements.
Yes there is a note by Ann which conflicts with this but is in itself based on hearsay and is not considered stronger evidence than police officers witness statements.
Mike says there is a photograph of Sheila on the bed, personally I won't accept that until I've seen it, nor am I convinced that it even exists anywhere outside of Mikes imagination. In any event even if such a photograph exists it still wouldn't necessarily prove anything in it's own right, what it would or wouldn't prove can not possibly be interpreted from a 30 second glance at this alleged photo on somebody else's desk several years ago. If it's such a smoking gun then what the heck are the defence doing about obtaining it?
Mikes theory on June originally being found on the bed and then propped up against the door just seems ludicrous to me, especially when it's only based on liver mortis patterns which are already consistent with her body being found as reported.
-
Was Myall asked about it at the trial?
Im pretty certain that Myall did not give evidence at the trial.
It seems that PC Myall did give evidence at the trial.
Haven't had a chance to read it yet though.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,185.0.html
-
How strange that Mr Rivlin didn't ask PC Myall if he had seen anyone at a window. ???
-
How strange that Mr Rivlin didn't ask PC Myall if he had seen anyone at a window. ???
I agree.
-
How strange that Mr Rivlin didn't ask PC Myall if he had seen anyone at a window. ???
I agree.
So either it didn't happen, or Mr Rivlin forgot to ask about it ...
-
Going back to the comment Mike made about June could have walked around the room and she was maybe the figure that the 2 police officers and JB thought that they saw in the window.Im a bit confused about this.Did the main bedroom at the front of the house also have a rear window within the same room? Because it has been stated that the room as to which they were referring to as having maybe seen someone moving around in was actually the top right hand window at the rear of the house!
No. The main bedroom had one window I think. There is a window at the side, but I think that must be in the bedroom next to the main one - the room between the main bedroom and the boys' room - that room can be accessed by a door next to the bed.
I agree that PS Bews said the movement was at a completely different window, so I have no idea where this story about figures walking across windows has come from or why it was not mentioned at the trial.
--------------------------
Jeremy has confirmed that the window where they all saw the figure was the main bedroom window, not any other window...
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
----------------------------
There is no evidence that Neville had been sleeping or resting in that bed that night - unless you can direct me towards it...
Well since that was his bed I think it's reasonable to assume that he was in it at some point that night. There's no evidence that Sheila was on the bed either ....
---------------------------------
There are only womens clothes on the chairs in the bedroom, nothing to suggest that a man such as Ralph had removed his clothes in the bedroom and got into bed...
Only womens clothing in the bedroom...
It gives a big clue...
in my opinion...
I don't think it's possible to see exactly what clothes were in the room.
According to Woodcock, a bed in Sheila's room had been used. Do you think that Nevill might have used it?
------------------------
How strange that no crime scene photograph of the bed allegedly slept in, was taken, or exists?
-
Going back to the comment Mike made about June could have walked around the room and she was maybe the figure that the 2 police officers and JB thought that they saw in the window.Im a bit confused about this.Did the main bedroom at the front of the house also have a rear window within the same room? Because it has been stated that the room as to which they were referring to as having maybe seen someone moving around in was actually the top right hand window at the rear of the house!
No. The main bedroom had one window I think. There is a window at the side, but I think that must be in the bedroom next to the main one - the room between the main bedroom and the boys' room - that room can be accessed by a door next to the bed.
I agree that PS Bews said the movement was at a completely different window, so I have no idea where this story about figures walking across windows has come from or why it was not mentioned at the trial.
--------------------------
Jeremy has confirmed that the window where they all saw the figure was the main bedroom window, not any other window...
OK, so that contradicts what PS Bews said.
Why didn't it come up at the trial by the way? PC Myall doesn't appear to have been asked anything about it.
-
How strange that no crime scene photograph of the bed allegedly slept in, was taken, or exists?
Unless of course they do and are in the "withheld" file?
-
If you look carefully enough, you can see an impression on the top pillow, where the back of Sheila's head was resting at some point before 10 am...
Or it could be from Nevill ...
----------------------------
There is no evidence that Neville had been sleeping or resting in that bed that night - unless you can direct me towards it...
Well since that was his bed I think it's reasonable to assume that he was in it at some point that night. There's no evidence that Sheila was on the bed either ....
---------------------------------
There are only womens clothes on the chairs in the bedroom, nothing to suggest that a man such as Ralph had removed his clothes in the bedroom and got into bed...
Only womens clothing in the bedroom...
It gives a big clue...
in my opinion...
I don't think it's possible to see exactly what clothes were in the room.
According to Woodcock, a bed in Sheila's room had been used. Do you think that Nevill might have used it?
------------------------
How strange that no crime scene photograph of the bed allegedly slept in, was taken, or exists?
Maybe, but I think it's a bit of a red herring anyway. If Sheila didn't go to bed, she could have shot the family, and if she did go to bed she could still have shot the family. The only difference it could make to Jeremy is that he could claim that if her bed wasn't used, she must have been rampaging round the house killing the family instead. That doesn't necessarily follow though.
-
Well I don't agree with you. I think you're trying to make it fit with your own theories. There is nothing to indicate that June was on her stomach at any point. The top part of her legs would not have consistent white bits at all - more compression would be needed for that. Her legs are white at the top because the blood has drained to the lower parts - as per livor mortis.
Why on earth would June be on her stomach anyway?
You have absolutely no proof at all, that there is no evidence of livor mortis on the bottom part of her legs - you are speculating about something you cannot see...
-
Marks that may be found on the back of the leg is speculation. I think if June had been layed on her front when livor mortis formed the darkening would have been more toward the front of her legs. Also if she was on a ruffled quilt the pattern on the front of her legs would be different as the pressure would have been different in different places (if that makes any sence).
-------------------------------
I disagree, it would depend upon how her legs rested against the folded, fuddled quilt of the bed...
-
Marks that may be found on the back of the leg is speculation. I think if June had been layed on her front when livor mortis formed the darkening would have been more toward the front of her legs. Also if she was on a ruffled quilt the pattern on the front of her legs would be different as the pressure would have been different in different places (if that makes any sence).
Yes.
I think it's just muddying the waters to introduce new theories that she was on her stomach, especially as the photo doesn't indicate anything of the sort, and the livor mortis is compatible with her being on her back.
------------------
or on her front...
-
This is just more of the same old speculative unsubstantiated theory.
The currently accepted fact is that Sheila and June were found on the floor as per the photographs which are available and as per police officers witness statements.
Yes there is a note by Ann which conflicts with this but is in itself based on hearsay and is not considered stronger evidence than police officers witness statements.
Mike says there is a photograph of Sheila on the bed, personally I won't accept that until I've seen it, nor am I convinced that it even exists anywhere outside of Mikes imagination. In any event even if such a photograph exists it still wouldn't necessarily prove anything in it's own right, what it would or wouldn't prove can not possibly be interpreted from a 30 second glance at this alleged photo on somebody else's desk several years ago. If it's such a smoking gun then what the heck are the defence doing about obtaining it?
Mikes theory on June originally being found on the bed and then propped up against the door just seems ludicrous to me, especially when it's only based on liver mortis patterns which are already consistent with her body being found as reported.
--------------------
unless its true...
-
How strange that no crime scene photograph of the bed allegedly slept in, was taken, or exists?
Unless of course they do and are in the "withheld" file?
--------------------------
in which case, why didn't the prosecution produce them at the trial to show that Sheila had been sleeping in her bed?
-
Other officers who allegedly saw Sheila after DR Craig carried out his very brief examination, described the blood that was coming out from the corner of her mouth as running and leaking...
What you have got to remember is that Dr Craig, and PI Miller, made a false witness statement about Sheila only having one wound? So, which wound was that one then?
They may have meant that it had run and leaked. I don't think they used those actual words did they?
..............
No at least one police officer mentions in a witness statement that the blood running from the sides of Sheila's mouth...
-
You can tell by looking at the above photograph that June Bamber appears to have been laid face down after she died, and that whoever placed her on the floor next to the door, set her down there on her back - you can see the white patches where the legs had been in contact with a surface, and tell by the way her legs have started to discolor...
The white patches are indicative of blood drain during livor motis when the blood is fluid still but will start to settle according to gravity (more or less), youu can see the purple accumulation of blood in her calf....
however, blood will still flow and settle if moved during this stage (couple of hours) after that, the blood no longer flows with regard to position.
Basically you can't see anything from this pic, BUT it does support her being on her back. The white marks certainly don't suggest she's been on her front (IF she was on her front for over 2 hours after death)
-----------------------
How can you say that, there was no time of death given?
-
You can tell by looking at the above photograph that June Bamber appears to have been laid face down after she died, and that whoever placed her on the floor next to the door, set her down there on her back - you can see the white patches where the legs had been in contact with a surface, and tell by the way her legs have started to discolor...
The white patches are indicative of blood drain during livor motis when the blood is fluid still but will start to settle according to gravity (more or less), youu can see the purple accumulation of blood in her calf....
however, blood will still flow and settle if moved during this stage (couple of hours) after that, the blood no longer flows with regard to position.
Basically you can't see anything from this pic, BUT it does support her being on her back. The white marks certainly don't suggest she's been on her front (IF she was on her front for over 2 hours after death)
-----------------------
How can you say that, there was no time of death given?
Where have I made a single reference to TOD?
I make only observations on the effects of blood and skin tone after death.
Ultimately for a couple of hours after death, she could be in ANY position and the effects not be 'finalised'. After this, the effects start to become like a photograph and don't go away.
So again I ask, where do I mention or imply any time of death? or that the observations rely upon such? they don't.
-
According to JB,the conversation and sighting DID occur.JB possibly relied on it as part of his defence.However,at trial,pc Bews told of a slightly different version of events that did not back up JBs claims.I am not surprised by this at all!
So Bews said what he said later? That Myall saw a movement which turned out to be a trick of the light? Bews and Jeremy never saw anyone at all?
So much for all this racing back to the car story then.
-----------------------
Your account is inaccurate and misleading, since all three saw the figure at the bedroom window and it was no trick of light, or as the case may be, the moon reflecting on the glass of the bedroom window. They saw a person at the bedroom window, I have spoken to Jeremy about this on many occasions, there was a figure stood to the right hand side of the bedroom window, which stood there for about a minute or two, which caused the two police officers and Jeremy to duck behind a wall in the garden. Then the figure walked across the opening of the bedroom window, from right to left (as viewed from the vantage point of the police and Jeremy). As soon as the figure disappeared from right to left and out of sight, the two police officers and Jeremy set off racing out of the grounds back to the patrol car which was parked up in Pages Lane containing PS Saxby, and PC Myall passed a radio message to the incident room, updating them about what they had all just seen, and a request for the firearms team to be sent out to the scene...
I have asked Jeremy countless times, if he could identify the person they all saw, and Jeremy says not, it was just the silhouetted figure of a person, that was stood at the right side of the bedroom window, and then it walked across the window - it was definitely a person that they all saw, and as far as Jeremy is concerned it proved that someone was still very much alive inside the farmhouse at that stage...
A police record exists where PC Myall refers to having seen an unidentified male at the scene (whf) with no further information about the circumstances in which the sighting was made, but it is believed that it was the sighting of the person at the bedroom window. If Ture, the person they saw at the bedroom window was non other than Ralph Bamber...
-
How strange that no crime scene photograph of the bed allegedly slept in, was taken, or exists?
Unless of course they do and are in the "withheld" file?
--------------------------
in which case, why didn't the prosecution produce them at the trial to show that Sheila had been sleeping in her bed?
Why would they? What would it prove or disprove?
-
Well I don't agree with you. I think you're trying to make it fit with your own theories. There is nothing to indicate that June was on her stomach at any point. The top part of her legs would not have consistent white bits at all - more compression would be needed for that. Her legs are white at the top because the blood has drained to the lower parts - as per livor mortis.
Why on earth would June be on her stomach anyway?
You have absolutely no proof at all, that there is no evidence of livor mortis on the bottom part of her legs - you are speculating about something you cannot see...
Come off it - the picture shows livor mortis consistent with her being on her back for some time. You're the one speculating that there is livor mortis on the part of her legs nearest the floor, not me.
-
Other officers who allegedly saw Sheila after DR Craig carried out his very brief examination, described the blood that was coming out from the corner of her mouth as running and leaking...
What you have got to remember is that Dr Craig, and PI Miller, made a false witness statement about Sheila only having one wound? So, which wound was that one then?
They may have meant that it had run and leaked. I don't think they used those actual words did they?
..............
No at least one police officer mentions in a witness statement that the blood running from the sides of Sheila's mouth...
What were their exact words?
Dr Craig said it was dried blood.
-
According to JB,the conversation and sighting DID occur.JB possibly relied on it as part of his defence.However,at trial,pc Bews told of a slightly different version of events that did not back up JBs claims.I am not surprised by this at all!
So Bews said what he said later? That Myall saw a movement which turned out to be a trick of the light? Bews and Jeremy never saw anyone at all?
So much for all this racing back to the car story then.
-----------------------
Your account is inaccurate and misleading, since all three saw the figure at the bedroom window and it was no trick of light, or as the case may be, the moon reflecting on the glass of the bedroom window. They saw a person at the bedroom window, I have spoken to Jeremy about this on many occasions, there was a figure stood to the right hand side of the bedroom window, which stood there for about a minute or two, which caused the two police officers and Jeremy to duck behind a wall in the garden. Then the figure walked across the opening of the bedroom window, from right to left (as viewed from the vantage point of the police and Jeremy). As soon as the figure disappeared from right to left and out of sight, the two police officers and Jeremy set off racing out of the grounds back to the patrol car which was parked up in Pages Lane containing PS Saxby, and PC Myall passed a radio message to the incident room, updating them about what they had all just seen, and a request for the firearms team to be sent out to the scene...
I have asked Jeremy countless times, if he could identify the person they all saw, and Jeremy says not, it was just the silhouetted figure of a person, that was stood at the right side of the bedroom window, and then it walked across the window - it was definitely a person that they all saw, and as far as Jeremy is concerned it proved that someone was still very much alive inside the farmhouse at that stage...
A police record exists where PC Myall refers to having seen an unidentified male at the scene (whf) with no further information about the circumstances in which the sighting was made, but it is believed that it was the sighting of the person at the bedroom window. If Ture, the person they saw at the bedroom window was non other than Ralph Bamber...
It's not my account, it's PS Bews' account.
Are you seriously telling me that the one thing which could have acquitted Jeremy was not brought into evidence at the trial? Are you seriously telling me that the defence would not have quizzed PS Bews more and challenged him? Are you seriously telling me that the defence would not have asked PC Myall about it?
COME OFF IT!
-
You can tell by looking at the above photograph that June Bamber appears to have been laid face down after she died, and that whoever placed her on the floor next to the door, set her down there on her back - you can see the white patches where the legs had been in contact with a surface, and tell by the way her legs have started to discolor...
The white patches are indicative of blood drain during livor motis when the blood is fluid still but will start to settle according to gravity (more or less), youu can see the purple accumulation of blood in her calf....
however, blood will still flow and settle if moved during this stage (couple of hours) after that, the blood no longer flows with regard to position.
Basically you can't see anything from this pic, BUT it does support her being on her back. The white marks certainly don't suggest she's been on her front (IF she was on her front for over 2 hours after death)
-----------------------
How can you say that, there was no time of death given?
Where have I made a single reference to TOD?
I make only observations on the effects of blood and skin tone after death.
Ultimately for a couple of hours after death, she could be in ANY position and the effects not be 'finalised'. After this, the effects start to become like a photograph and don't go away.
So again I ask, where do I mention or imply any time of death? or that the observations rely upon such? they don't.
---------------------------------
There will be varying traces of livor mortis on the skin, which can give clues as to how many times the body was moved before it ended up in its final resting place. If you look at the picture which shows Junes legs, the blood in her legs does not appear to have settled all at the same time by a process of gravity, it is all over the place - I get the impression from looking at those images of her legs that she was laid face down at some point, on the quilt of the bed, and her feet were hanging over the edge of the bed, or not in contact with the quilt upon which the rest of her body was resting against...
The process of livor mortis commences after death in varying degrees of severity, your comments suggested that she had been dead about two hours and that the white patches on the top part of her legs was consistent with this view, but by the time PC Bird (SOC) took this particular photograph, one and a half hours had already elapsed since the raid team entered the house, and if Jeremy killed June and the others, June would have had to be there on the bedroom floor for at least seven hours or more...
There was no equivalent livor mortis on the skin of Sheila when PC Bird photographed her body there in that bedroom - so based upon your suggestion that livor mortis would start to develop or show after two hours, does this mean that Sheila did not die until after 8am?
-
Give it up.
Credibility just went right out of the window!
-
The issue of Sheila is a separate one - the photo of June does not indicate that she was on her stomach at any point in my opinion.
-
According to JB,the conversation and sighting DID occur.JB possibly relied on it as part of his defence.However,at trial,pc Bews told of a slightly different version of events that did not back up JBs claims.I am not surprised by this at all!
So Bews said what he said later? That Myall saw a movement which turned out to be a trick of the light? Bews and Jeremy never saw anyone at all?
So much for all this racing back to the car story then.
