There are so many reasons for me. I can try to list them, but I will probably forget some points.well said plus would Jeremy ditch Julie so quickly if he had told her he was a mass murderer and still expect her to keep quiet? nobodys that stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. I don´t think that Jeremy would have been able to enter the farmhouse and EXPECT to control three aduts and two children. With an accomplice I can see it, alone, no; but since the case against Jeremy is that he committed the murders alone, I have to conclude that he couldn´t have done it on his own - or had the "guts".
2. Cannot see what Sheila was doing while Jeremy was killing off the rest of her family - just waiting her turn? I don´t think so!
3.Sheila´s appearance in death and the way she was shot. She looks vastly different than her parents. Nevill and June looked messy with an air of despair about them. Sheila looked at peace and tranquil, not a trace of fight, it is all so neat to look at that it has to strike you. How could Jeremy manage that - how could he manage to shoot her in such an awkward position?
4.The fact that Sheila was shot twice speaks against Jeremy having done it if he wanted to stage a suicide. What moron shoots a victim twice and expects it to be ruled a suicide?
5.Julie. If Jeremy had really told her so much about his plans of killing his family, she would have warned the Bambers and Sheila - as we know, she did not. Or did she really think it was all right to kill them all off including the little boys she had read bed-time stories.
6.The fact that the police initially and for quite a while saw the case as a murder-suicide case. The evidence must have supported that.
7.The way the most crucial piece of evidence was found and handled by relatives who had A LOT to gain by a guilty verdict. Found after police already had searched gun cupboard.
8.The way Jeremy behaved after the tragedy. If he had done it, he would have gone out of his way to appear innocent. As it was, he just kept on with his life as the arrogant young man he was.
9.Sheila´s illness. She was seriously mentally ill, contrary to what guilters say. She didn´t receive heavy medication for nothing, she wasn´t hospitalized for nothing. Paranoid Schizophrenics most frequently target their closest family if they have violent impulses. Sometimes they even plan to kill family members.
10.The "coincidence" that Sheila said: "All people are evil and must die". The fact that she thought her sons were the "Devil´s children", that they were "women haters", that she was afraid they would rape and kill her show with all clarity that something was seriously wrong. It should have raised alarm bells, she should not have been allowed to be with them unsupervised! As it was, the doctors washed their hands after the fact, claiming that Sheila would never harm her children. Children who had bruises, were neglected and had dark and strange thoughts themselves, which anyone can see for themselves from their sinister drawings.
Thank you, Susan. :)
P.S. Didn´t want to read other posts before I made mine. You mention giving the keys to the relatives - of course he would not have given the keys to ANYBODY if he were the killer! In the back of his mind, the thought that he might have overlooked something would have constantly gnawed at him; I also think he would have been compelled to go back to the house to go through it, just to make sure. He wouldn´t let the family have free access, that is an absurd and illogical thought!
well said plus would Jeremy ditch Julie so quickly if he had told her he was a mass murderer and still expect her to keep quiet? nobodys that stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wilf
Alias after reading all the posts tonight on this thread I am asking myself just what Jeremy Bamber's Defence were doing at the trial did they not have the same thoughts as us especially about Julie.
In my opinion, Jeremy´s defence team was appallingly bad. I don´t know why they did such a poor job, but one important factor is that they may not have believed him in the first place. After all, his entire living family was AGAINST HIM. Mostly people have their own family members as a strong support team; what Jeremy had was a family that worked overtime to get the shovel under him.
That automatically makes you look bad in other people´s eyes - if you don´t think far enough and take into consideration the "cuckoo" aspect and how the family begrudged him and Sheila their upbringing in THEIR family.
This is very tragic, and YES, Jeremy was incredibly unlucky.
I'm going to hold out on answering myself because I's like to hear other members views.
Hi nugnug I agree when I joined the forum in 2012 I had no knowledge on the Bamber case at all but after the extensive reading I have done I cannot put Jeremy Bamber at the scene, the bike, wet suit entering by the window is all quite farcical and I have not seen any ev idence that puts him at the scene. The amount of items destroyed and held under PII tells me EP have so much to hide and that he was set up. All I hear about he did not cry at the funeral he drank champagne went on holiday does not make him a murderer it is propaganda put out by the guilty brigade as they have no concrete evidence to throw at us. Jeremy Bamber did himself no favours I agree I saw him as a very immature attention seeking young man. Had he been guilty he would not have said he went out shooting rabbits, he would not have confessed to Julie and told her of his intentions 12 months earlier he would not have left a silencer than might incriminate him and he certainly would not have given his extended family keys to the property. Taff Jones believed Jeremy to be innocent and would not be silenced so he was therefore removed from the case. Julie had all criminal charges dropped against her need I say more. The Jury were not given the true facts of the case and were misled and not to sure that the Judge knew the full facts either the whole trial was a sham. Jeremy Bamber did not have a criminal mind and therefore would not have tried to give himself an alibi with the phone calls. The phone calls happened and EP know they DID.
There are so many reasons for me. I can try to list them, but I will probably forget some points.
1. I don´t think that Jeremy would have been able to enter the farmhouse and EXPECT to control three aduts and two children. With an accomplice I can see it, alone, no; but since the case against Jeremy is that he committed the murders alone, I have to conclude that he couldn´t have done it on his own - or had the "guts".
2. Cannot see what Sheila was doing while Jeremy was killing off the rest of her family - just waiting her turn? I don´t think so!
3.Sheila´s appearance in death and the way she was shot. She looks vastly different than her parents. Nevill and June looked messy with an air of despair about them. Sheila looked at peace and tranquil, not a trace of fight, it is all so neat to look at that it has to strike you. How could Jeremy manage that - how could he manage to shoot her in such an awkward position?
4.The fact that Sheila was shot twice speaks against Jeremy having done it if he wanted to stage a suicide. What moron shoots a victim twice and expects it to be ruled a suicide?
5.Julie. If Jeremy had really told her so much about his plans of killing his family, she would have warned the Bambers and Sheila - as we know, she did not. Or did she really think it was all right to kill them all off including the little boys she had read bed-time stories.
6.The fact that the police initially and for quite a while saw the case as a murder-suicide case. The evidence must have supported that.
7.The way the most crucial piece of evidence was found and handled by relatives who had A LOT to gain by a guilty verdict. Found after police already had searched gun cupboard.
8.The way Jeremy behaved after the tragedy. If he had done it, he would have gone out of his way to appear innocent. As it was, he just kept on with his life as the arrogant young man he was.
9.Sheila´s illness. She was seriously mentally ill, contrary to what guilters say. She didn´t receive heavy medication for nothing, she wasn´t hospitalized for nothing. Paranoid Schizophrenics most frequently target their closest family if they have violent impulses. Sometimes they even plan to kill family members.
10.The "coincidence" that Sheila said: "All people are evil and must die". The fact that she thought her sons were the "Devil´s children", that they were "women haters", that she was afraid they would rape and kill her show with all clarity that something was seriously wrong. It should have raised alarm bells, she should not have been allowed to be with them unsupervised! As it was, the doctors washed their hands after the fact, claiming that Sheila would never harm her children. Children who had bruises, were neglected and had dark and strange thoughts themselves, which anyone can see for themselves from their sinister drawings.
Wilf, you say that nobody's that stupid . The police believed her! They were cerlain that Shiela was the culprit until Julie told them that Jeremy told her that he was going to do it. Yes, unbelieveable, but I heard today about a copper tazering a blind man because he thought that his white stick was a Samairi sword !
Recently, a youth was arrested by a mounted copper in Milton Keynes becasehe refered to his horse as being "queer "We hear of other stupid actions by the police quite often. The decent coppers must squirm with embarassment on hearing some of them.
Under the heading of "you could'nt make them up" ; This copper stepped into the road a nd stopped a motorist, he said "this is a one way street,sir" The motorist pointed-out that he was,infact, only going one way. On hearing this bit of logic the copper let him go
joke
Thanks, wilf, and yes, another aspect that makes little sense. Did he really think that Julie would just quietly go away, knowing he had killed his entire family? She might go to the police - or she might blackmail him, both dangerous options!
Which leads to the next question: why wasn´t Julie really afraid for HER life? She tried to smother him!!! An alleged mass murderer!!!
Then, after they split up, she let Jeremy and Brett Collins help her move her belongings when she changed address. Rather careless of her!
The truth is, she wasn´t afraid of Jeremy, not the least bit. She knows he never killed anybody!
Alias I have often wondered if Jeremy and his Defence team were too complacent and did not think for one moment he would be convicted. No forensic evidence to link him to the crime scene and maybe they thought the prosecutions evidence was so weak it would not convict. I have always thought that if your Defence thinks you are Guilty they will do their utmost to have you found not guilty. It is all a big mystery to me how all this happened and obviously two members of the Jury were not convinced one more and he would have walked free.
In my opinion, Jeremy´s defence team was appallingly bad. I don´t know why they did such a poor job, but one important factor is that they may not have believed him in the first place. After all, his entire living family was AGAINST HIM. Mostly people have their own family members as a strong support team; what Jeremy had was a family that worked overtime to get the shovel under him.
That automatically makes you look bad in other people´s eyes - if you don´t think far enough and take into consideration the "cuckoo" aspect and how the family begrudged him and Sheila their upbringing in THEIR family.
This is very tragic, and YES, Jeremy was incredibly unlucky.
Not forgetting,that JM HAD to work with the police whether she liked it or not because she was granted immunity from HER crimes,,and she also stood to gain thousands for being on their side. A form of blackmail in my books !
Yes Lookout, whilst there are those who keep harping on about her dignified silence over the years, it may well be that enough of a reminder to to keep her mouth shut is the thought of having got out of a sticky situation by the skin of her teeth and the course her life may have taken had she NOT.
Morning april/lookout Julie has to keep a dignified silence :'( it is difficult to tell the same story twice.
Morning april/lookout Julie has to keep a dignified silence :'( it is difficult to tell the same story twice.
Morning Susan,,yes,liars have to have brilliant memories over the years,,but the fact that they all say the same thing,that they'll " live in fear " if Jeremy is released is to do with their consciences,,and not the fact that he'd committed any crime. This is their " ace card " that has been continually played since Jeremy has been imprisoned,,and as such,have convinced themselves and everyone else that he remains a danger. On the contrary,,it's people like them who are a danger,,as well as those criminals who aren't locked up. We have at least one reported murder every week,,which gives you an idea of how many dangerous people that ARE walking our streets.
well they would be afraid weather he was or guilty.
i mean if i had framed someone for murder id be frightened of them getting out.
probely more frightend than if they were guilty.
The fear of the relatives is unfounded and they're just using it as an excuse. I wish they'd all had a polygraph test !
I have not read any post on this topic however my assurances of his innocence came from having met him.Thank you Aunt Agatha, that alone convinces me and you spent many hours with Jeremy.
I have stated this many times before. Unless he is one amazing and patient actor.....I do believe he had no idea what exactly happened inside White House Farm that night.
Together we sat for years....based on the information we had back then, trying desperately to fathom out what the hell really happened. We went round in circles......if he had taken part in the shootings I am certain he would have let slip or somehow revealed that the information we were looking into was a pack of lies.....that it was not the truthful events of that night.....but he did not.
The understanding we have today, is completely different from the understanding we had then.....had he been involved he would have led me or others to look further.....but he couldn't, because he did not know in what direction to look either.
Sad....very sad!!
Bamber, however, still has all the cunning and ingenuity he displayed in his planning of the crime. Even after all these years, from inside a maximum security prison he has managed to construct a new credibility for himself, with his claims of innocence reaching an increasingly sympathetic audience.So Adam would you please respond to Aunt Agatha's post? You may or not know she was very close to Jeremy over many of the early years of his sentence. Surely you can give her opinion some respect and consideration, she knew him and was very close to him, you have never met him, have no idea of his true character and just spout your own arrogant, fixated opinions which mean absolutely NOTHING!
There is, though, no hope left for him. Even if, somehow, the case were to be referred to appeal, and even if the convictions were quashed, it could still be sent back for re-trial. Although much evidence has been destroyed, much still survives and many witnesses are still alive.
From respected journalist Bob Woffinden. Who Graheme not surprisingly also does not believe.
I have not read any post on this topic however my assurances of his innocence came from having met him.
I have stated this many times before. Unless he is one amazing and patient actor.....I do believe he had no idea what exactly happened inside White House Farm that night.
Together we sat for years....based on the information we had back then, trying desperately to fathom out what the hell really happened. We went round in circles......if he had taken part in the shootings I am certain he would have let slip or somehow revealed that the information we were looking into was a pack of lies.....that it was not the truthful events of that night.....but he did not.
The understanding we have today, is completely different from the understanding we had then.....had he been involved he would have led me or others to look further.....but he couldn't, because he did not know in what direction to look either.
Sad....very sad!!
Bamber, however, still has all the cunning and ingenuity he displayed in his planning of the crime. Even after all these years, from inside a maximum security prison he has managed to construct a new credibility for himself, with his claims of innocence reaching an increasingly sympathetic audience.
There is, though, no hope left for him. Even if, somehow, the case were to be referred to appeal, and even if the convictions were quashed, it could still be sent back for re-trial. Although much evidence has been destroyed, much still survives and many witnesses are still alive.
From respected journalist Bob Woffinden. Who Graheme not surprisingly also does not believe.
Bamber, however, still has all the cunning and ingenuity he displayed in his planning of the crime. Even after all these years, from inside a maximum security prison he has managed to construct a new credibility for himself, with his claims of innocence reaching an increasingly sympathetic audience.What about resected Guardian reporter Eric Allison who has always supported Jeremy Bamber and never wavered.
There is, though, no hope left for him. Even if, somehow, the case were to be referred to appeal, and even if the convictions were quashed, it could still be sent back for re-trial. Although much evidence has been destroyed, much still survives and many witnesses are still alive.
From respected journalist Bob Woffinden. Who Graheme not surprisingly also does not believe.
well if you have to put the word respected in front of someones name it cant be true.
look up bob wolfindon on the internet and see if anybody respects him.
most people seem to think hes cunt.
Not sure why lambasting Bob Woffinden, or attacking his credibility has anything to do with what really happened at WHF? The bloke came up with his opinion, and unlike many on here, he had the balls to put it in print and put his name to it. Has it made a difference to Jeremy Bamber's case? Nope! Has it kept the case in the public eye? Yep, and I'm sure Jeremy knows and appreciates the value in that.
If you don't agree with what he has done, rather than attack him, do something positive about it, write up your own theory and put your real identity and make it easy to contact yourself, as he has. Far better to do that than slate and destroy someones integrity for having an opinion whilst hiding behind a computer screen. I know Bob Woffinden, he's a decent guy, I'll stand up beside him and be counted, he doesn't deserve any of this because he's got an opinion that differs from the bulk on here. I thought this was a fair place for debate, I was clearly wrong.
Not sure why lambasting Bob Woffinden, or attacking his credibility has anything to do with what really happened at WHF? The bloke came up with his opinion, and unlike many on here, he had the balls to put it in print and put his name to it. Has it made a difference to Jeremy Bamber's case? Nope! Has it kept the case in the public eye? Yep, and I'm sure Jeremy knows and appreciates the value in that.
If you don't agree with what he has done, rather than attack him, do something positive about it, write up your own theory and put your real identity and make it easy to contact yourself, as he has. Far better to do that than slate and destroy someones integrity for having an opinion whilst hiding behind a computer screen. I know Bob Woffinden, he's a decent guy, I'll stand up beside him and be counted, he doesn't deserve any of this because he's got an opinion that differs from the bulk on here. I thought this was a fair place for debate, I was clearly wrong.
Not sure why lambasting Bob Woffinden, or attacking his credibility has anything to do with what really happened at WHF? The bloke came up with his opinion, and unlike many on here, he had the balls to put it in print and put his name to it. Has it made a difference to Jeremy Bamber's case? Nope! Has it kept the case in the public eye? Yep, and I'm sure Jeremy knows and appreciates the value in that.I'm not attacking him I'm just giving my opinion as to why I don't respect him. Still. I suppose he had one thing in his favour. We all know his real name.
If you don't agree with what he has done, rather than attack him, do something positive about it, write up your own theory and put your real identity and make it easy to contact yourself, as he has. Far better to do that than slate and destroy someones integrity for having an opinion whilst hiding behind a computer screen. I know Bob Woffinden, he's a decent guy, I'll stand up beside him and be counted, he doesn't deserve any of this because he's got an opinion that differs from the bulk on here. I thought this was a fair place for debate, I was clearly wrong.
I have not read any post on this topic however my assurances of his innocence came from having met him.
I have stated this many times before. Unless he is one amazing and patient actor.....I do believe he had no idea what exactly happened inside White House Farm that night.
Together we sat for years....based on the information we had back then, trying desperately to fathom out what the hell really happened. We went round in circles......if he had taken part in the shootings I am certain he would have let slip or somehow revealed that the information we were looking into was a pack of lies.....that it was not the truthful events of that night.....but he did not.
The understanding we have today, is completely different from the understanding we had then.....had he been involved he would have led me or others to look further.....but he couldn't, because he did not know in what direction to look either.
Sad....very sad!!
Not sure why lambasting Bob Woffinden, or attacking his credibility has anything to do with what really happened at WHF? The bloke came up with his opinion, and unlike many on here, he had the balls to put it in print and put his name to it. Has it made a difference to Jeremy Bamber's case? Nope! Has it kept the case in the public eye? Yep, and I'm sure Jeremy knows and appreciates the value in that.
If you don't agree with what he has done, rather than attack him, do something positive about it, write up your own theory and put your real identity and make it easy to contact yourself, as he has. Far better to do that than slate and destroy someones integrity for having an opinion whilst hiding behind a computer screen. I know Bob Woffinden, he's a decent guy, I'll stand up beside him and be counted, he doesn't deserve any of this because he's got an opinion that differs from the bulk on here. I thought this was a fair place for debate, I was clearly wrong.
Thanks for that, AA. It is interesting to hear this - as it is always interesting to read your posts, since you have first hand knowledge of the person, Jeremy Bamber.
You mention something that has entered my mind from time to time: that Jeremy seems to be in the dark about what happened that night and is as puzzled as the rest of us as to what really took place.
I think we (mostly Jeremy!) desperately need to see all the material held under PII. We don´t know the whole case, something is clearly missing from the equation.
We also need a report on what physical evidence was destroyed in 1996 - each and every item accounted for. Who made the order and who carried it out - it was unlawful. Why was there no consequences for the people involved in this?
I'm not attacking him I'm just giving my opinion as to why I don't respect him. Still. I suppose he had one thing in his favour. We all know his real name.
i probely went a bit to far there as i usually do.
for me its was the fact he claimed to have solved the case when he had clearly done nothing of the kind.
surely all writer expect some critism of there work.
Woofwoof wrote a lot in defence of Jeremy. But what he is saying now in effect is that all that he has written before is complete dross.
So what is there to inspire confidence in what he has to say to us nowadays about the case? Aman who is prone to change his mind at a whim.
There is a saying that for every action there is a consequence. It seems that some consequences take longer than others.
As you do mine Grahame. I accept its your opinion, but why not write to Bob and tell him of your opinions with your contact details of course and tell him directly rather than patronisingly call him 'Woof Woof' on here. allow the man to defend himself to you directly perhaps.Why? I know someone who knows him personally and even she couldn't understand why he changed his mind. He was mentioned and I gave my opinion that's all. I have known this case from the beginning and although I have learned a lot since then, not once have I changed my allegiance. Especially on something that has been known from the first. Still. Let's see what you yourself have got to offer when your own book comes out.
And you have never changed your mind Grahame? I've searched everywhere and cannot find anything where he effectively says everything he said before about Jeremy Bamber, or anything else, is complete dross, or that this decision making was on a whim?
Why? I know someone who knows him personally and even she couldn't understand why he changed his mind. He was mentioned and I gave my opinion that's all. I have known this case from the beginning and although I have learned a lot since then, not once have I changed my allegiance. Especially on something that has been known from the first. Still. Let's see what you yourself have got to offer when your own book comes out.
and as he wasn't new to the case you would think he would know that.
i wonder weather he actually wrote that articall or weather ricard webster wrote it.
Grahame, as you state: 'you have known this case from the beginning'...you have 'not once changed your allegiance.' Thats good, I respect that. However, I don't think Bob ever had an allegiance, (unless your person says different), nor do I, like me , he researched and came to a conclusion, we differ in our conclusions, so what, thats life. I don't bear grudges or question his integrity or patronisingly call him Woof Woof because we differ in opinion. Simples really.
Having a sly dig at me or my book doesn't help or work to be honest, you say you were there at the beginning, great. Me, I wasn't, I didn't witness the murders, I simply attended the trial, spoke to cops, witnesses et al, at the time, and much later, I also, post trial, communicated with Jeremy Bamber, thats my professional role, I profile serious offenders. So maybe what 'I have to offer' is never going to match your own in depth knowledge. It's all about opinions Grahame, not damning people because someone else tells you something which may or may not be true. Easiest way to find out if it is true, ask them direct. That's what I did with Jeremy and everyone else, I questioned them face to face on many things they said and claimed.
Ultimately, what matters to me, I don't want my friends unfairly slated or their integrity questioned, if you have something to say about Bob then give him a chance to respond, you are appealing for Jeremy to get a fair hearing, then perhaps you should do so yourself. Contact Bob, but word of advice, don't call him Woof Woof.
Hi Mason
genuine question from me. Do you think that if some people did not tell the whole truth in the original trial for whatever reason, if they are questioned afterwards for journalistic purposes , would they either feel guilty and try and play down their role or evidence - or embellish the evidence even more to try and make the story even more convincing? In other words justify their evidence by providing more detail that they may not have had a chance to say in court?
And as a journalist do you think you would be able to spot that?
I am not sure I am convinced personally about the whole "relatives " conspiracy to obtain the inheritance story , but I think they really might have been totally convinced JB was guilty and used everything in their power to make sure he paid for what he had done. After the trial I wonder if some of them did feel there were some doubts and then felt guilty about what they had done.
Maybe - but why then have Jeremy´s earned prison status as a cat B prisoner reversed into cat A again?
Maybe - but why then have Jeremy´s earned prison status as a cat B prisoner reversed into cat A again?
Hi Jansus
In many instances, journalists are after a story, something different. For a book, or for serious research, its different questions. Thats what makes the difference, the questions that may or may not be answered.
I think people do change their stories/versions post trial, however, it takes a very strong person to speak out against the system, so many act in a sycophantic fashion, going with the flow and embellishing detail, that happens in court too. We are indoctrinated as a society that the police, and court system is faultless, amazingly, the vast majority of society believe this, or don't want to disbelieve it. Police corruption does exist, miscarriages of justice do happen, not as often as many would hope, but they do and its because of corrupt and improper evidence.
Authors tend to over analyse things, whereas journalists are looking for a unique story. Putting it bluntly, I've spotted lies and cover ups during questioning, and thats looking at something objectively. I do believe people embellish the truth post trial.
Grahame, as you state: 'you have known this case from the beginning'...you have 'not once changed your allegiance.' Thats good, I respect that. However, I don't think Bob ever had an allegiance, (unless your person says different), nor do I, like me , he researched and came to a conclusion, we differ in our conclusions, so what, thats life. I don't bear grudges or question his integrity or patronisingly call him Woof Woof because we differ in opinion. Simples really.Look, for the last time his name was mentioned. I gave my opinion why I don't trust him and that was all. Please do not make it into more than it was. Let that be an end to it. Also I don't have to ask him. He wrote it all out.
Having a sly dig at me or my book doesn't help or work to be honest, you say you were there at the beginning, great. Me, I wasn't, I didn't witness the murders, I simply attended the trial, spoke to cops, witnesses et al, at the time, and much later, I also, post trial, communicated with Jeremy Bamber, thats my professional role, I profile serious offenders. So maybe what 'I have to offer' is never going to match your own in depth knowledge. It's all about opinions Grahame, not damning people because someone else tells you something which may or may not be true. Easiest way to find out if it is true, ask them direct. That's what I did with Jeremy and everyone else, I questioned them face to face on many things they said and claimed.
Ultimately, what matters to me, I don't want my friends unfairly slated or their integrity questioned, if you have something to say about Bob then give him a chance to respond, you are appealing for Jeremy to get a fair hearing, then perhaps you should do so yourself. Contact Bob, but word of advice, don't call him Woof Woof.
Hi Jansus
In many instances, journalists are after a story, something different. For a book, or for serious research, its different questions. Thats what makes the difference, the questions that may or may not be answered.
I think people do change their stories/versions post trial, however, it takes a very strong person to speak out against the system, so many act in a sycophantic fashion, going with the flow and embellishing detail, that happens in court too. We are indoctrinated as a society that the police, and court system is faultless, amazingly, the vast majority of society believe this, or don't want to disbelieve it. Police corruption does exist, miscarriages of justice do happen, not as often as many would hope, but they do and its because of corrupt and improper evidence.
Authors tend to over analyse things, whereas journalists are looking for a unique story. Putting it bluntly, I've spotted lies and cover ups during questioning, and thats looking at something objectively. I do believe people embellish the truth post trial.
I'm going to hold out on answering myself because I's like to hear other members views.
Not sure why lambasting Bob Woffinden, or attacking his credibility has anything to do with what really happened at WHF? The bloke came up with his opinion, and unlike many on here, he had the balls to put it in print and put his name to it. Has it made a difference to Jeremy Bamber's case? Nope! Has it kept the case in the public eye? Yep, and I'm sure Jeremy knows and appreciates the value in that.
If you don't agree with what he has done, rather than attack him, do something positive about it, write up your own theory and put your real identity and make it easy to contact yourself, as he has. Far better to do that than slate and destroy someones integrity for having an opinion whilst hiding behind a computer screen. I know Bob Woffinden, he's a decent guy, I'll stand up beside him and be counted, he doesn't deserve any of this because he's got an opinion that differs from the bulk on here. I thought this was a fair place for debate, I was clearly wrong.
One question Mason.Of course a plausible answer was given. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it implausible. What I said was completely believeable. Although just as your scenarios it was a complete guess. But still possible.
What was Sheila doing when Neville made his 'mysterious' call to Jeremy ?
If it is in you're book, you do not need to answer. If it is not in you're book, you need to answer.
I created a thread on this recently. No plausible answer was given.
Neville's implausible words suggest Sheila was about to or had already started shooting people. Neville then deciding to ring Jeremy !!! ???
If there is no realistic possible answer to this question, everything else is irrelevent.
Of course a plausible answer was given. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it implausible. What I said was completely believeable. Although just as your scenarios it was a complete guess. But still possible.
Sheila starts shooting people upstairs (hitting the target) with a not very powerful rifle.
Tall & strong Neville runs downstairs to phone Jeremy. Sleeping like a log three miles away. Rather than tackle Sheila.
What the f_ _ _ ?
Sheila starts shooting people upstairs (hitting the target) with a not very powerful rifle.
Tall & strong Neville runs downstairs to phone Jeremy. Sleeping like a log three miles away.
What the f_ _ _ ?
Sheila starts shooting people upstairs (hitting the target) with a not very powerful rifle.Yes of course.
Tall & strong Neville runs downstairs to phone Jeremy. Sleeping like a log three miles away. Rather than tackle Sheila.
What the f_ _ _ ?
I was of the understanding that the reason why Jeremys' status from Cat B back to Cat A,,was because the relatives wrote to either EP or the prison officer telling them how THEY'D be let down by the justice system if this made a difference in his bid for freedom,,and that THEY'D be forever fearful of this happening. RWB was still alive at the time. Says it all really.
So on the strength of what the relatives had to say,his category was again increased to " dangerous prisoner ".What chance does the man stand ?
Yes,AA,a bit baffling to say the least,,though the then Patriarch,is now no longer,so whether any future " movements " whatever they might be,concerning Jeremy,,mightn't have the same clout without him,I don't know.
There were one or two officers who were befriended by the relatives, at the time.Dinners,suppers and all that.
More than likely,April,,seeing as she wears the trousers in that family.
