Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on December 16, 2013, 06:41:AM
-
Ralph told Jeremy:-
(1) - "Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...
(2) - "She has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...
(3) - "He has got the gun, he has gone crazy, come quickly"...
(4) - "She has got the gun, he has gone crazy, come quickly"...
(5) - "He has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...
-
Details of Jeremys response to questioning by police about what Ralph said in the phone call to him, can be found in his police interview, on 11th September 1985, at 11am - (pages 50 to 57)...
-
Details of Jeremys response to questioning by police about what Ralph said in the phone call to him, can be found in his police interview, on 11th September 1985, at 11am - (pages 50 to 57)...
Contents to be posted later tonight...
-
Ralph told Jeremy:-
(1) - "Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...
Infers Sheila had possession of the gun and that she had gone crazy...
-
Ralph told Jeremy:-
(2) - "She has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...
Infers, either Sheila had got the gun, and had gone crazy, or it could mean Sheila had got the gun, and June had gone crazy, or that June had got the gun and Sheila had gone crazy, or that June had got the gun, and that June had gone crazy...
-
Ralph told Jeremy:-
(3) - "He has got the gun, he has gone crazy, come quickly"...
Infers a male person had got the gun, and he had gone crazy...
-
Ralph told Jeremy:-
(4) - "She has got the gun, he has gone crazy, come quickly"...
Infers that either Sheila or June had got the gun, and that a male had gone crazy...
-
Ralph told Jeremy:-
(5) - "He has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...
Infers that a male had got the gun, and that either Sheila or June had gone crazy...
-
Other things which could be relevant, include anybody who might have been in debt to Ralph Bamber, and suffering financial hardship at the time of the shootings...
(a) - Anthony Pargeter owed Ralph Bamber £50,000...
(b) - Eatons owed Ralph Bamber a huge amount of money linked to the purchase of the farm where the Eatons lived...
-
Other things which could be relevant, include anybody who might have been in debt to Ralph Bamber, and suffering financial hardship at the time of the shootings...
(a) - Anthony Pargeter owed Ralph Bamber £50,000...
(b) - Eatons owed Ralph Bamber a huge amount of money linked to the purchase of the farm where the Eatons lived...
The court which tried Bamber for the murders had a right to know about monies owed to Ralph Bamber by prosecution witnesses, who stood to benefit should Bamber be convicted based upon any input of information or evidence by the aforementioned relatives or family members...
-
Of course this is always an interesting concept but ..... killing someone isn't the easiest thing to do (I imagine) so if a third party were involved, I would have thought they would only eliminate those necessary to ease their burden - 'Neville' - at a push, maybe June but not Sheila and the boys. It would surely be easier at a time when they weren't staying?
Hi Caroline,
unless, the third party involvement looked at the bigger picture, not merely wishing or intending to wipe out any debt owed to the Bambers, but had set their goal on acquiring the Bamber parents estate, which was tenuously linked to them and the estates of Ralph Bambers mother, and June Bambers mother (Mabel Speakman) - in those circumstances, any third party involvement might have been waiting until the Bamber clan were altogether at the farm before setting out to kill them all. Of course, for such a dastardly plan to exceed, it would be necessary to lure Jeremy to the farm to kill him also, so that the path to a financial windfall became easier...
It should not be overlooked, that the jury concerned themselves with sending a note to the judge after they had retired to deliberate thier verdict, asking the question, as to whether or not the relatives would benefit financially should Bamber be convicted?
No doubt the jury were not only thinking about the possibility of Robert Boutflour becoming a beneficiary by default, but other prosecution witnesses who were also relatives, the Eatons, and Anthony Pargeter, for example....
-
Whatever,or rather 'whoever' Nevill was referring to when he phoned Jeremy,he clearly stated his 'daughter' when he phoned the police himself. If was a third party (impersonating Nevill on phone) and plan was to lure JB to the farm,why stage a suicide for Sheila? Couldn't a third party still have framed JB for the murders anyway after they had failed to lure him to the farm?
-
Mike if we look at "She has the gun, She has gone mad" it also implies that Jeremy would immediately know of whom he spoke and begs the question of whether similar incidents MAY have previously occurred.
-
There is evidence that relatives had been alerted to the fact that Sheila and her children were staying at the farm on evening, 6th August 1985, via the acknowledged telephone call that same evening, between June Bamber, Sheila and Pamela Boutflour - when it became clear that Sheila had been and was behaving strangely. In fact, June told Pamela that she intended to visit her on the following day (7th August) to speak to her about Sheila, etc...