-----------------------
Your account is inaccurate and misleading, since all three saw the figure at the bedroom window and it was no trick of light, or as the case may be, the moon reflecting on the glass of the bedroom window. They saw a person at the bedroom window, I have spoken to Jeremy about this on many occasions, there was a figure stood to the right hand side of the bedroom window, which stood there for about a minute or two, which caused the two police officers and Jeremy to duck behind a wall in the garden. Then the figure walked across the opening of the bedroom window, from right to left (as viewed from the vantage point of the police and Jeremy). As soon as the figure disappeared from right to left and out of sight, the two police officers and Jeremy set off racing out of the grounds back to the patrol car which was parked up in Pages Lane containing PS Saxby, and PC Myall passed a radio message to the incident room, updating them about what they had all just seen, and a request for the firearms team to be sent out to the scene...
I have asked Jeremy countless times, if he could identify the person they all saw, and Jeremy says not, it was just the silhouetted figure of a person, that was stood at the right side of the bedroom window, and then it walked across the window - it was definitely a person that they all saw, and as far as Jeremy is concerned it proved that someone was still very much alive inside the farmhouse at that stage...
A police record exists where PC Myall refers to having seen an unidentified male at the scene (whf) with no further information about the circumstances in which the sighting was made, but it is believed that it was the sighting of the person at the bedroom window. If Ture, the person they saw at the bedroom window was non other than Ralph Bamber...
It's not my account, it's PS Bews' account.
Are you seriously telling me that the one thing which could have acquitted Jeremy was not brought into evidence at the trial? Are you seriously telling me that the defence would not have quizzed PS Bews more and challenged him? Are you seriously telling me that the defence would not have asked PC Myall about it?
COME OFF IT!
----------------------------
The account I have given is accurate - I cannot be held accountable for what Jeremy's legal team, may have done, or not done, at the trial...
-
According to JB,the conversation and sighting DID occur.JB possibly relied on it as part of his defence.However,at trial,pc Bews told of a slightly different version of events that did not back up JBs claims.I am not surprised by this at all!
So Bews said what he said later? That Myall saw a movement which turned out to be a trick of the light? Bews and Jeremy never saw anyone at all?
So much for all this racing back to the car story then.
-----------------------
Your account is inaccurate and misleading, since all three saw the figure at the bedroom window and it was no trick of light, or as the case may be, the moon reflecting on the glass of the bedroom window. They saw a person at the bedroom window, I have spoken to Jeremy about this on many occasions, there was a figure stood to the right hand side of the bedroom window, which stood there for about a minute or two, which caused the two police officers and Jeremy to duck behind a wall in the garden. Then the figure walked across the opening of the bedroom window, from right to left (as viewed from the vantage point of the police and Jeremy). As soon as the figure disappeared from right to left and out of sight, the two police officers and Jeremy set off racing out of the grounds back to the patrol car which was parked up in Pages Lane containing PS Saxby, and PC Myall passed a radio message to the incident room, updating them about what they had all just seen, and a request for the firearms team to be sent out to the scene...
I have asked Jeremy countless times, if he could identify the person they all saw, and Jeremy says not, it was just the silhouetted figure of a person, that was stood at the right side of the bedroom window, and then it walked across the window - it was definitely a person that they all saw, and as far as Jeremy is concerned it proved that someone was still very much alive inside the farmhouse at that stage...
A police record exists where PC Myall refers to having seen an unidentified male at the scene (whf) with no further information about the circumstances in which the sighting was made, but it is believed that it was the sighting of the person at the bedroom window. If Ture, the person they saw at the bedroom window was non other than Ralph Bamber...
It's not my account, it's PS Bews' account.
Are you seriously telling me that the one thing which could have acquitted Jeremy was not brought into evidence at the trial? Are you seriously telling me that the defence would not have quizzed PS Bews more and challenged him? Are you seriously telling me that the defence would not have asked PC Myall about it?
COME OFF IT!
----------------------------
The account I have given is accurate - I cannot be held accountable for what Jeremy's legal team, may have done, or not done, at the trial...
It's inconceivable that Jeremy would have let such an opportunity go. It was his main chance to prove that he didn't kill his family. I don't believe for one moment that he would not have made a big thing of it.
-
It's not my account, it's PS Bews' account.
Are you seriously telling me that the one thing which could have acquitted Jeremy was not brought into evidence at the trial? Are you seriously telling me that the defence would not have quizzed PS Bews more and challenged him? Are you seriously telling me that the defence would not have asked PC Myall about it?
COME OFF IT!
I just read the trial transcript of PC Myall's testimony and I am amazed the defence barrister did not ask him about the figure at the window.
-
It's not my account, it's PS Bews' account.
Are you seriously telling me that the one thing which could have acquitted Jeremy was not brought into evidence at the trial? Are you seriously telling me that the defence would not have quizzed PS Bews more and challenged him? Are you seriously telling me that the defence would not have asked PC Myall about it?
COME OFF IT!
I just read the trial transcript of PC Myall's testimony and I am amazed the defence barrister did not ask him about the figure at the window.
Exactly. It's absurd. It can't possibly have happend the way Mike claims or the defence would have made a HUGE thing of it.
-
The issue of Sheila is a separate one - the photo of June does not indicate that she was on her stomach at any point in my opinion.
------------------------
I disagree with your view, I think there is evidence in that photographs which shows that she was laid face down at some stage, with her feet not in contact with the quilt, they may have been hanging over the edge of the bed, and this is why the livor mortis shows up differently on those parts of her legs / feet...
Your view cannot be substantiated because you cannot see what colour the skin is on the bottom part of her legs, which is closest to the bedroom carpet...
-
The issue of Sheila is a separate one - the photo of June does not indicate that she was on her stomach at any point in my opinion.
------------------------
I disagree with your view, I think there is evidence in that photographs which shows that she was laid face down at some stage, with her feet not in contact with the quilt, they may have been hanging over the edge of the bed, and this is why the livor mortis shows up differently on those parts of her legs / feet...
Your view cannot be substantiated because you cannot see what colour the skin is on the bottom part of her legs, which is closest to the bedroom carpet...
Well I don't agree, so there's no point us discussing it. You are just making it up in my opinion.
-
According to JB,the conversation and sighting DID occur.JB possibly relied on it as part of his defence.However,at trial,pc Bews told of a slightly different version of events that did not back up JBs claims.I am not surprised by this at all!
So Bews said what he said later? That Myall saw a movement which turned out to be a trick of the light? Bews and Jeremy never saw anyone at all?
So much for all this racing back to the car story then.
-----------------------
Your account is inaccurate and misleading, since all three saw the figure at the bedroom window and it was no trick of light, or as the case may be, the moon reflecting on the glass of the bedroom window. They saw a person at the bedroom window, I have spoken to Jeremy about this on many occasions, there was a figure stood to the right hand side of the bedroom window, which stood there for about a minute or two, which caused the two police officers and Jeremy to duck behind a wall in the garden. Then the figure walked across the opening of the bedroom window, from right to left (as viewed from the vantage point of the police and Jeremy). As soon as the figure disappeared from right to left and out of sight, the two police officers and Jeremy set off racing out of the grounds back to the patrol car which was parked up in Pages Lane containing PS Saxby, and PC Myall passed a radio message to the incident room, updating them about what they had all just seen, and a request for the firearms team to be sent out to the scene...
I have asked Jeremy countless times, if he could identify the person they all saw, and Jeremy says not, it was just the silhouetted figure of a person, that was stood at the right side of the bedroom window, and then it walked across the window - it was definitely a person that they all saw, and as far as Jeremy is concerned it proved that someone was still very much alive inside the farmhouse at that stage...
A police record exists where PC Myall refers to having seen an unidentified male at the scene (whf) with no further information about the circumstances in which the sighting was made, but it is believed that it was the sighting of the person at the bedroom window. If Ture, the person they saw at the bedroom window was non other than Ralph Bamber...
It's not my account, it's PS Bews' account.
Are you seriously telling me that the one thing which could have acquitted Jeremy was not brought into evidence at the trial? Are you seriously telling me that the defence would not have quizzed PS Bews more and challenged him? Are you seriously telling me that the defence would not have asked PC Myall about it?
COME OFF IT!
----------------------------
The account I have given is accurate - I cannot be held accountable for what Jeremy's legal team, may have done, or not done, at the trial...
It's inconceivable that Jeremy would have let such an opportunity go. It was his main chance to prove that he didn't kill his family. I don't believe for one moment that he would not have made a big thing of it.
-----------------------------------
Jeremy was advised on how his case would be handled during the trial, it was out of Jeremy's hands or control...
The main thrust of his defense appears to have been to try and persuade the jury that the blood found in the silencer came from an intimate mixture of his parents bloods and that it was not Sheila's blood at all...
-
The issue of Sheila is a separate one - the photo of June does not indicate that she was on her stomach at any point in my opinion.
------------------------
I disagree with your view, I think there is evidence in that photographs which shows that she was laid face down at some stage, with her feet not in contact with the quilt, they may have been hanging over the edge of the bed, and this is why the livor mortis shows up differently on those parts of her legs / feet...
Your view cannot be substantiated because you cannot see what colour the skin is on the bottom part of her legs, which is closest to the bedroom carpet...
Well I don't agree, so there's no point us discussing it. You are just making it up in my opinion.
-----------------------
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not me making up your opinion, it is you...
-
According to JB,the conversation and sighting DID occur.JB possibly relied on it as part of his defence.However,at trial,pc Bews told of a slightly different version of events that did not back up JBs claims.I am not surprised by this at all!
So Bews said what he said later? That Myall saw a movement which turned out to be a trick of the light? Bews and Jeremy never saw anyone at all?
So much for all this racing back to the car story then.
-----------------------
Your account is inaccurate and misleading, since all three saw the figure at the bedroom window and it was no trick of light, or as the case may be, the moon reflecting on the glass of the bedroom window. They saw a person at the bedroom window, I have spoken to Jeremy about this on many occasions, there was a figure stood to the right hand side of the bedroom window, which stood there for about a minute or two, which caused the two police officers and Jeremy to duck behind a wall in the garden. Then the figure walked across the opening of the bedroom window, from right to left (as viewed from the vantage point of the police and Jeremy). As soon as the figure disappeared from right to left and out of sight, the two police officers and Jeremy set off racing out of the grounds back to the patrol car which was parked up in Pages Lane containing PS Saxby, and PC Myall passed a radio message to the incident room, updating them about what they had all just seen, and a request for the firearms team to be sent out to the scene...
I have asked Jeremy countless times, if he could identify the person they all saw, and Jeremy says not, it was just the silhouetted figure of a person, that was stood at the right side of the bedroom window, and then it walked across the window - it was definitely a person that they all saw, and as far as Jeremy is concerned it proved that someone was still very much alive inside the farmhouse at that stage...
A police record exists where PC Myall refers to having seen an unidentified male at the scene (whf) with no further information about the circumstances in which the sighting was made, but it is believed that it was the sighting of the person at the bedroom window. If Ture, the person they saw at the bedroom window was non other than Ralph Bamber...
It's not my account, it's PS Bews' account.
Are you seriously telling me that the one thing which could have acquitted Jeremy was not brought into evidence at the trial? Are you seriously telling me that the defence would not have quizzed PS Bews more and challenged him? Are you seriously telling me that the defence would not have asked PC Myall about it?
COME OFF IT!
----------------------------
The account I have given is accurate - I cannot be held accountable for what Jeremy's legal team, may have done, or not done, at the trial...
It's inconceivable that Jeremy would have let such an opportunity go. It was his main chance to prove that he didn't kill his family. I don't believe for one moment that he would not have made a big thing of it.
-----------------------------------
Jeremy was advised on how his case would be handled during the trial, it was out of Jeremy's hands or control...
The main thrust of his defense appears to h ave been to try and persuade the jury that the blood found in the silencer came from an intimate mixture of his parents bloods and that it was not Sheila's blood at all...
Nonsense. If he saw a figure at the window, he would have wanted it to be discussed at the trial. It would have been the one concrete piece of evidence that he didn't do it. It would have acquitted him!
-
The issue of Sheila is a separate one - the photo of June does not indicate that she was on her stomach at any point in my opinion.
------------------------
I disagree with your view, I think there is evidence in that photographs which shows that she was laid face down at some stage, with her feet not in contact with the quilt, they may have been hanging over the edge of the bed, and this is why the livor mortis shows up differently on those parts of her legs / feet...
Your view cannot be substantiated because you cannot see what colour the skin is on the bottom part of her legs, which is closest to the bedroom carpet...
Well I don't agree, so there's no point us discussing it. You are just making it up in my opinion.
-----------------------
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not me making up your opinion, it is you...
It's there! On the photograph - for everyone to see.
-
The issue of Sheila is a separate one - the photo of June does not indicate that she was on her stomach at any point in my opinion.
------------------------
I disagree with your view, I think there is evidence in that photographs which shows that she was laid face down at some stage, with her feet not in contact with the quilt, they may have been hanging over the edge of the bed, and this is why the livor mortis shows up differently on those parts of her legs / feet...
Your view cannot be substantiated because you cannot see what colour the skin is on the bottom part of her legs, which is closest to the bedroom carpet...
Well I don't agree, so there's no point us discussing it. You are just making it up in my opinion.
-----------------------
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not me making up your opinion, it is you...
It's there! On the photograph - for everyone to see.
----------------------
Yes, the white patches on the top part of her legs which got there as a result of compression when that part of her legs was resting against the fuddled up quilt of the bed, and her feet were overhanging the edge of the bed - producing those white areas on the top part of her legs, once she was repositioned by the bedroom door on her back...
Nothing could be clearer...
-
The issue of Sheila is a separate one - the photo of June does not indicate that she was on her stomach at any point in my opinion.
------------------------
I disagree with your view, I think there is evidence in that photographs which shows that she was laid face down at some stage, with her feet not in contact with the quilt, they may have been hanging over the edge of the bed, and this is why the livor mortis shows up differently on those parts of her legs / feet...
Your view cannot be substantiated because you cannot see what colour the skin is on the bottom part of her legs, which is closest to the bedroom carpet...
Well I don't agree, so there's no point us discussing it. You are just making it up in my opinion.
-----------------------
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not me making up your opinion, it is you...
It's there! On the photograph - for everyone to see.
----------------------
Yes, the white patches on the top part of her legs which got there as a result of compression when that part of her legs was resting against the fuddled up quilt of the bed, and her feet were overhanging the edge of the bed - producing those white areas on the top part of her legs, once she was repositioned by the bedroom door on her back...
Nothing could be clearer...
It shows nothing of the sort. That's just rubbish.
-
junes feet couldnt have hung off the edge of the bed, because there is a decorative railing at the end of the bed (unless im mistaken)
-
The issue of Sheila is a separate one - the photo of June does not indicate that she was on her stomach at any point in my opinion.
------------------------
I disagree with your view, I think there is evidence in that photographs which shows that she was laid face down at some stage, with her feet not in contact with the quilt, they may have been hanging over the edge of the bed, and this is why the livor mortis shows up differently on those parts of her legs / feet...
Your view cannot be substantiated because you cannot see what colour the skin is on the bottom part of her legs, which is closest to the bedroom carpet...
Well I don't agree, so there's no point us discussing it. You are just making it up in my opinion.
-----------------------
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not me making up your opinion, it is you...
It's there! On the photograph - for everyone to see.
----------------------
Yes, the white patches on the top part of her legs which got there as a result of compression when that part of her legs was resting against the fuddled up quilt of the bed, and her feet were overhanging the edge of the bed - producing those white areas on the top part of her legs, once she was repositioned by the bedroom door on her back...
Nothing could be clearer...
It shows nothing of the sort. That's just rubbish.
--------------------
It's not rubbish, you can't even see if there is any livor mortis on the back of the legs and you need there not to be any to back up what you are saying...
If anybodies talking rubbish, then it ain't me...
-
The issue of Sheila is a separate one - the photo of June does not indicate that she was on her stomach at any point in my opinion.
------------------------
I disagree with your view, I think there is evidence in that photographs which shows that she was laid face down at some stage, with her feet not in contact with the quilt, they may have been hanging over the edge of the bed, and this is why the livor mortis shows up differently on those parts of her legs / feet...
Your view cannot be substantiated because you cannot see what colour the skin is on the bottom part of her legs, which is closest to the bedroom carpet...
Well I don't agree, so there's no point us discussing it. You are just making it up in my opinion.
-----------------------
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not me making up your opinion, it is you...
It's there! On the photograph - for everyone to see.
----------------------
Yes, the white patches on the top part of her legs which got there as a result of compression when that part of her legs was resting against the fuddled up quilt of the bed, and her feet were overhanging the edge of the bed - producing those white areas on the top part of her legs, once she was repositioned by the bedroom door on her back...
Nothing could be clearer...
It shows nothing of the sort. That's just rubbish.
--------------------
It's not rubbish, you can't even see if there is any livor mortis on the back of the legs and you need there not to be any to back up what you are saying...
If anybodies talking rubbish, then it ain't me...
You can't see the back of her legs either! You're just speculating as usual and introducing red herrings.
-
Notice that there is not much or any blood on the soles of June Bambers feet...
Odd that - considering that according to the prosecutions case that she walked all over the place, and with so much blood on the bedroom carpet?