I've actually found the bit about Jeremy being re-instated back as a Cat A. It's a link written by davidjamessmith.net.
It was Jeremys' cousins who'd complained to EP,,where EP told the family to make their feelings known. So in effect,the relatives were guided by what EP had said to them. Naturally,Jeremy was pretty resentful and said his relatives were being vindictive.
More than likely,April,,seeing as she wears the trousers in that family.
I've actually found the bit about Jeremy being re-instated back as a Cat A. It's a link written by davidjamessmith.net.
It was Jeremys' cousins who'd complained to EP,,where EP told the family to make their feelings known. So in effect,the relatives were guided by what EP had said to them. Naturally,Jeremy was pretty resentful and said his relatives were being vindictive.
I could be wrong, but I believe it was David who spoke out on national tv about it. Who advised him or otherwise is not the point as I wouldn't believe it anyway........
One begs to ask the question, 'Has this happened to anyone else before?' Oh, besides those cases involving further cover-ups.
One question Mason.
What was Sheila doing when Neville made his 'mysterious' call to Jeremy ?
If it is in you're book, you do not need to answer. If it is not in you're book, you need to answer.
I created a thread on this recently. No plausible answer was given.
Neville's implausible words suggest Sheila was about to or had already started shooting people. Neville then deciding to ring Jeremy !!! ???
If there is no realistic possible answer to this question, everything else is irrelevent.
Grahame, as you state: 'you have known this case from the beginning'...you have 'not once changed your allegiance.' Thats good, I respect that. However, I don't think Bob ever had an allegiance, (unless your person says different), nor do I, like me , he researched and came to a conclusion, we differ in our conclusions, so what, thats life. I don't bear grudges or question his integrity or patronisingly call him Woof Woof because we differ in opinion. Simples really.What a great topic Caroline, even bought me out of retirement. Mason you have hit the nail on the head I don't think anyone is 100 per cent sure about what happened and yes I changed from 60/40 innocent to 60/40 guilty when I had conversation with 2 very respected personnel that worked at full Sutton who I hope to meet again in the near future?
Having a sly dig at me or my book doesn't help or work to be honest, you say you were there at the beginning, great. Me, I wasn't, I didn't witness the murders, I simply attended the trial, spoke to cops, witnesses et al, at the time, and much later, I also, post trial, communicated with Jeremy Bamber, thats my professional role, I profile serious offenders. So maybe what 'I have to offer' is never going to match your own in depth knowledge. It's all about opinions Grahame, not damning people because someone else tells you something which may or may not be true. Easiest way to find out if it is true, ask them direct. That's what I did with Jeremy and everyone else, I questioned them face to face on many things they said and claimed.
Ultimately, what matters to me, I don't want my friends unfairly slated or their integrity questioned, if you have something to say about Bob then give him a chance to respond, you are appealing for Jeremy to get a fair hearing, then perhaps you should do so yourself. Contact Bob, but word of advice, don't call him Woof Woof.
Nice question Adam. I shall do as you ask, and therefore shall not answer. However, I wasn't there, nor were you (at least I hope you weren't), so its pure conjecture based on nothing but 'allegiance' whatever anyone claims.
Many people proclaim themselves 'experts' in this case, reality is, people are basing so called 'new evidence' on the inarticulation of others, or police cock ups - which, unlike you seem to accept - are very common, sadly all of this affects innocent and guilty lives. Yet people want to believe the system is flawless - believe me, it isn't. People won't accept this because its scary, it goes against the grain, they want to feel safe and secure. I worked in the police for three decades, I hasten to add - with an unblemished record. But would I trust a coppers word then or now, no I wouldn't. Some, it has been proven in court, would rob their own family all for the sake of money.
People are dicks in all walks of life, not only in the police, look at politicians, councillors, thespians, singing stars et al, for me, that's what makes the world such an interesting place - liars, cheats and oddballs exist in walks of society, they are not exclusive to the incarcerated criminal community. Despite this, I believe most people are rightly in prison, as we now know, those who shout loudest about their innocence aren't always what they seem. Jeremy Bamber was found guilty on evidence in a court of law, thats a fact. The question remains, was the provenance of that evidence true?
You can make all the claims you like and copy what others say because it sounds acceptable, you even say you read book reviews before you buy a book. Let me tell you most book reviews are penned by people fuelled with jealousy and insecurities, many are known to the author, writers used to accept them, but no longer, why? Because people no longer put their name to them, they lack credibility without the provenance of real identity.
Sad thing is, until you actually research this case, live it every day and night for years, listen to Jeremy Bamber, the police, witnesses, barristers and people it affected, I've done them all, then you cannot appreciate the pressures all of these individuals endure.
Opinion is great, I accept it, but living with this case day and night as I have, and there are a few people on here who know what I've gone through, makes you take stock and realise the traumatic affect that still endures. I had no allegiance at the outset, I have no allegiance now, I have researched this entire case objectively. I get on well with Jeremy, we laugh and talk together, but then I laugh with Ronald DeFeo too, he admits he murdered his family, each year I get cards off the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and serial killers such as Peter Sutcliffe - juxtaposition of morality or what?. In this case, me and Jeremy are two different people, I absolutely liked Stan Jones when I spoke to and interviewed him, doesn't make either Stan or Jeremy right in what they may or may not have done.
Jeremy is the only person on this planet who knows the truth, not the relatives, not the courts, not the media, and certainly not the red. The evidence at court was crap, you know it, we all know it, however, that means nothing because a jury of Jeremy's peers, lay people who were not instructed correctly, believed it. Therefore it all becomes fact. In most circumstances, without such pressure, most people would err on the side of caution, jury's cannot, pressure is on them to deliver a verdict.
That's just my thoughts Adam, I know you have your own but trust me, an open mind is the best one to keep in everything involving the establishment, its my belief there is no such things as coincidence. Things do get contrived.
Nice question Adam. I shall do as you ask, and therefore shall not answer. However, I wasn't there, nor were you (at least I hope you weren't), so its pure conjecture based on nothing but 'allegiance' whatever anyone claims.
Many people proclaim themselves 'experts' in this case, reality is, people are basing so called 'new evidence' on the inarticulation of others, or police cock ups - which, unlike you seem to accept - are very common, sadly all of this affects innocent and guilty lives. Yet people want to believe the system is flawless - believe me, it isn't. People won't accept this because its scary, it goes against the grain, they want to feel safe and secure. I worked in the police for three decades, I hasten to add - with an unblemished record. But would I trust a coppers word then or now, no I wouldn't. Some, it has been proven in court, would rob their own family all for the sake of money.
People are dicks in all walks of life, not only in the police, look at politicians, councillors, thespians, singing stars et al, for me, that's what makes the world such an interesting place - liars, cheats and oddballs exist in walks of society, they are not exclusive to the incarcerated criminal community. Despite this, I believe most people are rightly in prison, as we now know, those who shout loudest about their innocence aren't always what they seem. Jeremy Bamber was found guilty on evidence in a court of law, thats a fact. The question remains, was the provenance of that evidence true?
You can make all the claims you like and copy what others say because it sounds acceptable, you even say you read book reviews before you buy a book. Let me tell you most book reviews are penned by people fuelled with jealousy and insecurities, many are known to the author, writers used to accept them, but no longer, why? Because people no longer put their name to them, they lack credibility without the provenance of real identity.
Sad thing is, until you actually research this case, live it every day and night for years, listen to Jeremy Bamber, the police, witnesses, barristers and people it affected, I've done them all, then you cannot appreciate the pressures all of these individuals endure.
Opinion is great, I accept it, but living with this case day and night as I have, and there are a few people on here who know what I've gone through, makes you take stock and realise the traumatic affect that still endures. I had no allegiance at the outset, I have no allegiance now, I have researched this entire case objectively. I get on well with Jeremy, we laugh and talk together, but then I laugh with Ronald DeFeo too, he admits he murdered his family, each year I get cards off the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and serial killers such as Peter Sutcliffe - juxtaposition of morality or what?. In this case, me and Jeremy are two different people, I absolutely liked Stan Jones when I spoke to and interviewed him, doesn't make either Stan or Jeremy right in what they may or may not have done.
Jeremy is the only person on this planet who knows the truth, not the relatives, not the courts, not the media, and certainly not the red. The evidence at court was crap, you know it, we all know it, however, that means nothing because a jury of Jeremy's peers, lay people who were not instructed correctly, believed it. Therefore it all becomes fact. In most circumstances, without such pressure, most people would err on the side of caution, jury's cannot, pressure is on them to deliver a verdict.
That's just my thoughts Adam, I know you have your own but trust me, an open mind is the best one to keep in everything involving the establishment, its my belief there is no such things as coincidence. Things do get contrived.
You cannot dictate that people answer your questions. When will it sink in? It is an unanswerable question, since nobody knows what Sheila was doing: we were not there. Mason said as much, but you are never satisfied, are you? When are you going to stop?
As you know, I have put you on ignore, but I can still see your mostly rude and childish posts when other posters quote them - and I also have the option of clicking "read post" as I did now out of curiosity. But that is the exception. Two posters now have you on ignore, why do you think that is?
Because you cannot handle someone who beleives Jeremy is guilty & answers back.
You want everyone to discuss how Jeremy is innocent & how there has been a MOJ.
I am well aware you have got all self rightious & put me ignore. You do not have to keep repeating it. Unless you really are reading my posts.
MD,,that was some post.
My years of experience with people in general has taught me to " sniff out " those who I think are bad. I reckon that I'd be able to suss Jeremy out in no time. I can just tell,,and have gut feelings about people,,something which is only gained by experience over the years.
I remember this case vividly,and when it was on the news,I also remember saying outright that it wasn't him,,but I hadn't studied the rest of the family,either immediate or extended at the time,,it was his body language that I'd studied.
Since having read about his background,then the abysmal investigation into what was a mass murder case,I couldn't believe the anomalies that stared you in the face.Even the die-hard anti's would have to admit and agree that to hold a trial under those circumstances was unsafe.
If the same trial was held today,Jeremy would walk,,providing he didn't have a duff defence such as he'd had in the past.
Then again,,when you don't have all of the relevant information such as files and documents to hand,you're fighting with one hand behind your back anyway.
I only hope at this stage,that the new information which is being put forward,contains the necessary proof once and for all,and by the sound of it,it's " some " paperwork that was inadvertantly sent from PII,which had got mixed in with items that were requested.
Jeremy seems delighted about it anyway,so let's hope that further decisions don't take years to come to fruition with red-tape and bureaucracy that exists with these sorts of things.
'The evidence in court was crap'
I bet you were itching to contribute to my recent thread on whether the trial was fair & whether evidence was hidden.
I would have appreciated you're input as no one gave any evidence of unfairness or withheld evidence. But I am sure all will be revealed in the book.
Nice question Adam. I shall do as you ask, and therefore shall not answer. However, I wasn't there, nor were you (at least I hope you weren't), so its pure conjecture based on nothing but 'allegiance' whatever anyone claims.A very good and balanced post MD.
Many people proclaim themselves 'experts' in this case, reality is, people are basing so called 'new evidence' on the inarticulation of others, or police cock ups - which, unlike you seem to accept - are very common, sadly all of this affects innocent and guilty lives. Yet people want to believe the system is flawless - believe me, it isn't. People won't accept this because its scary, it goes against the grain, they want to feel safe and secure. I worked in the police for three decades, I hasten to add - with an unblemished record. But would I trust a coppers word then or now, no I wouldn't. Some, it has been proven in court, would rob their own family all for the sake of money.
People are dicks in all walks of life, not only in the police, look at politicians, councillors, thespians, singing stars et al, for me, that's what makes the world such an interesting place - liars, cheats and oddballs exist in walks of society, they are not exclusive to the incarcerated criminal community. Despite this, I believe most people are rightly in prison, as we now know, those who shout loudest about their innocence aren't always what they seem. Jeremy Bamber was found guilty on evidence in a court of law, thats a fact. The question remains, was the provenance of that evidence true?
You can make all the claims you like and copy what others say because it sounds acceptable, you even say you read book reviews before you buy a book. Let me tell you most book reviews are penned by people fuelled with jealousy and insecurities, many are known to the author, writers used to accept them, but no longer, why? Because people no longer put their name to them, they lack credibility without the provenance of real identity.
Sad thing is, until you actually research this case, live it every day and night for years, listen to Jeremy Bamber, the police, witnesses, barristers and people it affected, I've done them all, then you cannot appreciate the pressures all of these individuals endure.
Opinion is great, I accept it, but living with this case day and night as I have, and there are a few people on here who know what I've gone through, makes you take stock and realise the traumatic affect that still endures. I had no allegiance at the outset, I have no allegiance now, I have researched this entire case objectively. I get on well with Jeremy, we laugh and talk together, but then I laugh with Ronald DeFeo too, he admits he murdered his family, each year I get cards off the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and serial killers such as Peter Sutcliffe - juxtaposition of morality or what?. In this case, me and Jeremy are two different people, I absolutely liked Stan Jones when I spoke to and interviewed him, doesn't make either Stan or Jeremy right in what they may or may not have done.
Jeremy is the only person on this planet who knows the truth, not the relatives, not the courts, not the media, and certainly not the red. The evidence at court was crap, you know it, we all know it, however, that means nothing because a jury of Jeremy's peers, lay people who were not instructed correctly, believed it. Therefore it all becomes fact. In most circumstances, without such pressure, most people would err on the side of caution, jury's cannot, pressure is on them to deliver a verdict.
That's just my thoughts Adam, I know you have your own but trust me, an open mind is the best one to keep in everything involving the establishment, its my belief there is no such things as coincidence. Things do get contrived.
I have you on ignore because I find your posting style super-annoying, that´s why! Don´t flatter yourself.I thought you said you had him on ignore? ;D
MD,,that was some post.I wish I had your confidence lookout.
My years of experience with people in general has taught me to " sniff out " those who I think are bad. I reckon that I'd be able to suss Jeremy out in no time. I can just tell,,and have gut feelings about people,,something which is only gained by experience over the years.
I remember this case vividly,and when it was on the news,I also remember saying outright that it wasn't him,,but I hadn't studied the rest of the family,either immediate or extended at the time,,it was his body language that I'd studied.
Since having read about his background,then the abysmal investigation into what was a mass murder case,I couldn't believe the anomalies that stared you in the face.Even the die-hard anti's would have to admit and agree that to hold a trial under those circumstances was unsafe.
If the same trial was held today,Jeremy would walk,,providing he didn't have a duff defence such as he'd had in the past.
Then again,,when you don't have all of the relevant information such as files and documents to hand,you're fighting with one hand behind your back anyway.
I only hope at this stage,that the new information which is being put forward,contains the necessary proof once and for all,and by the sound of it,it's " some " paperwork that was inadvertantly sent from PII,which had got mixed in with items that were requested.
Jeremy seems delighted about it anyway,so let's hope that further decisions don't take years to come to fruition with red-tape and bureaucracy that exists with these sorts of things.
Adam, I've got to be honest mate, nothing you infer has me 'itching' to do anything. I admire your tenacity but your logic and replication of others opinion does not really appear on my radar. ;)
That hurts.I think it was meant to Adam. Those fiery sarcastic darts are difficult to extract from one's butt as I found out to my cost. ;D
I wish I had your confidence lookout.
;D Go track dem crimnals lookout. ;D
It comes with age and experience Grahame.( I'm coming back as a bloodhound.) ;D ;D ;D ;D
I thought you said you had him on ignore? ;D
I wish I had your confidence lookout.
I think it was meant to Adam. Those fiery sarcastic darts are difficult to extract from one's butt as I found out to my cost. ;D
'The evidence in court was crap'
I bet you were itching to contribute to my recent thread on whether the trial was fair & whether evidence was hidden.
I would have appreciated you're input as no one gave any evidence of unfairness or withheld evidence. But I am sure all will be revealed in the book.
Nice question Adam. I shall do as you ask, and therefore shall not answer. However, I wasn't there, nor were you (at least I hope you weren't), so its pure conjecture based on nothing but 'allegiance' whatever anyone claims.
Many people proclaim themselves 'experts' in this case, reality is, people are basing so called 'new evidence' on the inarticulation of others, or police cock ups - which, unlike you seem to accept - are very common, sadly all of this affects innocent and guilty lives. Yet people want to believe the system is flawless - believe me, it isn't. People won't accept this because its scary, it goes against the grain, they want to feel safe and secure. I worked in the police for three decades, I hasten to add - with an unblemished record. But would I trust a coppers word then or now, no I wouldn't. Some, it has been proven in court, would rob their own family all for the sake of money.
People are dicks in all walks of life, not only in the police, look at politicians, councillors, thespians, singing stars et al, for me, that's what makes the world such an interesting place - liars, cheats and oddballs exist in walks of society, they are not exclusive to the incarcerated criminal community. Despite this, I believe most people are rightly in prison, as we now know, those who shout loudest about their innocence aren't always what they seem. Jeremy Bamber was found guilty on evidence in a court of law, thats a fact. The question remains, was the provenance of that evidence true?
You can make all the claims you like and copy what others say because it sounds acceptable, you even say you read book reviews before you buy a book. Let me tell you most book reviews are penned by people fuelled with jealousy and insecurities, many are known to the author, writers used to accept them, but no longer, why? Because people no longer put their name to them, they lack credibility without the provenance of real identity.
Sad thing is, until you actually research this case, live it every day and night for years, listen to Jeremy Bamber, the police, witnesses, barristers and people it affected, I've done them all, then you cannot appreciate the pressures all of these individuals endure.
Opinion is great, I accept it, but living with this case day and night as I have, and there are a few people on here who know what I've gone through, makes you take stock and realise the traumatic affect that still endures. I had no allegiance at the outset, I have no allegiance now, I have researched this entire case objectively. I get on well with Jeremy, we laugh and talk together, but then I laugh with Ronald DeFeo too, he admits he murdered his family, each year I get cards off the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and serial killers such as Peter Sutcliffe - juxtaposition of morality or what?. In this case, me and Jeremy are two different people, I absolutely liked Stan Jones when I spoke to and interviewed him, doesn't make either Stan or Jeremy right in what they may or may not have done.
Jeremy is the only person on this planet who knows the truth, not the relatives, not the courts, not the media, and certainly not the red. The evidence at court was crap, you know it, we all know it, however, that means nothing because a jury of Jeremy's peers, lay people who were not instructed correctly, believed it. Therefore it all becomes fact. In most circumstances, without such pressure, most people would err on the side of caution, jury's cannot, pressure is on them to deliver a verdict.
That's just my thoughts Adam, I know you have your own but trust me, an open mind is the best one to keep in everything involving the establishment, its my belief there is no such things as coincidence. Things do get contrived.
What a great topic Caroline, even bought me out of retirement. Mason you have hit the nail on the head I don't think anyone is 100 per cent sure about what happened and yes I changed from 60/40 innocent to 60/40 guilty when I had conversation with 2 very respected personnel that worked at full Sutton who I hope to meet again in the near future?
You have been given countless examples of evidence that was withheld. I am sick of hearing myself mention the autopsy documents that are replete with discrepancies but you choose not to comment because you can't explain it. This is a tangible piece of evidence, not one of your 'scenario's'.
The jury asked to hear the silencer/blood evidence again as it was complicated - so much so that even the judge didn't completely understand it but he gave HIS notes that contained incorrect information to the jury and it was HIS notes they used to make their decision.
There are hundreds of such examples but they have simply flown past your head because your mind is closed. You told me a few weeks ago that I dismiss your posts because I just believe Jeremy is innocent - well, you're wrong, at the moment I'm probably around 70/30 weighted on the guilty side. However, guilty or not, he didn't have a fair trial and I believe because they didn't have ANY tangible, physical evidence, just a hunch it - they engineered it. Stick you head in the sand and keep those fingers in your ears - it won't change the fact that corruption is a fact of life!
Nice try Caroline.
Read my thread on the trial. There are no examples of withheld evidence or an unfair trial.
If new evidence has come to light, Jeremy could have submitted it at his three appeals. New evidence does not mean the trial was unfair.
It was a 19 day trial. Jeremy having the best lawyers available.
Jeremy didn't have any involvement in the switching of the original badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) situated in Sheila's neck, by replacing it with a test fired whole bullet, so that the prosecution could argue that a silencer was fitted to the barrell of the same rifle at the time Sgeila was shot twice...Didn't the jury feel like questioning this when they saw the x-ray photos for themselves Mike?
Grahame,it sounds to me that the jury were completely clueless anyway,,apart from two,,who I wouldn't mind betting,changed their minds at the last minute. Given more time and I think they'd have all changed their minds. As usually,with a massacre such as it was,,the verdict could/would/should have been a unanimous one.And if the jury system was used in the correct manner then it should have been a not guilty verdict? What is the use of 12 persons who are your peers if you ignore the verdicts of two of them?
And if the jury system was used in the correct manner then it should have been a not guilty verdict? What is the use of 12 persons who are your peers if you ignore the verdicts of two of them?
And if the jury system was used in the correct manner then it should have been a not guilty verdict? What is the use of 12 persons who are your peers if you ignore the verdicts of two of them?
so the judge dident actually answer there qustion.
he evaded it.
The court would also have gone along with what RWB also said about him owning a farm.Which he didn't at the time,until after Jeremy was convicted.
One thing that sticks in my mind and that was when the jury asked for written proof,,of who would benefit on Jeremys' conviction,,so the judge swiftly answered for them by saying that the families were wealthy in their own right.They could have objected and insisted on the proof. Another thing to add to make it an unfair trial. But what person would have done that as most people are like sheep and follow oneanother?
For a jury not to insist on being presented with what they wanted and had asked for,in the form of written proof,so that they could ponder over,,speaks volumes about how a judge influences the jury to such an extent,that they believe his spoken word.
I'd have stuck my neck out to see that little gem,,particularly if worded like " The Money Trail ".
Here is what convinces me that Jeremy is guilty.
1) Julie Mugford says that Jeremy had contemplated killing his family for some time. She said that he told her the very evening before the murders that tonight is the night and followed up with other phone calls to keep her in the loop of the progress he was making. Relatedly Ann Eaton said Jeremy told her that soon her would be co-owner of the cravan site with her and would run things differently than Nevill.
2) Evidence exists that corroborates Julie's claims. For one thing Jeremy did in fact phone her that evening before the murders, he also phoned her 2 times over the course of the morning of the murders. The phone call not only woke her up but all of her roomates. In fact one of her roomates answered. One rooomate thinks the call came around 3:15AM but when pressed said it could have been as late as 3:30 she was the least sure of the bunch. The other 3 placed the call around 3AM including one adamant about looking at the clock so their time is more credible considering these 3 basically agree.
A) What valid reason could he have for phoning her at 3AM thereby waking her up? Jeremy called her before he called the police. If he was truly concerned about his family why would he phone her instead of doing the 3 minute drive to check things out or to call police? Calling her instead of going and before calling police demonstrates a lack of concern on his part. At the time he made this call he insists he didn't know what was going on at WHF. He insists his father called him saying Shiela was in a rage and got hold of a gun come quick to help disarm her then the phone went dead. He supposedly woke Julie up to tell her guess what my dad woke me up saying Shiela is running around the house with a gun. What would someone in Julie's position ask next? She would ask what happened. He would have to respond I don't know I didn't go to investigate so have no idea what happened. Why would he wake her up to tell her he had no idea what happened? The normal thing to do is to wait until he knows what happened if anything before calling her and if he still didn't know once it was a decent hour maybe then at that point to call to indicate what was going on and how he was waiting to find out. His tale that he called to tell her about the call but had no idea what if anything happened makes no sense.
B) Before police entered and found the bodies jeremy phoned Julie a second time, at 6AM. He told her not to go to work because police would need to speak with her about the tragedy. Police had not yet discovered the bodies so how could he know they were dead and thus that Julie would be needed for questioning? Moreover, since they still had not found out anything why would he call her again? The natural thing to do would be to call when he found out what happened not to again wake everyone to say he knew nothing yet. This is more corroboration that Julie's story is true. His account makes no sense. He also was caught lying about this. He denied telling Julie not to go to work and to wait for him or police to pick her up. How would she know to stay home and wait for police to pick her up unless he did in fact tell her such? She would have gone to work otherwise. The fact she didn't go ot work and waited for police to get her (which they did) is evidence her account is true and he was lying.
Calling Julie period makes no sense. The only reason he would call her is to tell her that he killed his family because he was so excited and needed to share his joy with someone. That is exactly why she says he called her. The second time was not only to share his excitement but also to get Julie to help him in his charade blaming Sheila. Her claims make sense and are supported by evidence. His claims make no sense and clearly he lied about various aspects.
C) If Julie were going to make up lies to implicate Jeremy then she would have made up the lie he told her he shot them. The story she told is not what a scorned woman framing her boyfriend would say but rather comports with her boyfriend admitting part of the truth to her but blaming it on someone he hired because he didn’t want her to know how cold blooded he truly is. Moreover, if she were going to makeup the hitman story why name someone who would be able to prove his innocence? At minimum you don't name the hitman so police can't rule the claim out.
3) Jeremy called Julie before calling police. Calling her period is highly suspicious but it is even worse that he called her before the police. That demonstrates no concern at all for his family. Many things he did demonstrate a complete lack of concern for his family.
A) Calling Julie first
B) Waiting quite a while after getting off the phone with Julie to call police
C) Instead of calling 999 he wasted time to looking up the numbers of police stations. He gave inconsistent accounts of why he didn't dial 999. He said that he was not sure anything was really wrong so didn't know if it was an emergency. Yet he contradicted this claim when he stated he was scared Nevill was trying to sucker him there so Sheila would kill him too. Why would Nevill do that? How could he even know they were being killed? He is giving away that he knew they were dead before he called the police. If he was that worried then he should have called 999.
Moreover, even if he was suspicious that he was being set up he could have safely spied from outside the house. He could have driven there in 3 minutes, investigated whether something was actually wrong and if so could have gone back home to call police. Had he done so he still could have dialed 999 sooner than he actually did. In a matter of 15 minutes he could have driven there and back, spent 6 minutes to investigate and still would have 3 minutes left to call police upon arriving home. That still would have been faster than him calling at 3:26. We have no idea what he was doing as he was wasting time between calling Julie and police. Moreover, why would he be so scared of Sheila when he never saw Sheila touch a gun and she probably didn't even know how to use one?
D) Not going to investigate at all either before or after the phone calls despite living 3 minutes away and instead making police go there before he would go. Being too scared to go spy from the outside before police arrived makes no sense. The police were unarmed and were could not defend him if someone came out to attack. He had no problem hanging around outside for hours with them anyway without fear of being ambushed. Quite clearly he could have safely spied without them. It is obvious he wanted police to be aware he wasn't there until after them. Why was he so anxious for police to see him arrive? The only reason that makes any sense is he didn't want them to know he had anything to do with the murders. He didn't want police to say well he was on the scene when we arrived so that they could say maybe he had entered before police arrived and had some part in what occurred. There is no rational reason whatsoever for him not parking near WHF where he ultimately parked and not waiting there for police but instead waiting on the side of the road for the cops to pass him and then proceeding to WHF. This is a major red flag.
E) He waited with police for close to 4 hours outside the house. He didn't suggest police go inside to try to save his family. He didn't tell them he would go in if they didn't. He never showed any concern for his family at all during this wait.
F) In fact he helped engineer the wait. There was a spare key hidden on the property which police could have used to sneak inside. Jeremy never mentioned this key because he didn't want police to enter right away. The longer the passage of time the more difficult to establish the times of death. Moreover, revealing the key would reveal he could have snuck in and out. Instead he didn't tell them about the key so they would have to break in. The noise from breaking in would alert an armed person to their presence thus risking their health because they would not have the element of surprise. He also lied suggesting he saw someone walking around at the window where Sheila's body was found. That also gave them reason to pause but also reason to think it was Sheila he saw and that she died last so obviously was the killer and not Jeremy. Either her body was intentionally shot near the window for him to make such claim or he simply made it up on the spot because he knew that is where her body was.