It is therefore likely that Pamela discussed the detail of her conversation with June and Sheila over the phone, with other family members that same evening, thus alerting any participating third party to the killings of any would be plan to set in motion...
-
Whatever,or rather 'whoever' Nevill was referring to when he phoned Jeremy,he clearly stated his 'daughter' when he phoned the police himself. If was a third party (impersonating Nevill on phone) and plan was to lure JB to the farm,why stage a suicide for Sheila? Couldn't a third party still have framed JB for the murders anyway after they had failed to lure him to the farm?
These are excellent observations, worthy of further consideration - of course, these matters would have fallen upon the jury to decide upon, had the judge not biased the proceedings, by directing the jury along the lines that whether or not Ralph made the call to Jeremy, could determine the verdict they arrive at, since if the jury rejected the defense proposition that Ralph phoned Jeremy telling him " Sheila had got the gun", they could convict him of the murders, but the content of police interviews involving Jeremy and what was actually said by his father, had a bearing upon the truth of the matter, whether or not the judge was right to give such a specific direction to the jury, which was not entirely accurate...
-
Mike if we look at "She has the gun, She has gone mad" it also implies that Jeremy would immediately know of whom he spoke and begs the question of whether similar incidents MAY have previously occurred.
Hi April,
Yes, I can go along with that/ this...
-
There is evidence that relatives had been alerted to the fact that Sheila and her children were staying at the farm on evening, 6th August 1985, via the acknowledged telephone call that same evening, between June Bamber, Sheila and Pamela Boutflour - when it became clear that Sheila had been and was behaving strangely. In fact, June told Pamela that she intended to visit her on the following day (7th August) to speak to her about Sheila, etc...
It is therefore likely that Pamela discussed the detail of her conversation with June and Sheila over the phone, with other family members that same evening, thus alerting any participating third party to the killings of any would be plan to set in motion...
Mike,RWB admitted 'listening in' on the telephone conversation and DB also said he was present at his parents house during the telephone call between Pamela and June.
-
Hi, Mike,- Is it relevant in this Topic, to consider the matter of Jeremy's residence (Bourtree Cottage).
That is, per se, who resided there before Jeremy. Where they moved to (WHF Farm Cottages), when Jeremy made it into his home? What was, if any, the connections of the farm workers with the 'Relations'?
Where was Jeremy parked whilst the police were 'investigating' the SOC, after the initial reconnoitring with Bews and Myall?
What is known about the selling of said Bourtree Cottage in the 'Monies' Equation'? of the 'Bamber Estate'?
"THE TRUTH NEVER SLEEPS, EVER" - Mandy Rice Davies.
-
Mike,RWB admitted 'listening in' on the telephone conversation and DB also said he was present at his parents house during the telephone call between Pamela and June.
It was however, a very late call, after 10pm I think. It would have taken an almost instant decision to be made about the next course of action but then of course, also to be considered is what I believe to be the background of an almost lifetime obsession of hatred for Jeremy.
-
Such as RWB denying all knowledge of the conversation that took place on the phone that night between June and Pamela,,,while he knew full well because he was listening in to the call. There's none so daft---------------
-
Whatever,or rather 'whoever' Nevill was referring to when he phoned Jeremy,he clearly stated his 'daughter' when he phoned the police himself.
This is a crucial point, because once you see what Jeremy says about the phone call in his 11th September 1985 police interview, it becomes more obvious by the moment, that even before Jeremy got around to calling the police at 3.36am, that police already had information to hand in the form of Ralph Bamber contacting the police himself (at 3.26am), telling police that his 'daughter has hot hold of one of his guns'...
We now know, that Sheila's fingerprints were found on a shotgun at the scene, along with Ralph Bambers fingerprints, and it remains a distinct possibility that the gun referred to by Ralph Bamber in his 3.26am call to police, was with reference to this shotgun, not the anshulz rifle, which has been described as the only firearm used in the tragedy...
perhaps the person taking Jeremy's call, paraphrased what Jeremy said his father had said, correctly or otherwise, altering "She has" into "Sheila has", which in one way or another, it allowed the police to present the argument at trial, that Jeremy had not received a telephone call at all from his father, and that he had introduced such a call, making mention of Sheila's name, to fool police into thinking that Sheila was solely responsible,when if the truth be known, what Jeremy had to say about it had not been recorded accurately...