Puts the arguments about an apparent lack of blood on Sheila's feet, into some sort of perspective..
-
The issue of Sheila is a separate one - the photo of June does not indicate that she was on her stomach at any point in my opinion.
------------------------
I disagree with your view, I think there is evidence in that photographs which shows that she was laid face down at some stage, with her feet not in contact with the quilt, they may have been hanging over the edge of the bed, and this is why the livor mortis shows up differently on those parts of her legs / feet...
Your view cannot be substantiated because you cannot see what colour the skin is on the bottom part of her legs, which is closest to the bedroom carpet...
Well I don't agree, so there's no point us discussing it. You are just making it up in my opinion.
-----------------------
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not me making up your opinion, it is you...
It's there! On the photograph - for everyone to see.
----------------------
Yes, the white patches on the top part of her legs which got there as a result of compression when that part of her legs was resting against the fuddled up quilt of the bed, and her feet were overhanging the edge of the bed - producing those white areas on the top part of her legs, once she was repositioned by the bedroom door on her back...
Nothing could be clearer...
It shows nothing of the sort. That's just rubbish.
--------------------
It's not rubbish, you can't even see if there is any livor mortis on the back of the legs and you need there not to be any to back up what you are saying...
If anybodies talking rubbish, then it ain't me...
You can't see the back of her legs either! You're just speculating as usual and introducing red herrings.
thats exactly it, you can't see whats on the back of her legs, and you need to be able to see whats there to back up what you are saying. Now if you look carefully at Junes feet, you need to be explainining to me why the blood in the top part of her foot does not appear to have drained by the dynamics of gravity to the lowest part of her feet?
-
Notice that there is not much or any blood on the soles of June Bambers feet...
Odd that - considering that according to the prosecutions case that she walked all over the place, and with so much blood on the bedroom carpet?
Puts the arguments about an apparent lack of blood on Sheila's feet, into some sort of perspective..
Agreed - for once. It's not a close up shot but they don't look covered in blood.
-
The only way blood can settle at the top part of her feet as shown in the picture, is for June to have been laid face down, with her feet hanging over the edge of the bed...
In those circumstances, blood would run or drain to the lowest point in the foot, which would appear at the top part of the foot once the body was laid on its back at a later time...
At least in my opinion...
-
Notice that there is not much or any blood on the soles of June Bambers feet...
Odd that - considering that according to the prosecutions case that she walked all over the place, and with so much blood on the bedroom carpet?
Puts the arguments about an apparent lack of blood on Sheila's feet, into some sort of perspective..
Agreed - for once. It's not a close up shot but they don't look covered in blood.
---------------------------
How could June have walked about all over the place to account for the apparent distribution of her blood in many different parts of the bedroom, including underneath where the body of Sheila was eventually placed by the police, in time for PC Bird to photograph it there? It's puzzling...
Makes a nonsense of the argument that Sheila's feet were supposed to have been clean, as well...
-
Sheepskin rug photographed under body of Sheila by side of bed, was originally on the floor at the other side of the bed - so who moved it to the wrong side of the bed, before Sheila's body was placed or positioned upon it? Could it be that the reason the police were saying June Bambers blood was found on the carpet beneath Sheila's body was because that rug was on the other side of the bed when June got out of bed and she bled on it? Why move the sheepskin rug from one side of the bed to the other?
-
Notice that there is not much or any blood on the soles of June Bambers feet...
Odd that - considering that according to the prosecutions case that she walked all over the place, and with so much blood on the bedroom carpet?
Puts the arguments about an apparent lack of blood on Sheila's feet, into some sort of perspective..
Agreed - for once. It's not a close up shot but they don't look covered in blood.
---------------------------
How could June have walked about all over the place to account for the apparent distribution of her blood in many different parts of the bedroom, including underneath where the body of Sheila was eventually placed by the police, in time for PC Bird to photograph it there? It's puzzling...
Makes a nonsense of the argument that Sheila's feet were supposed to have been clean, as well...
Well now you've ruined it by claiming yet again that the body of Sheila was moved. I wish you could do a simple post without referring to one of your usual theories.
I guess June might have crawled around the room. It's not possible to tell really.
Still, it's a good point as is the apparent lack of livor mortis in the photos of Sheila. Perhaps the angle of the photos is wrong though.
-
Sheepskin rug photographed under body of Sheila by side of bed, was originally on the floor at the other side of the bed - so who moved it to the wrong side of the bed, before Sheila's body was placed or positioned upon it? Could it be that the reason the police were saying June Bambers blood was found on the carpet beneath Sheila's body was because that rug was on the other side of the bed when June got out of bed and she bled on it? Why move the sheepskin rug from one side of the bed to the other?
Who says the rug was on the other side of the bed?
-
There's also some kind of eiderdown on the floor next to June's side of the bed, so she wouldn't have bled on a rug anyway.
-
Notice that there is not much or any blood on the soles of June Bambers feet...
Odd that - considering that according to the prosecutions case that she walked all over the place, and with so much blood on the bedroom carpet?
Puts the arguments about an apparent lack of blood on Sheila's feet, into some sort of perspective..
Agreed - for once. It's not a close up shot but they don't look covered in blood.
---------------------------
How could June have walked about all over the place to account for the apparent distribution of her blood in many different parts of the bedroom, including underneath where the body of Sheila was eventually placed by the police, in time for PC Bird to photograph it there? It's puzzling...
Makes a nonsense of the argument that Sheila's feet were supposed to have been clean, as well...
Well now you've ruined it by claiming yet again that the body of Sheila was moved. I wish you could do a simple post without referring to one of your usual theories.
I guess June might have crawled around the room. It's not possible to tell really.
Still, it's a good point as is the apparent lack of livor mortis in the photos of Sheila. Perhaps the angle of the photos is wrong though.
------------------------------
There is evidence that Sheila's body was moved, and that the gun and the bible was moved - there is also evidence that at least 8 negatives which were pictures taken of Sheila's body in the bedroom that are missing and unaccounted for, in the grand sequence of things...
Why are these negatives missing?
Why do Essex police and the DPP /CPS refuse to say what happened to these negatives / pictures they took of Sheila?
They moved her from the bed onto the floor, which in time will be proven and established, a fact that I am convinced of...
-
There's also some kind of eiderdown on the floor next to June's side of the bed, so she wouldn't have bled on a rug anyway.
------------------------
Quilt is on floor by 10 O'clock because police moved it off bed to examine bed for evidence - they put it on the floor next to the bed...
So, June did / could have bled on the sheepskin rug on that side of the bed...
In my opinion...
-
Notice that there is not much or any blood on the soles of June Bambers feet...
Odd that - considering that according to the prosecutions case that she walked all over the place, and with so much blood on the bedroom carpet?
Puts the arguments about an apparent lack of blood on Sheila's feet, into some sort of perspective..
Agreed - for once. It's not a close up shot but they don't look covered in blood.
---------------------------
How could June have walked about all over the place to account for the apparent distribution of her blood in many different parts of the bedroom, including underneath where the body of Sheila was eventually placed by the police, in time for PC Bird to photograph it there? It's puzzling...
Makes a nonsense of the argument that Sheila's feet were supposed to have been clean, as well...
Well now you've ruined it by claiming yet again that the body of Sheila was moved. I wish you could do a simple post without referring to one of your usual theories.
I guess June might have crawled around the room. It's not possible to tell really.
Still, it's a good point as is the apparent lack of livor mortis in the photos of Sheila. Perhaps the angle of the photos is wrong though.
------------------------------
There is evidence that Sheila's body was moved, and that the gun and the bible was moved - there is also evidence that at least 8 negatives which were pictures taken of Sheila's body in the bedroom that are missing and unaccounted for, in the grand sequence of things...
Why are these negatives missing?
Why do Essex police and the DPP /CPS refuse to say what happened to these negatives / pictures they took of Sheila?
They moved her from the bed onto the floor, which in time will be proven and established, a fact that I am convinced of...
This has been covered time and time again ...
-
There's also some kind of eiderdown on the floor next to June's side of the bed, so she wouldn't have bled on a rug anyway.
------------------------
Quilt is on floor by 10 O'clock because police moved it off bed to examine bed for evidence - they put it on the floor next to the bed...
So, June did / could have bled on the sheepskin rug on that side of the bed...
In my opinion...
There is also a rug on the floor on June's side of the bed ... it looks similar to the one Sheila is lying on.
-
There's also some kind of eiderdown on the floor next to June's side of the bed, so she wouldn't have bled on a rug anyway.
------------------------
Quilt is on floor by 10 O'clock because police moved it off bed to examine bed for evidence - they put it on the floor next to the bed...
So, June did / could have bled on the sheepskin rug on that side of the bed...
In my opinion...
There is also a rug on the floor on June's side of the bed ... it looks similar to the one Sheila is lying on.
------------------------
The same one...
-
There's also some kind of eiderdown on the floor next to June's side of the bed, so she wouldn't have bled on a rug anyway.
------------------------
Quilt is on floor by 10 O'clock because police moved it off bed to examine bed for evidence - they put it on the floor next to the bed...
So, June did / could have bled on the sheepskin rug on that side of the bed...
In my opinion...
There is also a rug on the floor on June's side of the bed ... it looks similar to the one Sheila is lying on.
------------------------
The same one...
Or maybe there were two rugs - one each side of the bed.
Do you have evidence that it's the same rug?
-
And then, of course there is the blood all over the front of June Bambers nightdress, which was duplicated on the the bottom sheet of the bed - an important exhibit, that was scientifically examined at the Lab' but the results were withheld, and the sheet destroyed by Essex police...
-
There's also some kind of eiderdown on the floor next to June's side of the bed, so she wouldn't have bled on a rug anyway.
------------------------
Quilt is on floor by 10 O'clock because police moved it off bed to examine bed for evidence - they put it on the floor next to the bed...
So, June did / could have bled on the sheepskin rug on that side of the bed...
In my opinion...
There is also a rug on the floor on June's side of the bed ... it looks similar to the one Sheila is lying on.
------------------------
The same one...
Or maybe there were two rugs - one each side of the bed.
Do you have evidence that it's the same rug?
------------------
same rug, yes...
-
And then, of course there is the blood all over the front of June Bambers nightdress, which was duplicated on the the bottom sheet of the bed - an important exhibit, that was scientifically examined at the Lab' but the results were withheld, and the sheet destroyed by Essex police...
You don't have evidence that a rug was moved then. I thought not ...
-
There's also some kind of eiderdown on the floor next to June's side of the bed, so she wouldn't have bled on a rug anyway.
------------------------
Quilt is on floor by 10 O'clock because police moved it off bed to examine bed for evidence - they put it on the floor next to the bed...
So, June did / could have bled on the sheepskin rug on that side of the bed...
In my opinion...
There is also a rug on the floor on June's side of the bed ... it looks similar to the one Sheila is lying on.
------------------------
The same one...
Or maybe there were two rugs - one each side of the bed.
Do you have evidence that it's the same rug?
------------------
same rug, yes...
Where's the evidence of that?
-
And then, of course there is the blood all over the front of June Bambers nightdress, which was duplicated on the the bottom sheet of the bed - an important exhibit, that was scientifically examined at the Lab' but the results were withheld, and the sheet destroyed by Essex police...
You don't have evidence that a rug was moved then. I thought not ...
--------------------------------
Only one sheepskin rug as an exhibit during first case (SC/688/85)...
-
And then, of course there is the blood all over the front of June Bambers nightdress, which was duplicated on the the bottom sheet of the bed - an important exhibit, that was scientifically examined at the Lab' but the results were withheld, and the sheet destroyed by Essex police...
You don't have evidence that a rug was moved then. I thought not ...
--------------------------------
Only one sheepskin rug as an exhibit during first case (SC/688/85)...
And?
-
And then, of course there is the blood all over the front of June Bambers nightdress, which was duplicated on the the bottom sheet of the bed - an important exhibit, that was scientifically examined at the Lab' but the results were withheld, and the sheet destroyed by Essex police...
You don't have evidence that a rug was moved then. I thought not ...
--------------------------------
Only one sheepskin rug as an exhibit during first case (SC/688/85)...
And?
-------------------
it had blood type AK 2-1 upon it - multiple spots of blood (supposedly found beneath body of Sheila on other side of bed)...
-
How do you think blood smears on the front side of June Bambers nightdress got there, which are absent on the back?
-
And then, of course there is the blood all over the front of June Bambers nightdress, which was duplicated on the the bottom sheet of the bed - an important exhibit, that was scientifically examined at the Lab' but the results were withheld, and the sheet destroyed by Essex police...
You don't have evidence that a rug was moved then. I thought not ...
--------------------------------
Only one sheepskin rug as an exhibit during first case (SC/688/85)...
And?
-------------------
it had blood type AK 2-1 upon it - multiple spots of blood (supposedly found beneath body of Sheila on other side of bed)...
Well I've heard that June went up that side of the bed - I've been wondering why.
-
And then, of course there is the blood all over the front of June Bambers nightdress, which was duplicated on the the bottom sheet of the bed - an important exhibit, that was scientifically examined at the Lab' but the results were withheld, and the sheet destroyed by Essex police...
You don't have evidence that a rug was moved then. I thought not ...
--------------------------------
Only one sheepskin rug as an exhibit during first case (SC/688/85)...
And?
-------------------
it had blood type AK 2-1 upon it - multiple spots of blood (supposedly found beneath body of Sheila on other side of bed)...
Well I've heard that June went up that side of the bed - I've been wondering why.
-----------------------------
I don't think June went up along that side of the bed, they just moved the sheepskin rug with her blood on it, from one side of the bed, to the other, before they laid out Sheila's body on top of it...
in my opinion...
-
And then, of course there is the blood all over the front of June Bambers nightdress, which was duplicated on the the bottom sheet of the bed - an important exhibit, that was scientifically examined at the Lab' but the results were withheld, and the sheet destroyed by Essex police...
You don't have evidence that a rug was moved then. I thought not ...
--------------------------------
Only one sheepskin rug as an exhibit during first case (SC/688/85)...
And?
-------------------
it had blood type AK 2-1 upon it - multiple spots of blood (supposedly found beneath body of Sheila on other side of bed)...
Well I've heard that June went up that side of the bed - I've been wondering why.
-----------------------------
I don't think June went up along that side of the bed, they just moved the sheepskin rug with her blood on it, from one side of the bed, to the other, before they laid out Sheila's body on top of it...
in my opinion...
For what reason?
What about the rest of the blood all over the floor? I thought that was supposed to be June's.
-
Why would the police TAKE photos of incriminating evidence then have to hide them?
oh wait, they didn't realise it would be incriminating at the time eh?
They thought they'd take photos of someone on a bed, then move her (cos they really wanted the bed situation 'hush hush' but a photo for posterity?)
The way it's being told at the moment, June and Sheila covered more bloody (literally) floorspace than Strictly Come Dancing's entire season and assumed more positions than the Karma Sutra.
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
None took place, it's a total myth.
I'm waiting for somebody to come forward with ONE other documented case of a murder where some reenactment took place with the bodies still in situ.
It beggars belief.
A week later? retracing footsteps? yes, perfectly believable.
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
None took place, it's a total myth.
I'm waiting for somebody to come forward with ONE other documented case of a murder where some reenactment took place with the bodies still in situ.
It beggars belief.
A week later? retracing footsteps? yes, perfectly believable.
OK, but does anyone know what the term "informatives" means in this context?
And does anyone have some idea why so many more officers traipsed through the house than EP were prepared to admit? Unless that is a myth, also . . .
We did have a legal librarian taking an interest in this case, with ballistics experts among her friends, if I recall correctly, so it is just possible that there is someone in the forum who has friends or family in the police force who could explain this, and that's really what I am interested in (TBM, if you're one of them, I apologise, but in your post you are essentially asking the question which I posed, albeit in a different way).
My understanding is that EP's investigation was below standard even for the day; if it's true that a member of the press was invited into the house to take official photographs at 9am, something which I am not sure happened, I admit, then it's not so difficult to imagine that they would have been capable of other unusual behaviour . . . which could at least account for EP's reluctance to release certain pieces of evidence to JB's solicitors. OK, they provided one solicitor with a photographic album perhaps not previously disclosed but they did not allow him to use it, so it was information they presumably considered an embarrassment of some sort).
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
I'm not sure about the press thing at all.
I think the negligence of EP is without question (but in my view, probably from good intention). They just took everything as read, suicide, and so they simply assumed the gun at the scene was 'the weapon' and did a bare minimum gathering of evidence.
They didn't do NOTHING though, they did a reasonable amount, but nowhere near what they would have done had they just found the bodies (without this suicide being put in their heads).
To me is just seemed a case of "Right, we see what's happened here, get what you need lads, then get it tidied up... poor cow's shot herself... shocking innit?"... and the rest is history.
None took place, it's a total myth.
I'm waiting for somebody to come forward with ONE other documented case of a murder where some reenactment took place with the bodies still in situ.
It beggars belief.
A week later? retracing footsteps? yes, perfectly believable.
OK, but does anyone know what the term "informatives" means in this context?
And does anyone have some idea why so many more officers traipsed through the house than EP were prepared to admit? Unless that is a myth, also . . .