G)Much more significantly though, Jeremy lied to police about Sheila firing every gun in the house and being proficient with them all. There is no doubt this claim was a lie, he later admitted he never saw her touch a weapon as an adult. This lie was to make police fear going inside and also so they would believe she had the technical ability to carry out the murders. Why would he have lied like this if he had no been the killer? He also later lied by claiming Sheila had gone shooting with Nevill and his cousin. The cousin denied ever going shooting with her. Eventually Jeremy ended up admitting he never knew her to touch a gun as an adult. These lies are major red flags.
4) The killer unplugged and hid the kitchen phone and plugged the bedroom phone in the kitchen so that the victims would not be able to use the phone to ID the killer before dying. If Sheila intended to commit murder suicide then she would have no need to plan such in advance. Particularly if she did so in a rage and had not planned anything as is claimed. Such a move is indicative of planning in advance by a killer who intended to escape liability not commit suicide. It thus is what Jeremy would have done if he committed the murders.
5) Nevill was wounded before he reached the kitchen and such wounds according to the pathologist would have prevented Nevill from speaking. Thus he would have been unable to make the call Jeremy claims he made. If Nevill had reached the phone and dialed he would have gotten blood on the phone and Jeremy would not have been able to understand him because his lip had been shot off, voicebox had been severed and his jaw shattered.
6) If by some miracle he could have spoken clearly why would he call Jeremy instead of 999? His wife was shot and dying and he was shot. They needed medical attention. Why would he call Jeremy? Aside from the fact that the evidence proves he was shot before reaching the kitchen and being anywhere near the phone, if he hadn't yet been shot then why would he call Jeremy to disarm Sheila? Nevill was much larger than Sheila, he could have done anything Jeremy could have. Only Nevill was there to disarm her whereas Jeremy might not have even answered the phone. The pohone was downstairs in his house so he had to hope Jeremy woudl wake up and still wait long enough for Jeremy to wake up then reach the phone. Then Jeremy would need to dress and drive there and figure out away in the locked house. So he chose to risk being shot while he was on the phone to call someone who might not answer who might arrive 15 minutes later instead of trying to disarm her himself and doesn't even ask for an ambulance to be sent of mention being shot?
Moreover, she didn't get along with Jeremy that well while she did get along with her father. So the person most likely able to calm her down would be Nevill. Calling Jeremy makes no sense whether he had been wounded yet or not. But the evidence establishes he was wounded before reaching the kitchen and never reached the phone at all. Since the call is made up that means Jeremy had to be the killer because otherwise he would not have been aware of a problem he would have been sleeping peacefully instead of alerting police.
7)More evidence the call was a lie is that the phone was left off the hook. He claimed the phone went dead which means someone at WHF had to hang the phone up abruptly. But a telephone agent testified at trial that a call was placed to Jeremy's and that after it was answered it was hung up at Goldhanger and that cleared the line on his end but the phone at WHF was never hung up and remained off the hook from the time the call was made until police hung it up. The line was never hung up at WHF so never cleared on that end. Thus it had not been hung up like he claimed. The click he claimed he heard at it was hung up is impossible and another lie. He had to leave the phone off the hook in order to pick up the phone at his place. He dialed, left the phone off the hook so it kept ringing at his place and eventually answered. Because no one was alive at WHF to hang it up so it remained off the hook. He hung it up on his end and after 1-2 minutes his line cleared and he was able to dial out. After he hung up he probably changed his clothes or washed up and in the intervening period his line cleared and he had no idea his line would have needed 1-2 minutes to clear before he could have used it to dial out. So he had no idea his claim he immediately dialed would have been impossible.
He changed his account about this too. Once it was pointed out that the phone had not been hung up he changed to claiming he heard struggling so hung up and immediately called police. Again though he couldn't immediately call police, he would have to have waited for the line to clear. Moreover he didn't call for quite some time as discussed above. Worse yet if he heard the struggle why didn't he say that all along? He had no reason for these lies unless he was the killer.
8) The suppressor had Sheila's blood type inside. This means the suppressor was used to shoot her. She would not have been able to reach the trigger to shoot herself with the suppressor attached nor after she was dead could she remove the suppressor and place it in the closet. That proves she can't have killed herself. The pathologist testified that her fatal wound was of a nature it would almost certainly produce back spatter. There was none in the rifle but was in the suppressor so obviously it had been used to deliver that fatal shot.
There were not merely blood chips inside that could have been planted or accidentally transferred. The blood actually soaked onto the baffles and dried. The prosecution removed all visible chips and yet the defense found Sheila’s blood type on the first 8 baffles. Microscopic traces remained and they were substantial enough to be tested successfully by the defense. This proves the blood was deposited while wet and was sprayed there thus consistent with back spatter. It wasn't dripped it was a stream of blood that had exhibited a spray pattern. There is no way for blood to accidentally spray inside the only way for it to get inside in the manner observed by the defense would be if someone looked up Sheila's blood type, secured wet blood and found a device such as an atomizer that would spray the blood inside. Not spray it in every direction like perfume though something with more of a stream though with enough spray to hit 8 baffles instead of stopping at 1 or 2. Perhaps there are sprayers that can mimic such but what is the chance that someone actually went through the effort and figured out how to do it? Someone planting blood would probably take dry blood and tossing it inside or maybe taking a dropper and making some drip inside. Is there any evidence someone actually planted it by spraying it inside? No, none. Is there a reasonable likelihood that all the other evidence such as Nevill being unable to speak and all Jeremy's lies were flukes and that someone actually planted the blood? Not in my eyes. Being a reasonable, logical person I don't buy that someone involved in the case knew exactly how to plant the blood with a spray tool so no one would be able to prove it had been planted.
9) In addition the paint on the suppressor had to be planted for him to be innocent. Some had to take the suppressor, scrape it against the mantle and hope that police would be able to figure out that is where the paint came from and hope they would be able to prove the paint matched conclusively. Moreover why would they bother if they planted blood already?
10) Jeremy's claims about leaving the rifle out make no sense either. According to witnesses he didn’t use the rifle much if ever, he didn’t like to kill animals or hunt. He seemed to agree with this initially. He said he had not used it the week before the murders. He changed his story though once the last living person known to have used it stated the gun was put away with the suppressor still on it and that is also how he found it in the closet and that is the usual way it is stored. (Recall Jeremy also lied about it not fitting in the closet with the suppressor on) To try to refute the claim Jeremy changed his story and said he used it multiple times the week prior to the murders and that sometimes it had the suppressor attached when he took it from the closet and other times it didn’t. He claimed it was used with and without the suppressor. His claims make no sense though. It makes no sense to remove the sights and suppressor and use the gun to shoot animals without such accessories. Thus his first story and that of his cousin seem to be the truth while his revisionist accounts are lies that make no sense. He made up a tale of seeing rabbits while it was dark out and attempting to shoot them without the suppressor though they react fast to the sound of a shot and you would want to use the suppressor. It was supposedly after dinner as they sat in the kitchen that he supposedly saw them by the barn, doe she have hawk vision? Why did he make up this tale about getting the gun out and leaving it and the ammunition out? Well he wanted everyone to believe that Sheila went crazy and the weapon just happened to be in front of her as she went crazy. His frame was not that she preplanned things but that she went crazy. So in his mind she would be unlikely to go seek out the gun so he made up the tale of it being left under her nose. In support of his frame after the murders he took a box of ammo and left it in the kitchen. He claimed he placed this box there along with the weapon and that the box was still where he left it. He said this is the ammo she used because it had been full or only missing a couple of rounds but now was only half full. He thus suggested she ran back to the kitchen to keep reloading. Why? Because Sheila had no pockets to carry extra ammo. If she had moved the box she would not have placed it back in the same spot later so obviously she supposedly didn’t move it. He didn’t bother to count the rounds. There were 30 in the box so only 20 missing. Even if the box had been full there should only be 25 rounds left. The killer can’t have just used this box but had to get at least some ammo from the ammo carrier in the closet. Why would the killer use 20 rounds from the box in the kitchen and take 5 rounds from the ammo carrier in the closet? That makes no sense. If the killer saw the ammo carrier it would be worn and the killer would then not need to keep running to the kitchen to reload. Taking 5 rounds only from it instead of wearing the bandolier makes no sense at all. The killer obviously used the ammo carrier and suppressor then put both side by side in a box in the closet after the murders. The tale about the rabbits was to pretend the gun and ammo had been left out when it had not been and also to pretend the gun didn’t have the suppressor attached during the murders. The only reason to need a cover story is because Jeremy was guilty. Only a guilty person needs to frame someone to avoid liability.
On top of all Jeremy’s lies and the other evidence pointing to his guilt, there is a complete lack of evidence that Sheila fired a weapon, knew how to load, unload and fire the murder weapon, or would have done so.
It always makes me laugh when people claim there is no evidence against Jeremy but is against Sheila. What evidence is there against Sheila? She had no GSR on her hands or clothes. No one had seen her ever handle let alone fire a weapon. The only person to claim she fired a weapon was Jeremy and he claimed it was when she was a child, even he said she hadn’t done so as an adult. (Thus he lied when he told police waiting outside WHF hat she fired all the weapons in the house and was proficient with them) The killer would have wounds of some sort from the rifle stock breaking as the killer was wielding it and would have some kind of abrasions from delivering blows that broke Nevill’s nose. The killer would likely have Nevill’s blood from beating Nevill severely. The only blood on her body was her own and she had no wounds of any kind. She even had bare feet and yet no blood or cuts from the kitchen floor that had blood and broken glass.
What evidence is there against her? None at all. IN contrast there is evidence against Jeremy.
Her mental illness was managed and she had no signs of relapsing. Her past relapses were because she stoppe dhe rmedication or was taking drugs. This time she was getting injected so could not skip her medicaiton and it was extremely strong medication. There is nothign to indicate why she would wake up at 3Am and be set off and attakc anyone in their beds.
For her to be guilty her medicine had to stop working suddenly, she had to have planned in advance that she would kill them and therefore hid the phone, hoped to find a way to get away with the crime and not go to jail so removed the bedroom phone, she had to be pretending to be docile but was really waiting to explode. She pretended to go to sleep but stayed awake as they slept. Around 3AM she figured they would be asleep so went and got the rifle from where Jeremy claims to have left it. She then got the suppressor, attached it to the gun, took 5-8 bullets from the ammo carrier and placed them in the kitchen in the box of ammo and then went up to the master bedroom to kill her parents. June was disabled but Nevill was not, he managed to flee to the kitchen. Despite his jaw being shattered and voicebox a miracle enabled him to speak and another miracle prevented his blood from dripping onto the phone. Instead of calling for medical help so their wounds could be treated he calls Jeremy, doesn’t tell them they need medical treatment and instead tells him to come over to help disarm her before she can shoot anyone. The phone call is cut off even though it was not hung up and the cord was not cut. Sheila beats this big man to a pulp so severely she breaks the rifle stock without getting so much as a hair out of place. They struggle together but she doesn’t get a scratch because she is being protected by a magical force. The same force prevents her from getting any blood, GSR or other evidence on her body or clothing. She even wraps her body around the rifle as she fires twice without any GSR landing on her gown or hands. Immediately prior to this she decides to kill herself but finds out she can’t with the suppressor attached so she removes it. She decides to bring it downstairs and place it in the closet where she found it instead of leaving it next to her yet still leaves the box of shells in the kitchen. She then shoots herself and again magic strikes as there is not a drop of back spatter in the rifle even though it is a virtual certainty it would result. Moreover after delivering the fatal shot she manages to fire a second shot by magic. Even though the recoil would send the gun up the gun instead goes down as if the laws of physics cease to apply on the night of the murders (which would conveniently explain some of the other magical happenings too) so this second shot ends up lower than the fatal shot.
Jeremy senses a trap so doesn’t go and instead calls Julie to wake her up to tell her about Nevill’s claim as if it is a trip and he needs to share a good laugh with her about it. He eventually calls police. He refuses to go or offer any assistance unless police take him there with them. After they arrive he shows up and they BS around for almost 4 hours. He is telepathic and senses the family is dead so calls Julie again and tells her not to go to work he will have cops pick her up to come support his story. Cops go in and find her and the family dead as Jeremy had sensed. Julie lies to frame him. Unknown persons take the suppressor, scrape it against the mantle so it gets paint on it then looks up Sheila’s blood type in the medical file, obtains blood of that type from somewhere and sprays blood inside in order to all police to argue the suppressor was used when Sheila was shot thus suggesting she was murdered not a suicide victim. Why would they need to plant the paint though, the blood evidence would be much more compelling.
I don’t believe in magic so I am certain that Jeremy did it.
If Jeremy had not been telling Julie all the things he had and had gone to sleep and pretended he knew nothing then even with the evidence that suggests Sheila was framed that would not be enough to prove he is the one who did the framing. Telling Julie what he wanted to do and had done presented a strong witness against him. In addition to the call boxed his defense team in big time to the point they were forced to admit at trial it was either him or Sheila. Most of the evidence proves it wasn't Sheila but not who actually did it. These two things establish the person who did it was him as opposed to his lawyers being able to claim it was someone else who framed Sheila.
" Most of the evidence proves that it wasn't Sheila,but not actually who did it ". Not 100% sure then ??
Most evidence portraying Sheila,wasn't submitted !
I think you have inadvertently hit the nail on the head.
In very simple terms, it was decided that only Sheila or Jeremy could have committed the crime, by eliminating Sheila, Jeremy was deemed responsible.
I don't quite know the reasons for narrowing down the suspect list to those two, but I think the defence made a big mistake by apparently accepting that to be the case. I'm not sure why they did that. :-\
Neither am I sure how or why that conclusion was reached,,knowing that dead people can't talk !
I think you have inadvertently hit the nail on the head.
In very simple terms, it was decided that only Sheila or Jeremy could have committed the crime, by eliminating Sheila, Jeremy was deemed responsible.
I don't quite know the reasons for narrowing down the suspect list to those two, but I think the defence made a big mistake by apparently accepting that to be the case. I'm not sure why they did that. :-\
Because of the phone call.
That's not what I meant.
Don't know what you mean, only what you say :P
I meant what I said. :D
I'm not sure why the defence so easily accepted that it was only those two, even if that was likely the case. It allowed the prosecution to infer guilt by eliminating Sheila.
They didn't have much choice. The phone call suggested it was Sheila 'Sheila's gone crazy, she's got the gun' but if the jury didn't believe there was a phone call, then it had to be Jeremy (because he claimed to receive the phone call). If they used the phone call in their evidence (which they did) then the suspects can only really be Jeremy or Sheila?
The problem with the phone call is it does not match the situation. Threads already created.
'Come quickly' - Things are happening. No time to make phone calls.
'Sheila's gone crazy' - Things are happening. No time to make phone calls.
'And she's got the gun' - Things are happening. No time to make phone calls.
I agree, a guilty JB would have been better off not inventing a phone call at all.
The " gun " is also debateable to my mind,,as I've mentioned before,,whether Neville called the shotgun-------gun,,or the rifle-----a gun.
My money would be on the fact that Neville called a rifle a rifle,,and not a gun.
Jeremy would know this one.
Nobody has spotted this little hint. ::)
There have been plenty of scenarios on the forum suggesting accomplices or involvement from others. Whilst unlikely, it's not impossible.
From a legal point of view in terms of building a case against JB and proving his guilt, it would have been more difficult if it was not enough to simply prove Sheilas innocence.
I know you know what I mean, you're just pent up because of our palm print difference of opinion. :D
Yeah, I spent time thinking about that ::) ;D ;D ;D
Mainly because it doesn't make any sense. Jeremy did say 'gun' to the police. ???
What I'm getting at is-----------if Jeremy was alleged to have used his fathers' voice,,plus phoned from WHF into the bargain,,would Neville have called it a gun or a rifle ?
It's only those who knew Neville,,who would know that he referred to a rifle as a rifle and not a gun ( as in a shotgun )
If Sheila has gone crazy and got the gun. There were actually 4 people in the house.Or creeping across the landing?
June & Neville were both adults who could work together. Either to restrain Sheila, or attempt to protect or wake up the twins. If Sheila was making such a big commotion that Neville had to ring Jeremy & the police, would the twins not have got out of bed & left the bedroom. Six year olds can be hyperactive. Or June would be in the twins bedroom. Protecting them while Neville phoned.
However the twins were fast asleep & June was shot with her head on the pillow. So probably fast asleep as well. Neville also being shot in the bedroom.
It all suggests someone creeping upstairs.
Yes Lookout, but Jeremy used the word gun to the police.So why do you think Jeremy used the word "gun" if he knew it was a rifle?
So whether the phone call took place or not, the word 'gun' was used by JB.
Yes Lookout, but Jeremy used the word gun to the police.
So whether the phone call took place or not, the word 'gun' was used by JB.
So why do you think Jeremy used the word "gun" if he knew it was a rifle?
I don't know what that means, but you seem to be getting a bit sensitive, so I'll leave you to it. :(
How Lookouts mind works, I do not know, but I attach no significance to the word used and have no knowledge whether it was usually, occasionally or never used to refer to a firearm.
If Sheila has gone crazy and got the gun. There were actually 4 people in the house.
June & Neville were both adults who could work together. Either to restrain Sheila, or attempt to protect or wake up the twins. If Sheila was making such a big commotion that Neville had to ring Jeremy & the police, would the twins not have got out of bed & left the bedroom. Six year olds can be hyperactive. Or June would be in the twins bedroom. Protecting them while Neville phoned.
However the twins were fast asleep & June was shot with her head on the pillow. So probably fast asleep as well. Neville also being shot in the bedroom.
It all suggests someone creeping upstairs.
You leave my mind alone.It does alright. ;D ;D ;D I'm a thinker,,but my thoughts don't always come out as planned. :)
How Lookouts mind works, I do not know, but I attach no significance to the word used and have no knowledge whether it was usually, occasionally or never used to refer to a firearm.Do you know how the family these days refer to their firearms Hartley?
Do you know how the family these days refer to their firearms Hartley?
People go on gun shoots.Hmm. Probably referring to shotguns I should think?
Hmm. Probably referring to shotguns I should think?
Hark at Harters with his Gunga Din. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Would " armoury " be the collective word ?
Here is what convinces me that Jeremy is guilty.
1) Julie Mugford says that Jeremy had contemplated killing his family for some time. She said that he told her the very evening before the murders that tonight is the night and followed up with other phone calls to keep her in the loop of the progress he was making. Relatedly Ann Eaton said Jeremy told her that soon her would be co-owner of the cravan site with her and would run things differently than Nevill.
2) Evidence exists that corroborates Julie's claims. For one thing Jeremy did in fact phone her that evening before the murders, he also phoned her 2 times over the course of the morning of the murders. The phone call not only woke her up but all of her roomates. In fact one of her roomates answered. One rooomate thinks the call came around 3:15AM but when pressed said it could have been as late as 3:30 she was the least sure of the bunch. The other 3 placed the call around 3AM including one adamant about looking at the clock so their time is more credible considering these 3 basically agree.
A) What valid reason could he have for phoning her at 3AM thereby waking her up? Jeremy called her before he called the police. If he was truly concerned about his family why would he phone her instead of doing the 3 minute drive to check things out or to call police? Calling her instead of going and before calling police demonstrates a lack of concern on his part. At the time he made this call he insists he didn't know what was going on at WHF. He insists his father called him saying Shiela was in a rage and got hold of a gun come quick to help disarm her then the phone went dead. He supposedly woke Julie up to tell her guess what my dad woke me up saying Shiela is running around the house with a gun. What would someone in Julie's position ask next? She would ask what happened. He would have to respond I don't know I didn't go to investigate so have no idea what happened. Why would he wake her up to tell her he had no idea what happened? The normal thing to do is to wait until he knows what happened if anything before calling her and if he still didn't know once it was a decent hour maybe then at that point to call to indicate what was going on and how he was waiting to find out. His tale that he called to tell her about the call but had no idea what if anything happened makes no sense.
B) Before police entered and found the bodies jeremy phoned Julie a second time, at 6AM. He told her not to go to work because police would need to speak with her about the tragedy. Police had not yet discovered the bodies so how could he know they were dead and thus that Julie would be needed for questioning? Moreover, since they still had not found out anything why would he call her again? The natural thing to do would be to call when he found out what happened not to again wake everyone to say he knew nothing yet. This is more corroboration that Julie's story is true. His account makes no sense. He also was caught lying about this. He denied telling Julie not to go to work and to wait for him or police to pick her up. How would she know to stay home and wait for police to pick her up unless he did in fact tell her such? She would have gone to work otherwise. The fact she didn't go ot work and waited for police to get her (which they did) is evidence her account is true and he was lying.
Calling Julie period makes no sense. The only reason he would call her is to tell her that he killed his family because he was so excited and needed to share his joy with someone. That is exactly why she says he called her. The second time was not only to share his excitement but also to get Julie to help him in his charade blaming Sheila. Her claims make sense and are supported by evidence. His claims make no sense and clearly he lied about various aspects.
C) If Julie were going to make up lies to implicate Jeremy then she would have made up the lie he told her he shot them. The story she told is not what a scorned woman framing her boyfriend would say but rather comports with her boyfriend admitting part of the truth to her but blaming it on someone he hired because he didn’t want her to know how cold blooded he truly is. Moreover, if she were going to makeup the hitman story why name someone who would be able to prove his innocence? At minimum you don't name the hitman so police can't rule the claim out.
3) Jeremy called Julie before calling police. Calling her period is highly suspicious but it is even worse that he called her before the police. That demonstrates no concern at all for his family. Many things he did demonstrate a complete lack of concern for his family.
A) Calling Julie first
B) Waiting quite a while after getting off the phone with Julie to call police
C) Instead of calling 999 he wasted time to looking up the numbers of police stations. He gave inconsistent accounts of why he didn't dial 999. He said that he was not sure anything was really wrong so didn't know if it was an emergency. Yet he contradicted this claim when he stated he was scared Nevill was trying to sucker him there so Sheila would kill him too. Why would Nevill do that? How could he even know they were being killed? He is giving away that he knew they were dead before he called the police. If he was that worried then he should have called 999.
Moreover, even if he was suspicious that he was being set up he could have safely spied from outside the house. He could have driven there in 3 minutes, investigated whether something was actually wrong and if so could have gone back home to call police. Had he done so he still could have dialed 999 sooner than he actually did. In a matter of 15 minutes he could have driven there and back, spent 6 minutes to investigate and still would have 3 minutes left to call police upon arriving home. That still would have been faster than him calling at 3:26. We have no idea what he was doing as he was wasting time between calling Julie and police. Moreover, why would he be so scared of Sheila when he never saw Sheila touch a gun and she probably didn't even know how to use one?
D) Not going to investigate at all either before or after the phone calls despite living 3 minutes away and instead making police go there before he would go. Being too scared to go spy from the outside before police arrived makes no sense. The police were unarmed and were could not defend him if someone came out to attack. He had no problem hanging around outside for hours with them anyway without fear of being ambushed. Quite clearly he could have safely spied without them. It is obvious he wanted police to be aware he wasn't there until after them. Why was he so anxious for police to see him arrive? The only reason that makes any sense is he didn't want them to know he had anything to do with the murders. He didn't want police to say well he was on the scene when we arrived so that they could say maybe he had entered before police arrived and had some part in what occurred. There is no rational reason whatsoever for him not parking near WHF where he ultimately parked and not waiting there for police but instead waiting on the side of the road for the cops to pass him and then proceeding to WHF. This is a major red flag.
E) He waited with police for close to 4 hours outside the house. He didn't suggest police go inside to try to save his family. He didn't tell them he would go in if they didn't. He never showed any concern for his family at all during this wait.
F) In fact he helped engineer the wait. There was a spare key hidden on the property which police could have used to sneak inside. Jeremy never mentioned this key because he didn't want police to enter right away. The longer the passage of time the more difficult to establish the times of death. Moreover, revealing the key would reveal he could have snuck in and out. Instead he didn't tell them about the key so they would have to break in. The noise from breaking in would alert an armed person to their presence thus risking their health because they would not have the element of surprise. He also lied suggesting he saw someone walking around at the window where Sheila's body was found. That also gave them reason to pause but also reason to think it was Sheila he saw and that she died last so obviously was the killer and not Jeremy. Either her body was intentionally shot near the window for him to make such claim or he simply made it up on the spot because he knew that is where her body was.
G)Much more significantly though, Jeremy lied to police about Sheila firing every gun in the house and being proficient with them all. There is no doubt this claim was a lie, he later admitted he never saw her touch a weapon as an adult. This lie was to make police fear going inside and also so they would believe she had the technical ability to carry out the murders. Why would he have lied like this if he had no been the killer? He also later lied by claiming Sheila had gone shooting with Nevill and his cousin. The cousin denied ever going shooting with her. Eventually Jeremy ended up admitting he never knew her to touch a gun as an adult. These lies are major red flags.
4) The killer unplugged and hid the kitchen phone and plugged the bedroom phone in the kitchen so that the victims would not be able to use the phone to ID the killer before dying. If Sheila intended to commit murder suicide then she would have no need to plan such in advance. Particularly if she did so in a rage and had not planned anything as is claimed. Such a move is indicative of planning in advance by a killer who intended to escape liability not commit suicide. It thus is what Jeremy would have done if he committed the murders.
5) Nevill was wounded before he reached the kitchen and such wounds according to the pathologist would have prevented Nevill from speaking. Thus he would have been unable to make the call Jeremy claims he made. If Nevill had reached the phone and dialed he would have gotten blood on the phone and Jeremy would not have been able to understand him because his lip had been shot off, voicebox had been severed and his jaw shattered.
6) If by some miracle he could have spoken clearly why would he call Jeremy instead of 999? His wife was shot and dying and he was shot. They needed medical attention. Why would he call Jeremy? Aside from the fact that the evidence proves he was shot before reaching the kitchen and being anywhere near the phone, if he hadn't yet been shot then why would he call Jeremy to disarm Sheila? Nevill was much larger than Sheila, he could have done anything Jeremy could have. Only Nevill was there to disarm her whereas Jeremy might not have even answered the phone. The pohone was downstairs in his house so he had to hope Jeremy woudl wake up and still wait long enough for Jeremy to wake up then reach the phone. Then Jeremy would need to dress and drive there and figure out away in the locked house. So he chose to risk being shot while he was on the phone to call someone who might not answer who might arrive 15 minutes later instead of trying to disarm her himself and doesn't even ask for an ambulance to be sent of mention being shot?
Moreover, she didn't get along with Jeremy that well while she did get along with her father. So the person most likely able to calm her down would be Nevill. Calling Jeremy makes no sense whether he had been wounded yet or not. But the evidence establishes he was wounded before reaching the kitchen and never reached the phone at all. Since the call is made up that means Jeremy had to be the killer because otherwise he would not have been aware of a problem he would have been sleeping peacefully instead of alerting police.
7)More evidence the call was a lie is that the phone was left off the hook. He claimed the phone went dead which means someone at WHF had to hang the phone up abruptly. But a telephone agent testified at trial that a call was placed to Jeremy's and that after it was answered it was hung up at Goldhanger and that cleared the line on his end but the phone at WHF was never hung up and remained off the hook from the time the call was made until police hung it up. The line was never hung up at WHF so never cleared on that end. Thus it had not been hung up like he claimed. The click he claimed he heard at it was hung up is impossible and another lie. He had to leave the phone off the hook in order to pick up the phone at his place. He dialed, left the phone off the hook so it kept ringing at his place and eventually answered. Because no one was alive at WHF to hang it up so it remained off the hook. He hung it up on his end and after 1-2 minutes his line cleared and he was able to dial out. After he hung up he probably changed his clothes or washed up and in the intervening period his line cleared and he had no idea his line would have needed 1-2 minutes to clear before he could have used it to dial out. So he had no idea his claim he immediately dialed would have been impossible.
He changed his account about this too. Once it was pointed out that the phone had not been hung up he changed to claiming he heard struggling so hung up and immediately called police. Again though he couldn't immediately call police, he would have to have waited for the line to clear. Moreover he didn't call for quite some time as discussed above. Worse yet if he heard the struggle why didn't he say that all along? He had no reason for these lies unless he was the killer.