-
Mike,RWB admitted 'listening in' on the telephone conversation and DB also said he was present at his parents house during the telephone call between Pamela and June.
Sorry,tyler,I hadn't realised you'd already said similar. Put it down to great minds,eh.
-
If Ralph never mentioned Sheila's name during the phone call he made to Jeremy, then it surely must have a bearing upon the fairness of a trial, whereby, it was being introduced in evidence that Jeremy had introduced Sheila's name into the equation, when he had not...
-
By couching what Ralph Bamber may have said, "Sheila has got the gun",instead of, "She has got the gun", it sets up for an argument to be put that Jeremy was / is the killer..
-
By couching what Ralph Bamber may have said, "Sheila has got the gun",instead of, "She has got the gun", it sets up for an argument to be put that Jeremy was / is the killer..
If it can be proven that Sheila did not kill herself...
-
If it can be proven that Sheila did not kill herself...
I'm hoping that's the outcome Mike,,as I believe she was shot both times by two different people.
-
I'm hoping that's the outcome Mike,,as I believe she was shot both times by two different people.
Hi Lookout,
This is where Jeremy and myself differ, since he keeps pursuing the argument in favour of Sheila having shot herself, whereas, I think she was killed by use of two separate weapons...
-
Hi Lookout,
This is where Jeremy and myself differ, since he keeps pursuing the argument in favour of Sheila having shot herself, whereas, I think she was killed by use of two separate weapons...
The thing to remember is, that in the case for Jeremy telling police that Ralph did say to police, that his father told him, "Sheila has got the gun", it might make a difference if she had not shot herself...
-
The thing to remember is, that in the case for Jeremy telling police that Ralph did say to police, that his father told him, "Sheila has got the gun", it might make a difference if she had not shot herself...
But equally, it might not have done - the jury would have been asked to decide this issue, one way or the other. But, if Jeremy made no mention of the name Sheila whilst reporting the circumstances of his fathers call to him, it could not be used adversely against him, in the manner with which it was, to show his guilt, since he had not put the thought that Sheila was the killer into the minds of the police, and that she had taken her own life after shooting dead all of the others...
Until you read the transcript of Jeremy's police interview, dated, 11th September 1985, it becomes impossible to see how Jeremy has been shepherded into a corner and from which he appears to be penned in, with little opportunity to set the record straight....
-
Not to be overlooked, is the fact that despite being interviewed on 11th September 1985, about the phone matters, police released him on bail - so the police must have accepted Jeremy's explanation, as to why the details of his conversation with his father had become transformed, from "She has", into "Sheila has", with all the ramifications attached by the prosecution...
-
I would think it should be obvious, as to the reason why Jeremy's comments have become transformed, from "She has", to "Sheila has", because of the earlier call made to police by Ralph Bamber, since in that call (3.26am), Ralph makes mention of his daughter - so that by the time Jeremy makes his own call (3.36am) to police, introducing himself as Mr Jeremy Bamber, police interpret what Jeremy told them differently...
-
Add into the equation, that upon being told by police that all his family were dead, Jeremy set about accusing police of shooting dead all of his family...
-
Add into the equation, that upon being told by police that all his family were dead, Jeremy set about accusing police of shooting dead all of his family...
It is not every day you get a chance to accuse the police of shooting dead your family - but in Jeremy's case, on that occasion, it was true what he was alleging, police had shot dead at least one member of Jeremy's family, with the possibility that they mave have shot and killed two, and shot at and into bodies of victims who were already deceased...
-
It is not every day you get a chance to accuse the police of shooting dead your family - but in Jeremy's case, on that occasion, it was true what he was alleging, police had shot dead at least one member of Jeremy's family, with the possibility that they mave have shot and killed two, and shot at and into bodies of victims who were already deceased...
The allegation made by Jeremy that police who had entered the farmhouse and had shot and killed all of his family, was not far off the mark...
-
Consider for one moment, the opening paragraph of the typed scenes of crime report - where it makes mention of the fact that someone has been shot, that someone has been killed, and that someone has committed suicide (source of information, not known) - what do you think all of this is about?
-
Consider for one moment, the opening paragraph of the typed scenes of crime report - where it makes mention of the fact that someone has been shot, that someone has been killed, and that someone has committed suicide (source of information, not known) - what do you think all of this is about?