We did have a legal librarian taking an interest in this case, with ballistics experts among her friends, if I recall correctly, so it is just possible that there is someone in the forum who has friends or family in the police force who could explain this, and that's really what I am interested in (TBM, if you're one of them, I apologise, but in your post you are essentially asking the question which I posed, albeit in a different way).
My understanding is that EP's investigation was below standard even for the day; if it's true that a member of the press was invited into the house to take official photographs at 9am, something which I am not sure happened, I admit, then it's not so difficult to imagine that they would have been capable of other unusual behaviour . . . which could at least account for EP's reluctance to release certain pieces of evidence to JB's solicitors. OK, they provided one solicitor with a photographic album perhaps not previously disclosed but they did not allow him to use it, so it was information they presumably considered an embarrassment of some sort).
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
None took place, it's a total myth.
I'm waiting for somebody to come forward with ONE other documented case of a murder where some reenactment took place with the bodies still in situ.
It beggars belief.
A week later? retracing footsteps? yes, perfectly believable.
I agree. I simply can't imagine a situation where some police who had been sitting outside would be called into a house with bodies everywhere in order to be trained because the first lot did it wrong.
-
Why would the police TAKE photos of incriminating evidence then have to hide them?
oh wait, they didn't realise it would be incriminating at the time eh?
They thought they'd take photos of someone on a bed, then move her (cos they really wanted the bed situation 'hush hush' but a photo for posterity?)
The way it's being told at the moment, June and Sheila covered more bloody (literally) floorspace than Strictly Come Dancing's entire season and assumed more positions than the Karma Sutra.
---------------------
Joke all you want about it, but this is a serious situation - I see what the tactic is here, try to ridicule what took place as some sort of a joke...
-
Why would the police TAKE photos of incriminating evidence then have to hide them?
oh wait, they didn't realise it would be incriminating at the time eh?
They thought they'd take photos of someone on a bed, then move her (cos they really wanted the bed situation 'hush hush' but a photo for posterity?)
The way it's being told at the moment, June and Sheila covered more bloody (literally) floorspace than Strictly Come Dancing's entire season and assumed more positions than the Karma Sutra.
---------------------
Joke all you want about it, but this is a serious situation - I see what the tactic is here, try to ridicule what took place as some sort of a joke...
I don't think he's doing that. It's just that there have been so many theories about bodies being moved and people moving around the house it's impossible to understand it.
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
None took place, it's a total myth.
I'm waiting for somebody to come forward with ONE other documented case of a murder where some reenactment took place with the bodies still in situ.
It beggars belief.
A week later? retracing footsteps? yes, perfectly believable.
-----------------------
It did take place, and you are misleading anyone and everyone by suggesting that such an exercise did not take place - police records now in the possession of Jeremy confirm that such an exercise did take place...
When the truth comes out, you will eat your words regarding this matter, and your comments...
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
None took place, it's a total myth.
I'm waiting for somebody to come forward with ONE other documented case of a murder where some reenactment took place with the bodies still in situ.
It beggars belief.
A week later? retracing footsteps? yes, perfectly believable.
-----------------------
It did take place, and you are misleading anyone and everyone by suggesting that such an exercise did not take place - police records now in the possession of Jeremy confirm that such an exercise did take place...
When the truth comes out, you will eat your words regarding this matter, and your comments...
Well without that evidence, I don't blame people for thinking it didn't happen. It sounds extremely unlikely to me as well.
-
Why would the police TAKE photos of incriminating evidence then have to hide them?
oh wait, they didn't realise it would be incriminating at the time eh?
They thought they'd take photos of someone on a bed, then move her (cos they really wanted the bed situation 'hush hush' but a photo for posterity?)
The way it's being told at the moment, June and Sheila covered more bloody (literally) floorspace than Strictly Come Dancing's entire season and assumed more positions than the Karma Sutra.
---------------------
Joke all you want about it, but this is a serious situation - I see what the tactic is here, try to ridicule what took place as some sort of a joke...
I don't think he's doing that. It's just that there have been so many theories about bodies being moved and people moving around the house it's impossible to understand it.
----------------------
There's nothing complicated about it - the police stage managed the scene...
and they blamed Jeremy for doing what the police, themselves did...
Police stage managed scene to promote the idea that Sheila took her own life, in circumstances that were different to how she actually may have taken her own life...
-
Why would the police TAKE photos of incriminating evidence then have to hide them?
oh wait, they didn't realise it would be incriminating at the time eh?
They thought they'd take photos of someone on a bed, then move her (cos they really wanted the bed situation 'hush hush' but a photo for posterity?)
The way it's being told at the moment, June and Sheila covered more bloody (literally) floorspace than Strictly Come Dancing's entire season and assumed more positions than the Karma Sutra.
---------------------
Joke all you want about it, but this is a serious situation - I see what the tactic is here, try to ridicule what took place as some sort of a joke...
I don't think he's doing that. It's just that there have been so many theories about bodies being moved and people moving around the house it's impossible to understand it.
----------------------
There's nothing complicated about it - the police stage managed the scene...
and they blamed Jeremy for doing what the police, themselves did...
Police stage managed scene to promote the idea that Sheila took her own life...
Of course it's complicated. There have been theories about June walking round the room, lying on her front, lying on her back, being propped up against the door ....
Sheila's been in the kitchen, on the bed, on the floor next to the bed, with the gun, without the gun, with the Bible, without the Bible ....
-
Police stage managed scene to promote the idea that Sheila took her own life, in circumstances that were different to how she actually may have taken her own life...
Why? To serve what purpose?
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
None took place, it's a total myth.
I'm waiting for somebody to come forward with ONE other documented case of a murder where some reenactment took place with the bodies still in situ.
It beggars belief.
A week later? retracing footsteps? yes, perfectly believable.
-----------------------
It did take place, and you are misleading anyone and everyone by suggesting that such an exercise did not take place - police records now in the possession of Jeremy confirm that such an exercise did take place...
When the truth comes out, you will eat your words regarding this matter, and your comments...
Well without that evidence, I don't blame people for thinking it didn't happen. It sounds extremely unlikely to me as well.
------------------------
You are asking me to post the evidence that proves that such an exercise did take place, against Jeremy's instructions. I have assured him that I will leave that part of his case to him, and his legal team, but I would direct you to information that was published in a national newspaper, where Jeremy accuses Essex police of using the bodies of his family, as "props", during a training exercise, when these events did take place, between (a) 9am and 9:22am, and (b) between 10:35am and 11:35am...
Why would Jeremy be informing the press that such an exercise did take place, if it had not?
Think about it, Do you not think that Jeremy would have some proof about this, before he informed the press?
Why would Jeremy put himself in such a position, without any evidence in his possesion to back up what he is claiming?
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
None took place, it's a total myth.
I'm waiting for somebody to come forward with ONE other documented case of a murder where some reenactment took place with the bodies still in situ.
It beggars belief.
A week later? retracing footsteps? yes, perfectly believable.
-----------------------
It did take place, and you are misleading anyone and everyone by suggesting that such an exercise did not take place - police records now in the possession of Jeremy confirm that such an exercise did take place...
When the truth comes out, you will eat your words regarding this matter, and your comments...
Well without that evidence, I don't blame people for thinking it didn't happen. It sounds extremely unlikely to me as well.
------------------------
You are asking me to post the evidence that proves that such an exercise did take place, against Jeremy's instructions. I have assured him that I will leave that part of his case to him, and his legal team, but I would direct you to information that was published in a national newspaper, where Jeremy accuses Essex police of using the bodies of his family, as "props", during a training exercise, when these events did take place, between (a) 9am and 9:22am, and (b) between 10:35am and 11:35am...
Why would Jeremy be informing the press that such an exercise did take place, if it had not?
Think about it, Do you not think that Jeremy would have some proof about this, before he informed the press?
Why would Jeremy put himself in such a position, without any evidence in his opossesion to back up what he is claiming?
Well look, the CCRC rejected his appeal so why would they do that if he had proof that Sheila was alive in the kitchen and then went upstairs and killed herself on the bed?
-
Why would Jeremy be informing the press that such an exercise did take place, if it had not?
Think about it, Do you not think that Jeremy would have some proof about this, before he informed the press?
Why would Jeremy put himself in such a position, without any evidence in his opossesion to back up what he is claiming?
Well he told the press that Nevill called the police, there's no evidence to back that up either.
(not that I want to enter that particular topic again, that's been discussed to death in ever decreasing circles).
-
Why would the police TAKE photos of incriminating evidence then have to hide them?
oh wait, they didn't realise it would be incriminating at the time eh?
They thought they'd take photos of someone on a bed, then move her (cos they really wanted the bed situation 'hush hush' but a photo for posterity?)
The way it's being told at the moment, June and Sheila covered more bloody (literally) floorspace than Strictly Come Dancing's entire season and assumed more positions than the Karma Sutra.
---------------------
Joke all you want about it, but this is a serious situation - I see what the tactic is here, try to ridicule what took place as some sort of a joke...
I don't think he's doing that. It's just that there have been so many theories about bodies being moved and people moving around the house it's impossible to understand it.
----------------------
There's nothing complicated about it - the police stage managed the scene...
and they blamed Jeremy for doing what the police, themselves did...
Police stage managed scene to promote the idea that Sheila took her own life...
Of course it's complicated. There have been theories about June walking round the room, lying on her front, lying on her back, being propped up against the door ....
Sheila's been in the kitchen, on the bed, on the floor next to the bed, with the gun, without the gun, with the Bible, without the Bible ....
------------------
Stop trying to muddy the waters, Sheila was originally found downstairs, mistakenly presumed to be dead, she regained consciousness and fled upstairs and ended up dead in the main bedroom. The police moved her body from the bed to the bedroom floor, and they planted the rifle on her body and took pictures - there is nothing remotely complicated about it. This is what happened, and this is what the police did to cover up for the fact that they made a serious mistake, which led to Sheila's death in the bedroom - she need not have died at all in the bedroom, but she did die there because the police got it wrong about her suicide in the kitchen earlier...
Nothing too complicated about that...
In my opinion...
-
If Jeremy and his team had such evidence, they'd not be risking it by telling you (and you coming on here telling us, and potentially compromising his case)
I believe they might tell you of some things, but nothing that is THAT astonishing that it's prove beyond doubt he's innocent.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but if I was an innocent man and had such evidence that would clear me I'd do one of two things...
1) Shout it from the rooftops and publicise it for the world to see
2) Keep it incredibly secret, because I wouldn't dare risk compromising my defence prior it being heard.
I just wouldn't be telling (even a good friend) who runs a web forum about it.
-
Why would Jeremy be informing the press that such an exercise did take place, if it had not?
Think about it, Do you not think that Jeremy would have some proof about this, before he informed the press?
Why would Jeremy put himself in such a position, without any evidence in his opossesion to back up what he is claiming?
Well he told the press that Nevill called the police, there's no evidence to back that up either.
(not that I want to enter that particular topic again, that's been discussed to death in ever decreasing circles).
--------------------
Of course there's evidence that Neville called the police - Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, and Ralph owned the rifle that the police photographed on Sheila's body - why would Jeremy be informing the police at 3:26am that his "daughter" had got one of "his guns", and that she was going berserk?
Such a police record exists, and contains the details I am referring to, so there is evidence, which exists - it might not suit your view of what took place, but nevertheless, such evidence does exist...
In my opinion...
-
Why would Jeremy be informing the press that such an exercise did take place, if it had not?
Think about it, Do you not think that Jeremy would have some proof about this, before he informed the press?
Why would Jeremy put himself in such a position, without any evidence in his opossesion to back up what he is claiming?
Well he told the press that Nevill called the police, there's no evidence to back that up either.
(not that I want to enter that particular topic again, that's been discussed to death in ever decreasing circles).
--------------------
Of course there's evidence that Neville called the police - Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, and Ralph owned the rifle that the police photographed on Sheila's body - why would Jeremy be informing the police at 3:26am that his "daughter" had got one of "his guns", and that she was going berserk?
Such a police record exists, and contains the details I am referring to, so there is evidence, which exists - it might not suit your view of what took place, but nevertheless, such evidence does exist...
In my opinion...
We've done this one and we disagree.
-
Why would the police TAKE photos of incriminating evidence then have to hide them?
oh wait, they didn't realise it would be incriminating at the time eh?
They thought they'd take photos of someone on a bed, then move her (cos they really wanted the bed situation 'hush hush' but a photo for posterity?)
The way it's being told at the moment, June and Sheila covered more bloody (literally) floorspace than Strictly Come Dancing's entire season and assumed more positions than the Karma Sutra.
---------------------
Joke all you want about it, but this is a serious situation - I see what the tactic is here, try to ridicule what took place as some sort of a joke...
I don't think he's doing that. It's just that there have been so many theories about bodies being moved and people moving around the house it's impossible to understand it.
----------------------
There's nothing complicated about it - the police stage managed the scene...
and they blamed Jeremy for doing what the police, themselves did...
Police stage managed scene to promote the idea that Sheila took her own life...
Of course it's complicated. There have been theories about June walking round the room, lying on her front, lying on her back, being propped up against the door ....
Sheila's been in the kitchen, on the bed, on the floor next to the bed, with the gun, without the gun, with the Bible, without the Bible ....
------------------
Stop trying to muddy the waters, Sheila was originally found downstairs, mistakenly presumed to be dead, she regained consciousness and fled upstairs and ended up dead in the main bedroom. The police moved her body from the bed to the bedroom floor, and they planted the rifle on her body and took pictures - there is nothing remotely complicated about it. This is what happened, and this is what the police did to cover up for the fact that they made a serious mistake, which led to Sheila's death in the bedroom - she need not have died at all in the bedroom, but she did die there because the police got it wrong about her suicide in the kitchen earlier...
Nothing too complicated about that...
In my opinion...
You're the one claiming that Sheila shot herself in the kitchen and managed to get upstairs to shoot herself again without anyone noticing, and then they pretended she killed herself to cover up the fact that she killed herself, and you're accusing me of muddying the waters? ???
-
If Jeremy and his team had such evidence, they'd not be risking it by telling you (and you coming on here telling us, and potentially compromising his case)
I believe they might tell you of some things, but nothing that is THAT astonishing that it's prove beyond doubt he's innocent.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but if I was an innocent man and had such evidence that would clear me I'd do one of two things...
1) Shout it from the rooftops and publicise it for the world to see
2) Keep it incredibly secret, because I wouldn't dare risk compromising my defence prior it being heard.
I just wouldn't be telling (even a good friend) who runs a web forum about it.
One would also expect him to appeal on the grounds that the police hid the fact that Sheila was alive in the house when they got in. If he has done so, then surely the CCRC wouldn't have rejected the appeal.
-
Why would Jeremy be informing the press that such an exercise did take place, if it had not?
Think about it, Do you not think that Jeremy would have some proof about this, before he informed the press?
Why would Jeremy put himself in such a position, without any evidence in his opossesion to back up what he is claiming?
Well he told the press that Nevill called the police, there's no evidence to back that up either.
(not that I want to enter that particular topic again, that's been discussed to death in ever decreasing circles).
Exactly ...
-
If Jeremy and his team had such evidence, they'd not be risking it by telling you (and you coming on here telling us, and potentially compromising his case)
I believe they might tell you of some things, but nothing that is THAT astonishing that it's prove beyond doubt he's innocent.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but if I was an innocent man and had such evidence that would clear me I'd do one of two things...
1) Shout it from the rooftops and publicise it for the world to see
2) Keep it incredibly secret, because I wouldn't dare risk compromising my defence prior it being heard.
I just wouldn't be telling (even a good friend) who runs a web forum about it.
-------------------------------------
With respect, which is why he has produced the evidence to the press - and why they chose to report about it...
Such an exercise did take place, and Essex police and the DPP / CPS, know that such an exercise did take place. It is not for me to have to prove that it took place, I will leave it to Jeremy to prove that as and when the moment arises. So, your attempt to try and ridicule me, in some way, is meaningless and pointless, why don't you have a go at the press who published the article, and to whom Jeremy has already made available to them the evidence upon which his claim is based?
I think its rather pathetic that you keep trying to suggest that the police would not lie, and that everybody and anybody connected with the case, must have all conspired together with a view to getting an innocent man convicted for crimes he did not and could not have committed...
In my opinion, people who hold such views as you do, do not live in the real world, where such things do often happen...
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
None took place, it's a total myth.
I'm waiting for somebody to come forward with ONE other documented case of a murder where some reenactment took place with the bodies still in situ.
It beggars belief.
A week later? retracing footsteps? yes, perfectly believable.
-----------------------
It did take place, and you are misleading anyone and everyone by suggesting that such an exercise did not take place - police records now in the possession of Jeremy confirm that such an exercise did take place...
When the truth comes out, you will eat your words regarding this matter, and your comments...
Well without that evidence, I don't blame people for thinking it didn't happen. It sounds extremely unlikely to me as well.
------------------------
You are asking me to post the evidence that proves that such an exercise did take place, against Jeremy's instructions. I have assured him that I will leave that part of his case to him, and his legal team, but I would direct you to information that was published in a national newspaper, where Jeremy accuses Essex police of using the bodies of his family, as "props", during a training exercise, when these events did take place, between (a) 9am and 9:22am, and (b) between 10:35am and 11:35am...