8) The suppressor had Sheila's blood type inside. This means the suppressor was used to shoot her. She would not have been able to reach the trigger to shoot herself with the suppressor attached nor after she was dead could she remove the suppressor and place it in the closet. That proves she can't have killed herself. The pathologist testified that her fatal wound was of a nature it would almost certainly produce back spatter. There was none in the rifle but was in the suppressor so obviously it had been used to deliver that fatal shot.
There were not merely blood chips inside that could have been planted or accidentally transferred. The blood actually soaked onto the baffles and dried. The prosecution removed all visible chips and yet the defense found Sheila’s blood type on the first 8 baffles. Microscopic traces remained and they were substantial enough to be tested successfully by the defense. This proves the blood was deposited while wet and was sprayed there thus consistent with back spatter. It wasn't dripped it was a stream of blood that had exhibited a spray pattern. There is no way for blood to accidentally spray inside the only way for it to get inside in the manner observed by the defense would be if someone looked up Sheila's blood type, secured wet blood and found a device such as an atomizer that would spray the blood inside. Not spray it in every direction like perfume though something with more of a stream though with enough spray to hit 8 baffles instead of stopping at 1 or 2. Perhaps there are sprayers that can mimic such but what is the chance that someone actually went through the effort and figured out how to do it? Someone planting blood would probably take dry blood and tossing it inside or maybe taking a dropper and making some drip inside. Is there any evidence someone actually planted it by spraying it inside? No, none. Is there a reasonable likelihood that all the other evidence such as Nevill being unable to speak and all Jeremy's lies were flukes and that someone actually planted the blood? Not in my eyes. Being a reasonable, logical person I don't buy that someone involved in the case knew exactly how to plant the blood with a spray tool so no one would be able to prove it had been planted.
9) In addition the paint on the suppressor had to be planted for him to be innocent. Some had to take the suppressor, scrape it against the mantle and hope that police would be able to figure out that is where the paint came from and hope they would be able to prove the paint matched conclusively. Moreover why would they bother if they planted blood already?
10) Jeremy's claims about leaving the rifle out make no sense either. According to witnesses he didn’t use the rifle much if ever, he didn’t like to kill animals or hunt. He seemed to agree with this initially. He said he had not used it the week before the murders. He changed his story though once the last living person known to have used it stated the gun was put away with the suppressor still on it and that is also how he found it in the closet and that is the usual way it is stored. (Recall Jeremy also lied about it not fitting in the closet with the suppressor on) To try to refute the claim Jeremy changed his story and said he used it multiple times the week prior to the murders and that sometimes it had the suppressor attached when he took it from the closet and other times it didn’t. He claimed it was used with and without the suppressor. His claims make no sense though. It makes no sense to remove the sights and suppressor and use the gun to shoot animals without such accessories. Thus his first story and that of his cousin seem to be the truth while his revisionist accounts are lies that make no sense. He made up a tale of seeing rabbits while it was dark out and attempting to shoot them without the suppressor though they react fast to the sound of a shot and you would want to use the suppressor. It was supposedly after dinner as they sat in the kitchen that he supposedly saw them by the barn, doe she have hawk vision? Why did he make up this tale about getting the gun out and leaving it and the ammunition out? Well he wanted everyone to believe that Sheila went crazy and the weapon just happened to be in front of her as she went crazy. His frame was not that she preplanned things but that she went crazy. So in his mind she would be unlikely to go seek out the gun so he made up the tale of it being left under her nose. In support of his frame after the murders he took a box of ammo and left it in the kitchen. He claimed he placed this box there along with the weapon and that the box was still where he left it. He said this is the ammo she used because it had been full or only missing a couple of rounds but now was only half full. He thus suggested she ran back to the kitchen to keep reloading. Why? Because Sheila had no pockets to carry extra ammo. If she had moved the box she would not have placed it back in the same spot later so obviously she supposedly didn’t move it. He didn’t bother to count the rounds. There were 30 in the box so only 20 missing. Even if the box had been full there should only be 25 rounds left. The killer can’t have just used this box but had to get at least some ammo from the ammo carrier in the closet. Why would the killer use 20 rounds from the box in the kitchen and take 5 rounds from the ammo carrier in the closet? That makes no sense. If the killer saw the ammo carrier it would be worn and the killer would then not need to keep running to the kitchen to reload. Taking 5 rounds only from it instead of wearing the bandolier makes no sense at all. The killer obviously used the ammo carrier and suppressor then put both side by side in a box in the closet after the murders. The tale about the rabbits was to pretend the gun and ammo had been left out when it had not been and also to pretend the gun didn’t have the suppressor attached during the murders. The only reason to need a cover story is because Jeremy was guilty. Only a guilty person needs to frame someone to avoid liability.
On top of all Jeremy’s lies and the other evidence pointing to his guilt, there is a complete lack of evidence that Sheila fired a weapon, knew how to load, unload and fire the murder weapon, or would have done so.
It always makes me laugh when people claim there is no evidence against Jeremy but is against Sheila. What evidence is there against Sheila? She had no GSR on her hands or clothes. No one had seen her ever handle let alone fire a weapon. The only person to claim she fired a weapon was Jeremy and he claimed it was when she was a child, even he said she hadn’t done so as an adult. (Thus he lied when he told police waiting outside WHF hat she fired all the weapons in the house and was proficient with them) The killer would have wounds of some sort from the rifle stock breaking as the killer was wielding it and would have some kind of abrasions from delivering blows that broke Nevill’s nose. The killer would likely have Nevill’s blood from beating Nevill severely. The only blood on her body was her own and she had no wounds of any kind. She even had bare feet and yet no blood or cuts from the kitchen floor that had blood and broken glass.
What evidence is there against her? None at all. IN contrast there is evidence against Jeremy.
Her mental illness was managed and she had no signs of relapsing. Her past relapses were because she stoppe dhe rmedication or was taking drugs. This time she was getting injected so could not skip her medicaiton and it was extremely strong medication. There is nothign to indicate why she would wake up at 3Am and be set off and attakc anyone in their beds.
For her to be guilty her medicine had to stop working suddenly, she had to have planned in advance that she would kill them and therefore hid the phone, hoped to find a way to get away with the crime and not go to jail so removed the bedroom phone, she had to be pretending to be docile but was really waiting to explode. She pretended to go to sleep but stayed awake as they slept. Around 3AM she figured they would be asleep so went and got the rifle from where Jeremy claims to have left it. She then got the suppressor, attached it to the gun, took 5-8 bullets from the ammo carrier and placed them in the kitchen in the box of ammo and then went up to the master bedroom to kill her parents. June was disabled but Nevill was not, he managed to flee to the kitchen. Despite his jaw being shattered and voicebox a miracle enabled him to speak and another miracle prevented his blood from dripping onto the phone. Instead of calling for medical help so their wounds could be treated he calls Jeremy, doesn’t tell them they need medical treatment and instead tells him to come over to help disarm her before she can shoot anyone. The phone call is cut off even though it was not hung up and the cord was not cut. Sheila beats this big man to a pulp so severely she breaks the rifle stock without getting so much as a hair out of place. They struggle together but she doesn’t get a scratch because she is being protected by a magical force. The same force prevents her from getting any blood, GSR or other evidence on her body or clothing. She even wraps her body around the rifle as she fires twice without any GSR landing on her gown or hands. Immediately prior to this she decides to kill herself but finds out she can’t with the suppressor attached so she removes it. She decides to bring it downstairs and place it in the closet where she found it instead of leaving it next to her yet still leaves the box of shells in the kitchen. She then shoots herself and again magic strikes as there is not a drop of back spatter in the rifle even though it is a virtual certainty it would result. Moreover after delivering the fatal shot she manages to fire a second shot by magic. Even though the recoil would send the gun up the gun instead goes down as if the laws of physics cease to apply on the night of the murders (which would conveniently explain some of the other magical happenings too) so this second shot ends up lower than the fatal shot.
Jeremy senses a trap so doesn’t go and instead calls Julie to wake her up to tell her about Nevill’s claim as if it is a trip and he needs to share a good laugh with her about it. He eventually calls police. He refuses to go or offer any assistance unless police take him there with them. After they arrive he shows up and they BS around for almost 4 hours. He is telepathic and senses the family is dead so calls Julie again and tells her not to go to work he will have cops pick her up to come support his story. Cops go in and find her and the family dead as Jeremy had sensed. Julie lies to frame him. Unknown persons take the suppressor, scrape it against the mantle so it gets paint on it then looks up Sheila’s blood type in the medical file, obtains blood of that type from somewhere and sprays blood inside in order to all police to argue the suppressor was used when Sheila was shot thus suggesting she was murdered not a suicide victim. Why would they need to plant the paint though, the blood evidence would be much more compelling.
I don’t believe in magic so I am certain that Jeremy did it.
If Jeremy had not been telling Julie all the things he had and had gone to sleep and pretended he knew nothing then even with the evidence that suggests Sheila was framed that would not be enough to prove he is the one who did the framing. Telling Julie what he wanted to do and had done presented a strong witness against him. In addition to the call boxed his defense team in big time to the point they were forced to admit at trial it was either him or Sheila. Most of the evidence proves it wasn't Sheila but not who actually did it. These two things establish the person who did it was him as opposed to his lawyers being able to claim it was someone else who framed Sheila.
Julie wrote her WS with Stan Jones. Then defended it in court. She has never retracted a word of it.
Jeremy was asked by the police & courts why Julie said those things. Both times he only gave one reason. Because he jilted her.
I created a thread on whether Jeremy did actually jilt Julie. As well as a thread of whether a scorned woman is just as likely to tell the truth.
Jeremys supporters say Julie heard Jeremy ask another girl out on the phone. Did Jeremy do this deliberatly ? Or was it a mistake & Julie was not supposed to hear ? Only Jeremy will know. He certainly did not jilt her outright and was keen to spend time with her after the massacre. Keeping her sweet with jaunts around the country & nice meals.
Other people have said Julie was pressurised into writing a WS by the police.
This is incorrect. She approached the police via Liz Rimmington. The police had no idea about the caravan break in or Susan Battersbys 1984 cheque book fraud.
So Jeremy is right, there is only one reason for Julie to lie. But first people have to agree he did jilt her. And jilt her badly.
Adam, you have been told on many occasions that it matters not one iota whether you or we think Jeremy jilted Julie. What matters is, did Julie FEEL herself jilted by Jeremy. As for how you believe he did it, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit and perhaps Jeremy preferred the softly softly approach.
Looking at it on from the outside. It is inconclusive whether Jeremy jilted Julie.
Jeremy was keen for Julie to attend WHF on the massacre day. Julie was reluctant to attend the funeral or spend too much time with Brett. But was persuaded to by Jeremy.
Reading Julies WS it does not seem she was too bothered. After finding out of Jeremys involvement. It was probably a relief, confideing to friends & then the police.
If Julie has only said these things (& they are lies) because she felt she was jilted, she must be one crazy, vindictive & confident woman.
However there is still the slim possibility she has only said these things because she felt she was badly jilted. But they are still true. A woman scorned....
No idea, you get gun shops, gunsmiths, gun boots, gun dogs and a Gunga Din. :-\And gunnea pigs.
I don't think the use of the word 'gun' is particularly unusual. :-\
Julie wrote her WS with Stan Jones. Then defended it in court. She has never retracted a word of it.If she's lying and did retract it shed be in hot s**t for sure. So the best policy for her would be to keep quiet.
Jeremy was asked by the police & courts why Julie said those things. Both times he only gave one reason. Because he jilted her.
I created a thread on whether Jeremy did actually jilt Julie. As well as a thread of whether a scorned woman is just as likely to tell the truth.
Jeremys supporters say Julie heard Jeremy ask another girl out on the phone. Did Jeremy do this deliberatly ? Or was it a mistake & Julie was not supposed to hear ? Only Jeremy will know. He certainly did not jilt her outright and was keen to spend time with her after the massacre. Keeping her sweet with jaunts around the country & nice meals.
Well Julie was the main prosecution witness.
Jeremys one reason why Julie lied is very weak -
It is not conclusive Jeremy jilted Julie.
If Julie was jilted, that does not automatically mean she will tell such serious lies.
Other people have said similar things to Julie. Such as Mary Mugford, James Richards, Ann Eaton & Robert Boutflour.
There is no evidence that Julie having mental health problems to tell such serious lies.
If she was jilted, she is just as likely to tell the truth.
I, personally, have for a long time, completely discounted Julie's evidence.
1. Yes, it's questionable that without Julie's evidence there'd have been a trial.
2. If it's the truth, its' weakness or strength is irrelevant.
3. I feel certain that Julie knew whether or not Jeremy had jilted her.
4. No, lying isn't mandetory after being jilted but might colour ones views of the jilter.
5. Jeremy may not have been the favourite chocolate in the box but it doesn't make him guilty.
6. Is it NECESSARY for one to have a mental illness to make one a liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7. That would rather depend on what she was threatened with/promised.
I, personally, have for a long time, completely discounted Julie's evidence.
Sadly the courts cannot discount a witness.
Even the defence said Julies WS had a ring of truth to it.
The jury not believing Jeremys claim that Julie lied because he 'apparently' jilted her. Although Jeremy had 7 hours in the witness box to try to persuade them. I bet Jeremy never used the word 'apparently' either.
Other people have said Julie was pressurised into writing a WS by the police.
This is incorrect. She approached the police via Liz Rimmington. The police had no idea about the caravan break in or Susan Battersbys 1984 cheque book fraud.
So Jeremy is right, there is only one reason for Julie to lie. But first people have to agree he did jilt her. And jilt her badly.
Well Julie was the main prosecution witness.
Jeremys one reason why Julie lied is very weak -
It is not conclusive Jeremy jilted Julie.
If Julie was jilted, that does not automatically mean she will tell such serious lies.
Other people have said similar things to Julie. Such as Mary Mugford, James Richards, Ann Eaton & Robert Boutflour.
There is no evidence of Julie having mental health problems to tell such serious lies.
If she was jilted, she is just as likely to tell the truth.
Scipio, their break up wasn´t quite as dispassionate as you indicate. Julie stabbed a teddy bear, which was a gift from Brett Collins, and she tried to smother Jeremy. She also threw things at him, both at home and in public.
She sounds like quite a passionate, even histrionic kind of person...................................
Scipio, their break up wasn´t quite as dispassionate as you indicate. Julie stabbed a teddy bear, which was a gift from Brett Collins, and she tried to smother Jeremy. She also threw things at him, both at home and in public.
She sounds like quite a passionate, even histrionic kind of person.
Adam - you have to remember that Julie was definitely capable of telling lies - because her original statement and her subsequent statements ( after many inteviews) were completely different.
So one of those statements was NOT the truth. If the first statement was not true - then that was a serious lie because a dangerous killer was on the loose- if the later statements were a lie then that was serious as well because it meant an innocent man would go to prison?
And if she knew about his intent to kill and she said at the time of the murders "I knew he had done it" and said nothing until a month after then IMO she was an accessory.
JB has only one thing in his statements that changed or was confused - and that was because the police told him they could prove the timings of his calls and he believed them -
Also remember the confusion of the police clock being wrong and the friends of JM clocks being wrong??? what was all that about?
Actually there are statements from family members that state they had seen Sheila use guns - then the police crossed them through and put no. ( they are in the archives)
In his statements with the police ( the first ones ) he did not say he had seen her use guns - but that she had gone out with his father on shoots and obviously she would have seen guns being used all the time.
There were also things floating around that said he called his sister a "nutter" - but if you read the statement from the policeman that was with him - he actually used the medical term for her illness , not those words .
the calls - have you read his second statement in full in the Sept? You will see it is the police telling him the sequence of calls and yes he did get confused , but he was pleased because he thought they could check all the timings and he thought that would prove what he had said was true-
Indeed she was capable of telling lies but so was Jeremy.
You seem to ignore that he was caught in many lies.
His claims related to the alleged phone call from Nevill was a mess. At various times he changed between claiming the line went dead and the phone simply being dropped and him hearing scuffling on the other end and then hanging up himself. Other times he said it was disconnected and he immediately called back but the line was busy. The telephone company agent though testified the phone wa sneve rhung up at WHF and that the call was ended by being hung up at Goldhanger. moreover he testified that it would take 1-2 minutes for the line at Jeremy's to clear he could not immediately dial anyone. So there is evidence he lied. Worse though is that Nevill woudl not have been able to speak and even if he could he would have stated he and June had been shot and neede dmedical help and would have been more likely to dial 999 because his son could not provide medical help and might not even answer the phone his phone was downstairs so he might not even wake up to hear it.
Jeremy told police outside the house that Shela had fired all weapons in the house and was proficient with them. Late rhe maintained Julie had gone shooting with Nevill and Anthony. After Anthony denied this he changed his story and maintianed the same thing as the rest of the family- no one saw her even touch a gun or show interest in guns let alone fire any gun. How did he account for the change? he simply pretended he never claimed anything to the contrary and denied telling police she had used all guns in the house. He also lied about the murder weapon not fitting in the closet with the scope and suppressor attached. Moreover, he changed his story about use of the gun the week prior to the murders. He originally told police he had not touched it until the night of the murders. After Anthony told them that he had pu tit away with the scope and suppressor attached and tha tis how he had found it and that is how it was always used and stored Jeremy kicked into damage control and claimed he had used it multiple times after Anthony had used it, sometimes the suppressor and scope were attached other times they were not. Why did he tell origially tell police he had not used it? The family and farm workers contradicted his claims that he used the gun to shoot varmints. They said he didn't like to shoot animals and they didn't know him to use the gun in question. They said he didn't show much interest in guns or shooting. So tying to suggest his claims did not waver and ther eis no evidence of him lying ever is not accurate.
The supposed phone call she overheard was tacky but not the source of their breakup. They had already broken up by the time he asked out an old girlfriend in front of her. In this case it seems that the murders disturbed her to the point that their relationship broke down over it. She was in the process of saying goodbye when he called this other woman so that can't have been the source of the break up.
When peopel break up they sometimes do things to spite one another but is the the kind of person who would spite him by making up such a tale and would simply overhearing him flirt with another girl after they broke up warrant her to do something so severe?
The relevant inquiry is to look for corroboration and what makes sense.
They didn't have a bad breakup where one or the other instantly cut off contact with the other. It was a progression where they salw less of eachother over time and went separate ways but still said goodbye and still were together saying goodbye. This is not the situation where one says I never want to see you again and they simply cease all contact. Her explanation of the cooling down being because of she felt bad over the murders makes sense. No alternative explanation for the breakup was put forward by Jeremy. The claim the breakup was because he overheard the flirting is false, the flirting was after they broke up.
It doesn't make sense to lie about someone being involved in murders to get back at someone for flirting in her presence, but the most likely thing to make up in such circumstances would be to say he told her he did it. Not to say he told her a hitman did it and that he even gave the hit man's name. That is counter productive because police could instantly check if the alleged hitman has an alibi or not and thus could easily rule out the claim and it won't cause the desired harm. At minimum such a made up claim would not name a hitman and just claim an unspecified hitman. Again though the most common lie to tell in such circumstances would be tha the admitted he did it not ake up a hitman claim.
The level of detail she provides as far as the various times he talked about wanting to kill his faily is also significant. It is hard to make up such level of detail without a lot of thought and planning to come up with such. The claims are all credible not amazingly crazy claims. Her account seems credible.
There are details to corroborate her claims such as Ann Eaton saying her told her that he would be co-owner of the caravan site with her soon and the very details of the murder which point to Sheila not being the killer but rather someone else and that someoen else had to be Jeremy based on the made up phone call and fact he is the one who insisted it had to be Sheila.
A lot of things go into weighing credibility.
Her claims were part of the overall puzzle.
Agree with that, but didn't Julie hit Jeremy or smash something after hearing Jeremy ask another woman out. Seems like an over reaction if they had already split up.
Possible Adam, but on one occasion they were walking round a supermarket.
She also threw an ornamental box at him when he planned to see another woman.
It was Peter Eaton.
Scipio, their break up wasn´t quite as dispassionate as you indicate. Julie stabbed a teddy bear, which was a gift from Brett Collins, and she tried to smother Jeremy. She also threw things at him, both at home and in public.
She sounds like quite a passionate, even histrionic kind of person.
Sadly the courts cannot discount a witness.You are the only person that I have read that. Where did you get that information from and have you checked on it to see if they really did say that?
Even the defence said Julies WS had a ring of truth to it.
The jury not believing Jeremys claim that Julie lied because he 'apparently' jilted her. Although Jeremy had 7 hours in the witness box to try to persuade them. I bet Jeremy never used the word 'apparently' either.
Forgot to mention the TWO clocks in completely different locations, which the police relied on to make their timeline fit - both of the clocks showed the wrong time to make the magical timeline fit. What kind of "evidence" is THAT?!
What evidence do you have of 2 clocks set the wrong time?
At best there is evidence to suggest 1 clock might have been set 10 minutes off but it just as easily could be that the clock was right but misread or misrecorded.
1) There was the police clockJM changed her mind about the time a few times.
2) The clock where JM was staying.
What evidence do you have of 2 clocks set the wrong time?
At best there is evidence to suggest 1 clock might have been set 10 minutes off but it just as easily could be that the clock was right but misread or misrecorded.
Do you know where a copy of the supposed interview can be found where she speaks about this. I heard it reported she threatened to stab a teddy bear Jeremy gave her among other things but have not seen a statement tha tproves she said any such thing.
At any rate, she seems to have been ticked off that he broke off the engagement which happened quite a while before the family was killed. Their romance was dying down before th emurders but afterwards fell apart rather fast.
Some wonder if he was sleeping with Collins and bi and I am among those. At any rate the bigger issue is whether what she claims is credible or likely to be made up.
His account of why he called her at 3AM and 6Am makes little sense the acocunt she gives does.
The details are things are to make up on the spot the level of detail is significant and there are tidbits like the girlfriend telling her Jeremy said he was the only one who knows what happened.
A big thing for me is that the story that Jeremy told her it was a hitman so he would not seem like a cold blooded killer makes sense. If she wanted to ge thim in trouble the thing to make up is that he did it, she knew he had no alibi so just say he told her he did it. It makes no sense to make up a hitman especially not to name said hitman so police could quickly rule it out.
There is a great deal to corroborate her claims and give it credibility. That is the most important thing to look at.
Do you know where a copy of the supposed interview can be found where she speaks about this. I heard it reported she threatened to stab a teddy bear Jeremy gave her among other things but have not seen a statement tha tproves she said any such thing.
At any rate, she seems to have been ticked off that he broke off the engagement which happened quite a while before the family was killed. Their romance was dying down before th emurders but afterwards fell apart rather fast.
Some wonder if he was sleeping with Collins and bi and I am among those. At any rate the bigger issue is whether what she claims is credible or likely to be made up.
His account of why he called her at 3AM and 6Am makes little sense the acocunt she gives does.
The details are things are to make up on the spot the level of detail is significant and there are tidbits like the girlfriend telling her Jeremy said he was the only one who knows what happened.
A big thing for me is that the story that Jeremy told her it was a hitman so he would not seem like a cold blooded killer makes sense. If she wanted to ge thim in trouble the thing to make up is that he did it, she knew he had no alibi so just say he told her he did it. It makes no sense to make up a hitman especially not to name said hitman so police could quickly rule it out.
There is a great deal to corroborate her claims and give it credibility. That is the most important thing to look at.
There are so many reasons for me. I can try to list them, but I will probably forget some points.
1. I don´t think that Jeremy would have been able to enter the farmhouse and EXPECT to control three aduts and two children. With an accomplice I can see it, alone, no; but since the case against Jeremy is that he committed the murders alone, I have to conclude that he couldn´t have done it on his own - or had the "guts".
2. Cannot see what Sheila was doing while Jeremy was killing off the rest of her family - just waiting her turn? I don´t think so!"
3.Sheila´s appearance in death and the way she was shot. She looks vastly different than her parents. Nevill and June looked messy with an air of despair about them. Sheila looked at peace and tranquil, not a trace of fight, it is all so neat to look at that it has to strike you. How could Jeremy manage that - how could he manage to shoot her in such an awkward position?".
4.The fact that Sheila was shot twice speaks against Jeremy having done it if he wanted to stage a suicide. What moron shoots a victim twice and expects it to be ruled a suicide?"
5.Julie. If Jeremy had really told her so much about his plans of killing his family, she would have warned the Bambers and Sheila - as we know, she did not. Or did she really think it was all right to kill them all off including the little boys she had read bed-time stories.
6.The fact that the police initially and for quite a while saw the case as a murder-suicide case. The evidence must have supported that.
7.The way the most crucial piece of evidence was found and handled by relatives who had A LOT to gain by a guilty verdict. Found after police already had searched gun cupboard.
8.The way Jeremy behaved after the tragedy. If he had done it, he would have gone out of his way to appear innocent. As it was, he just kept on with his life as the arrogant young man he was.
9.Sheila´s illness. She was seriously mentally ill, contrary to what guilters say. She didn´t receive heavy medication for nothing, she wasn´t hospitalized for nothing. Paranoid Schizophrenics most frequently target their closest family if they have violent impulses. Sometimes they even plan to kill family members.
10.The "coincidence" that Sheila said: "All people are evil and must die". The fact that she thought her sons were the "Devil´s children", that they were "women haters", that she was afraid they would rape and kill her show with all clarity that something was seriously wrong. It should have raised alarm bells, she should not have been allowed to be with them unsupervised! As it was, the doctors washed their hands after the fact, claiming that Sheila would never harm her children. Children who had bruises, were neglected and had dark and strange thoughts themselves, which anyone can see for themselves from their sinister drawings.
Funny that you see Sheila as capable of this but not Jeremy. In any event this is precisley why the time of 3AM was chosen. The time of 3AM while eveyrone was asleep was precisely so that the killings would be easily managed, trying it daytime with everyone up would be much more difficult.
Maybe like the boys she didn't wake up. Ann Eaton says she can't imagine what happened in her room that Jeremy was scared to go in. She was heavily medicated so likely slept like a log. Maybe he had to wake her up and drag her out of her room.
If she did wake up she probably was looking at her wounded mother or tending to her wounded mother as the men were busy fighting in the kitchen. Otherwise maybe she went to check on her children to make sure they wer eunharmed and asleep still.
There are many different possibilities.
She was heavily medicated, it is easy to imagine her not putting up a struggle considering she was tranquilized. I suggest you read more about her medication and the zombie like state it can put people in.
It is quite true that there are not many multiple shot suicides. Most people choose the head or chest for a shot so succeed and those who fail typically don't shoot again they are saved. The few who fail the first shot and then try again virtually always change the location to the head or chest to make sure the second time is not a failure. They very rarely select the same location. Let than 10% shoot themselves in the neck. I can't find any cases of people who failed the first time in the neck and chose the same location the second time. So this actually speaks against suicide as opposed to Jeremy's innocence.
After the first shot she was still breathing and potentially could be revived by medical personnel for all he knew. He had a choice, either shoot her again and risk her living and telling the truth about what happened and risk people believing her or shooting her again. He chose the latter quite clearly. In the choice of whether to risk her living it is easy to see he would take that option even though it speaks against suicide because the alternative is worse.
I can list a number of stupid things done some of which were the result of bad planning and ignorance others from what we in the military call first contact. There is a rule, no plan survives first contact intact. It means circumstances change and some things can't be foreseen. It is why alternative plans must be thought up. Not counting the bullets in the box that he stuck in the kitchen to make sure there were not too many left was poor planning. The first shot not being fatal immediately was a result of poor execution and a second shot was simply adapting to the situation.
Julie insists she doesn't think he was serious or that he was actually capable of doing it. The more important thing is why it took her so long afterwards for her conscience to get her to talk and if he marrie dher like she wanted would she have remained silent. This doesn't establish Jeremy is innocent though it merely speaks to her moral fiber if she could have remained happy wih someone she knew was a murderer. She didn't mind he was a crook so that alone says she isn't so upstanding.