Ask yourselves why it was felt necessary to introduce four spent bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3, and DRH/4) into the main bedroom scenario? Was this manoeuvre linked to the suggestion that Ralph had been shot four times non fatally whilst present inside the main bedroom? Would it surprise you to know that Ralph was only shot non fatally once whilst upstairs, and three more times non fatally whilst he was downstairs in the kitchen. Four fatal bullets were pumped into the top back part of his skull as he sat perched on a large wooden chair behind the kitchen door - four shots fired by police...
This was one of the reasons why DC Hammersley vacated four exhibits to allow for the introduction of four bullet cases into the bedroom scene - linked to the accidental shooting of Sheila in the same bedroom by the original bullet PV/20...
-
13 spent bullet cases in and around the main bedroom, top landing, minus 4 bullet cases introduced by DC Hammersley upon instruction of PI 'Bob' Miller - leaves 9 spent bullet cases to be accounted for...
7 - June, 1 Ralph and 1 Sheila...
-
It appears, that something rather extraordinary occurred when the raid team and later, the group of training officers entered the building...
I am receiving intelligence that police fired more shots than was first thought, and that at least two of the five victims were shot at, wounded, or killed during the exercise of these duties by police...
Ralph...
Sheila...
and perhaps, June...
-
It appears, that something rather extraordinary occurred when the raid team and later, the group of training officers entered the building...
I am receiving intelligence that police fired more shots than was first thought, and that at least two of the five victims were shot at, wounded, or killed during the exercise of these duties by police...
Ralph...
Sheila...
and perhaps, June...
It has also been drawn to my attention that two separate batches of crime scene ammunition was submitted to the lab' for examination, on two separate occasions - one batch sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on 30th August 1985, and a second batch submitted to the same lab', on 20th September 1985...
-
I was informed some time ago that any police officer involved in the incident at whf, where deceased victims had been re-shot by police during a training exercise, would not face prosecution regarding the same, because you cannot be lawfully held accountable for shooting someone who was already dead...
-
Surely, heaven forbid, police involved at the scene in a training exercise, did not shoot live rounds from their weapons into the bodies of the deceased?
Surely not...
Surely...
-
Test fire of rifle 18, silencer and control ammunition took place involving comparison checks where fired control bullets were looked at alongside crime scene ammunition, after the first batch of crime scene ammunition was submitted to the lab', on 30th August - in accordance with details recorded on individual General Examination Records (prior to 20th September 1985)...
-
Test fire of rifle 18, silencer and control ammunition took place involving comparison checks where fired control bullets were looked at alongside crime scene ammunition, after the first batch of crime scene ammunition was submitted to the lab', on 30th August - in accordance with details recorded on individual General Examination Records (prior to 20th September 1985)...
The official test fire of rifle 18, silencer, and remaining 27 control bullets (DRH/42) took place between 20th September 1985, and 2nd October 1985...
There was a good reason why two separate batches of crime scene ammunition were sent to the lab' on two different occasions, and why those in one batch had had its packaging tampered with...
-
By couching what Ralph Bamber may have said, "Sheila has got the gun",instead of, "She has got the gun", it sets up for an argument to be put that Jeremy was / is the killer..
But the only other female in the house was June Bamber,who was shot in bed and pinned down by the bullets which went through the pillow. I can't see how she could possibly have got hold of a rifle that morning..
-
But the only other female in the house was June Bamber,who was shot in bed and pinned down by the bullets which went through the pillow. I can't see how she could possibly have got hold of a rifle that morning..
Steve, I can with absolute honesty say that I agree with you a 100%. That must be a first! ;D
-
But the only other female in the house was June Bamber,who was shot in bed and pinned down by the bullets which went through the pillow. I can't see how she could possibly have got hold of a rifle that morning..
Yes, but on the day of the murders, Neither Jeremy or anybody else, only the police knew exactly how many times June had been shot, or even where she was when she got shot. It was not until much later that the full details of how many times the victims had been shot became common knowledge - police originally led the family to believe that each of the five victims had all been killed by way of a solitary shot...
There is no evidence anywhere to show that Jeremy or any of the relatives knew how many shots had been fired, until after Jeremy's first arrest, interviews, and him being released on bail...
With this in mind, and if Jeremy had been the killer, why would he introduce the explanation regarding the mix up relating to the changing of words spoken to police by him, from "She has", to Sheila has", at the time of his 11th September 1985, police interview?
-
The four head shots, fit the criteria for Ralph to have been sat on a chair, and the shooter firing into the top back part of his head - when police forced their way into the kitchen...
This was the reason why four bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4) were later added to the scene in the main bedroom, upon the advice of PI 'Bob' Miller...