Why would Jeremy be informing the press that such an exercise did take place, if it had not?
Think about it, Do you not think that Jeremy would have some proof about this, before he informed the press?
Why would Jeremy put himself in such a position, without any evidence in his opossesion to back up what he is claiming?
Well look, the CCRC rejected his appeal so why would they do that if he had proof that Sheila was alive in the kitchen and then went upstairs and killed herself on the bed?
-------------------------
Hang on a minute, CCRC have not fully rejected his application - its only a provisional decision...
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
None took place, it's a total myth.
I'm waiting for somebody to come forward with ONE other documented case of a murder where some reenactment took place with the bodies still in situ.
It beggars belief.
A week later? retracing footsteps? yes, perfectly believable.
-----------------------
It did take place, and you are misleading anyone and everyone by suggesting that such an exercise did not take place - police records now in the possession of Jeremy confirm that such an exercise did take place...
When the truth comes out, you will eat your words regarding this matter, and your comments...
Well without that evidence, I don't blame people for thinking it didn't happen. It sounds extremely unlikely to me as well.
------------------------
You are asking me to post the evidence that proves that such an exercise did take place, against Jeremy's instructions. I have assured him that I will leave that part of his case to him, and his legal team, but I would direct you to information that was published in a national newspaper, where Jeremy accuses Essex police of using the bodies of his family, as "props", during a training exercise, when these events did take place, between (a) 9am and 9:22am, and (b) between 10:35am and 11:35am...
Why would Jeremy be informing the press that such an exercise did take place, if it had not?
Think about it, Do you not think that Jeremy would have some proof about this, before he informed the press?
Why would Jeremy put himself in such a position, without any evidence in his opossesion to back up what he is claiming?
Well look, the CCRC rejected his appeal so why would they do that if he had proof that Sheila was alive in the kitchen and then went upstairs and killed herself on the bed?
-------------------------
Hang on a minute, CCRC have not fully rejected his application - its only a provisional decision...
Well if there was evidence that the police ignored an injured person and then allowed her to shoot herself, and evidence that the police covered that up, I think an appeal would have been granted straightaway, don't you?
-
What about the COLP enquiry in 1991? Did they not notice that that EP killed Sheila? Or was that evidence not available then?
-
I object to being told I'm muddying the waters. The issue of Sheila is one thing but I've also been told that June was moved, that June was on her back, that the rug from her side of the bed was moved for no apparent reason, and that she was propped up against the door by the police!
Every time someone tries to discuss thing logically, in comes Mike with yet more unsubstantiated theories and he accuses others of muddying the waters! >:(
-
They were all killed by Martians...
Scully and Mulder know about this, and told me so, but it's very hush hush. I'd like to show you the images, but I can't.
Last time I tried, the FBI manipulated my site and replaced the evidence with photos of Venusians, which of course everybody knows is totally unbelievable. That was their attempt to discredit me.
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
None took place, it's a total myth.
I'm waiting for somebody to come forward with ONE other documented case of a murder where some reenactment took place with the bodies still in situ.
It beggars belief.
A week later? retracing footsteps? yes, perfectly believable.
-----------------------
It did take place, and you are misleading anyone and everyone by suggesting that such an exercise did not take place - police records now in the possession of Jeremy confirm that such an exercise did take place...
When the truth comes out, you will eat your words regarding this matter, and your comments...
Well without that evidence, I don't blame people for thinking it didn't happen. It sounds extremely unlikely to me as well.
------------------------
You are asking me to post the evidence that proves that such an exercise did take place, against Jeremy's instructions. I have assured him that I will leave that part of his case to him, and his legal team, but I would direct you to information that was published in a national newspaper, where Jeremy accuses Essex police of using the bodies of his family, as "props", during a training exercise, when these events did take place, between (a) 9am and 9:22am, and (b) between 10:35am and 11:35am...
Why would Jeremy be informing the press that such an exercise did take place, if it had not?
Think about it, Do you not think that Jeremy would have some proof about this, before he informed the press?
Why would Jeremy put himself in such a position, without any evidence in his opossesion to back up what he is claiming?
Well look, the CCRC rejected his appeal so why would they do that if he had proof that Sheila was alive in the kitchen and then went upstairs and killed herself on the bed?
---------------------------
Evidence exists to indicate that the police found two bodies downstairs, one "a murder" and the other "a suicide", by 7:45am, one a dead male, the other a dead female, by 7:37am, - Jeremy did not invent this evidence, it exists in the form of police radio message log contents, and there is external evidence to back up and substantiate such claims - the fact that such "EVIDENCE" exists, is problematic to the prosecutions claim, that Sheila's body was found upstairs on the bedroom floor...
You do not need to lecture me about such claims as being "speculative", or that it is just "a theory", or that it is "not evidence" - the fact is, that it is "evidence", and it does have some bearing on where Sheila was found, and the circumstances of how she ended up dead in the main bedroom. Any interpretation of that evidence is a matter of opinion, but nevertheless, such material is evidence which could support the case for Sheila having originally been found downstairs in the region of the kitchen, and that her body was found on the bed at a later stage, and moved to the floor by the police...
You do not decide what is evidence, or what is not evidence - if some information exists, in either a witness statement, or some police record, or crime scene photograph, or whatever, it is evidence which falls to be considered by the court, dealing with the matter...
Arguments in favour, or against that evidence, can only be put and considered by the court dealing with the matter...
So, on that basis, I would kindly invite you to stop suggesting that no such evidence exists to support the points I am drawing to everyones attention...
Sit back, and use the grey matter between your lug-holes, before you start making comments that do not stand up to any sort of scrutiny...
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
None took place, it's a total myth.
I'm waiting for somebody to come forward with ONE other documented case of a murder where some reenactment took place with the bodies still in situ.
It beggars belief.
A week later? retracing footsteps? yes, perfectly believable.
-----------------------
It did take place, and you are misleading anyone and everyone by suggesting that such an exercise did not take place - police records now in the possession of Jeremy confirm that such an exercise did take place...
When the truth comes out, you will eat your words regarding this matter, and your comments...
Well without that evidence, I don't blame people for thinking it didn't happen. It sounds extremely unlikely to me as well.
------------------------
You are asking me to post the evidence that proves that such an exercise did take place, against Jeremy's instructions. I have assured him that I will leave that part of his case to him, and his legal team, but I would direct you to information that was published in a national newspaper, where Jeremy accuses Essex police of using the bodies of his family, as "props", during a training exercise, when these events did take place, between (a) 9am and 9:22am, and (b) between 10:35am and 11:35am...
Why would Jeremy be informing the press that such an exercise did take place, if it had not?
Think about it, Do you not think that Jeremy would have some proof about this, before he informed the press?
Why would Jeremy put himself in such a position, without any evidence in his opossesion to back up what he is claiming?
Well look, the CCRC rejected his appeal so why would they do that if he had proof that Sheila was alive in the kitchen and then went upstairs and killed herself on the bed?
---------------------------
Evidence exists to indicate that the police found two bodies downstairs, one "a murder" and the other "a suicide", by 7:45am, one a dead male, the other a dead female, by 7:37am, - Jeremy did not invent this evidence, it exists in the form of police radio message log contents, and there is external evidence to back up and substantiate such claims - the fact that such "EVIDENCE" exists, is problematic to the prosecutions claim, that Sheila's body was found upstairs on the bedroom floor...
You do not need to lecture me about such claims as being "speculative", or that it is just "a theory", or that it is "not evidence" - the fact is, that it is "evidence", and it does have some bearing on where Sheila was found, and the circumstances of how she ended up dead in the main bedroom. Any interpretation of that evidence is a matter of opinion, but nevertheless, such material is evidence which could support the case for Sheila having originally been found downstairs in the region of the kitchen, and that her body was found on the bed at a later stage, and moved to the floor by the police...
You do not decide what is evidence, or what is not evidence - if some information exists, in either a witness statement, or some police record, or crime scene photograph, or whatever, it is evidence which falls to be considered by the court, dealing with the matter...
Arguments in favour, or against that evidence, can only be put and considered by the court dealing with the matter...
So, on that basis, I would kindly invite you to stop suggesting that no such evidence exists to support the points I am drawing to everyones attention...
Sit back, and use the grey matter between your lug-holes, before you start making comments that do not stand up to any sort of scrutiny...
Personal insults now?
I suggest you start paying attention to what others are saying on here instead of trying to lecture others about unsubstantiated claims.
-
I object to being told I'm muddying the waters. The issue of Sheila is one thing but I've also been told that June was moved, that June was on her back, that the rug from her side of the bed was moved for no apparent reason, and that she was propped up against the door by the police!
Every time someone tries to discuss thing logically, in comes Mike with yet more unsubstantiated theories and he accuses others of muddying the waters! >:(
--------------------
Evidence exists to back up everything that I have been saying - but there is no evidence to back up your counter arguments...
Once again, you adopt the "must try to ridicule Mike", approach - which indicates that you do not have a constructive reply or answer to thew points being raised. Its a sad state of affairs when the opposition have to adopt such an approach...
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
None took place, it's a total myth.
I'm waiting for somebody to come forward with ONE other documented case of a murder where some reenactment took place with the bodies still in situ.
It beggars belief.
A week later? retracing footsteps? yes, perfectly believable.
-----------------------
It did take place, and you are misleading anyone and everyone by suggesting that such an exercise did not take place - police records now in the possession of Jeremy confirm that such an exercise did take place...
When the truth comes out, you will eat your words regarding this matter, and your comments...
Well without that evidence, I don't blame people for thinking it didn't happen. It sounds extremely unlikely to me as well.
------------------------
You are asking me to post the evidence that proves that such an exercise did take place, against Jeremy's instructions. I have assured him that I will leave that part of his case to him, and his legal team, but I would direct you to information that was published in a national newspaper, where Jeremy accuses Essex police of using the bodies of his family, as "props", during a training exercise, when these events did take place, between (a) 9am and 9:22am, and (b) between 10:35am and 11:35am...
Why would Jeremy be informing the press that such an exercise did take place, if it had not?
Think about it, Do you not think that Jeremy would have some proof about this, before he informed the press?
Why would Jeremy put himself in such a position, without any evidence in his opossesion to back up what he is claiming?
Well look, the CCRC rejected his appeal so why would they do that if he had proof that Sheila was alive in the kitchen and then went upstairs and killed herself on the bed?
---------------------------
Evidence exists to indicate that the police found two bodies downstairs, one "a murder" and the other "a suicide", by 7:45am, one a dead male, the other a dead female, by 7:37am, - Jeremy did not invent this evidence, it exists in the form of police radio message log contents, and there is external evidence to back up and substantiate such claims - the fact that such "EVIDENCE" exists, is problematic to the prosecutions claim, that Sheila's body was found upstairs on the bedroom floor...
You do not need to lecture me about such claims as being "speculative", or that it is just "a theory", or that it is "not evidence" - the fact is, that it is "evidence", and it does have some bearing on where Sheila was found, and the circumstances of how she ended up dead in the main bedroom. Any interpretation of that evidence is a matter of opinion, but nevertheless, such material is evidence which could support the case for Sheila having originally been found downstairs in the region of the kitchen, and that her body was found on the bed at a later stage, and moved to the floor by the police...
You do not decide what is evidence, or what is not evidence - if some information exists, in either a witness statement, or some police record, or crime scene photograph, or whatever, it is evidence which falls to be considered by the court, dealing with the matter...
Arguments in favour, or against that evidence, can only be put and considered by the court dealing with the matter...
So, on that basis, I would kindly invite you to stop suggesting that no such evidence exists to support the points I am drawing to everyones attention...
Sit back, and use the grey matter between your lug-holes, before you start making comments that do not stand up to any sort of scrutiny...
Personal insults now?
I suggest you start paying attention to what others are saying on here instead of trying to lecture others about unsubstantiated claims.
---------------------------
My claims have got evidence to back them up - you don't appear to have any...
Your attempts at trying to ridicule anything that is being said, is a joke, and disrespectful...
If anyone was starting to get personal, it was you - and you don't like it when anyone starts to give it back - tough..
-
Its a sad state of affairs when the opposition have to adopt such an approach...
What!!!! Opposition, we're just a few members of the public looking at things for ourselves, we're not the prosecution.
That has has to be the most ridiculous statement you have posted on here.
....in my opinion.
-
They were all killed by Martians...
Scully and Mulder know about this, and told me so, but it's very hush hush. I'd like to show you the images, but I can't.
Last time I tried, the FBI manipulated my site and replaced the evidence with photos of Venusians, which of course everybody knows is totally unbelievable. That was their attempt to discredit me.
-----------------
Here is another example...
-
Its a sad state of affairs when the opposition have to adopt such an approach...
What!!!! Opposition, we're just a few members of the public looking at things for ourselves, we're not the prosecution.
That has has to be the most ridiculous statement you have posted on here.
....in my opinion.
----------------
Stop being pathetic...
-
My claims have got evidence to back them up - you don't appear to have any...
Your attempts at trying to ridicule anything that is being said, is a joke, and disrespectful...
If anyone was starting to get personal, it was you - and you don't like it when anyone starts to give it back - tough..
You're not showing that evidence though, and yet you expect everyone to just believe what you claim, no matter how far fetched it is.
I'm not ridiculing anything, and quite frankly your attitude is starting to annoy me. I've conceded many points to you because I'm not biased and I'm looking at the evidence which has been presented, whether it supports guilt or innocence. Your bias, on the other hand, stands out like a neon sign. You refuse to accept any kind of logic and you refuse to answer questions which don't fit in with your theories.
-
They were all killed by Martians...
Scully and Mulder know about this, and told me so, but it's very hush hush. I'd like to show you the images, but I can't.
Last time I tried, the FBI manipulated my site and replaced the evidence with photos of Venusians, which of course everybody knows is totally unbelievable. That was their attempt to discredit me.
Where the Martians Paranoid Schizophrenics ?
-
Does anyone know anything more about the training exercise? What would this have entailed, exactly? This thread seems a good place to ask, since it appears that the movement of Sheila's body must have taken place around that time (if we accept the information JB's solicitor obtained from his meeting with Dr Craig and his wife). I shouldn't think it's worth starting a new thread. I just wondered whether there is anyone reading this who actually knows from their own experience about the sort of training exercise which apparently took place at WHF.
None took place, it's a total myth.
I'm waiting for somebody to come forward with ONE other documented case of a murder where some reenactment took place with the bodies still in situ.
It beggars belief.
A week later? retracing footsteps? yes, perfectly believable.
-----------------------
It did take place, and you are misleading anyone and everyone by suggesting that such an exercise did not take place - police records now in the possession of Jeremy confirm that such an exercise did take place...
When the truth comes out, you will eat your words regarding this matter, and your comments...
Well without that evidence, I don't blame people for thinking it didn't happen. It sounds extremely unlikely to me as well.
------------------------
You are asking me to post the evidence that proves that such an exercise did take place, against Jeremy's instructions. I have assured him that I will leave that part of his case to him, and his legal team, but I would direct you to information that was published in a national newspaper, where Jeremy accuses Essex police of using the bodies of his family, as "props", during a training exercise, when these events did take place, between (a) 9am and 9:22am, and (b) between 10:35am and 11:35am...
Why would Jeremy be informing the press that such an exercise did take place, if it had not?
Think about it, Do you not think that Jeremy would have some proof about this, before he informed the press?
Why would Jeremy put himself in such a position, without any evidence in his opossesion to back up what he is claiming?
Well look, the CCRC rejected his appeal so why would they do that if he had proof that Sheila was alive in the kitchen and then went upstairs and killed herself on the bed?
-------------------------
Hang on a minute, CCRC have not fully rejected his application - its only a provisional decision...
Well if there was evidence that the police ignored an injured person and then allowed her to shoot herself, and evidence that the police covered that up, I think an appeal would have been granted straightaway, don't you?
-----------------------
If the argument has been put properly, then yes, there ought to have been an appeal, based upon that...
-
I object to being told I'm muddying the waters. The issue of Sheila is one thing but I've also been told that June was moved, that June was on her back, that the rug from her side of the bed was moved for no apparent reason, and that she was propped up against the door by the police!
Every time someone tries to discuss thing logically, in comes Mike with yet more unsubstantiated theories and he accuses others of muddying the waters! >:(
--------------------
Evidence exists to back up everything that I have been saying - but there is no evidence to back up your counter arguments...
Once again, you adopt the "must try to ridicule Mike", approach - which indicates that you do not have a constructive reply or answer to thew points being raised. Its a sad state of affairs when the opposition have to adopt such an approach...
I have not ridiculed you. I stood up for you when horseydave made his dreadful accusations, and I've been very patient with you despite your blatant bias.
-
Its a sad state of affairs when the opposition have to adopt such an approach...
What!!!! Opposition, we're just a few members of the public looking at things for ourselves, we're not the prosecution.
That has has to be the most ridiculous statement you have posted on here.
....in my opinion.
----------------
Stop being pathetic...
I really am not, you've just said it's a sad state of affairs when the opposition etc etc etc.... As I said how ridiculous.
-
My claims have got evidence to back them up - you don't appear to have any...
Your attempts at trying to ridicule anything that is being said, is a joke, and disrespectful...