But that doesn't make her claims not credible the claims have to be wieghed in their own right against the evidence and in that regard they are credible and there is evidence to support he was the killer. This wa snot a case where her word alone was trusted.
This is one of the worst arguments yet. The fact police believed his story and frame at first before all the evidence was processed means nothing at all. A tremendous amount of evidence was developed afterwards including the fact that Nevill would have been unable to speak because of his injuries so the entire phone call from Nevill was challenged. Finding out he was shot first in the bedroom then kitchen made abig deal as well as the struggle in the kitchen and much more. Even the fact that the box of ammo still had 30 bullets left and couldn't it 25 bullets had been used from it.
This doesn't even take into account the evidence of the suppressor, Julie and much more. Police assumptions before the evidence if fully evaliuated doesn't prove a thing and is meaningless. It has no weight in court because it is meaningless so should not have any weight with us.
you have not provided any evidence against the suppressor. Saying you don't like how it was found is not enough to challenge it. The fact of the matter is that police testified they didn't look for a suppressor they didn't say no suppressor was in there. To discount it, it is necessary to establish 2 different things.
Since the fatal wound would have resulted in back spatter in the weapon and none was found this means the defense needed to establish that there was a reaosnable probability that blood wa sin the weapon but that police either cleaned it before it arrived at the lab to conceal evidence or th elab itself foudn blood but concealed that it had found Sheila's blood inside.
Moreover it was necessary to establish a reasonable probablity that the blood found in the suppressor was planted. The nature of the blood found is that is was wet when it entered the suppressor and dried to the baffles and the inside opening. Moreover, microscopic drops dried on the first 8 baffles. he only way for blood to get on 8 baffles like this is if it had been sprayed which there is no way to accidentally have that happen. Taking a dropper of blood and dripping it in would not even acocunt dfor the blood distribution it had to be sprayed. It would take a great deal of knowledge to know it had to be sprayed and to figure out a way to spray it so that it would be distributed in the manner found. it would also require obtaining Sheila's blood or knowing her blood type somehow and obtaining the same type of bool. A great deal then is involved in trying to plant blood. Alot of evidence would be required ot estbalish the blood could have been planted let alone that there was a reaosnable probability it was planted. You ignore this entire inquiry with the simplistic well it was found by relatives so could have been planted. The defense burden to discount the evidence is much greater than you suggest which is why at trial the defense was unable to do so and instead tried to establish that the blood could have been a mixture of different blood types. They failed but that was the best argument they could hope to make.
He did try to appear innocent ith various lies he told but it backfired. Arrogant people often do not change their colors after committing crimes it is hard for a zebra to change its stripes. Especially when one thinks he has committed a foolproof crime. If most criminals were as smart as they think they are then prisons would not have so many occupants.
Many never target anyone and those who do are either not undergoing treatment, avoiding their medication or taking drugs that exacerbate delusions.
That is the case with Sheila, she had relapses when she stopped taking her medication and/or was taking drugs. That is why she wa sput on a powerful tranquilizer that is injected. She didn't have to take the medication herself so had no means to stop taking it. It was in her system but she had not taken any other drugs at the time of her murders. There is nothing at all in her system to counter the tranquilizer. There is no explanation of what would agitate her as she was sleeping at 3Am let alone agitate her so much she would get up and try to kill everyone in their beds.
This combined with the lack of physical evidence to estbalish she had been invovled in the struggle with Nevill, the fact he could not have made the call as claimed and other evidence like the suppressor as a whole speaks to her innocence.
Much of what you are talking about was from 1983. She didn't tlak about her fmaily at all in her last hospital stay. She thought everyone was evil so instead fo trying to kill as many peopel as she could including Jeremy at dinner she waits till everyone is a sleep and then tries to kill just her family and then herself. It doesn't fit at all what those treating her say. You selectively take some of what they say but try to twist it for your own purposes.
Sorry but everythign you wrote deomonstrates you are not objectively looking at the facts but rather a blind advocate for Jeremy cherry picking anything you can think of.
You can be an advocate all you want but if you want to be convincing then you need to try a lot harder looking in much more detail at the really important foundations of the case not throwing pebbles.
I gave you a blueprin of what would need ot be estbalished to challenge the supporessor I doubt you will find an expert to help or even much evidence to try to suggest what I described happened but that is where you would need to start if you want to make a serious effort.
Funny that you see Sheila as capable of this but not Jeremy. In any event this is precisley why the time of 3AM was chosen. The time of 3AM while eveyrone was asleep was precisely so that the killings would be easily managed, trying it daytime with everyone up would be much more difficult.
Maybe like the boys she didn't wake up. Ann Eaton says she can't imagine what happened in her room that Jeremy was scared to go in. She was heavily medicated so likely slept like a log. Maybe he had to wake her up and drag her out of her room.
If she did wake up she probably was looking at her wounded mother or tending to her wounded mother as the men were busy fighting in the kitchen. Otherwise maybe she went to check on her children to make sure they wer eunharmed and asleep still.
There are many different possibilities.
She was heavily medicated, it is easy to imagine her not putting up a struggle considering she was tranquilized. I suggest you read more about her medication and the zombie like state it can put people in.
It is quite true that there are not many multiple shot suicides. Most people choose the head or chest for a shot so succeed and those who fail typically don't shoot again they are saved. The few who fail the first shot and then try again virtually always change the location to the head or chest to make sure the second time is not a failure. They very rarely select the same location. Let than 10% shoot themselves in the neck. I can't find any cases of people who failed the first time in the neck and chose the same location the second time. So this actually speaks against suicide as opposed to Jeremy's innocence.
After the first shot she was still breathing and potentially could be revived by medical personnel for all he knew. He had a choice, either shoot her again and risk her living and telling the truth about what happened and risk people believing her or shooting her again. He chose the latter quite clearly. In the choice of whether to risk her living it is easy to see he would take that option even though it speaks against suicide because the alternative is worse.
I can list a number of stupid things done some of which were the result of bad planning and ignorance others from what we in the military call first contact. There is a rule, no plan survives first contact intact. It means circumstances change and some things can't be foreseen. It is why alternative plans must be thought up. Not counting the bullets in the box that he stuck in the kitchen to make sure there were not too many left was poor planning. The first shot not being fatal immediately was a result of poor execution and a second shot was simply adapting to the situation.
Julie insists she doesn't think he was serious or that he was actually capable of doing it. The more important thing is why it took her so long afterwards for her conscience to get her to talk and if he marrie dher like she wanted would she have remained silent. This doesn't establish Jeremy is innocent though it merely speaks to her moral fiber if she could have remained happy wih someone she knew was a murderer. She didn't mind he was a crook so that alone says she isn't so upstanding.
But that doesn't make her claims not credible the claims have to be wieghed in their own right against the evidence and in that regard they are credible and there is evidence to support he was the killer. This wa snot a case where her word alone was trusted.
This is one of the worst arguments yet. The fact police believed his story and frame at first before all the evidence was processed means nothing at all. A tremendous amount of evidence was developed afterwards including the fact that Nevill would have been unable to speak because of his injuries so the entire phone call from Nevill was challenged. Finding out he was shot first in the bedroom then kitchen made abig deal as well as the struggle in the kitchen and much more. Even the fact that the box of ammo still had 30 bullets left and couldn't it 25 bullets had been used from it.
This doesn't even take into account the evidence of the suppressor, Julie and much more. Police assumptions before the evidence if fully evaliuated doesn't prove a thing and is meaningless. It has no weight in court because it is meaningless so should not have any weight with us.
you have not provided any evidence against the suppressor. Saying you don't like how it was found is not enough to challenge it. The fact of the matter is that police testified they didn't look for a suppressor they didn't say no suppressor was in there. To discount it, it is necessary to establish 2 different things.
Since the fatal wound would have resulted in back spatter in the weapon and none was found this means the defense needed to establish that there was a reaosnable probability that blood wa sin the weapon but that police either cleaned it before it arrived at the lab to conceal evidence or th elab itself foudn blood but concealed that it had found Sheila's blood inside.
Moreover it was necessary to establish a reasonable probablity that the blood found in the suppressor was planted. The nature of the blood found is that is was wet when it entered the suppressor and dried to the baffles and the inside opening. Moreover, microscopic drops dried on the first 8 baffles. he only way for blood to get on 8 baffles like this is if it had been sprayed which there is no way to accidentally have that happen. Taking a dropper of blood and dripping it in would not even acocunt dfor the blood distribution it had to be sprayed. It would take a great deal of knowledge to know it had to be sprayed and to figure out a way to spray it so that it would be distributed in the manner found. it would also require obtaining Sheila's blood or knowing her blood type somehow and obtaining the same type of bool. A great deal then is involved in trying to plant blood. Alot of evidence would be required ot estbalish the blood could have been planted let alone that there was a reaosnable probability it was planted. You ignore this entire inquiry with the simplistic well it was found by relatives so could have been planted. The defense burden to discount the evidence is much greater than you suggest which is why at trial the defense was unable to do so and instead tried to establish that the blood could have been a mixture of different blood types. They failed but that was the best argument they could hope to make.
He did try to appear innocent ith various lies he told but it backfired. Arrogant people often do not change their colors after committing crimes it is hard for a zebra to change its stripes. Especially when one thinks he has committed a foolproof crime. If most criminals were as smart as they think they are then prisons would not have so many occupants.
Many never target anyone and those who do are either not undergoing treatment, avoiding their medication or taking drugs that exacerbate delusions.
That is the case with Sheila, she had relapses when she stopped taking her medication and/or was taking drugs. That is why she wa sput on a powerful tranquilizer that is injected. She didn't have to take the medication herself so had no means to stop taking it. It was in her system but she had not taken any other drugs at the time of her murders. There is nothing at all in her system to counter the tranquilizer. There is no explanation of what would agitate her as she was sleeping at 3Am let alone agitate her so much she would get up and try to kill everyone in their beds.
This combined with the lack of physical evidence to estbalish she had been invovled in the struggle with Nevill, the fact he could not have made the call as claimed and other evidence like the suppressor as a whole speaks to her innocence.
Much of what you are talking about was from 1983. She didn't tlak about her fmaily at all in her last hospital stay. She thought everyone was evil so instead fo trying to kill as many peopel as she could including Jeremy at dinner she waits till everyone is a sleep and then tries to kill just her family and then herself. It doesn't fit at all what those treating her say. You selectively take some of what they say but try to twist it for your own purposes.
Sorry but everythign you wrote deomonstrates you are not objectively looking at the facts but rather a blind advocate for Jeremy cherry picking anything you can think of.
You can be an advocate all you want but if you want to be convincing then you need to try a lot harder looking in much more detail at the really important foundations of the case not throwing pebbles.
I gave you a blueprin of what would need ot be estbalished to challenge the supporessor I doubt you will find an expert to help or even much evidence to try to suggest what I described happened but that is where you would need to start if you want to make a serious effort.
Scipio
you say above that Julie did not think he could do it or was serious
And yet she said his about the night of the murder
told him sleepily to go back to bed and he said bye honey I love you lots. I then put the phone down. I particularly remember the phrase ‘everything is going well’ I then got into bed and laid there for a few minutes when I suddenly came to my senses and realised what he had said.
PAGE 13
In my view he was telling me they were all dead. I immediately got out of bed and I spoke to my friend Susan. I don’t know if she came into my room or we met on the landing. She was very cross and complained about Jeremy phoning at a stupid time. She asked me what was wrong as apparently I looked concerned. I told her that I didn’t know but there was something wrong at the farm.
She said again what was wrong. We then all went back to our beds. I have since spoken to Susan and I feel sure that she told me the time that Jeremy phoned was 3:12am.
I lay in bed but did not go to sleep as I knew that Jeremy had murdered his family
So according to her own words - on the night she KNEW he had murdered his family. And yet she went to the morgue and saw the twins with the police - so she could have said something then.
Or perhaps this statement is not true?
Why are you suggesting, for the secind time, that julie way mentally ill? Perhaps you know something we don't.
Most women know when a relationship is in decline. I think Julie was hankering for for a ring so she clung on.
I think a woman that determined WOULD be capable of vindictiveness when she saw her planned future disappear.
OR did they encourage her to expand her story to save herself from standing in the dock along side Jeremy.
I believe she undoubetedly was.
How do you think Julies lies got through the police ?
I'm going to hold out on answering myself because I's like to hear other members views.
They were trying to build a case ? Perhaps that is why it took 30 sessions to get to the end result?
you could say the same thing about Jeremy - if he is guilty why did they not see through his lies straight away?
So did the police force Julie to lie. Or did they know she was lying & just corrected & encouraged her.
They saw through Jeremys lies after a month. Some saw through him straight away, but were over ruled by Taff Jones, who was taken off the case.
Good Lord Almighty, this is a long post! Haven´t even read it all yet (don´t have tine RIGHT now), but a couple of things:
It makes a big difference to me whether you are already inside a house and whether you creep into it in the dead of night.
If you are already in the house, you know where people are, and the people in the house expect the sounds you make moving around. If you are an intruder, you make/risk making them aware by unexpected sounds.
There is also a big difference between controlling (or expecting to control) three adults versus two.
Why would Jeremy "drag" Sheila into their parents´ bedroom to kill her there? To upset her at the sight of all the blood and her dead mother? Doean´t make much sense to me.
Will read your post more thoroughly at a later time. :)
So did the police force Julie to lie. Or did they know she was lying & just corrected & encouraged her.
They saw through Jeremys lies after a month. Some saw through him straight away, but were over ruled by Taff Jones, who was taken off the case.
So did the police force Julie to lie. Or did they know she was lying & just corrected & encouraged her.
They saw through Jeremys lies after a month. Some saw through him straight away, but were over ruled by Taff Jones, who was taken off the case.
If he killed her in her bed that would not lead police to think that she killed everyone then committed suicide. Similarly why would she go to her own bedroom to kill herself? It looks better if she did it in a room with some of the victims.Quite honestly I do not know whether to yawn or laugh? ::)
The ideal plan was to kill the parents in their bedroom then the kids in theirs and kill her in 1 of these rooms so it looks like after she was done making sure they were dead she killed herself.
Sheila was just visiting it was not her house. Jeremy has as much reaosn as her to know what sleeps in what room.
What happened was an execution of an entire family. Executions happen at night like this because that is when the victims are most vulnerable. The biggest problem is that this is a sign of a planned execution which is inconsistent with the claim that Sheila just suddenly went crazy at 3AM.
At any rate, the choice was a planned execution as they slept or to do it as they were awake and take a chance of someone disarming you or running from the house to reveal your actions. When asleep is much safer but ruins the claim of a burglar robbing the house because a robber doesn't go room to room killing everyone in a house they get the heck out of there if someone startles them and they shoot.
The time of day helps also helped because he was able to pretend there was no way into the house with it bolted from the inside so that police would say well it had to be someone inside because no one else could get in. So it helped in several respects to choose that time of night.
He supposedly wanted to execute his family, the murders are consistent with such an execution and the best time of day to do it safely is as they sleep. That is the bottom line. If Sheila wanted to kill her whole family then she needed Jeremy there was well and had a reason to act at dinner or when he was visiting as opposed ot the middle of the night. That part you are ingoring.
Why did Jeremy tell Sheila he had to act now? he neede dot act when everyone was in the same house otherwise he would not be able to hill all heirs in one swoop and would have to share the estate with his siste ror her kids.
If she had the same motivation but instead of money it was something else she likewise needed all of them there the same time. This wa snot lost on Jeremy he suggested the phone clal from nevill was a trick prompted by Sheila so he would go there.
He thought this up because he needed all of them there. He just put her in his shoes which means he was needed there for her to kill.
If he killed her in her bed that would not lead police to think that she killed everyone then committed suicide. Similarly why would she go to her own bedroom to kill herself? It looks better if she did it in a room with some of the victims.
The ideal plan was to kill the parents in their bedroom then the kids in theirs and kill her in 1 of these rooms so it looks like after she was done making sure they were dead she killed herself.
Sheila was just visiting it was not her house. Jeremy has as much reaosn as her to know what sleeps in what room.
What happened was an execution of an entire family. Executions happen at night like this because that is when the victims are most vulnerable. The biggest problem is that this is a sign of a planned execution which is inconsistent with the claim that Sheila just suddenly went crazy at 3AM.
At any rate, the choice was a planned execution as they slept or to do it as they were awake and take a chance of someone disarming you or running from the house to reveal your actions. When asleep is much safer but ruins the claim of a burglar robbing the house because a robber doesn't go room to room killing everyone in a house they get the heck out of there if someone startles them and they shoot.
The time of day helps also helped because he was able to pretend there was no way into the house with it bolted from the inside so that police would say well it had to be someone inside because no one else could get in. So it helped in several respects to choose that time of night.
He supposedly wanted to execute his family, the murders are consistent with such an execution and the best time of day to do it safely is as they sleep. That is the bottom line. If Sheila wanted to kill her whole family then she needed Jeremy there was well and had a reason to act at dinner or when he was visiting as opposed ot the middle of the night. That part you are ingoring.
Why did Jeremy tell Sheila he had to act now? he neede dot act when everyone was in the same house otherwise he would not be able to hill all heirs in one swoop and would have to share the estate with his siste ror her kids.
If she had the same motivation but instead of money it was something else she likewise needed all of them there the same time. This wa snot lost on Jeremy he suggested the phone clal from nevill was a trick prompted by Sheila so he would go there.
He thought this up because he needed all of them there. He just put her in his shoes which means he was needed there for her to kill.
Quite honestly I do not know whether to yawn or laugh? ::)
Quite honestly I do not know whether to yawn or laugh? ::)
If he killed her in her bed that would not lead police to think that she killed everyone then committed suicide. Similarly why would she go to her own bedroom to kill herself? It looks better if she did it in a room with some of the victims.
The ideal plan was to kill the parents in their bedroom then the kids in theirs and kill her in 1 of these rooms so it looks like after she was done making sure they were dead she killed herself.
Sheila was just visiting it was not her house. Jeremy has as much reaosn as her to know what sleeps in what room.
What happened was an execution of an entire family. Executions happen at night like this because that is when the victims are most vulnerable. The biggest problem is that this is a sign of a planned execution which is inconsistent with the claim that Sheila just suddenly went crazy at 3AM.
At any rate, the choice was a planned execution as they slept or to do it as they were awake and take a chance of someone disarming you or running from the house to reveal your actions. When asleep is much safer but ruins the claim of a burglar robbing the house because a robber doesn't go room to room killing everyone in a house they get the heck out of there if someone startles them and they shoot.
The time of day helps also helped because he was able to pretend there was no way into the house with it bolted from the inside so that police would say well it had to be someone inside because no one else could get in. So it helped in several respects to choose that time of night.
He supposedly wanted to execute his family, the murders are consistent with such an execution and the best time of day to do it safely is as they sleep. That is the bottom line. If Sheila wanted to kill her whole family then she needed Jeremy there was well and had a reason to act at dinner or when he was visiting as opposed ot the middle of the night. That part you are ingoring.
Why did Jeremy tell Sheila he had to act now? he neede dot act when everyone was in the same house otherwise he would not be able to hill all heirs in one swoop and would have to share the estate with his siste ror her kids.
If she had the same motivation but instead of money it was something else she likewise needed all of them there the same time. This wa snot lost on Jeremy he suggested the phone clal from nevill was a trick prompted by Sheila so he would go there.
He thought this up because he needed all of them there. He just put her in his shoes which means he was needed there for her to kill.
Do both,Grahame. ;D
I suggest you read more about her medication and the zombie like state it can put people in.
Abs also posted the following about Haloperidol Withdrawal:
"Haloperidol Withdrawal
Haloperidol is also known as Haldol and can cause one of the worst withdrawal processes known to man. Haloperidol is a prescription medication approved to treat psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, Tourettes syndrome, and behavior disorders. As with most medications for mental illness, stopping haloperidol “cold turkey” is not recommended.
The best approach to withdrawing from haloperidol is to wean yourself gradually from the drug. Haloperidol withdrawal is brutal and can make you feel like a prisoner in your own mind and body. On the surface, the notion of prescribing someone an anti-psychotic medication like haloperidol, is supposed to make people calm and quiet. But the reality is that you can become horrifically violent. Withdrawal effects from haloperidol are severe and it takes intense medical supervision to ensure the person safely detoxifies. Whatever the motivation, you have a right to free yourself from using haloperidol. If you want to safely withdraw from haloperidol, it is helpful to have the support of a sympathetic doctor. The best way to safely withdraw from haloperidol is to have the active involvement of a doctor or prescription medication withdrawal specialist who can guide and monitor your progress.
Andrea Yates, a woman who lived in Texas with her five children was withdrawing from haloperidol when she drowned all five of her children. This is a very good example of why anyone going through haloperidol withdrawal should be closely monitored and under a doctor’s care. The withdrawal symptoms of a cold-turkey, too-rapid approach from haloperidol include nausea, anxiety, insomnia, restlessness, muscular reactions, and strange behavior. The reaction to sudden haloperidol withdrawal can be life-threatening. People can become suicidal or extremely violent like Andrea Yates demonstrated to be true that day when she killed her five children in cold blood while she was withdrawing from haloperidol. Haloperidol withdrawal symptoms also include breathing problems, tightening of the muscles, dry mouth, loss of control of your tongue, blurry vision, and pacing back and forth. A treatment center or hospital is the right setting for withdrawing from haloperidol.
The best way to prevent haloperidol withdrawals is to reduce the dosage gradually. The first week, you reduce your dosage by ten percent. Try that for the first week, and then see how you are doing. If you feel OK, reduce the dosage by another 10 percent. Try that for a week, and see if you feel OK. If you reach a point where you don't feel OK, don't reduce your dosage by another 10 percent; stay at the same reduced level for another week or until you do feel fine. Then reduce by another 10 percent and continue with the process. Remember, psychiatric drugs like haloperidol should never be stopped abruptly! The more slowly you can withdraw, the less severe effects you will suffer; don't try to stop taking haloperidol without support."
http://www.alt2meds.com/medication-withdrawal/haloperidol
"Cannabis (illegal in most countries):
Smoking cannabis increases the amount to dopamine in the pleasure centres of the brain, which is where the reward or buzz comes from. However, psychosis also comes from having too much dopamine, in another area of the brain. You have to remember that smoking cannabis can also increase dopamine in other areas of the brain, so can make psychosis worse. Please be careful, everything in moderation and if dope makes you worse, keep off the grass. It really won't help you in the long-term. Don't forget that if you're a toker, you're also a smoker, so see the question above. However, there are no extra problems with smoking cannabis, other than the smoking itself (see above). But, it might make you feel a bit more drowsy and may have more dry mouth, blurred vision and finding it hard to pass water (wee). Also, don't forget that cannabis can make psychotic symptoms worse."
So if Sheila smoked, it would decrease the amount of Haloperidol in her system and thus make her withdrawal symptoms even graver. "
http://www.choiceandmedication.org/norfolk-and-waveney/medications/56/
Abs also posted some other information in respect of Haliperidol withdrawal, I believe, but I can't find it.
Good point.
An execution by Jeremy could only really happen late at night.
It is less likely everyone will be in WHF at the same time during the day. If they are they will all be awake. Jeremy & ten bullets against five wide awake people is less likely to succeed. Also witnesses such as farm workers may put Jeremy at the scene. Certainly he could not claim he was at home sleeping like a log.
Sheila could have an episode at any time. But did it late at night/early morning . Coincidence ?
A few posts back, you aimed a broadside at on of my posts in which I said scientific methods had failed to give conclusive evidence so all we were left with was conjecture, by saying that all conjecture did was convert the ignorant and your preference was to convert the knowledgeable rather that the ignorant because it was a challenge. It seems to me that the above, albeit that it was accepted by the court, is little more than conjecture because it matters not whether we believe Jeremy guilty or innocent, nothing of what you've said in the above is conclusive evidence.
come on now children - we are all civilised on here ( well 99% of the time anyway ;D)
But I do think it is best if posters can ask one question at a time so we can post up evidence / documents if possible and opinions if not :-\
Because if you see a huge post covering lots of information it is hard to extract what needs answering .
I would think that is common sense? Most burglaries/crimes happen at night - but that does not prove anything?
If you have an episode caused by illness does that only happen in the day?
don't think so.
This wasn't a pre-planned execution.
The evidence says otherwise.
Ann Eaton indicated Jeremy told he rhe soon would be co-owner of the caravan site with her
Julie provided a long list of times he told he rhe was planning this and even called her each stage right before and after.
Nevill believed Jeremy was planning to kill him and told the farm secretary.
The time of day is consistent with a pre-planned execution.
The removal of the phone is consistent with a preplanned execution.
There is much more evidence from the removal of the telescopic sights (which would be in the way for close quarter killings) to the box of bullets obviously staged because there is no way 25 bullets could be used from said box and yet 30 remain unless Jesus was multiplying bullets like he did with the fish and loaves of bread.
Denying the reality of things doesn't change it.
The evidence says otherwise.
Ann Eaton indicated Jeremy told he rhe soon would be co-owner of the caravan site with her
Julie provided a long list of times he told he rhe was planning this and even called her each stage right before and after.
Nevill believed Jeremy was planning to kill him and told the farm secretary.
The time of day is consistent with a pre-planned execution.
The removal of the phone is consistent with a preplanned execution.
There is much more evidence from the removal of the telescopic sights (which would be in the way for close quarter killings) to the box of bullets obviously staged because there is no way 25 bullets could be used from said box and yet 30 remain unless Jesus was multiplying bullets like he did with the fish and loaves of bread.
Denying the reality of things doesn't change it.
The evidence says otherwise.What? Do you think we were all born yesterday? He said nothing of the kind and nothing of the kind was said in court.
Ann Eaton indicated Jeremy told he rhe soon would be co-owner of the caravan site with her
Julie provided a long list of times he told he rhe was planning this and even called her each stage right before and after.
Nevill believed Jeremy was planning to kill him and told the farm secretary.
The time of day is consistent with a pre-planned execution.
The removal of the phone is consistent with a preplanned execution.
There is much more evidence from the removal of the telescopic sights (which would be in the way for close quarter killings) to the box of bullets obviously staged because there is no way 25 bullets could be used from said box and yet 30 remain unless Jesus was multiplying bullets like he did with the fish and loaves of bread.
Denying the reality of things doesn't change it.
come on now children - we are all civilised on here ( well 99% of the time anyway ;D)
But I do think it is best if posters can ask one question at a time so we can post up evidence / documents if possible and opinions if not :-\
Because if you see a huge post covering lots of information it is hard to extract what needs answering .
I don't think it is fair to use BW's recent claim, she didn't say that the comment related to Jeremy at the time and has recently claimed to have seen the silencer and the blood on it. No one else substantiates her presence when the blood was allegedly spotted.
Also, statements in the archives explain quite clearly what happened to the phones in WHF and as for the silencer, this has to be the most convenient piece of evidence that I have read about in any case.
Well said Jansus, agree 100%
The phone locations were considered important enough to be discussed at court.
Didn't Neville say he was worried about being killed in a shooting accident ? Surely he did not mean Sheila would be the culprit.
But it is a good strategy if you want to bombard a board with YOUR opinions and have no intention of listening to others, right?! 8) ;D
Well if you want to live with your head in the sand by all means do so. I chose not to.No I choose not to accept your drivel. Study the case for a few more years then come back and make some sensible statements. That might help. Right now it appears that you believe only that light that seeps through the chinks in your own roof and treat everybody else here who have studied the case for years as idiots because they don't accept your twisted analysis of the situation.
You can pretend that killing people as they sleep is not a sign of premedicated execution. Experts disagree and the statistical evidence is on their side not yours.
Good point.Good grief! the gathering of the werewolves. Please someone pass the silver bullets.
An execution by Jeremy could only really happen late at night.
It is less likely everyone will be in WHF at the same time during the day. If they are they will all be awake. Jeremy & ten bullets against five wide awake people is less likely to succeed. Also witnesses such as farm workers may put Jeremy at the scene. Certainly he could not claim he was at home sleeping like a log.