If anyone was starting to get personal, it was you - and you don't like it when anyone starts to give it back - tough..
----------------------
You're not showing that evidence though, and yet you expect everyone to just believe what you claim, no matter how far fetched it is.
I'm not ridiculing anything, and quite frankly your attitude is starting to annoy me. I've conceded many points to you because I'm not biased and I'm looking at the evidence which has been presented, whether it supports guilt or innocence. Your bias, on the other hand, stands out like a neon sign. You refuse to accept any kind of logic and you refuse to answer questions which don't fit in with your theories.
....
I have already provided enough evidence for there to be sufficient doubt in this case - although much more does exist. Witness statement contents, police radio message log contents and other Lab' and police records, is evidence for the purposes of any proceedings in court, in pursuance of this matter...
No matter how may times you try to say or suggest that such material is not evidence, it will alway be evidence...
-
I object to being told I'm muddying the waters. The issue of Sheila is one thing but I've also been told that June was moved, that June was on her back, that the rug from her side of the bed was moved for no apparent reason, and that she was propped up against the door by the police!
Every time someone tries to discuss thing logically, in comes Mike with yet more unsubstantiated theories and he accuses others of muddying the waters! >:(
--------------------
Evidence exists to back up everything that I have been saying - but there is no evidence to back up your counter arguments...
Once again, you adopt the "must try to ridicule Mike", approach - which indicates that you do not have a constructive reply or answer to thew points being raised. Its a sad state of affairs when the opposition have to adopt such an approach...
I have not ridiculed you. I stood up for you when horseydave made his dreadful accusations, and I've been very patient with you despite your blatant bias.
--------------
I don't need nobody to stand up for me, I did nothing of the sort, and that person is a despicable individual whom ought really be taken to the gallows, and hung by the neck...
in my view...
-
If it isn't holding up to scrutiny in these forums then how is it expected to hold up in court?
-
Its a sad state of affairs when the opposition have to adopt such an approach...
What!!!! Opposition, we're just a few members of the public looking at things for ourselves, we're not the prosecution.
That has has to be the most ridiculous statement you have posted on here.
....in my opinion.
----------------
Stop being pathetic...
I really am not, you've just said it's a sad state of affairs when the opposition etc etc etc.... As I said how ridiculous.
---------------
You were and are being ridiculous - How come it is only evidence (in your view) if it supports your theories, and your ideas, or perspective?
-
If it isn't holding up to scrutiny in these forums then how is it expected to hold up in court?
---------------
Your problem, and the problem with others who hold such views, is that when it comes to court, the very things which you say is not evidence, is evidence - what matters is the interpretation of that evidence, and how it bears up to other material which is relied upon as evidence, and its meaning or purpose in the case, or the matter, under consideration?
Now, I don't mind discussing anything with anyone about this case, but I object in the strongest terms necessary, or possible, to any claim that there is no evidence to support the views I am expressing in these matters...
I accept that people will have differing views, but to continually keep claiming that there is no evidence to support what I am saying, is out of order...
I would not say anything about this case, unless there was some evidence to support such a view...
-
My claims have got evidence to back them up - you don't appear to have any...
Your attempts at trying to ridicule anything that is being said, is a joke, and disrespectful...
If anyone was starting to get personal, it was you - and you don't like it when anyone starts to give it back - tough..
----------------------
You're not showing that evidence though, and yet you expect everyone to just believe what you claim, no matter how far fetched it is.
I'm not ridiculing anything, and quite frankly your attitude is starting to annoy me. I've conceded many points to you because I'm not biased and I'm looking at the evidence which has been presented, whether it supports guilt or innocence. Your bias, on the other hand, stands out like a neon sign. You refuse to accept any kind of logic and you refuse to answer questions which don't fit in with your theories.
....
I have already provided enough evidence for there to be sufficient doubt in this case - although much more does exist. Witness statement contents, police radio message log contents and other Lab' and police records, is evidence for the purposes of any proceedings in court, in pursuance of this matter...
No matter how may times you try to say or suggest that such material is not evidence, it will alway be evidence...
Doubt, yes, but that's not evidence of the kind which enables anyone to state something happened as a fact. You've stated so many "facts" which turned out not to be facts at all, so obviously I'm not taking your word at face value for anything.
Of course I have doubt. If I was convinced Jeremy had done it I wouldn't be here - there would be nothing to say as he's in prison and he's likely to stay there for some time.
-
Its a sad state of affairs when the opposition have to adopt such an approach...
What!!!! Opposition, we're just a few members of the public looking at things for ourselves, we're not the prosecution.
That has has to be the most ridiculous statement you have posted on here.
....in my opinion.
----------------
Stop being pathetic...
I really am not, you've just said it's a sad state of affairs when the opposition etc etc etc.... As I said how ridiculous.
---------------
You were and are being ridiculous - How come it is only evidence (in your view) if it supports your theories, and your ideas, or perspective?
It's not only evidence in mine or anybody elses view. Lots of things can be deemed as evidence for lots of different things. The strength of that particular evidence is what is, and has been discussed.
That is also how the CCRC have described things, certain pieces of evidence which conflict with each other but one piece is deemed stronger than the other.
There are many discrepancies in the evidence in this case, but none which I have seen and interpreted as being stronger than the evidence used in the conviction.
But anyway, my opinion or anybody else's opinion on this forum is irrelevant, we're not the ones that need convincing, we're interested in the case and discussing theories, that's all.
-
The problem is that those who are convinced of Jeremy's innocence pick and choose which bits of the police evidence to believe. They also disbelieve Julie Mugford and the other relatives one minute, and then suddenly believe them if it suits them to do so.
-
If it isn't holding up to scrutiny in these forums then how is it expected to hold up in court?
---------------
Your problem, and the problem with others who hold such views, is that when it comes to court, the very things which you say is not evidence, is evidence - what matters is the interpretation of that evidence, and how it bears up to other material which is relied upon as evidence, and its meaning or purpose in the case, or the matter, under consideration?
Now, I don't mind discussing anything with anyone about this case, but I object in the strongest terms necessary, or possible, to any claim that there is no evidence to support the views I am expressing in these matters...
I accept that people will have differing views, but to continually keep claiming that there is no evidence to support what I am saying, is out of order...
I would not say anything about this case, unless there was some evidence to support such a view...
You wanted a forum and you have one - if you don't want anyone to challenge what you say perhaps a blog would have been better - with guest comments switched off.
-
My claims have got evidence to back them up - you don't appear to have any...
Your attempts at trying to ridicule anything that is being said, is a joke, and disrespectful...
If anyone was starting to get personal, it was you - and you don't like it when anyone starts to give it back - tough..
----------------------
You're not showing that evidence though, and yet you expect everyone to just believe what you claim, no matter how far fetched it is.
I'm not ridiculing anything, and quite frankly your attitude is starting to annoy me. I've conceded many points to you because I'm not biased and I'm looking at the evidence which has been presented, whether it supports guilt or innocence. Your bias, on the other hand, stands out like a neon sign. You refuse to accept any kind of logic and you refuse to answer questions which don't fit in with your theories.
....
I have already provided enough evidence for there to be sufficient doubt in this case - although much more does exist. Witness statement contents, police radio message log contents and other Lab' and police records, is evidence for the purposes of any proceedings in court, in pursuance of this matter...
No matter how may times you try to say or suggest that such material is not evidence, it will alway be evidence...
Doubt, yes, but that's not evidence of the kind which enables anyone to state something happened as a fact. You've stated so many "facts" which turned out not to be facts at all, so obviously I'm not taking your word at face value for anything.
Of course I have doubt. If I was convinced Jeremy had done it I wouldn't be here - there would be nothing to say as he's in prison and he's likely to stay there for some time.
----------------------
I don't honestly think you live in the real world, sometimes with some of the comments you keep coming out with - something is a fact if it is documented in witness statements, or police radio messages, or lab' documents, or any other document, linked to the police investigation, into these five deaths - it does not only become a fact, if and when it suits your purpose...
Details contained in witness statements, police radio message logs, and other records, are (unfortunately for you) facts, upon which arguments can and may be based, in law...
Each side, in any legal proceedings is entitled to rely upon any fact, in existence, contained in such material, outlined...
So, there is absolutely no basis or foundation to the arguments you appear to be putting forward...
-
Now now, I think it's my fault this has all kicked off with my Martian's quip.
Why did I write that? because sometimes, it really does feel that SOME of the defence arguments are at the more eccentric end of interpretation.
Sometimes, there's some 'evidence' and I might see it one way and someone else another way, but even though they are opposing views, they still are loosely in the 'middle' of possible interpretations.
But there seem to be more and more extreme interpretations, that in themselves aren't wrong, but there's a lot of them, and they all have to happen in order to support the defence.
I totally believe the police match a botch up of the job
I could even go so far as to say Sheila might have been alive and ended up being shot, or shot herself with the police supposedly 'securing' the place.
But the number of body moves, log tampering, family collusion with police officers etc starts to sound far fetched.
I really don't want to discount something JUST because it's far fetched... far fetched doesn't mean didn't happen... but it's becoming incessant, and there's no 'give' from the defence.
If once in a while someone said "Yep, have to admit, THAT bit doesn't look good for Jeremy" then that would be something. But it (seemingly) never arrives.
The thing is, I think there IS plenty enough credible doubt to explore without the quite remarkable claims needing to be raised, and I think those remarkable claims might be doing an injustice to JB.
I've tried to be honest and say I'm usually 80% Bamber did it... wavering as far as 60% to 90% (if you can possibly quantify such feelings).
I apologise if the Martians crack upset anybody... it really was meant to be lighthearted (BUT yes, it was a dig at 'wild' (in my eyes) claims).
It's certainly not personal, and I don't see it as being on the 'side' of JB or Sheila...
-
The problem is that those who are convinced of Jeremy's innocence pick and choose which bits of the police evidence to believe. They also disbelieve Julie Mugford and the other relatives one minute, and then suddenly believe them if it suits them to do so.
------------------
Aah, selective evidence, its the way of the world, and why there are trials, where one side chooses to rely upon certain facts, in support of their arguments, whilst the other party choose to rely on opposing facts...
The purpose of having a trial, is to weigh up arguments based upon evidence from one party, against the other, to arrive at a conclusion...
In this respect, facts may exist, which appear to contradict one parties view, as opposed to the view relied upon by the other party...
Why shouldn't I seek to rely upon a fact which supports my point of view?
Is there a law against this approach?
-
I don't honestly think you live in the real world, sometimes with some of the comments you keep coming out with - something is a fact if it is documented in witness statements, or police radio messages, or lab' documents, or any other document, linked to the police investigation, into these five deaths - it does not only become a fact, if and when it suits your purpose...
Details contained in witness statements, police radio message logs, and other records, are (unfortunately for you) facts, upon which arguments can and may be based, in law...
Each side, in any legal proceedings is entitled to rely upon any fact, in existence, contained in such material, outlined...
So, there is absolutely no basis or foundation to the arguments you appear to be putting forward...
I'm not the one claiming there was a massive stitch up involving a lot of police officers, several relatives, a doctor, and an ex girlfriend.. I'm not the one claiming that Robert Boutflour blackmailed the police. I'm not the one claiming that a rug was moved just because there's a photo of one on June's side of the bed. I'm not the one claiming that David Boutflour found a silencer in the garage when it's clear he might not have meant that.
I don't think you have any grounds for saying that I'm not in the real world.
David Boutflour said in statements that he found the silencer in the gun cupboard in August, so according to your logic, that is a fact, and yet you say it's not a fact.
Dr Craig made a statement to say that the blood on Sheila's face was dried, and yet you say that's not a fact.
I don't think I need to give any more examples.
You need to make up your mind what a "fact" consists of.
-
Now now, I think it's my fault this has all kicked off with my Martian's quip.
Why did I write that? because sometimes, it really does feel that SOME of the defence arguments are at the more eccentric end of interpretation.
Sometimes, there's some 'evidence' and I might see it one way and someone else another way, but even though they are opposing views, they still are loosely in the 'middle' of possible interpretations.
But there seem to be more and more extreme interpretations, that in themselves aren't wrong, but there's a lot of them, and they all have to happen in order to support the defence.
I totally believe the police match a botch up of the job
I could even go so far as to say Sheila might have been alive and ended up being shot, or shot herself with the police supposedly 'securing' the place.
But the number of body moves, log tampering, family collusion with police officers etc starts to sound far fetched.
I really don't want to discount something JUST because it's far fetched... far fetched doesn't mean didn't happen... but it's becoming incessant, and there's no 'give' from the defence.
If once in a while someone said "Yep, have to admit, THAT bit doesn't look good for Jeremy" then that would be something. But it (seemingly) never arrives.
The thing is, I think there IS plenty enough credible doubt to explore without the quite remarkable claims needing to be raised, and I think those remarkable claims might be doing an injustice to JB.
I've tried to be honest and say I'm usually 80% Bamber did it... wavering as far as 60% to 90% (if you can possibly quantify such feelings).
I apologise if the Martians crack upset anybody... it really was meant to be lighthearted (BUT yes, it was a dig at 'wild' (in my eyes) claims).
It's certainly not personal, and I don't see it as being on the 'side' of JB or Sheila...
I couldn't have put it better myself, especially about the lack of "give" from the defence - ie, Mike.
Any evidence which does point to Jeremy as the culprit is either ignored by the defence or it's explained away in a series of bizarre and totally incomprehensible theories.
-
I don't want to free Jeremy
I don't want to clear Sheila's name once and for all
I'd just like to help work out what might have happened and contribute if only in a miniscule manner to the 'thought tank', in the hope that from some miracle a team effort sparks something never considered before and is then taken up by those with the means necessary to further establish truth.
All of that said, I cannot deny forming opinion at a given moment in time and say "so far, Jeremy's looking the likely culprit". I think that's honest (honest in terms of how I'm seeing things)
I really does just feel though, that sometimes, someone mentions a body, and we all speculate as to 'how it was done', then just as we get closer... someone says "but yes, the body was moved before then"... so ok, we go along with that and eventually say "the body moved theory's not holding up too well because of the bullet found here...", then the response feels like "ah but that's because the pathologist was useless"... so we go along with that, and say "but the second pathologist confirmed it"... and the response is "the pathologist was the son in law of the chief constable who'd had a word with him..." etc
after three or four rounds of this... it does feel like it's pointless arguing, because there's another plot that's just come to light.
I know this isn't REALLY what happens, but it damn well feels like all too often... and in particularly in favour of JB innocence.
-
The problem is that those who are convinced of Jeremy's innocence pick and choose which bits of the police evidence to believe. They also disbelieve Julie Mugford and the other relatives one minute, and then suddenly believe them if it suits them to do so.
------------------
Aah, selective evidence, its the way of the world, and why there are trials, where one side chooses to rely upon certain facts, in support of their arguments, whilst the other party choose to rely on opposing facts...
The purpose of having a trial, is to weigh up arguments based upon evidence from one party, against the other, to arrive at a conclusion...
In this respect, facts may exist, which appear to contradict one parties view, as opposed to the view relied upon by the other party...
Why shouldn't I seek to rely upon a fact which supports my point of view?
Is there a law against this approach?
You believe Jeremy to be innocent, not because of the evidence but because .. well you just do. You're using the evidence (or lack of it) to fit your belief, but there are those who look at the evidence and then formulate a theory based on it - ie, they do it the other way round.
The trouble with bias is that common sense tends to go out of the window, and any evidence with goes against that bias is disregarded.
-
I don't want to free Jeremy
I don't want to clear Sheila's name once and for all
I'd just like to help work out what might have happened and contribute if only in a miniscule manner to the 'thought tank', in the hope that from some miracle a team effort sparks something never considered before and is then taken up by those with the means necessary to further establish truth.
All of that said, I cannot deny forming opinion at a given moment in time and say "so far, Jeremy's looking the likely culprit". I think that's honest (honest in terms of how I'm seeing things)
I really does just feel though, that sometimes, someone mentions a body, and we all speculate as to 'how it was done', then just as we get closer... someone says "but yes, the body was moved before then"... so ok, we go along with that and eventually say "the body moved theory's not holding up too well because of the bullet found here...", then the response feels like "ah but that's because the pathologist was useless"... so we go along with that, and say "but the second pathologist confirmed it"... and the response is "the pathologist was the son in law of the chief constable who'd had a word with him..." etc
after three or four rounds of this... it does feel like it's pointless arguing, because there's another plot that's just come to light.
I know this isn't REALLY what happens, but it damn well feels like all too often... and in particularly in favour of JB innocence.
Goodness me. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were me. ;D
I'm also hoping for a "Eureka" moment when someone asks the right question or makes a point which has not been considered before and which puts a whole new complexion on this mysterious crime.
I also agree that whenever people try to discuss a particular point, a whole new scenario is introduced to muddy the waters.
-
Now now, I think it's my fault this has all kicked off with my Martian's quip.
Why did I write that? because sometimes, it really does feel that SOME of the defence arguments are at the more eccentric end of interpretation.
Sometimes, there's some 'evidence' and I might see it one way and someone else another way, but even though they are opposing views, they still are loosely in the 'middle' of possible interpretations.
But there seem to be more and more extreme interpretations, that in themselves aren't wrong, but there's a lot of them, and they all have to happen in order to support the defence.
I totally believe the police match a botch up of the job
I could even go so far as to say Sheila might have been alive and ended up being shot, or shot herself with the police supposedly 'securing' the place.
But the number of body moves, log tampering, family collusion with police officers etc starts to sound far fetched.
I really don't want to discount something JUST because it's far fetched... far fetched doesn't mean didn't happen... but it's becoming incessant, and there's no 'give' from the defence.
If once in a while someone said "Yep, have to admit, THAT bit doesn't look good for Jeremy" then that would be something. But it (seemingly) never arrives.
The thing is, I think there IS plenty enough credible doubt to explore without the quite remarkable claims needing to be raised, and I think those remarkable claims might be doing an injustice to JB.
I've tried to be honest and say I'm usually 80% Bamber did it... wavering as far as 60% to 90% (if you can possibly quantify such feelings).
I apologise if the Martians crack upset anybody... it really was meant to be lighthearted (BUT yes, it was a dig at 'wild' (in my eyes) claims).
It's certainly not personal, and I don't see it as being on the 'side' of JB or Sheila...
I couldn't have put it better myself, especially about the lack of "give" from the defence - ie, Mike.
Any evidence which does point to Jeremy as the culprit is either ignored by the defence or it's explained away in a series of bizarre and totally incomprehensible theories.
-------------------
That is totally uncalled for, and out of order - Jeremy currently stands convicted for these murders and I do not have to justify any of the prosecutions case for getting him convicted, because he is convicted, and I feel that the evidence relied upon was unreliable, and in some instances, falsified...
I will discuss anything about this case, with anyone, but I am not going to be supportive of anything which I feel was wrongly allowed, or introduced with a view to securing a false conviction against Jeremy...
If that comes across as being somewhat biased, then so be it...
I happen to believe that Jeremy Bamber did not kill his sister in the bedroom at whf, and he did not stage manage her body there on the bedroom floor, with a view of trying to make out a false case that she had taken her own life there, and in those circumstances, for all the reasons I have tried to give...
I can't help having those beliefs, and I cannot help holding the view I hold...
There exists evidence, contained in witness statements, and police radio message logs and other police documentation, Lab' documents, and crime scene pictures which tend to support my viewpoints...
as far as I am concerned....
in my opinion...
-
I don't want to free Jeremy
I don't want to clear Sheila's name once and for all
I'd just like to help work out what might have happened and contribute if only in a miniscule manner to the 'thought tank', in the hope that from some miracle a team effort sparks something never considered before and is then taken up by those with the means necessary to further establish truth.
All of that said, I cannot deny forming opinion at a given moment in time and say "so far, Jeremy's looking the likely culprit". I think that's honest (honest in terms of how I'm seeing things)
I really does just feel though, that sometimes, someone mentions a body, and we all speculate as to 'how it was done', then just as we get closer... someone says "but yes, the body was moved before then"... so ok, we go along with that and eventually say "the body moved theory's not holding up too well because of the bullet found here...", then the response feels like "ah but that's because the pathologist was useless"... so we go along with that, and say "but the second pathologist confirmed it"... and the response is "the pathologist was the son in law of the chief constable who'd had a word with him..." etc
after three or four rounds of this... it does feel like it's pointless arguing, because there's another plot that's just come to light.
I know this isn't REALLY what happens, but it damn well feels like all too often... and in particularly in favour of JB innocence.
----------------------
the reason for this, could well be that Jeremy is innocent...
-
The prosecutions case was biased at the time of Jeremy's trial, because they were very "selective" about what evidence they chose to rely upon to try and get him convicted for the murders, and in addition to this they even deliberately withheld thousands and thousands of documents, and hundreds of crime scene pictures, and anything, and everything, that was gathered by the police, to prove that Sheila killed the others, and that she had then taken her own life (as part of SC/688/85) - so please, I do not need a lecture, or any advise about bias, in this case...
If I am bias, then so be it...
I happen to strongly believe that there has been a very serious miscarriage of justice in this case, which I take to be a very serious matter...
-
Now now, I think it's my fault this has all kicked off with my Martian's quip.
Why did I write that? because sometimes, it really does feel that SOME of the defence arguments are at the more eccentric end of interpretation.
Sometimes, there's some 'evidence' and I might see it one way and someone else another way, but even though they are opposing views, they still are loosely in the 'middle' of possible interpretations.
But there seem to be more and more extreme interpretations, that in themselves aren't wrong, but there's a lot of them, and they all have to happen in order to support the defence.
I totally believe the police match a botch up of the job
I could even go so far as to say Sheila might have been alive and ended up being shot, or shot herself with the police supposedly 'securing' the place.
But the number of body moves, log tampering, family collusion with police officers etc starts to sound far fetched.
I really don't want to discount something JUST because it's far fetched... far fetched doesn't mean didn't happen... but it's becoming incessant, and there's no 'give' from the defence.
If once in a while someone said "Yep, have to admit, THAT bit doesn't look good for Jeremy" then that would be something. But it (seemingly) never arrives.
The thing is, I think there IS plenty enough credible doubt to explore without the quite remarkable claims needing to be raised, and I think those remarkable claims might be doing an injustice to JB.
I've tried to be honest and say I'm usually 80% Bamber did it... wavering as far as 60% to 90% (if you can possibly quantify such feelings).
I apologise if the Martians crack upset anybody... it really was meant to be lighthearted (BUT yes, it was a dig at 'wild' (in my eyes) claims).
It's certainly not personal, and I don't see it as being on the 'side' of JB or Sheila...
I couldn't have put it better myself, especially about the lack of "give" from the defence - ie, Mike.
Any evidence which does point to Jeremy as the culprit is either ignored by the defence or it's explained away in a series of bizarre and totally incomprehensible theories.
-------------------
That is totally uncalled for, and out of order - Jeremy currently stands convicted for these murders and I do not have to justify any of the prosecutions case for getting him convicted, because he is convicted, and I feel that the evidence relied upon was unreliable, and in some instances, falsified...
I will discuss anything about this case, with anyone, but I am not going to be supportive of anything which I feel was wrongly allowed, or introduced with a view to securing a false conviction against Jeremy...
If that comes across as being somewhat biased, then so be it...
I happen to believe that Jeremy Bamber did not kill his sister in the bedroom at whf, and he did not stage manage her body there on the bedroom floor, with a view of trying to make out a false case that she had taken her own life there, and in those circumstances, for all the reasons I have tried to give...
I can't help having those beliefs, and I cannot help holding the view I hold...
There exists evidence, contained in witness statements, and police radio message logs and other police documentation, Lab' documents, and crime scene pictures which tend to support my viewpoints...
as far as I am concerned....
in my opinion...
OK, fine. I appreciate that you have that opinion, and I'm not totally opposed to it myself - there are certainly many conflicting statements and some rather strange police logs.
All I'm saying is that there are problems with those theories and ask that you respect the views of those who aren't as convinced as you are.
-
Now now, I think it's my fault this has all kicked off with my Martian's quip.
Why did I write that? because sometimes, it really does feel that SOME of the defence arguments are at the more eccentric end of interpretation.
Sometimes, there's some 'evidence' and I might see it one way and someone else another way, but even though they are opposing views, they still are loosely in the 'middle' of possible interpretations.
But there seem to be more and more extreme interpretations, that in themselves aren't wrong, but there's a lot of them, and they all have to happen in order to support the defence.
I totally believe the police match a botch up of the job
I could even go so far as to say Sheila might have been alive and ended up being shot, or shot herself with the police supposedly 'securing' the place.
But the number of body moves, log tampering, family collusion with police officers etc starts to sound far fetched.
I really don't want to discount something JUST because it's far fetched... far fetched doesn't mean didn't happen... but it's becoming incessant, and there's no 'give' from the defence.
If once in a while someone said "Yep, have to admit, THAT bit doesn't look good for Jeremy" then that would be something. But it (seemingly) never arrives.
The thing is, I think there IS plenty enough credible doubt to explore without the quite remarkable claims needing to be raised, and I think those remarkable claims might be doing an injustice to JB.
I've tried to be honest and say I'm usually 80% Bamber did it... wavering as far as 60% to 90% (if you can possibly quantify such feelings).
I apologise if the Martians crack upset anybody... it really was meant to be lighthearted (BUT yes, it was a dig at 'wild' (in my eyes) claims).
It's certainly not personal, and I don't see it as being on the 'side' of JB or Sheila...
I couldn't have put it better myself, especially about the lack of "give" from the defence - ie, Mike.
Any evidence which does point to Jeremy as the culprit is either ignored by the defence or it's explained away in a series of bizarre and totally incomprehensible theories.
-------------------
That is totally uncalled for, and out of order - Jeremy currently stands convicted for these murders and I do not have to justify any of the prosecutions case for getting him convicted, because he is convicted, and I feel that the evidence relied upon was unreliable, and in some instances, falsified...
I will discuss anything about this case, with anyone, but I am not going to be supportive of anything which I feel was wrongly allowed, or introduced with a view to securing a false conviction against Jeremy...
If that comes across as being somewhat biased, then so be it...
I happen to believe that Jeremy Bamber did not kill his sister in the bedroom at whf, and he did not stage manage her body there on the bedroom floor, with a view of trying to make out a false case that she had taken her own life there, and in those circumstances, for all the reasons I have tried to give...
I can't help having those beliefs, and I cannot help holding the view I hold...
There exists evidence, contained in witness statements, and police radio message logs and other police documentation, Lab' documents, and crime scene pictures which tend to support my viewpoints...
as far as I am concerned....
in my opinion...
OK, fine. I appreciate that you have that opinion, and I'm not totally opposed to it myself - there are certainly many conflicting statements and some rather strange police logs.
All I'm saying is that there are problems with those theories and ask that you respect the views of those who aren't as convinced as you are.
-----------------
I think you have got the wrong end of the stick - I do respect other peoples point of view, but that does not mean that I have to subscribe to that point of view. Particularly, where evidence exists which might tend to contradict such views...
I do appreciate, and I understand, why certain people may hold such views, and why they might or could be persuaded to hold differing views, since, I myself have had to alter my position once more information, or evidence, has come to light...
We are all different and we bring our experiences in life to bear when dealing with something of the nature of this case...
I will debate anything about this case, with anybody, but when anybody starts getting personal, or trying to ridicule the evidence which supports one or more of the arguments, then I will take the opportunity to respond in a likewise fashion...
I do not have to agree with anything that was used to convict Jeremy Bamber for these murders - because I truly believe that he was and is wrongfully convicted, and that falsified evidence was used to convict him...
I am sorry if this approach offends anyone, but there it is...
-
I think you have got the wrong end of the stick - I do respect other peoples point of view, but that does not mean that I have to subscribe to that point of view. Particularly, where evidence exists which might tend to contradict such views...
I do appreciate, and I understand, why certain people may hold such views, and why they might or could be persuaded to hold differing views, since, I myself have had to alter my position once more information, or evidence, has come to light...
We are all different and we bring our experiences in life to bear when dealing with something of the nature of this case...
I will debate anything about this case, with anybody, but when anybody starts getting personal, or trying to ridicule the evidence which supports one or more of the arguments, then I will take the opportunity to respond in a likewise fashion...
I do not have to agree with anything that was used to convict Jeremy Bamber for these murders - because I truly believe that he was and is wrongfully convicted, and that falsified evidence was used to convict him...
I am sorry if this approach offends anyone, but there it is...
Well you've said that you think I'm not in the "real world", so that was pretty personal, but I think that I discuss things on here with an open mind. If that means I'm not in the "real world" then perhaps the real world it at fault. :P
-
I don't honestly think you live in the real world, sometimes with some of the comments you keep coming out with - something is a fact if it is documented in witness statements, or police radio messages, or lab' documents, or any other document, linked to the police investigation, into these five deaths - it does not only become a fact, if and when it suits your purpose...
Details contained in witness statements, police radio message logs, and other records, are (unfortunately for you) facts, upon which arguments can and may be based, in law...
Each side, in any legal proceedings is entitled to rely upon any fact, in existence, contained in such material, outlined...
So, there is absolutely no basis or foundation to the arguments you appear to be putting forward...
I'm not the one claiming there was a massive stitch up involving a lot of police officers, several relatives, a doctor, and an ex girlfriend.. I'm not the one claiming that Robert Boutflour blackmailed the police. I'm not the one claiming that a rug was moved just because there's a photo of one on June's side of the bed. I'm not the one claiming that David Boutflour found a silencer in the garage when it's clear he might not have meant that.
I don't think you have any grounds for saying that I'm not in the real world.
David Boutflour said in statements that he found the silencer in the gun cupboard in August, so according to your logic, that is a fact, and yet you say it's not a fact.
Dr Craig made a statement to say that the blood on Sheila's face was dried, and yet you say that's not a fact.
I don't think I need to give any more examples.
You need to make up your mind what a "fact" consists of.
--------------------
Your examples, only serve to highlight why one party to these proceedings are saying one thing, whilst the other party may be saying something completely the opposite...
Each Party relies or relates, or refers to facts that support their argument. It does not mean that either party has to agree to a fact, which is relied upon by the other party, just because it exists and is referred to in a witness statement, police radio message, or crime scene picture...
When you and others keep saying that there is no evidence to support the things I have been saying, or you imply that what I am saying is speculation, or just a theory, your opinion may not be true, particularly if some evidence is recorded in some witness statement, police radio message log or crime scene photograph, to support the views I hold...
Information contained in such material is open to interpretation...
in my opinion...
-
I don't honestly think you live in the real world, sometimes with some of the comments you keep coming out with - something is a fact if it is documented in witness statements, or police radio messages, or lab' documents, or any other document, linked to the police investigation, into these five deaths - it does not only become a fact, if and when it suits your purpose...
Details contained in witness statements, police radio message logs, and other records, are (unfortunately for you) facts, upon which arguments can and may be based, in law...
Each side, in any legal proceedings is entitled to rely upon any fact, in existence, contained in such material, outlined...
So, there is absolutely no basis or foundation to the arguments you appear to be putting forward...
I'm not the one claiming there was a massive stitch up involving a lot of police officers, several relatives, a doctor, and an ex girlfriend.. I'm not the one claiming that Robert Boutflour blackmailed the police. I'm not the one claiming that a rug was moved just because there's a photo of one on June's side of the bed. I'm not the one claiming that David Boutflour found a silencer in the garage when it's clear he might not have meant that.
I don't think you have any grounds for saying that I'm not in the real world.
David Boutflour said in statements that he found the silencer in the gun cupboard in August, so according to your logic, that is a fact, and yet you say it's not a fact.
Dr Craig made a statement to say that the blood on Sheila's face was dried, and yet you say that's not a fact.
I don't think I need to give any more examples.
You need to make up your mind what a "fact" consists of.
--------------------
Your examples, only serve to highlight why one party to these proceedings are saying one thing, whilst the other party may be saying something completely the opposite...
Each Party relies or relates, or refers to facts that support their argument. It does not mean that either party has to agree to a fact, which is relied upon by the other party, just because it exists and is referred to in a witness statement, police radio message, or crime scene picture...
When you and others keep saying that there is no evidence to support the things I have been saying, or you imply that what I am saying is speculation, or just a theory, your opinion may not be true, particularly if some evidence is recorded in some witness statement, police radio message log or crime scene photograph, to support the views I hold...
Information contained in such material is open to interpretation...
in my opinion...
I suppose it's not so much that the evidence isn't there, it's the interpretation of that evidence which is the issue. For example, you are convinced that Malcolm Bonnet's log means that Nevill called the police, but to me it does no such thing. I didn't start off being cynical about that log you know. When I read in the paper that a phone call from Nevill had occurred, I was very interested, and it was only on detailed inspection of the document that I realised that the log didn't state that.
Another example is you saying that David Boutflour found a silencer in the garage. You posted the document in question and once again, I interpreted it differently - or at least I decided that it didn't necessarily state that he found a silencer in the garage.
Another one is you stating that June was on her stomach because she had white bits on her legs. I've looked at the photo and to me it just doesn't show that.
Re this "re-enactment" (a word I dislike), you haven't produced any evidence for reasons which I respect. Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't any, but considering the way you have interpreted the evidence which you have produced, I'm a bit sceptical unless I see that evidence for myself.
Does that make sense?
-
And, you hear this "police were in communication with someone inside the house"...
then go on to discover the wonderful 'no response received' which adds a hugely different angle to it and puts the first line in context.
It's the same with the log... call from Nevill, daughter's got a hold of my gun etc.... only to see the additional text "call received from son"
Now I can see that some can believe the 'call received from son' part was a secondary event, but let US be the judge of that... rather than conveniently leave it out of the details.
-
Can I just ask, is everything contained in a document, memo, police log, statement or photograph necessarily a fact?
I don't think that it is safe to say that it is. Otherwise a lie could then be called a fact and that cannot be possible.
Can it? ???
-
And, you hear this "police were in communication with someone inside the house"...
then go on to discover the wonderful 'no response received' which adds a hugely different angle to it and puts the first line in context.
It's the same with the log... call from Nevill, daughter's got a hold of my gun etc.... only to see the additional text "call received from son"
Now I can see that some can believe the 'call received from son' part was a secondary event, but let US be the judge of that... rather than conveniently leave it out of the details.