Sheila could have an episode at any time. But did it late at night/early morning . Coincidence ?
I don't think it is fair to use BW's recent claim, she didn't say that the comment related to Jeremy at the time and has recently claimed to have seen the silencer and the blood on it. No one else substantiates her presence when the blood was allegedly spotted.
Also, statements in the archives explain quite clearly what happened to the phones in WHF
and as for the silencer, this has to be the most convenient piece of evidence that I have read about in any case.
Based on the detail of the claim regarding when and how it supposedly was made I find it credible. It was not an ambiguous claim but a detailed one with the detail being credible not absurd. Judges get to consider such during the appeal process and had it been elicited sooner it would have gotten before a jury for them to judge whether they find it credible or not.
This is one of those situations were we can agree to disagree. It is not one of the main things I rely on though for my argument that Jeremy is guilty. It is a small piece of the puzzle.
What statements? The only statements I have seen concerning the phones were generlaized statements that when the kitchen phone was borken that it would be replaced by the bedroom phone. But the kitchen phone was not broken it was working fine. It was intentionally unplugged and hidden and replaced by the roatary bedroom phone to give the impression that it was replacing a broken phone but in fact it wasn't broken just hidden.
Then you must not have studied many cases because there are smoking guns like that in sizable numbers of cases. Such evidence is why criminals get caught otherwise the jails would be a lot less full, if crooks were smart they would not be caught.
I already detailed in other threads what it would entail to have planted blood int he suppressor and had that been done why woudl anyone bother also planting paint which isn't necessary since the blood relates to Sheila's death while the paint does not.
Planting it would require:
1) obtaining a sample of Sheila's wet blood or knowing her blood type and obtaining a sample of group A blood from somewhere else (most people don't even know their own blood type)
2) knowing exactly what kind of blood distribution back spatter would leave inside a suppressor and using a device to spray said blood into the suppressor so that it was able to leave microscopic droplets on the first 8 baffles and visible flakes of blood on the inside opening and the first 5-7 baffles so that it would replicate what back spatter would look like. The fact of the matte ris that most peopel including most on this site would not have a clue about that and even though the distribuion of blood is described in the court findings most peopel still would probably just drip blood in the opening and not understand the significance of needed to use a device to spray the blood in.
3) If the suppressor had not been attached back spatter would have been in the rifle. Those planting the evidence had to recognize that blood found in the rifle would refute the suppressor was attached so the rifle would have to be cleaned out before it was sent to the lab or the lab would have to lie and pretend no blood was found.
So this means the family alone could not have carried it out, police would have to have carried it out with the family. There would have to be a conspiracy among police and the family.
Aside from a conspiracy you needed peopel to have some detaile dknowledge to be able to pull it off so that it was not able to be detected.
I find it hard to believe anyone figured out both that they would need to spray blood inside and also to elimiante the blood evidence from the murder weapon. There is no evidence to suggest this happened. For court puposes it is necessary to prove a reasonable likelihood that this occurred. Short of that the suppressor evidence is not able to be rebutted.
Adam - honest answer - I don't know - I can not fathom out the police action in this case at all.Right from the start the way they handled the evidence/logs/evidence numbers etc was a mess . Lets face it if it was not a mess none of us would have anything to discuss :)
All I know is that most people in her position- if she was telling the truth would have done something about it much earlier. That is my opinion.
when the telephone wire was struck by lightning the line went dead. first thing you do is try plugging different phones in different sockets "yep its definatly dead" the upstairs phone just didnt get replaced.
there seems no mystery in this to me. done this sort of thing myself. the kitchen phone just got lost in the general clutter and would have eventually been replaced proberbly when the cordless came back from repair
I've never seen anything sinister in this
wilf
Based on the detail of the claim regarding when and how it supposedly was made I find it credible. It was not an ambiguous claim but a detailed one with the detail being credible not absurd. Judges get to consider such during the appeal process and had it been elicited sooner it would have gotten before a jury for them to judge whether they find it credible or not.
This is one of those situations were we can agree to disagree. It is not one of the main things I rely on though for my argument that Jeremy is guilty. It is a small piece of the puzzle.
What statements? The only statements I have seen concerning the phones were generlaized statements that when the kitchen phone was borken that it would be replaced by the bedroom phone. But the kitchen phone was not broken it was working fine. It was intentionally unplugged and hidden and replaced by the roatary bedroom phone to give the impression that it was replacing a broken phone but in fact it wasn't broken just hidden.
Then you must not have studied many cases because there are smoking guns like that in sizable numbers of cases. Such evidence is why criminals get caught otherwise the jails would be a lot less full, if crooks were smart they would not be caught.
I already detailed in other threads what it would entail to have planted blood int he suppressor and had that been done why woudl anyone bother also planting paint which isn't necessary since the blood relates to Sheila's death while the paint does not.
Planting it would require:
1) obtaining a sample of Sheila's wet blood or knowing her blood type and obtaining a sample of group A blood from somewhere else (most people don't even know their own blood type)
2) knowing exactly what kind of blood distribution back spatter would leave inside a suppressor and using a device to spray said blood into the suppressor so that it was able to leave microscopic droplets on the first 8 baffles and visible flakes of blood on the inside opening and the first 5-7 baffles so that it would replicate what back spatter would look like. The fact of the matte ris that most peopel including most on this site would not have a clue about that and even though the distribuion of blood is described in the court findings most peopel still would probably just drip blood in the opening and not understand the significance of needed to use a device to spray the blood in.
3) If the suppressor had not been attached back spatter would have been in the rifle. Those planting the evidence had to recognize that blood found in the rifle would refute the suppressor was attached so the rifle would have to be cleaned out before it was sent to the lab or the lab would have to lie and pretend no blood was found.
So this means the family alone could not have carried it out, police would have to have carried it out with the family. There would have to be a conspiracy among police and the family.
Aside from a conspiracy you needed peopel to have some detaile dknowledge to be able to pull it off so that it was not able to be detected.
I find it hard to believe anyone figured out both that they would need to spray blood inside and also to elimiante the blood evidence from the murder weapon. There is no evidence to suggest this happened. For court puposes it is necessary to prove a reasonable likelihood that this occurred. Short of that the suppressor evidence is not able to be rebutted.
Based on the detail of the claim regarding when and how it supposedly was made I find it credible. It was not an ambiguous claim but a detailed one with the detail being credible not absurd. Judges get to consider such during the appeal process and had it been elicited sooner it would have gotten before a jury for them to judge whether they find it credible or not.
This is one of those situations were we can agree to disagree. It is not one of the main things I rely on though for my argument that Jeremy is guilty. It is a small piece of the puzzle.
What statements? The only statements I have seen concerning the phones were generlaized
statements that when the kitchen phone was borken that it would be replaced by the bedroom phone. But the kitchen phone was not broken it was working fine. It was intentionally unplugged and hidden and replaced by the roatary bedroom phone to give the impression that it was replacing a broken phone but in fact it wasn't broken just hidden.
Then you must not have studied many cases because there are smoking guns like that in sizable numbers of cases. Such evidence is why criminals get caught otherwise the jails would be a lot less full, if crooks were smart they would not be caught.
I already detailed in other threads what it would entail to have planted blood int he suppressor and had that been done why woudl anyone bother also planting paint which isn't necessary since the blood relates to Sheila's death while the paint does not.
Planting it would require:
1) obtaining a sample of Sheila's wet blood or knowing her blood type and obtaining a sample of group A blood from somewhere else (most people don't even know their own blood type)
2) knowing exactly what kind of blood distribution back spatter would leave inside a suppressor and using a device to spray said blood into the suppressor so that it was able to leave microscopic droplets on the first 8 baffles and visible flakes of blood on the inside opening and the first 5-7 baffles so that it would replicate what back spatter would look like. The fact of the matte ris that most peopel including most on this site would not have a clue about that and even though the distribuion of blood is described in the court findings most peopel still would probably just drip blood in the opening and not understand the significance of needed to use a device to spray the blood in.
3) If the suppressor had not been attached back spatter would have been in the rifle. Those planting the evidence had to recognize that blood found in the rifle would refute the suppressor was attached so the rifle would have to be cleaned out before it was sent to the lab or the lab would have to lie and pretend no blood was found.
So this means the family alone could not have carried it out, police would have to have carried it out with the family. There would have to be a conspiracy among police and the family.
Aside from a conspiracy you needed peopel to have some detaile dknowledge to be able to pull it off so that it was not able to be detected.
I find it hard to believe anyone figured out both that they would need to spray blood inside and also to elimiante the blood evidence from the murder weapon. There is no evidence to suggest this happened. For court puposes it is necessary to prove a reasonable likelihood that this occurred. Short of that the suppressor evidence is not able to be rebutted.
Here is Davids statement - no mention of Barbara looking at the moderator? No real mention of blood? And no grey hair either.?The facts remain Jan is that IF they found a silencer (1) they should have left it where it was and then call the police. (2) They should not have taken it home with them for the police to collect it later. (3) The silencer because of all this handling should have been rejected by the court because of contamination. Indeed the officer who collected the silencer was asked in court if that was the silencer that he had collected and he replied something along the lines of yes but it was not in that condition when I collected it.
Strange
The facts remain Jan is that IF they found a silencer (1) they should have left it where it was and then call the police. (2) They should not have taken it home with them for the police to collect it later. (3) The silencer because of all this handling should have been rejected by the court because of contamination. Indeed the officer who collected the silencer was asked in court if that was the silencer that he had collected and he replied something along the lines of yes but it was not in that condition when I collected it.
I doubt very much if a court today would be hoodwinked into accepting such a potentially contaminated object into evidence, but would be immediately rejected. In my opinion the silencer should never have reached the court at all and at least two people from the jury agreed with me.
tbh I don't even think it was even used :-\Personally I think it is a complete red herring.
And I agree that I can not understand why it was accepted when even the police admitted it was not even kept correctly in their possession , let alone when it was in the family wardrobe :o
tbh I don't even think it was even used :-\I agree, I cannot for a moment believe that the silencer was found in such a place in such condition. It's as if they said .... we need proof Sheila couldn't have shot herself, we could do that by finding a silencer which had obviously been used and would make it impossible for Sheila to have killed herself ..... what will prove it had been used ..... blood, a grey hair and paint to prove it was used in a fight in the kitchen and scratched the aga surround, that should do. ..... it's too pat .... ludicrous!!! imo. ;D ;D
And I agree that I can not understand why it was accepted when even the police admitted it was not even kept correctly in their possession , let alone when it was in the family wardrobe :o
Can I ask - have you actually read all the statements of the people who supposedly found the moderator? If you do you will find that none off them agree .
They don't agree how it looked/ where there was blood on it or if there was a hair. Then it was wrapped in a tissue/ or toilet roll before being taken from Annes house. Also on here you will find documents that show there was more than one silencer . If you had read the documents you would also know there is much dispute about when the police actually took the silencer.
Reference the BW statement - again - This was apparently only said recently in a tv documentary - it was never said in court or a statement as far as I know.
Also although BW was said by some to be in the house when the silencer was found some of the family said that she did not see it being discovered.
So unless you can show me a written statement by BW to dispute the above , the fact that you find it credible ,to be honest in neither here nor there.
Based on the detail of the claim regarding when and how it supposedly was made I find it credible. It was not an ambiguous claim but a detailed one with the detail being credible not absurd. Judges get to consider such during the appeal process and had it been elicited sooner it would have gotten before a jury for them to judge whether they find it credible or not.
This is one of those situations were we can agree to disagree. It is not one of the main things I rely on though for my argument that Jeremy is guilty. It is a small piece of the puzzle.
What statements? The only statements I have seen concerning the phones were generlaized statements that when the kitchen phone was borken that it would be replaced by the bedroom phone. But the kitchen phone was not broken it was working fine. It was intentionally unplugged and hidden and replaced by the roatary bedroom phone to give the impression that it was replacing a broken phone but in fact it wasn't broken just hidden.
Then you must not have studied many cases because there are smoking guns like that in sizable numbers of cases. Such evidence is why criminals get caught otherwise the jails would be a lot less full, if crooks were smart they would not be caught.
I already detailed in other threads what it would entail to have planted blood int he suppressor and had that been done why woudl anyone bother also planting paint which isn't necessary since the blood relates to Sheila's death while the paint does not.
Planting it would require:
1) obtaining a sample of Sheila's wet blood or knowing her blood type and obtaining a sample of group A blood from somewhere else (most people don't even know their own blood type)
2) knowing exactly what kind of blood distribution back spatter would leave inside a suppressor and using a device to spray said blood into the suppressor so that it was able to leave microscopic droplets on the first 8 baffles and visible flakes of blood on the inside opening and the first 5-7 baffles so that it would replicate what back spatter would look like. The fact of the matte ris that most peopel including most on this site would not have a clue about that and even though the distribuion of blood is described in the court findings most peopel still would probably just drip blood in the opening and not understand the significance of needed to use a device to spray the blood in.
3) If the suppressor had not been attached back spatter would have been in the rifle. Those planting the evidence had to recognize that blood found in the rifle would refute the suppressor was attached so the rifle would have to be cleaned out before it was sent to the lab or the lab would have to lie and pretend no blood was found.
So this means the family alone could not have carried it out, police would have to have carried it out with the family. There would have to be a conspiracy among police and the family.
Aside from a conspiracy you needed peopel to have some detaile dknowledge to be able to pull it off so that it was not able to be detected.
I find it hard to believe anyone figured out both that they would need to spray blood inside and also to elimiante the blood evidence from the murder weapon. There is no evidence to suggest this happened. For court puposes it is necessary to prove a reasonable likelihood that this occurred. Short of that the suppressor evidence is not able to be rebutted.
Yes I did read the statements and witnesses often disagree to an extent on various points. People only pay attention to certain things and have different definitions among other things and some peoplr recall more things than others not just because they noticed more at the time but something made it stick in their mind. When people agree to the letter in very detailed terms it often is a sign they coordinated their statements in advance. People often provide more details they recall at a later date or that they neglected to mention originally because they didn't know it was so significant to mention. None changed their story in any major way.
What I have detailed are the mechanics that would be necessary to plant said evidence. That is th emost important thing in order to establish it happened. You cna have 50 peopel with 50 different stories about the supporessor but it makes no difference if the evidence can't have been planted it still would not change the value.
The family could not do it alone they would have neede dpolice help to do it a joint conspiracy the lab also would have to have been involved unless police recognized they needed to clean out blood from the rifle before turning it over to the lab.
This conspiracy would have been required to occur very early on. It required recognizing something that the family and even police would be unlikely to recognize that they would need to do to plant it. The defense lawyers to this day have not found an expert who has posited a way to plant evidence in a manner which would account for the distribution of blood found in the suppressor. teh fact the witnesses came forward piecemeal not all at once at insistence of police but on their own establishes no evidence of a conspiracy in the meantime.
Under these crucumstances there is no way to establish there was a reasonable likelihood the blood evidence was planted and fraudulently removed from the rifle.
It was not some accident that the defense did not have their own expert testify at trial. The microscopic blood drops he found which were type A blood that he found on the first 8 baffles were more damaging than the blood the prosecution found. It is harder to say such was planted than the blood the prosecution tested. The jury wasn't made aware of the defense expert's findings because he didn't testify. He had evidence favorable to the prosecution so they didn't use him.
To go back to the original subject of this thread.
I am not responding to anything but that in this post.
It bothers me that the rifle was empty after Sheila shot herself (or someone/Jeremy shot her).
If there had been just one bullet left , I wouldn´t think about this; but here goes: how could Sheila know she would need two bullets to kill herself? 8)
Coincidence, perhaps, but it makes you wonder.
Alias, how could a shooter know that it would require 2 shots to dispatch Sheila?
To go back to the original subject of this thread.
I am not responding to anything but that in this post.
It bothers me that the rifle was empty after Sheila shot herself (or someone/Jeremy shot her).
If there had been just one bullet left , I wouldn´t think about this; but here goes: how could Sheila know she would need two bullets to kill herself? 8)
Coincidence, perhaps, but it makes you wonder.
It bothers me too and I agree - unless, there were more shots left in the magazine but were removed to make the weapon safe when the police moved in?
There are SOME things which they should have all remembered like who was actually there when it was found. David Boutflour recalls the event as though he were alone, Robert Boutflour puts himself at the heart of things and Ann - well, she remembers it but didn't think much of it at the time. Basil Cock has never mentioned it and only recently, Barbara Wilson has joined the 'I saw the silencer covered in blood' club - so I'd say she has pretty much changed her story quite significantly.
The strange thing about the silencer is that although it was found on 10th Aug, no one makes a statement until AFTER Jeremy becomes a suspect? I'm sure you are familiar with the Cognitive interview where a speedy interview with a witness is of the essence! Also Ann describes the blood on the outside of the silencer as a 'sticky blob'. I don't think I need explain that after 3 days, the blood wouldn't be sticky and said blob would have dried and detached itself. We did an experiment to test the blob theory, the blood changed colour and dried within an hour and peeled away from the surface of the metal torch which I used, and crumbled. The blob was never mentioned in tests, even though it had survived (according to the relatives) for 3 days in a cupboard, in transit, in storage at Oak farm and in further transit to the police station inside a cardboard tube. It's just that little trip to the lab that it would seem the blob gave up the ghost and suddenly disappeared. Funny that!
Blood doesn't just dry and peel away instantly from all metals. It did not fall off the baffles it stayed there until scraped away. It doesn't dry and just fall out of barrels of weapons it has to be scrubbed off. Your supposed test doens't prove anything.
The blood on the outside was not successfully tested that is why it wasn't mentioned, it doesn't prove anything. Some of the blood found by the prosecution on the baffles wasn't either so again no results mentioned for that blood. Blood that wa ssuccessfully tested wa smentioned and whose blood was it? Sheila's blood type.
Whose bloodtype did the defense find? Sheila's and the microscopic blood found by the defense was found in September, so much for all blood falling off after 3 days...
There is no accidental contamination theory which could even theoretically account for accidental blood transfer that would result in the blood tested by the prosecution and defense.
The ONLY theoretical theory of how the blood could have intentionally been planted woudl be to use a device to spray blood inside. Are there any devices in existence at the time to have been used? The defense was unable to find anyone to discuss such a device let alone any evidence th epolice or family had such a device. There are a whole lot of logistical hurdles including needing to recongize in the first place you should spray the blood inside not just pour it in or use a dropper.
If they didn't spray it in them the blood distribution would have been different and someone for the defense either at trial or on appeal would then say hey this is not right this distribution is indicative of being planted not back spatter. But only someone with a great deal of skill would be aware of this. Again I'm the first person to bring it up to the arm chair detectives in this case so obviously it is not common knowledge.
What is so surprising about police taking notes when they talk to peopel and only getting a statement when it is absilutely necessary? That is standard fare. Why would they bother having people give signed statements when they don't know if there will be a need for one or what such statment should entail?
Lawyers do the same things we take notes when we interview peopel inforally and only have affidavits signed when we need them for a set purpose or depose people when needed for a set purpose.
It bothers me too and I agree - unless, there were more shots left in the magazine but were removed to make the weapon safe when the police moved in?
Scipio, you ignore the "sticky blob" part. How could AE describe blood which had supposedly dried for three days as a sticky, jamlike blob about the size of a match-head?
Removing bullets from a magazine is not necessary to make a weapon safe. Teh magazine can remain loaded without any problems at all so police had no reason to remove any bullets from it. nor did any police ever suggest that they did so. Making sure there are no bullets in the chamber not the magazine is how a weapon is made safe.
I don't really follow the point. If anything the point is suggesting this helps exonerate her and suggests someone else did the shooting because she would not have known she needed 2 bullets. I don't see the problem others see. It could be sheer coincidence that there were 2 bullets left and that the killer didn't feel the need to reload. It is also possible the killer fired the final shot relaized she wasn't dead and reloaded a single bullet to try again. The number of bullets left tells us nothing useful as far as who did it.
There is in fact a logical explanation for there being 2 shots left though. That is where it helps. It doesn't tell us who fired the shots but gives a clue as to the reloading a little.
The maximum capacity is 11 bullets (10 in the mag, 1 in the chamber) This is what killers usually do to start they start with the maximum load.
Where did the shooting start most likely? Master bedroom? How many shots were fired at the parents there? 11
How would Nevill get past his killer ad to the kitchen? If the killer were out of ammo and needed ot reload. Having multiple magazines would have saved a lot of time and trouble. having to relaod a magazine while fighting with someone you want to kill is not ideal to put it mildly. Ok so either the killer ran to the kitchen with Nevill in pursuit or the killer chased Nevill. Because the gun was empty the killer could not shoot Nevill and Nevill tried to wrestle the gun away and they foguth over control of the weapon. The killer did not shoot Nevill but rather beat him unconscous, reloaded and shot Nevill 4 times killing him. SInce time was of the essense the killer probably only partially relaoded so that the killer could shoot him before he got up again. Loading all 10 rounds is unlikely. Even if the killer did load all 10 that leaves 6 rounds and 3 people left to kill. Would the killer load the magazine fully or go up with just 6 rounds and hope for the best? The boys were shot 8 times not 6 and the spread and wounds indicate they were delivered in quick succession not that there was a reloading event in the middle. So this again supports the killer fully reloading the magazine before going upstairs again. 8 shots into the boys leaves how many left? 2. 2 left to kill Sheila.
So 2 remaining it is not mysterious at all if actually look at things. If the second shot didn't work either then the killer would have needed to reload some more that owuld not necessarily prove anything either though.
The bottom line is 2 bullets being left doesn't suggest someone else was the killer or that she was the killer. It doesn't speak to the issue of who did it.
Simply a suggestion Scipio, but better safe than sorry :). I think Alias's original point was questioning the convenience of the rifle being empty. There was 'just enough' bullets to kill everyone.He told Julie that the hit man was responsible though, didn't he?
Of course IF Sheila did kill herself, she may not have known how many shots were left - pulled the trigger and the jolt of the first shot caused her to pull the trigger a second time and it was just coincidence that there were no more bullets.
I'm not sure why a killer would shoot her twice? Personally if it were me 'that's what I would have confided in Julie because it would have worried me. I'd be worried that my suicide plot for Sheila would be unravelled but Julie was unaware of the two shots.
What relevance does that have to the blood that was tested?
People differ in how they describe things, how they perceive things and what they remember. Hence why you get some people saying a suspect has black hair and is 6 foot tall and others brown hair and short. The only way you know who was accurate if any is if you actually find the criminal and compare his actual features to what they claimed.
I care about the blood that was tested because that is the blood that matters. It is the blood that was Sheila's and that had the distribution of being back spatter. If blood outside were successfully tested and were Jermey's then I would care because that would mean he not only was at the scene but got a cut or bloody nose even to deposit his own blood on it. if the outside had blood of one of the other victims that suggests the killer got that victim's blood on himself/herself and transferred it. That would be relevant in light of no victim's blood being found on Sheila. This outside blood wasn't tested successfuly so we have no results to address. So I don't care about it at all it is useless.
Honestly I don't care about the gray hair either not only because it was lost, if it ever existed, before it was tested but I still would not care even it a hair had been proven to be Nevill's.
The suppressor was found in Nevill's house in Nevill's gun closet on Nevill's suppressor. His hair could have been transferred to it at anypoint not necessarily during the murders. I assume his hair could have been inside the closet and that when the Killer put it back inside that a hair inside could have stuck to it. That doesn't prove he was shot or beaten with the suppressor. That is why the prosecution didn't even mention the gray hair at trial and try to suggest it probably was Nevill's. The fight to get such statement in was not worth the effort because it was too easy to explain away.
He told Julie that the hit man was responsible though, didn't he?
What relevance? The fact that it survived right up until the point that it was tested and then just as it finally reaches the lab - it's gone?In whose interest would it have been, to conveniently have magicked away the spot of blood?
People done remember the kind of details like hair colour, size, height etc. because in a crime people get stressed and things happen quickly. The witnesses here weren't stressed (to the same degree), they were in a familiar surrounding and when the bood was first realised, they were sitting comfortably around their own kitchen table. hardly the same thing as witnessing a crime.
Crime scene officers weren't independent then, like they are now, they were part of the Police force. It wouldn't be the first time that evidence was tampered with during those dark days (if that was indeed the case) and it wasn't the last!
I think the hair was mentioned simply to further the silencer's significance and doubt it ever existed.
Allegedly, but if he had killed her (regardless of what he told Julie) he would still know that Sheila had been shot twice. Steve_UK repeats fairly frequently that Jeremy told Julie about a glove coming of in MM's fight with Neville - you would think he would have mentioned that MM had shot Sheila twice as it seems more like something to worry about.Thanks for explaining that. I see your point.
In whose interest would it have been, to conveniently have magicked away the spot of blood?
Whose blood would it have to have been, in order to help Jeremy's cause?
As you can probably tell, I don't really understand the great importance of it! :-[
There is no way a BLOB would have remained on the outside of the silencer for 3 days and it wasn't tested because it wasn't there!
Did the lab shave the silencer? Because apparently it sprouted a hair also - which (and I know you won't believe this folks) but is disappeared - go figure!!
Sheila's blood 'type' was found or rather just the AK1 enzyme, so it was 'attributed' to Sheila. They found none of her DNA later though!!
However it got there, I wouldn't like to say as I'm not in the habit of planting blood in silencers but I guess those in the know would, well - know!
What would the statement entail? Well, who was there for starters! How many witness's witnessed the finding of the silencer and what they actually saw on it and where they were when they saw it! because in the space of only one month they had all seemed to forget such fundamental details of things like - who was there at the time!
That is your opinion that blood that dried would have fallen completely off. Either the blood was never there and Ann was mistaken, Ann made it up for some reasons though it serves no purposes or the blood fell off before it was turned over to the lab. In any even this has no bearing at all on the blood that was tested by the prosecution and the defense.
In understand your argument but it is feeble.
Your argument is like the following:
There is a hit and run car accident. The car that was struck contains damage that demonstrates the car that hit it was a white toyota. The paint chips left on the car match a toyota that had a custom paint job. The location of the paint chip tested matches exactly where said toyaot would have rubbed against the car in the collision.
There reportedly was another white paint chip in a different location that vanished before it could be tested. There is speculation such chip was planted but no proof that it was.
Speculation about this possibly planted chip is then used to suggest that the evidence that there is no eidence to suggest was planted is suspect.
Does this suspicion erase the fact that the actual damage to the car came from a white toyota? No the damage is consistent with such. The paint chip tested was consistent with such and matched to a specific white toyota.
If you want to challenge this evidence you need to do so directly. Round about attacks on missing paint chips they may or may not have been there accomplish nothing at all.
The hair could have resulted from the murders, it could have attached to the suppressor int he closet as it was being put away, it could have been planted. It might even have been a figment of their imagination or a lie. You have no way to establish it was planted or a lie as opposed to attached during the murders or after. It could even have been stuck there prior to the murders.
That is how you determine blood type you look for markers that distinguish them. They found the markers related to her bloodtype. Some markers were shared with her parents others were not.
Well this is the important part becuase if you can't even estbalish how they would plant it you have no hope at all of establishing any likelihood that anyone did so.
it is common for people to forget things after time passes.
To prove the blood was planted requires proving a series of things from knowing how to do so to where they got the blood from and eliminating blood from the weapon which means the fmaily alone were NOT in a position to carry out such alone. It requires a grand conspiracy.
Rational people find such a grand conspiracy hard to swallow but you have failed miserably in establishing any evidence of such.
You need people to recognize they would need to spray blood inside the suppressor instead of just dripping it in, finding a tool to use to accomplish such, obtain blood that was group A and to actually transfer it, and also to arrange for the blood in the rifle to be eliminated and disposed of without any receord of ever having been found.
You have provide no evidence that suggests any of this happened.
You believe it simply because you want to not because there is an evidence to suggest it happened.
Thanks again Caroline! Bit slow off the mark tonight! :-[
I've really enjoyed reading everyone's posts in the last couple of days.