Has anybody dug up anything regarding the long delay leading up to TFU breaking in to the premises? Hasn't it been alleged by JB that a loud hailer was used for two hours? That's a lot of none reposnses ;D
-
Can I just ask, is everything contained in a document, memo, police log, statement or photograph necessarily a fact?
I don't think that it is safe to say that it is. Otherwise a lie could then be called a fact and that cannot be possible.
Can it? ???
------------------------
My take on this, is that if such information is contained in these documents, or photographs, etc... they can be treated as fact, but it may well be that they end up being interpreted, as true facts, or as the case may be misleading facts...
-
A couple of things I would like information on. I read somewhere on here that after Jeremy's conviction certain evidence was destroyed even though someone was pacifically told not to destroy evidence as Jeremy was always going to appeal. Is that true and what items were destroyed. If that happened as a member of the public I cannot see any excuse for this.
Another matter is Mike says he has seen a photo of Sheila on a bed there is no reason for me to believe Mike to be a liar. Ann Eaton also mentions Sheila being on a bed. If there are photos of Sheila on a bed what could or should the ccrc do regarding this
-
The English language is not up for redefinition here! By definition, a fact is a truth. It's therefore pointless to use the phrase "true facts", as all facts are true by definition. For much the same reason, there are no misleading facts, just misleading presentations of facts, and statements that are misleading because they are not true, or are true but so difficult to understand that they are easily misunderstood.
Of course, most statements that are used in evidence are not known to be true, and are therefore not facts. When it can be shown that a statement is extremely likely to be true, it may be reasonable to "take it as a fact", i.e., assume that it is true.
It's therefore not a good idea to keep referring to particular assertions as facts when you know that we don't have enough information to conclude that they are extremely likely to be true, even if you do have enough information to enable you to make such a conclusion.
-
Newspaper articles mentioning where bodies of Victims were found by police
Note that in some instances, the body of Sheila Caffell was reported to have been found on the bed (along with June Bamber)...
Sun:- 8th August 1985 - "Mrs Bamber spread eagled across bed in master bedroom"...
Evening Echo:- 10th September 1985 - "Mrs Bamber spread eagled across her bed. Sheila next to her shot through her head under chin"...
The Star:- 11th September 1985 - "Sheila and Mrs Bamber slumped together in main bedroom"...
Maldon & Burnham Standard:- 12th September 1985 - " Mrs Bamber and Sheila in bedroom with gun lying between them"...
Evening Echo:- 18th September 1985 - Mrs Bamber found on a bed in an upstairs room with bloodstained handmarks on her body showing she was moved"...
-
The English language is not up for redefinition here! By definition, a fact is a truth. It's therefore pointless to use the phrase "true facts", as all facts are true by definition. For much the same reason, there are no misleading facts, just misleading presentations of facts, and statements that are misleading because they are not true, or are true but so difficult to understand that they are easily misunderstood.
Of course, most statements that are used in evidence are not known to be true, and are therefore not facts. When it can be shown that a statement is extremely likely to be true, it may be reasonable to "take it as a fact", i.e., assume that it is true.
It's therefore not a good idea to keep referring to particular assertions as facts when you know that we don't have enough information to conclude that they are extremely likely to be true, even if you do have enough information to enable you to make such a conclusion.
Absolutely true ;-)
Not wanting to get in a philosphical debate about fact either, but sometimes a 'fact' is a perception based on overwhelming evidence to support the perception at the time.
So it's a fact that the speed of light is constant - until the discover that it changes (which it does).
So knew evidence can change 'fact'.
Of course it's a paradox, because then we know the original fact was no such thing, and the new 'fact' is true.
The fact is dead, long live the fact eh?
-
The English language is not up for redefinition here! By definition, a fact is a truth. It's therefore pointless to use the phrase "true facts", as all facts are true by definition. For much the same reason, there are no misleading facts, just misleading presentations of facts, and statements that are misleading because they are not true, or are true but so difficult to understand that they are easily misunderstood.
Of course, most statements that are used in evidence are not known to be true, and are therefore not facts. When it can be shown that a statement is extremely likely to be true, it may be reasonable to "take it as a fact", i.e., assume that it is true.
It's therefore not a good idea to keep referring to particular assertions as facts when you know that we don't have enough information to conclude that they are extremely likely to be true, even if you do have enough information to enable you to make such a conclusion.
Absolutely true ;-)
Not wanting to get in a philosphical debate about fact either, but sometimes a 'fact' is a perception based on overwhelming evidence to support the perception at the time.
So it's a fact that the speed of light is constant - until the discover that it changes (which it does).
So knew evidence can change 'fact'.
Of course it's a paradox, because then we know the original fact was no such thing, and the new 'fact' is true.
The fact is dead, long live the fact eh?
--------------------
If some fact is recorded by a witness, as part of this investigation, someone is entitled to rely upon it, in any argument they might wish to put forward...
unless that person who provides the information / evidence, was not / is not, connected in any way to the investigation...
In my opinion...
-
. . . sometimes a 'fact' is a perception based on overwhelming evidence to support the perception at the time.
Such perceptions are not facts, but we take minor liberties with our use of English when overwhelming evidence is available. In contrast, mike tesko has been taking liberties with the language when overwhelming evidence is not available to us, and even in cases where such evidence isn't available to him either.
If some fact is recorded by a witness, as part of this investigation, someone is entitled to rely upon it, in any argument they might wish to put forward...
Some of the evidence recorded by witnesses in this case has been highly questionable, especially the more detailed aspects of it. This isn't necessarily because the witnesses were lying or being intentionally deceptive; they may simply have been careless, or have recorded events in a way that seemed reasonable to them at the time, but now seems unclear to us. Hence you should not rely on the recorded evidence in any argument you wish to put forward without carefully considering its accuracy and completeness.
-
. . . sometimes a 'fact' is a perception based on overwhelming evidence to support the perception at the time.
Such perceptions are not facts, but we take minor liberties with our use of English when overwhelming evidence is available. In contrast, mike tesko has been taking liberties with the language when overwhelming evidence is not available to us, and even in cases where such evidence isn't available to him either.
If some fact is recorded by a witness, as part of this investigation, someone is entitled to rely upon it, in any argument they might wish to put forward...
Some of the evidence recorded by witnesses in this case has been highly questionable, especially the more detailed aspects of it. This isn't necessarily because the witnesses were lying or being intentionally deceptive; they may simply have been careless, or have recorded events in a way that seemed reasonable to them at the time, but now seems unclear to us. Hence you should not rely on the recorded evidence in any argument you wish to put forward without carefully considering its accuracy and completeness.
-----------------------
In law, information contained in documents, such as witness statements, reports, logs and photographs, can be considered to be evidence...
in my opinion...
-
Just catching up as haven't been here for a while - some new threads, but much looks familiar... Nice to see some names I know, but also hear some new voices!
Please may we return to the photograph of Sheila on the bed?
Cannot see any PII, DPA or FIA reason to refuse disclosure of this image or negative of same.
On what date was Essex Police given a specific request to disclose any image/negative of the bed in the main bedroom?
Where is the evidence of EP's refusal to disclose?
On the subject of 'evidence' and 'fact' all trials are based on an argument drawn from evidential interpretations and conclusions. Of course the prosecution is biased! It is their job to highlight evidence supporting conviction of the appellant and find opposing arguments for contra-evidence. Ditto the defence. They are biased in favour of their client. Counsel advises, the client instructs. Counsel cannot enter into unsubstantiated speculation, but they cannot ignore their client's wishes either.
Weight must also be applied to evidence. Newspaper headlines, AE's (revise?) diary, RB's homophobic ramblings... These are hearsay and cannot be afforded the same credence as the pathologist's report or ballistics tests etc.
Even if they were accepted as evidence, their contradictions render them worthless. AE says Sheila was on the bed, must be true; so if she also infers JB is guilty of the crimes, is this also true? If the news headline reads 'New Evidence' says Bambi murderer are both parts of that sentence true? The subjective analysis would be endless.
Over the last 25 years JB's PR has made repeated claims of stunning new evidence that evaporates like dew once subject to the rigor of Court. There has not been a single piece of evidence that
i) Is substantive and not disclosed at the original trial and could lead to the jury having reached alternative conclusions
ii) Is a fresh scientific analysis using advanced techniques agreed by field peers, leading to a re-interpretation of or considerably stronger support for/against evidence put to the jury
iii) Proves anyone committed perjury.
If the CCRC was in possession of any material within the above remit it would have granted leave to Appeal. The notion that JB's team are 'holding back' their real evidence is utterly nonsensical... in my opinion...
Can anyone provide reference to the context in which EP used the term 'informatives'? Did this include the teams searching the area around WHF (who found the tampered-with bullet in the barn) or those knocking on the doors of nearby cottages?
-
Where are these photos??
-
Below is the Bar Council guidance on pii as applied to material/information supplied with an apparent 'confidentiality' clause. Ewen Smith and the defence team not only could but should have disclosed the photograph's existence to JB.
If
the photograph exists or existed on a determined date and
if
EP have withheld disclosure of the image or associated catalogue documents
then this would demonstrate deliberate obstruction to the detriment of JB.
Wouldn't Mike Tesko and Ewen Smith have provided signed testimonies detailing their understanding of the image seen?
Ewen Smith had no obligation to client secrecy under pii. Surely his 'memory' would be deemed as valid as that of police officers?
Bar Council guidance:
Public Interest Immunity (PII) Hearings and Disclosure
The Professional Standards Committee (now the Standards Committee) has issued advice on the appropriate conduct for barristers acting in cases where they are invited to consider material on the basis that they undertake not to disclose it to their defendant client. The PSC consulted the Criminal Bar Association and the Circuits on this point.
The PSC noted first that neither the law nor the Code of Conduct recognised any concept of "counsel to counsel" confidentiality and that when told something on this basis which would be to his client's advantage, counsel should inform his client and use it.
Failure to disclose material to a client could cause serious difficulties including an inability to take the lay client's instructions on the material, almost impossible difficulties in deciding how to conduct the defence in the client's best interests and generally a risk that disparity could develop in the practice of disclosure between counsel.
These disadvantages appeared to override any very rare advantages that might result of such a practice. The Professional Standards Committee therefore considers that counsel should not agree to proceed on this basis and support the direction in the Attorney General's guidelines that the practice of counsel to counsel disclosure should cease: it is inconsistent with the requirement of transparency in the prosecution process.
-
Just so everyone understands, here is a standard pii application.
D7 - Specimen background submission in support of application for PII
Specimen letter
CONFIDENTIAL
IN THE CROWN COURT AT [insert court details]
INDICTMENT NO: [insert Indictment number]
REGINA
V
[insert names of defendants]
SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY
BACKGROUND
The defendants are charged with ...[set out charges]
The prosecution case is ...[summarise nature of case, and what the principal evidence is or is based upon].
The full circumstances of the evidenced case are set out in the draft Opening Note, a copy of which is attached.
CHRONOLOGY OF RELEVANT EVENTS
Set out a detailed chronology listing key people and events so the court has an accurate picture of the context in which PII is said to arise.
MATERIAL TO BE WITHHELD
The prosecution seek to withhold from disclosure...
[list the items of material that the prosecution seek PII immunity]
WHETHER THE MATERIAL SATISFIES THE DISCLOSURE TEST
Prosecution material is disclosable, subject to arguments as to PII, if it might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused. Such material will include anything that tends to show a fact inconsistent with the elements of the case that must be proved by the prosecution. (Attorney General's Guidelines 2005). Material can be considered to be disclosable by the use that could be made of it in cross-examination or by its capacity to support submissions which could lead to the exclusion of evidence, a stay of proceedings or a court or tribunal finding that any public authority had acted incompatibly with a defendant's rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, or by its capacity to suggest an explanation or partial explanation of the accused's actions.
Set out details of why it is considered that material satisfies the disclosure test.
Set out details of any apparent defence by reference to the defence statement, the record of interview or from any other source, and how this impacts on the assessment of what material satisfies the disclosure test.
PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY (PII)
Where the identity of a CHIS is material sought to be withheld then the following paragraphs may be used.
It is a long established principle that the prosecution should not be required to disclose material which would reveal the identity of an intelligence source unless not to do so might give rise to a miscarriage of justice by denying the defence a legitimate opportunity to cast doubt on the case against them.
The prosecution contend that there is nothing in the material sought to be withheld that would enable the defence to cast doubt on the case against them. Thus, the public interest in protecting the anonymity of intelligence sources is not overridden.
Where other public interests are in play, set out the nature of that interest. Reference should be had to paragraph 8.4 of this manual.
DEFENCE STATEMENTS
Set out details of any defence(s) in the defence statement(s).
Where no defence statement has been received, the following may be used:
Defence statements have not been received from the defendant(s) and the Crown have written to the defence reminding them of the requirement to provide a defence statement and pointing out the possible consequences of failing to do so. Nevertheless it has been possible to discern that the above material might satisfy the test for disclosure as outlined above.
TYPE OF APPLICATION
Set the Crown's assessment of what type of hearing is required and giving reasons why. Reference should be had to paragraphs 13.5 - 13.9 of this manual.
In Type II cases the following may be used:
A Type II application is required in relation to the material to be considered by the judge. In relation to all items, the defence cannot be told anything about these documents without revealing that the prosecution contend it is not in the public interest to disclose.[/list]
-
Could sheila not have died as commonly held, on the floor with the blood on her face etc, but have been lifted to the bad after initial forensics, to look at her reverse, and the floor underneath her. Having had the faced cleaned up a little and photographed on the bed?
IF the photo on the bed exists - and let us believe it does...
then how do we know the time frame of it?
-----------------------------------------
clock on bedside cabinet...
Was the clock working or correct time?
-
Per below - this is generally in landscape table format that I have been unable to reproduce here, but you get the gist.
PII is being quoted on this forum in a very casual manner.
It should be qualified - what was requested, when and why was it refused.
Otherwise, all references to PII should be treated as descriptions of defence wish-list evidence, instead of accurate details of existing evidence.
D10 - PII submissions - table format
Specimen letter
CONFIDENTIAL
R v [Insert name(s) of defendant(s)]
PII SUBMISSIONS
ITEM DESCRIPTION
D[ ] Insert concise and accurate details of the material.
DISCLOSABILITY
Set out why the material is said to satisfy the disclosure test.
PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY
The prosecution contend that it is not in the public interest to disclose [insert details of why it is contended the material is sensitive (see chapter 8) and why it is said the material should be withheld (see chapters 8 and 13), in other words why the public interest in withholding it outweighs the public intersest in disclosure. This should include the prosecutor's assessment of the value of the material to the defence case].
OUTCOME
Record outcome of judge's ruling and any reasons given h
-
Per below - this is generally in landscape table format that I have been unable to reproduce here, but you get the gist.
PII is being quoted on this forum in a very casual manner.
It should be qualified - what was requested, when and why was it refused.
Otherwise, all references to PII should be treated as descriptions of defence wish-list evidence, instead of accurate details of existing evidence.
D10 - PII submissions - table format
Specimen letter
CONFIDENTIAL
R v [Insert name(s) of defendant(s)]
PII SUBMISSIONS
ITEM DESCRIPTION
D[ ] Insert concise and accurate details of the material.
DISCLOSABILITY
Set out why the material is said to satisfy the disclosure test.
PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY
The prosecution contend that it is not in the public interest to disclose [insert details of why it is contended the material is sensitive (see chapter 8) and why it is said the material should be withheld (see chapters 8 and 13), in other words why the public interest in withholding it outweighs the public intersest in disclosure. This should include the prosecutor's assessment of the value of the material to the defence case].
OUTCOME
Record outcome of judge's ruling and any reasons given h
This is interesting.
-
This is interesting.
Yes.
-
-Harters- Glad to see you're back. DITTO - #227 COOL or is that secret, or special?
-
what type of clearance would someone need to access such PII?
CT clearance? which most police officers are vetted to?
SC security vetting clearance... some secret projects of MOD or some high ranked police officers.
or DV which MI5 and the MI5 wonha bees "MI6" are vetting to!!
so what impact would the photos have if memebers of the public had access too...? has the case got to the point where it become a national security risk? as to if the photos were proof jeremey don't do it! would this affect the whole country and "police trust"??
I won't be suprised if MI6 is involved in some of this.....
where are the photos now.... in EP police station or CCP thing in burimnham or in MI6 hands...? or in the hands of the inspector and stored at his house that handle the case..
-
what type of clearance would someone need to access such PII?
CT clearance? which most police officers are vetted to?
SC security vetting clearance... some secret projects of MOD or some high ranked police officers.
or DV which MI5 and the MI5 wonha bees "MI6" are vetting to!!
so what impact would the photos have if memebers of the public had access too...? has the case got to the point where it become a national security risk? as to if the photos were proof jeremey don't do it! would this affect the whole country and "police trust"??
I won't be suprised if MI6 is involved in some of this.....
where are the photos now.... in EP police station or CCP thing in burimnham or in MI6 hands...? or in the hands of the inspector and stored at his house that handle the case..
I'd just drive a tank into where they keep the stuff and grab it. I just can't think why they didn't let go into the intelligence service. ???