Goodnight.
You have been given countless examples of evidence that was withheld. I am sick of hearing myself mention the autopsy documents that are replete with discrepancies but you choose not to comment because you can't explain it. This is a tangible piece of evidence, not one of your 'scenario's'.
The jury asked to hear the silencer/blood evidence again as it was complicated - so much so that even the judge didn't completely understand it but he gave HIS notes that contained incorrect information to the jury and it was HIS notes they used to make their decision.
There are hundreds of such examples but they have simply flown past your head because your mind is closed. You told me a few weeks ago that I dismiss your posts because I just believe Jeremy is innocent - well, you're wrong, at the moment I'm probably around 70/30 weighted on the guilty side. However, guilty or not, he didn't have a fair trial and I believe because they didn't have ANY tangible, physical evidence, just a hunch it - they engineered it. Stick you head in the sand and keep those fingers in your ears - it won't change the fact that corruption is a fact of life!
Nice question Adam. I shall do as you ask, and therefore shall not answer. However, I wasn't there, nor were you (at least I hope you weren't), so its pure conjecture based on nothing but 'allegiance' whatever anyone claims.
Many people proclaim themselves 'experts' in this case, reality is, people are basing so called 'new evidence' on the inarticulation of others, or police cock ups - which, unlike you seem to accept - are very common, sadly all of this affects innocent and guilty lives. Yet people want to believe the system is flawless - believe me, it isn't. People won't accept this because its scary, it goes against the grain, they want to feel safe and secure. I worked in the police for three decades, I hasten to add - with an unblemished record. But would I trust a coppers word then or now, no I wouldn't. Some, it has been proven in court, would rob their own family all for the sake of money.
People are dicks in all walks of life, not only in the police, look at politicians, councillors, thespians, singing stars et al, for me, that's what makes the world such an interesting place - liars, cheats and oddballs exist in walks of society, they are not exclusive to the incarcerated criminal community. Despite this, I believe most people are rightly in prison, as we now know, those who shout loudest about their innocence aren't always what they seem. Jeremy Bamber was found guilty on evidence in a court of law, thats a fact. The question remains, was the provenance of that evidence true?
You can make all the claims you like and copy what others say because it sounds acceptable, you even say you read book reviews before you buy a book. Let me tell you most book reviews are penned by people fuelled with jealousy and insecurities, many are known to the author, writers used to accept them, but no longer, why? Because people no longer put their name to them, they lack credibility without the provenance of real identity.
Sad thing is, until you actually research this case, live it every day and night for years, listen to Jeremy Bamber, the police, witnesses, barristers and people it affected, I've done them all, then you cannot appreciate the pressures all of these individuals endure.
Opinion is great, I accept it, but living with this case day and night as I have, and there are a few people on here who know what I've gone through, makes you take stock and realise the traumatic affect that still endures. I had no allegiance at the outset, I have no allegiance now, I have researched this entire case objectively. I get on well with Jeremy, we laugh and talk together, but then I laugh with Ronald DeFeo too, he admits he murdered his family, each year I get cards off the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and serial killers such as Peter Sutcliffe - juxtaposition of morality or what?. In this case, me and Jeremy are two different people, I absolutely liked Stan Jones when I spoke to and interviewed him, doesn't make either Stan or Jeremy right in what they may or may not have done.
Jeremy is the only person on this planet who knows the truth, not the relatives, not the courts, not the media, and certainly not the red. The evidence at court was crap, you know it, we all know it, however, that means nothing because a jury of Jeremy's peers, lay people who were not instructed correctly, believed it. Therefore it all becomes fact. In most circumstances, without such pressure, most people would err on the side of caution, jury's cannot, pressure is on them to deliver a verdict.
That's just my thoughts Adam, I know you have your own but trust me, an open mind is the best one to keep in everything involving the establishment, its my belief there is no such things as coincidence. Things do get contrived.
“Jeremy is the only person on this planet who knows the truth, not the relatives, not the courts, not the media, and certainly not the red”
Mason
This is an assertion which we often hear but one which is, in my opinion, deeply problematical.
Since it is admitted, even by the pro guilt side, that there is no actual proof of Bamber’s guilt, it is fair to say that if he is guilty, he is the only one who knows it with certainty.
But to say that if he is innocent he is the only one who knows it, implies the wholesale rejection of all the evidence that the police knew that Sheila was alive while Jeremy was in a police car.
So the assertion is far from being neutral. To begin with, it implies the rejection of the evidence of two pathologists who say that they can tell from photographs of Sheila that she could not have been dead for more than two hours before the pictures were taken. It’s true that the CCRC rejected their evidence, but why should a scientist respect a legal person’s judgement when it contradicts what is for him a very easy judgment to make?
It seems to me that people who say that Jeremy could be innocent without anybody knowing it but himself, ought to be able to give us some indication of how it may be possible.
I have tried to do that and failed. The main problem is that If Sheila did it, it’s hard to see how there could be no policemen who know it. The reason is that if Jeremy is telling the truth about the phone call, his whereabouts are accounted for since before the time that Sheila died, since Nevill and Sheila must have still been alive at that time.
If Sheila died much later than the others, the police would have easily been able to tell that the condition of her body was different to that of the other victims. That’s just one consideration, anybody can see there are others such as the length of the siege, for example.
The best I can come up with is the scenario where Sheila commits suicide much earlier and not long after killing the others, implying that the police waited for over three hours outside a house which showed no signs of life. Why would they do that? For all they knew, there could be people seriously injured in there requiring urgent medical help.
And it is contradicted by Meloni's opinion and by PC Woodcocks description of Sheila's wound which he said was still leaking blood when he first saw her, which suggests that she died hours later than the others.
I would very much like to hear from anybody how Jeremy could just possibly be innocent without any of the police knowing it.
That is your opinion that blood that dried would have fallen completely off. Either the blood was never there and Ann was mistaken, Ann made it up for some reasons though it serves no purposes or the blood fell off before it was turned over to the lab. In any even this has no bearing at all on the blood that was tested by the prosecution and the defense.Every farmer shooting wildlife will come across this kind of thing a lot. Why they were surprised about it I don't know. The alleged blob of blood the alleged grey hair (rabbit hair is the most likely? ) all points to animal. Mike demonstrated and had documents to prove that the blood tested contained animal enzimes which some humans also have. What's the betting that the relatives took advantage of such a common occurance and then pleaded ignorance, knowing it it was all animal material in the silencer and no human blood at all?
In understand your argument but it is feeble.
Your argument is like the following:
There is a hit and run car accident. The car that was struck contains damage that demonstrates the car that hit it was a white toyota. The paint chips left on the car match a toyota that had a custom paint job. The location of the paint chip tested matches exactly where said toyaot would have rubbed against the car in the collision.
There reportedly was another white paint chip in a different location that vanished before it could be tested. There is speculation such chip was planted but no proof that it was.
Speculation about this possibly planted chip is then used to suggest that the evidence that there is no eidence to suggest was planted is suspect.
Does this suspicion erase the fact that the actual damage to the car came from a white toyota? No the damage is consistent with such. The paint chip tested was consistent with such and matched to a specific white toyota.
If you want to challenge this evidence you need to do so directly. Round about attacks on missing paint chips they may or may not have been there accomplish nothing at all.
The hair could have resulted from the murders, it could have attached to the suppressor int he closet as it was being put away, it could have been planted. It might even have been a figment of their imagination or a lie. You have no way to establish it was planted or a lie as opposed to attached during the murders or after. It could even have been stuck there prior to the murders.
That is how you determine blood type you look for markers that distinguish them. They found the markers related to her bloodtype. Some markers were shared with her parents others were not.
Well this is the important part becuase if you can't even estbalish how they would plant it you have no hope at all of establishing any likelihood that anyone did so.
it is common for people to forget things after time passes.
To prove the blood was planted requires proving a series of things from knowing how to do so to where they got the blood from and eliminating blood from the weapon which means the fmaily alone were NOT in a position to carry out such alone. It requires a grand conspiracy.
Rational people find such a grand conspiracy hard to swallow but you have failed miserably in establishing any evidence of such.
You need people to recognize they would need to spray blood inside the suppressor instead of just dripping it in, finding a tool to use to accomplish such, obtain blood that was group A and to actually transfer it, and also to arrange for the blood in the rifle to be eliminated and disposed of without any receord of ever having been found.
You have provide no evidence that suggests any of this happened.
You believe it simply because you want to not because there is an evidence to suggest it happened.
Every farmer shooting wildlife will come across this kind of thing a lot. Why they were surprised about it I don't know. The alleged blob of blood the alleged grey hair (rabbit hair is the most likely? ) all points to animal. Mike demonstrated and had documents to prove that the blood tested contained animal enzimes which some humans also have. What's the betting that the relatives took advantage of such a common occurance and then pleaded ignorance, knowing it it was all animal material in the silencer and no human blood at all?
That wouldn't surprise me in the least,Grahame. What a pity the hair ( hare ) vanished. The lab would have looked a bit sick testing that.The fact is, any blood blob or whatever you want to call it could never have survived in a sticky state for 3 days, it just wouldn't survive, this is fact and was also proven by Caro's heroic performance as Snow White. ;D ;D ;D therefore, the statement that any sort of hair was stuck on the silencer is highly questionable imo
Now for something logical. A human hair,,which is fine,,would have stayed put on the silencer,,but a hair from an animal,which is more coarse,wouldn't have adhered the same,particularly if the blood specimen was smaller than a pin-head.
The fact is, any blood blob or whatever you want to call it could never have survived in a sticky state for 3 days, it just wouldn't survive, this is fact and was also proven by Caro's heroic performance as Snow White. ;D ;D ;D therefore, the statement that any sort of hair was stuck on the silencer is highly questionable imoMaggie any fake can be created and by the simplest means. Whilst the "experts" are searching the complicated ways it could be done and insist that the relatives were incapable of creating such a fake that they completely overlook the obvious. Remember also that Peter Eaton is an arms dealer and is very knowledgeable of these things.
That " to do " involving PE soon fizzled out,didn't it ? That was fraud as well ! My word,,not what you know,,but who you know,in that case.Amazing what miracles can happen when you have money isn't it lookout?
Every farmer shooting wildlife will come across this kind of thing a lot. Why they were surprised about it I don't know. The alleged blob of blood the alleged grey hair (rabbit hair is the most likely? ) all points to animal. Mike demonstrated and had documents to prove that the blood tested contained animal enzimes which some humans also have. What's the betting that the relatives took advantage of such a common occurance and then pleaded ignorance, knowing it it was all animal material in the silencer and no human blood at all?
The prosecution and defense experts both determined the blood was human blood and it was groupTo put it out of it misery of course. The blood contained an animal enzyme.
A. Suggesting this blood was in fact animal blood is baseless.
Killing animals only leaves blood on the weapon if the animals are not far away when shot. in order for blood to get inside the animals must be extremely close to the weapon just like a human must be extremely close. What animal was letting the put the gun right up to them? The only other way animal blood is getting on the weapon so if someone gets animal blood on their hands and then touches the weapon. That is not in the weapon though.
The prosecution and defense experts both determined the blood was human blood and it was group
A. Suggesting this blood was in fact animal blood is baseless.
Killing animals only leaves blood on the weapon if the animals are not far away when shot. in order for blood to get inside the animals must be extremely close to the weapon just like a human must be extremely close. What animal was letting the put the gun right up to them? The only other way animal blood is getting on the weapon so if someone gets animal blood on their hands and then touches the weapon. That is not in the weapon though.
I'm convinced of Jeremy's guilt but would like to clarify a point.
Not all of his supporters believe the claim that Sheila died much later than the rest. Some believe she did it then killed herself before police arrived. They accept police would have heard the shots if she killed herself while they were present and that he coroner was correct about only pockets of bllod being in her mouth which spilled.
Then there are those who insist she either killed herself while police were there or police killed her. Indeed you are correct that those who subscribe to this theory are flat out wrong in suggesting only Jeremy knows the truth the police would as well if this were true.
Reliable evidence to support her being alive after police arrived is of course nonexistent.
HI jansus, yes the second bullet went up through the soft pallet and up into Sheila's brain. If she was lying flat most of the blood would surely have run down her throat with some settling at the back of her mouth. Surely her head would have needed to have moved a fair bit to cause any blood to run out of the sides of her mouth.
Correct me if I am wrong but was not the blood running from both wounds in the infamous photo? And was one wound not ending up in the mouth?
I can understand the argument above if the body had been moved - but of course it had not when it was photographed, Allegedly.
To put it out of it misery of course. The blood contained an animal enzyme.
Why use a silencer with a .22 anyway? If you are a gun expert as you purport to be then you will also know that they are so quiet that they do not need one in a case like this one. Indeed a silencer would make the weapon unwieldy.
The blood didn't contain an animal enzyme. This has been cleared up already in numerous places.
There's every possibility that the AK1 enzyme is rabbits blood. The jury were told that Sheilas' was the only blood that contained the AK1 enzyme too,,so take your pick-------Sheilas' or a rabbits ? Very debateable,,but almost likely to be from a rabbit. In actual fact there were two types of animal blood found,,but the jury weren't told about that at the trial,,nor was it entered into the forensic reports. Apparently it wasn't thought of as being relevant to the case.?? I know the matter was put to the CCRC at one time,,and no doubt it will crop up again at some point as there seemed to be a degree of uncertainty as to whether it was Sheilas' blood or not.
To be as indecisive as this doesn't sit well with the key " evidence " that got him convicted in the first place,,hence the reason why the trial was an unfair one.
A silencer wasn't used in the murders,,but possibly last used for killing vermin. ( rabbits )
There's every possibility that the AK1 enzyme is rabbits blood. The jury were told that Sheilas' was the only blood that contained the AK1 enzyme too,,so take your pick-------Sheilas' or a rabbits ? Very debateable,,but almost likely to be from a rabbit. In actual fact there were two types of animal blood found,,but the jury weren't told about that at the trial,,nor was it entered into the forensic reports. Apparently it wasn't thought of as being relevant to the case.?? I know the matter was put to the CCRC at one time,,and no doubt it will crop up again at some point as there seemed to be a degree of uncertainty as to whether it was Sheilas' blood or not.
To be as indecisive as this doesn't sit well with the key " evidence " that got him convicted in the first place,,hence the reason why the trial was an unfair one.
A silencer wasn't used in the murders,,but possibly last used for killing vermin. ( rabbits )
There's every possibility that the AK1 enzyme is rabbits blood. The jury were told that Sheilas' was the only blood that contained the AK1 enzyme too,,so take your pick-------Sheilas' or a rabbits ? Very debateable,,but almost likely to be from a rabbit. In actual fact there were two types of animal blood found,,but the jury weren't told about that at the trial,,nor was it entered into the forensic reports. Apparently it wasn't thought of as being relevant to the case.?? I know the matter was put to the CCRC at one time,,and no doubt it will crop up again at some point as there seemed to be a degree of uncertainty as to whether it was Sheilas' blood or not.
To be as indecisive as this doesn't sit well with the key " evidence " that got him convicted in the first place,,hence the reason why the trial was an unfair one.
A silencer wasn't used in the murders,,but possibly last used for killing vermin. ( rabbits )
Right----okay,,I'll plump for a mixture of June and Neville.
Though there was nothing to say that the rabbit couldn't have been " finished off " with a contact shot if it hadn't died immediately in the first place. I think of everything. ;D
The blood was tested and determined to be human blood not animal blood. The defense had their own expert go through the suppressor. He found microscopic blood droplets on the first 8 baffles. He determined it to be human blood not animal bloodAK1 is an animal enzime.
He found the following components EAP BA, AK1, Hp2.1 and determined this meant it was group A human blood. these components can't be explained away as animal blood.
Sheila- EAP BA, AK1, Hp2-1
Neville- BAP BA AK1, Hp2-1
June- EAP BA, AK2-1, Hp2-1
The difference between June's blood and Sheilas is that Sheila had AK1 while June had AK2-1. That is why the distinction was significant.
AK1 is an animal enzime.
AK1 is an animal enzime.
Well since humans are animals not plants you are technically right but you are using animal in the slang sense not technical so your intended point is not correct.That is probably because I don't accept the silencer evidence as real. Plus the fact that as it sat on Taff Jones' desk for two weeks before being sent to the lab (this is why he was taken off the case I believe?) there is every possibility that it had been contaminated. Indeed the officer who picked up the silencer from Ann Eaton commented in court that the condition of the silencer was in a very dirty state than when it was handed to him. This is the reason I reject the silencer as evidence.
Grahame, it's not. Check out the link I posted - it explains it.Thank you mat for that link. Very interesting reading.
All you need to read is on here :
http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber.html
By Mark Webster.
Explaining it fully and explaining why/how so many Bamber supporters believed there was/is a chance that it could be animal blood.
It can not be animal blood, the tests have shown this.
Hopefully this is the last time that people try and peddle the myth, but I doubt it.
from the report:Well simply put it means that the CCRC did not consider the possibility of contamination, because of the conditions in which it was dismantled. And I agree with it. The problem is that the report doesn't go far enough. I contend that if the silencer was found as it is stated that it was, the way in which it was handled by carious people in my opinion rendered it unfit to be presented as evidence. Why the defence did not pick up on this but itself accepted it as evidence is a puzzle to me and I should think others as well?
The CCRC were underestimating the possibility of contamination. The commissioners had either not seen or had ignored a note recording that the sound moderator had been fully dismantled on the 29th April 1986, under conditions that could have caused accidental transfer of DNA.They ignored or were unaware that the sound moderator might have been dismantled by the jury at the trial judge's invitation. The commissioners did not understand the way that DNA profiling tests had been carried out: pooling possible DNA-containing materials from mulitiple baffles at different depths in the moderator. They discounted the significance that no blood had been detected on and in the moderator when it was examined before the DNA profiling and the advice of their experts that the DNA could not be implicitly linked with blood.
Continued...
There is also a section that says the AK1 was probably not from animal blood - Not that it absolutely was not.
I am still confused.
Its ok Mat
I think what I get from reading the link is :
It is not IMPOSSIBLE that it was animal blood - but highly unlikely
There appeared to be some human protein
It was most likely that the assumption that the blood was blood group A was incorrect
By the time the DNA testing happened there was NO blood in the moderator - but they assumed the DNA came from blood? But this expert is saying that is an incorrect assumption because the moderator had been dismantled so the DNA could have come from contamination.
He was also putting the way the "flake" of blood was tested into question.
The DNA - that was not from blood - could have been SHeilas - but the expert could only show probability.
So basically not much information proven really
One of the most prolific invalid arguments Jeremy Bamber supporters make is to assert that first impression must be true and that because Taff Jones bought the murder suicide claims that means it must be true and when he was replaced it was so that Jeremy could be framed. NOT TRUE WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS AND HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS
His supporters ignore that it is routine and in fact proper to reserve judgment until all evidence is processed, the autopsy results come back and all other evidence is evaluated.
Indeed, police had no way to know if anything Jeremy was telling them was true or not until they tested such claims later finding out many of his claims were lies. SHAME THEY DID NOT TAKE THE FAMILY SERIOUSLY THEN WHEN THEY TRIED TO TELL THEM WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS
First impressions do not mean a thing and can’t be used to contradict findings. It is a false argument to claim that because the lead investigator bought Jeremy’s claims and the frame job based on the initial looks of things that this means it had to be the truth and any contrary results from the subsequent investigation should be ignored. WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE EVIDENCE FROM THE FIRST ENQUIRY THAT IS UNDER PII
Even more ironic is that Bamber supporters frequently point out that Jones and his subordinates did poor job early in the investigation. How can one seriously claim the initial impressions of a sloppy investigation should be accepted instead of following the evidence where it leads? NOT TRUE -WE FEEL IF THEY HAD DONE A BETTER JOB THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MANY AMBIGOUS LOGS ETC - WHICH WOULD MEAN WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS POSITION
Intentionally ignored is that Jones was both biased and inept at his job. Instead of supervising the investigation properly he botched it. He did not treat the scene properly affecting the integrity. Even wore though, instead of keeping all options open and collecting all evidence that could be potentially useful he declared it to be a murder suicide and it is his fault that evidence that should have been taken into evidence right away wasn’t. He discouraged his officers from investigating properly and he was negligent in making sure they took and cataloged everything they should have taken. TRUE
This ineptitude is why critical evidence like the suppressor was not collected until later. SEE TH HISTORY OF THE MODERATOR I POSTED (COURTESY OF ROCH) BEFORE THERE ARE DOCUMENTS TO BACK IT UP Far from there being evidence of the suppressor being planted there is evidence it was not initially found because of ineptitude. There is no evidence the family knew how significant the suppressor would be because the family had no idea what it could or could not prove. Moreover the family turned in numerous items not merely the suppressor. All firearms, the ammunition, and accessories were collected and turned in not merely the suppressor. As a regulated weapon it was improper to leave them there in the first place. Again this is evidence of a poor job being done.
If it wasn’t for Jeremy’s claims then all police would have had to go on initially was the location of the murder weapon on Sheila. That is all that would have existed to suggest maybe she was responsible. That initial observation would not mean much. A killer dumps weapons near bodies fairly frequently. To determine if suicide occurred dor murder the bodies must all be thoroughly looked at including the wounds and to look for evidence of the suspected shooter of having fired a weapon. The kinds of things the lab did in fact do in this case which changed the initial impression.?? THEY ACCEPTED IT WAS SUICIDE INITIALLY
Jeremy did make many claims though and these claims initially swayed the head investigator. Many of these claims turned out to be lies though. Why was Jerey lying/ To make police think Sheila committed the killings. Why would he lie and try to convince them she committed the killings unless he was in fact responsible and framing her? These lies are evidence he was trying to frame her. Jeremy Bamber supporters always ignore such evidence and try to pretend everything he said was honest. They try to pretend that Sheila went shooting, that he regularly shot animals and that the ridiculous story of him leaving the gun out has to be true and even make up nonsense about how suppressors and telescopic sights don’t do anything.NOT TRUE -SEE HIS STATMENT - WHAT OTHER LIES ?
Jeremy’s story is that after eating a late dinner with his family he looked out the window and saw rabbits by the barn (sometimes he even claimed he heard them THAT WAS ADAM < HE WAS BEING IRONIC ). He said that he got the rifle and a full box of ammo and then loaded the magazine but by the time he finished loading it they were gone so he unloaded it and then he placed it on the kitchen table NOT TRUE . He noted it did not have any accessories attached.
The first problem with this story is that he would be unlikely to see the rabbits from the window?????YOU ARE JOKING ? AT THAT TIME OF YEAR IT WAS PERFECTLY POSSIBLE let alone easily target them given the time of day. It would not have been full light out. Even worse though, why would the accessories be removed? There was no reason at all why the scope would ever be removed. This gun was used for target shooting and to shoot vermin. For both a scope is extremely useful and it is not as useful for either without the scope. Others who used the weapon said the scope was never removed because there was no call to use it without the scope and it would be a nuisance to unscrew it and then have to screw it back on and re-zero it. The goal was to just be able to take it from the gun closet, load it and use it. The suppressor could be removed and reinstalled rather quickly but they did not do that either it was routinely stored with the suppressor also attached.
The suppressor eliminates the noise made by the gases that are expelled when the gun is fired and this also reduces the recall making it even more accurate. Reducing the noise provides 2 advantages. 1) you don’t have to worry about hearing loss and can use the weapon without needing hearing protection. 2) it means others around are not disturbed by noise from the weapon. For vermin shooting reducing noise is extremely useful because what do vermin do when they hear the noise? They run. Not only does it present the prospect of ruining the shot you wish to make, it ruins the prospect of future successful shots because a group of vermin will take off upon hearing the initial shot.
The bottom line is that it made no sense for the weapon to be in the closet with the accessories removed and at minimum Jeremy would have wanted to take a few seconds to install the suppressor though he should have wanted to install the scope as well to go shoot rabbits. So his tale makes no sense in numerous respects. He even lied and claimed the gun did not fit in the closet with the suppressor attached even though it did and that is in fact how it was usually stored. The gun was usually stored with the scope attached too. Jeremy made up the claim it would not fit with the attachments to pretend it would be natural to find it without the attachments. If that were the case he would want to add them to go shoot rabbits anyway but the fact is it was false and the gun was routinely stored with them attached.
Jeremy Bamber supporters never explain why we should believe he removed the gun from the closet without it having any attachments when it was routinely stored that way. Moreover, why we should believe anyone who wanted to go shoot vermin would not want the scope and suppressor attached and would choose not to attach them if they were not attached when the gun was found. Also why should we believe he took out the gun to shoot rabbits given the time of day and fact that others insist he never shot animals because didn’t like to do so? Jeremy Bamber supporters ignore that people who worked on the farm and relatives say that Jeremy did not have an interest in shooting and especially did not shoot vermin. Thus seriously calls into question Jeremy’s claim that his father bought the murder weapon for him and that Jeremy merely stored it at WHF.
Jeremy’s claims were contradictory in a number of significant respects. He changed his story over time when witnesses contradicted him. In some cases he changed his claims to match theirs but in other instances he changed his claim to keep alive his prior claims.
For example, after the bodies were discovered he was questioned multiple times about his use of the gun prior to the night of the murders. His original story was that he had not touched it for at least a week prior to taking it out to shoot the rabbits. Police determined that the last person known to using the rifle prior to the murders was Anthony. Anthony testified the gun was routinely stored with the suppressor and scope attached and that they were attached when he took it from the closet and he left them attached when he put the weapon away after using it. This strongly suggests the attachments should have been on the gun if Jeremy had in fact taken it out as claimed. To refute this Jeremy changed his story. He claimed he used it multiple times the week before the murders to shoot vermin. Again though others contradict his claim he did such. Furthermore he suggested that during this week of use sometimes the gun had the attachments when he removed it from the closet other times it didn’t and suggested the gun had been frequently used by Nevill not just him during this week. He insisted he is not the one who removed or added the attachments rather Nevill sometimes removed them but other times didn’t and that Jeremy just used it however he found it. So his story became that Nevill used the gun multiple times the week before the murders and so did he and that sometimes the gun had the attachments other times it didn’t so he ended up admitting it did fit in the closet with the attachments still in place, contradicting his claim that it didn’t.
So his changed story was specifically constructed to rebut evidence that the last time the gun was used it had the attachments and also to try to rebut testimony that Nevill never removed the accessories he always stored it with them attached. So his changed claim had a set purpose- to contradict claims of others but had no means of being corroborated and is suspect because if true he would not have stated he had not used it the week prior. It is a big deal to suddenly remember you used it many times after saying you used it never. It is especially suspicious when others say he didn’t like to shoot vermin or shoot at all for that matter.
Jeremy Bamber supporters gloss over this because it is evidence of Jeremy trying to frame his sister. What is the purpose of this tale? No one believes Sheila would have gone to fetch a gun herself so the purpose of this tale is to claim the gun and bullets were sitting in the open for her to grab while arguing with her family. THEY COULD HAVE BEEN PUT AWAY DURING THE EVENING FOR ALL JB KNEW AND FOR ALL WE KNOW AS WELL
Why would Nevill and June leave a gun and bullets on their kitchen table NOT TRUE at all let alone with the young boys visiting? Testimony was that with the boys there Nevill was very careful with weapons. Why would Jeremy leave it on the table instead of putting it away? It makes no sense, in fact it appears the kitchen table had been set for breakfast before going to bed so why would they leave the gun there and set plates around it? It doesn’t pass the smell test that if Jeremy had left it out that they would not put it away.
But Jeremy does better. He claims he left a box of bullets too and these bullets were not moved they were in the same place he left them so they probably didn’t put the gun away or they would have put the bullets away too and this box of bullets is where Sheila supposedly got the ammo to use for the murders because it was not far from the gun. She had easy access to a loaded magazine, more bullets and the gun how convenient. And even more convenient the gun just so happened to not have the scope which would have been a hindrance for the murders, though very useful for shooting vermin- the actual purpose of the rifle.
It is quite obvious this box of ammo was staged by Jeremy to support this tale he made up. The box had 30 rounds in it and he claimed it was either full or missing only a couple of rounds when he removed it from the closet. So he claims there was a box of 48-50 rounds. He claims he loaded around 10 from this box into the magazine which means Sheila would have found a magazine with around 10 round and then the box would have another 38-40 rounds for reloading purposes. 25 rounds were fired which means there should have been 23-25 rounds left in the box. But there were 30 rounds left which means one of two things. Either the box was not used at all and it always had 30 rounds in it or some rounds were used from this box but the killer also went to the closet and got additional rounds from it. Why would Sheila do that? Why would Sheila go to the closet to get additional rounds when the box still had 30 left? This was a major blunder on Jeremy’s part and demonstrates he staged the scene. Jeremy Bamber supporters never want to talk about this.
Why would Nevill and Sheila be in the kitchen around 3AM for her to grab the rifle and load it in the first place? They would be asleep. There is evidence to suggest they had been in their beds. She no longer had sleeping problems once her medication was reduced to 100ML. Moreover evidence suggests the killer marched into the master bedroom and opened fire on them in there. The goal was to kill everyone in bed except Sheila. But this is further supported by the fact that Jeremy was caught staging things to frame Sheila. He staged the bullets before police were called and crafted the story about the gun to make it appear the gun were out for easy access and this way police would not think the suppressor had been attached since he claimed it had not been when he left it out. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ BORED NOW
He had no idea police would be able to figure out it was her blood inside the suppressor or that it was used in the murders, he didn’t know enough about science and figured his word the gun was left out without the suppressor attached would be good enough. ????? BUT HE WAS A COLD PLANNING CALCULATING MURDERER - WHAT A SILLY BOY
He also lied to police by telling them Sheila was proficient with all weapons in the house and had fired them all. Later he told a tale of her going shooting with Anthony and Nevill and using the murder weapon during the shoot. Anthony denied this. The entire family and farm workers and friends said she had no interest in guns and no one even saw her touch one. On this issue rather than look like a liar he changed and agreed he had not seen her touch or fire a gun. Which means his prior statements were lies and clearly these lies were calculated to support the frame- his goal was to get police to believe she knew how to use weapons and thus could have carried out the murders. NOT TRUE
Jeremy Bamber supporters love to claim police framed him without any evidence it happened. Here there is evidence he was framing Sheila and it is all ignored.
ASLEEP NOW ZZZZZ IMO!!!!!!
Jansus it is not that complex so I will try to help you understand.
This is ignoring that the defense also tested the blood, found it tested as human blood and was group A
1) How do you know if blood is human? You do a test for human enzymes. The defense and prosecution both tested for human enzymes and found the blood they tested was human. The blood tested by the defense was microscopic drops of blood found on the first 8 baffles. IN 1986 - yes IKNOW THAT
2) The next step is to test the blood components and by these components you can tell what blood group it blongs to. Both the blood teste dby the prosecution and defense found blood components that indicate it bleonged to group A. - THE EXPERT IN THE LINK DOES NOT CONFIRM THAT
3) The claim is that experts could potentially mess up and misidentify animal blood as human blood if they are not careful but in this instance it is unlikely that occurred because there is no evidence it occurred. They tested the blood for human enzmyes they didn't simply assume it was human. YES I KNOW THAT - ITS WHAT I SAID UNLIKELY BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE
4) There was no blood left in the suppressor by the time it was tested for DNA so any DNA results cannot have come from blood and had to come from a different DNA source. The prosecution removed all visible blood, the defense all invisible blood and this was confirmed in 1989 when a new test was conducted for the presence of blood and found none. I SAID THAT AS WELL????!!!
5) Traditional DNA tests need a sizable sample and as such when a sizable sample of DNA is found it is unlikely such would have been accidentally transferred through contamination THE EXPERT DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU HERE ::). For instance how do you take dry saliva and accidentally transfer it to something else? How do you take dry semen and accidentally transfer it elsewhere? At best you can transer a tiny speck of such stains somewhere else and traditially DNA methods would not enable successful testing. But thanks to 9/11 a new DNA test is available. It takes a tiny speck and it replicates the DNA pattern until it is large enough to then type.
The great thing is that even a tiny speck of DNA can now be typed. But a tiny speck can arrive by contamination it doesn't necessarily arrive directly from the DNA source. So you have to be much more careful with such evidence. If peopel have nothing at all in common then their DNA should not even accidentally find its way on you, not even a speck. But specks can be innocestly transferred.
In the Amanda Knox case a tiny speck of Kercher's DNA was found on a knife in her boyfriend's kitchen. But the knife didn't match the wounds, didn't match the imprint the murder weapon made in blood andwould have a lot more DNA than a tiny speck if it had been used in the commission of the crime. Also it would have hasd scratches on the blade. The speck was not tested to see if it was blood based DNA either. So in the totality this speck of DNA was worthless. Tiny specks of Kercer's DNA was all over their flat and thus would be able to get on Knox who in turn could transfer it to other locations like the knife.
6) The jury touched exhibits that oculd have had tiny bits of DNA belonging to the victims and they potentially took apart the supporessor and could have contaminated the suppressor with tiny specks of DNA.YES SO-WHAT IS YOUR POINT HERE??
7) The court stated that the only way for a DNA test to determine whether the blood found by the prosecution expert and defense expert to be be group A blood was Sheila's or not would be by testing the exact blood that they tested to determine the DNA profile of the person the blood belonged to. But that blood no longer exists to be tested so ther eis no DNA test that could be performed that would ever be of any value in this case. SO NO DEFINTE SUMMARY ABOUT THE BLOOD IN THE SILENCER THEN???
I tried to adress all the issues as clearly as possible.
One step at a time - you so carefully explained to such a lesser mortal as me the DNA - blood evidence - but what is your expert conclusion then - does it differ the EXPERT in forensics in the link?
Here is the link to JB statement 8/8 - where does it say she is proficient in handling the rifle it says just the opposite.
Also he left the gun in the "back kitchen" which is not exactly the room you are referring to
Also you have conveniently ignored the statement of the relative saying he had seen Sheila with a gun ( but his statement was crossed through.
Just a few points to start off with - I am sure some other posters can help out as well.
try and not be so patronising in your posts - or can you just not help it? Is it part of your nature?
The forensic link seemed to suggest on 1 hand that is is unlikely but there is a small possibility to mistake human blood for animal blood if you only use a certain test on a certain component
and use no other tests but made no effort to actually apply this to the case at hand by evaluating what tests they actually performed on the blood. When you look at the fact they tested for human enzymes, they didn't simply test the component he cited, his possibility doesn't seem to apply.
An anaology would be the following scenario:
DNA was found at a crime scene. The prosecution found no link between the victim and the source of the DNA. They had no common acquaintances and did not know one another. There is no innocent explanation how the DNA could have gotten to the crime scene.
An expert declares that DNA can be accidentally transferred in general so it could have accidentally been transferred to our crime scene.
The expert presented a general rule but failed to look at what the prosecution did that ruled out contamination as a possibility. So the general rule is true but saying it applies to a case where such possibility was ruled out is not proper.
He told police she was proficient and had fired all guns in the house prior to them storming it. Likewise he told them he left it on the kitchen table at that time. That is why such figured into their preceptions when they found the bodies.
As this statement shows he changed his story to match the family and then made up the new story that she was there watching him and this was his new excuse of how she would know how to operate it and load it. He also changed the location of where precisely he left the gun. It seems he is unsure where it was supposedly left because he is not consistent which makes one think he is just making it up.
I don't know how to post documents so won't post the various statements instead this quote from the 2002 appeal decision should be sufficient:
"Having walked to the house from the lane there was further conversation. The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year."
Something else from the page you provided strikes me though. Ann Eaton and others say Jeremy didn't use guns or show any interest in them and this seems to bear that out. The weapon in question did not have an external hammer to cock nor is it a lever action where you need to cock it so he can't have cocked it, there is nothing to cock. I will assume he meant he chambered a round using the bolt. Another answer he gave reveals he doesn't relaly understand suppressors either very well. He suggested it stops the sonic boom from a bullet. Actually it doesn't though it serves a different purpose that is why subsonic ammunition must be used in conjunction with a suppressor for there to be maximum effect. He seems to have used a gun for the crime because it was the best for the job not because he was skilled in gun use. So assuming he would have realized the suppressor would have telltale clues is far from a safe bet and seems to explain his error.
He actually didn't try and put the blame on Sheila that night. But blamed the raid team. Those men killed them he said, or words to that effect.
I find it odd that the gun was said to have been placed on the table which was clearly and very neatly set for breakfast. I THOUGHT the gun had been left on the settle. It also occurs to me to wonder if by talking about how proficient was Sheila with guns, Jeremy was encouraging them NOT to keep out, but urging them to hurry in.
One of the most prolific invalid arguments Jeremy Bamber supporters make is to assert that first impression must be true and that because Taff Jones bought the murder suicide claims that means it must be true and when he was replaced it was so that Jeremy could be framed. That's never been the case at all
His supporters ignore that it is routine and in fact proper to reserve judgment until all evidence is processed, the autopsy results come back and all other evidence is evaluated.
Indeed, police had no way to know if anything Jeremy was telling them was true or not until they tested such claims later finding out many of his claims were lies. Everyone had an opinion, not least of all Stand Jones, Miller and Cook
First impressions do not mean a thing and can’t be used to contradict findings. It is a false argument to claim that because the lead investigator bought Jeremy’s claims and the frame job based on the initial looks of things that this means it had to be the truth and any contrary results from the subsequent investigation should be ignored. Doesn't meant it isn't the truth either but no one thinks your reasoning is why the silencer evidence was engineered. Personally I think because it was badly handled and most of the evidence destroyed, they just didn't have enough evidence to prosecute so got their heads together and pulled out a rabbit
Even more ironic is that Bamber supporters frequently point out that Jones and his subordinates did poor job early in the investigation. How can one seriously claim the initial impressions of a sloppy investigation should be accepted instead of following the evidence where it leads? I can tell you where is doesn't lead - back to the gun cupboard to a silencer carelessly left by a killer
Intentionally ignored is that Jones was both biased and inept at his job. Instead of supervising the investigation properly he botched it. He did not treat the scene properly affecting the integrity. Even wore though, instead of keeping all options open and collecting all evidence that could be potentially useful he declared it to be a murder suicide and it is his fault that evidence that should have been taken into evidence right away wasn’t. He discouraged his officers from investigating properly and he was negligent in making sure they took and cataloged everything they should have taken. I'd agree with that
This ineptitude is why critical evidence like the suppressor was not collected until later. Far from there being evidence of the suppressor being planted there is evidence it was not initially found because of ineptitude. There is no evidence the family knew how significant the suppressor would be because the family had no idea what it could or could not prove. Moreover the family turned in numerous items not merely the suppressor. All firearms, the ammunition, and accessories were collected and turned in not merely the suppressor. As a regulated weapon it was improper to leave them there in the first place. Again this is evidence of a poor job being done. Hmmmm, wouldn't agree with that, being as they (the family) first suggested that the silencer SHOULD have been on the rifle - then all of a sudden, a silencer becomes key!
If it wasn’t for Jeremy’s claims then all police would have had to go on initially was the location of the murder weapon on Sheila. That is all that would have existed to suggest maybe she was responsible. That initial observation would not mean much. A killer dumps weapons near bodies fairly frequently. To determine if suicide occurred dor murder the bodies must all be thoroughly looked at including the wounds and to look for evidence of the suspected shooter of having fired a weapon. The kinds of things the lab did in fact do in this case which changed the initial impression. Well as the pathologists notes claim that Sheila had blood on her hands then later that they didn't - not exactly helpful as this point has consequences for the hand swab evidence (not that I'm trying to labour this POINT but I will because it keeps being ignored)
Jeremy did make many claims though and these claims initially swayed the head investigator. Many of these claims turned out to be lies though. Why was Jerey lying/ To make police think Sheila committed the killings. Why would he lie and try to convince them she committed the killings unless he was in fact responsible and framing her? These lies are evidence he was trying to frame her. Jeremy Bamber supporters always ignore such evidence and try to pretend everything he said was honest. They try to pretend that Sheila went shooting, that he regularly shot animals and that the ridiculous story of him leaving the gun out has to be true and even make up nonsense about how suppressors and telescopic sights don’t do anything. Lies or mistakes? Didn't you say that it's often difficult for people to recall things? And actually, Peter Eaton DID in fact state that he had seen Sheila with a gun
Jeremy’s story is that after eating a late dinner with his family he looked out the window and saw rabbits by the barn (sometimes he even claimed he heard them). He said that he got the rifle and a full box of ammo and then loaded the magazine but by the time he finished loading it they were gone so he unloaded it and then he placed it on the kitchen table. He noted it did not have any accessories attached. He said he put the rifle next to the 'settle' he leaned it near the wall where the coats were hung. It's Miller who said he left it on the kitchen table but that's incorrect.
The first problem with this story is that he would be unlikely to see the rabbits from the window let alone easily target them given the time of day. It would not have been full light out. Even worse though, why would the accessories be removed? There was no reason at all why the scope would ever be removed. This gun was used for target shooting and to shoot vermin. For both a scope is extremely useful and it is not as useful for either without the scope. Others who used the weapon said the scope was never removed because there was no call to use it without the scope and it would be a nuisance to unscrew it and then have to screw it back on and re-zero it. The goal was to just be able to take it from the gun closet, load it and use it. The suppressor could be removed and reinstalled rather quickly but they did not do that either it was routinely stored with the suppressor also attached. How do yu know how they 'usually' kept the rifle? Because people who weren't regular visitors to the farm said so? The scope was in it's box, it wasn't just discarded in hurry. If you were going to kill everyone would tidiness be your first thought?
The suppressor eliminates the noise made by the gases that are expelled when the gun is fired and this also reduces the recall making it even more accurate. Reducing the noise provides 2 advantages. 1) you don’t have to worry about hearing loss and can use the weapon without needing hearing protection. 2) it means others around are not disturbed by noise from the weapon. For vermin shooting reducing noise is extremely useful because what do vermin do when they hear the noise? They run. Not only does it present the prospect of ruining the shot you wish to make, it ruins the prospect of future successful shots because a group of vermin will take off upon hearing the initial shot. But if he wasn't using the rifle for shooting rabbits, why would he need the silencer? You've just indicated that you don't believe the rabbit story yet you use it to as evidence that the silencer would have been attached?
The bottom line is that it made no sense for the weapon to be in the closet with the accessories removed and at minimum Jeremy would have wanted to take a few seconds to install the suppressor though he should have wanted to install the scope as well to go shoot rabbits. So his tale makes no sense in numerous respects. He even lied and claimed the gun did not fit in the closet with the suppressor attached even though it did and that is in fact how it was usually stored. The gun was usually stored with the scope attached too. Jeremy made up the claim it would not fit with the attachments to pretend it would be natural to find it without the attachments. If that were the case he would want to add them to go shoot rabbits anyway but the fact is it was false and the gun was routinely stored with them attached. Again, how do you/we know how it was usually stored?
Jeremy Bamber supporters never explain why we should believe he removed the gun from the closet without it having any attachments when it was routinely stored that way. Moreover, why we should believe anyone who wanted to go shoot vermin would not want the scope and suppressor attached and would choose not to attach them if they were not attached when the gun was found. Also why should we believe he took out the gun to shoot rabbits given the time of day and fact that others insist he never shot animals because didn’t like to do so? Jeremy Bamber supporters ignore that people who worked on the farm and relatives say that Jeremy did not have an interest in shooting and especially did not shoot vermin. Thus seriously calls into question Jeremy’s claim that his father bought the murder weapon for him and that Jeremy merely stored it at WHF. If he didn't go out to shoot rabbits, why would the silencer need to be attached?
Jeremy’s claims were contradictory in a number of significant respects. He changed his story over time when witnesses contradicted him. In some cases he changed his claims to match theirs but in other instances he changed his claim to keep alive his prior claims.
For example, after the bodies were discovered he was questioned multiple times about his use of the gun prior to the night of the murders. His original story was that he had not touched it for at least a week prior to taking it out to shoot the rabbits. Police determined that the last person known to using the rifle prior to the murders was Anthony. Anthony testified the gun was routinely stored with the suppressor and scope attached and that they were attached when he took it from the closet and he left them attached when he put the weapon away after using it. This strongly suggests the attachments should have been on the gun if Jeremy had in fact taken it out as claimed. To refute this Jeremy changed his story. He claimed he used it multiple times the week before the murders to shoot vermin. Again though others contradict his claim he did such. Furthermore he suggested that during this week of use sometimes the gun had the attachments when he removed it from the closet other times it didn’t and suggested the gun had been frequently used by Nevill not just him during this week. He insisted he is not the one who removed or added the attachments rather Nevill sometimes removed them but other times didn’t and that Jeremy just used it however he found it. So his story became that Nevill used the gun multiple times the week before the murders and so did he and that sometimes the gun had the attachments other times it didn’t so he ended up admitting it did fit in the closet with the attachments still in place, contradicting his claim that it didn’t. Yes, Jeremy does contradict himself - but he certainly isn't alone there, however, when it's pointed out to you that others have done the same, you simply dismiss this as bad recall
So his changed story was specifically constructed to rebut evidence that the last time the gun was used it had the attachments and also to try to rebut testimony that Nevill never removed the accessories he always stored it with them attached. So his changed claim had a set purpose- to contradict claims of others but had no means of being corroborated and is suspect because if true he would not have stated he had not used it the week prior. It is a big deal to suddenly remember you used it many times after saying you used it never. It is especially suspicious when others say he didn’t like to shoot vermin or shoot at all for that matter.
Jeremy Bamber supporters gloss over this because it is evidence of Jeremy trying to frame his sister. What is the purpose of this tale? No one believes Sheila would have gone to fetch a gun herself so the purpose of this tale is to claim the gun and bullets were sitting in the open for her to grab while arguing with her family.
Why would Nevill and June leave a gun and bullets on their kitchen table at all let alone with the young boys visiting? Testimony was that with the boys there Nevill was very careful with weapons. Why would Jeremy leave it on the table instead of putting it away? It makes no sense, in fact it appears the kitchen table had been set for breakfast before going to bed so why would they leave the gun there and set plates around it? It doesn’t pass the smell test that if Jeremy had left it out that they would not put it away. Because it was never on the table
But Jeremy does better. He claims he left a box of bullets too and these bullets were not moved they were in the same place he left them so they probably didn’t put the gun away or they would have put the bullets away too and this box of bullets is where Sheila supposedly got the ammo to use for the murders because it was not far from the gun. She had easy access to a loaded magazine, more bullets and the gun how convenient. And even more convenient the gun just so happened to not have the scope which would have been a hindrance for the murders, though very useful for shooting vermin- the actual purpose of the rifle.
It is quite obvious this box of ammo was staged by Jeremy to support this tale he made up. The box had 30 rounds in it and he claimed it was either full or missing only a couple of rounds when he removed it from the closet. So he claims there was a box of 48-50 rounds. He claims he loaded around 10 from this box into the magazine which means Sheila would have found a magazine with around 10 round and then the box would have another 38-40 rounds for reloading purposes. 25 rounds were fired which means there should have been 23-25 rounds left in the box. But there were 30 rounds left which means one of two things. Either the box was not used at all and it always had 30 rounds in it or some rounds were used from this box but the killer also went to the closet and got additional rounds from it. Why would Sheila do that? Why would Sheila go to the closet to get additional rounds when the box still had 30 left? This was a major blunder on Jeremy’s part and demonstrates he staged the scene. Jeremy Bamber supporters never want to talk about this.
Why would Nevill and Sheila be in the kitchen around 3AM for her to grab the rifle and load it in the first place? They would be asleep. There is evidence to suggest they had been in their beds. She no longer had sleeping problems once her medication was reduced to 100ML. Moreover evidence suggests the killer marched into the master bedroom and opened fire on them in there. The goal was to kill everyone in bed except Sheila. But this is further supported by the fact that Jeremy was caught staging things to frame Sheila. He staged the bullets before police were called and crafted the story about the gun to make it appear the gun were out for easy access and this way police would not think the suppressor had been attached since he claimed it had not been when he left it out.
He had no idea police would be able to figure out it was her blood inside the suppressor or that it was used in the murders, he didn’t know enough about science and figured his word the gun was left out without the suppressor attached would be good enough.
He also lied to police by telling them Sheila was proficient with all weapons in the house and had fired them all. Later he told a tale of her going shooting with Anthony and Nevill and using the murder weapon during the shoot. Anthony denied this. The entire family and farm workers and friends said she had no interest in guns and no one even saw her touch one. On this issue rather than look like a liar he changed and agreed he had not seen her touch or fire a gun. Which means his prior statements were lies and clearly these lies were calculated to support the frame- his goal was to get police to believe she knew how to use weapons and thus could have carried out the murders.
Jeremy Bamber supporters love to claim police framed him without any evidence it happened. Here there is evidence he was framing Sheila and it is all ignored.
Sorry but the post is too long, can't you split them?
I'm afraid scipio's posts are too long for people. Although well constructed I feel that he may do better if he shorten them somewhat. It will also make them easier to answer without writing a sermon one's self. :)
Caroline, I think you must have become lost in that forest of words. Can you wave so we know where you are? ;D ;D ;D ;D
help!! :(
Hold on Caroline, we're coming to find you. :) :) :)
"He also lied to police by telling them Sheila was proficient with all weapons in the house and had fired them all. Later he told a tale of her going shooting with Anthony and Nevill and using the murder weapon during the shoot. Anthony denied this. The entire family and farm workers and friends said she had no interest in guns and no one even saw her touch one. On this issue rather than look like a liar he changed and agreed he had not seen her touch or fire a gun. Which means his prior statements were lies and clearly these lies were calculated to support the frame- his goal was to get police to believe she knew how to use weapons and thus could have carried out the murders.I'm stuck between the last two paragraphs. Throw me a rope!!! :(
Jeremy Bamber supporters love to claim police framed him without any evidence it happened. Here there is evidence he was framing Sheila and it is all ignored"
If you can force the lines apart a little more you should just about be able to grab the rope, but try not to put it round your neck!!!!!! We'll have you out in no time ;D ;D ;D
It did cross my mind because I did lose the will to live half way through!! (Sorry Scipio - just joking!! ;)) - I managed to swing through the gap and somersault over the final paragraph!! Phew!! ;D ;D ;D
NOT TRUE WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS AND HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS
SHAME THEY DID NOT TAKE THE FAMILY SERIOUSLY THEN WHEN THEY TRIED TO TELL THEM WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS
WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE EVIDENCE FROM THE FIRST ENQUIRY THAT IS UNDER PII
NOT TRUE -WE FEEL IF THEY HAD DONE A BETTER JOB THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MANY AMBIGOUS LOGS ETC - WHICH WOULD MEAN WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS POSITION
SEE TH HISTORY OF THE MODERATOR I POSTED (COURTESY OF ROCH) BEFORE THERE ARE DOCUMENTS TO BACK IT UP
THEY ACCEPTED IT WAS SUICIDE INITIALLYYes they did and didn't investigate the scene like a homicide scene as they should have because it should be after all the eveidence is processed fully is when it is proper to conclude instead of simply believing Jeremy like Inspector Clousseau did.
Scipio Wrote:"Jeremy did make many claims though and these claims initially swayed the head investigator. Many of these claims turned out to be lies though. Why was Jerey lying/ To make police think Sheila committed the killings. Why would he lie and try to convince them she committed the killings unless he was in fact responsible and framing her? These lies are evidence he was trying to frame her. Jeremy Bamber supporters always ignore such evidence and try to pretend everything he said was honest. They try to pretend that Sheila went shooting, that he regularly shot animals and that the ridiculous story of him leaving the gun out has to be true and even make up nonsense about how suppressors and telescopic sights don’t do anything."
NOT TRUE -SEE HIS STATMENT - WHAT OTHER LIES ?
YOU ARE JOKING ? AT THAT TIME OF YEAR IT WAS PERFECTLY POSSIBLE
THEY COULD HAVE BEEN PUT AWAY DURING THE EVENING FOR ALL JB KNEW AND FOR ALL WE KNOW AS WELL
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ BORED NOW
Scipio wrote:
"He had no idea police would be able to figure out it was her blood inside the suppressor or that it was used in the murders, he didn’t know enough about science and figured his word the gun was left out without the suppressor attached would be good enough. ??"
BUT HE WAS A COLD PLANNING CALCULATING MURDERER - WHAT A SILLY BOY
translation: you have no rebuttal
No truthfully I was bored by your post -it is full of inaccuracies - and when I have posted documents to show facts you have ignored then
You have no rebuttal
You are like Adam - but more wordy ;D
If there are documents of something else let me know
Scipio
what about this dated 11/9 ? And Anne Eaton was asked why did she not mention the silencer in her statement round about 14th August after it was supposed to have been found
Who's Anthony?
"He also lied to police by telling them Sheila was proficient with all weapons in the house and had fired them all. Later he told a tale of her going shooting with Anthony and Nevill and using the murder weapon during the shoot. Anthony denied this. The entire family and farm workers and friends said she had no interest in guns and no one even saw her touch one. On this issue rather than look like a liar he changed and agreed he had not seen her touch or fire a gun. Which means his prior statements were lies and clearly these lies were calculated to support the frame- his goal was to get police to believe she knew how to use weapons and thus could have carried out the murders.I'm stuck between the last two paragraphs. Throw me a rope!!! :(
Jeremy Bamber supporters love to claim police framed him without any evidence it happened. Here there is evidence he was framing Sheila and it is all ignored"
Who's Anthony?
The other document that does exist is a police log of DB reporting a silencer with blood stains on 11th SEPT -not august .
I will try again
Can you post up documentary proof of exactly what Jeremy told the police about how much Sheila used the guns please?
Using the words which you have attributed to him "proficient"
proficient is a paraphrase.So what do you think of the suggestion that Bamber was a "crack shot" scipio?
from the dictionary:
Proficient
adjective, competent or skilled in doing or using something.
"The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before."
The funny thing is he didn't just exaggerate her gun use and knowedge he exaggerated his own as well.
What convinces me -
Jeremy had a motive X 1 - Large inheritence.
Jeremy had a motive X 2 - He did not like his family & resented the raw deal he felt he had.
Jeremy had no alibi.
Jeremy had the opportunity - Bike at home. Everyone asleep. Quiet access into WHF. A gun. A scapegoat (Sheila).
Jeremys police phone call rounds the suspects to two.
Jeremys reaction & actions after the massacre did him no favours. Already discussed.
No one can explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy. Thread created.
There are at least 19 reasons/facts why Neville would not phone Jeremy. Already posted.
Jeremy's answering machine would work before he got out of bed. It did not.
Jeremy phoned Julie before the police.
Jeremy told the police Sheila was good with guns. He later said at trial she was not.
Julie Mugford had no reason to lie. Jeremys only reason is that according to him he jilted her.
Other people testified how Jeremy did not like his parents.
Jeremy was extremly evasive in his police interviews. But he did say he robbed the families caravan site because of greed.
What Neville said to Jeremy on the phone did not match the situation. Already posted.
There are lots of reasons why Jeremy would tell Julie. Thread already created.
There is a mountain of curious coincidences (judges words)& circumstantial evidence which goes against Jeremy. Thread already created.
There is a lot of forensic evidence why Sheila did not do it. Already posted.
The silencer had human blood on. Almost certainly Sheila's or a mixture of June & Neville's.
It has been determined that it very unlikely the relatives would attempt to frame Jeremy. Or had the expertise to. Even Jeremys supporters have agreed. Saying it should be discarded as evidence because it apparently may have been contaminated.
Neville was brutally beaten. After having the energy to get downstairs. Smashed lampshades etc suggest a struggle. Much more likely it was Neville v Jeremy.
The police, DPP agreed there was enough evidence to go to trial. The jury found Jeremy guilty at trial. The CCRC & COA have upheld the convictions.
For Jeremy to be innocent. There must be a conspircy with the police, family & Julie Mugford all lying together. None of them cracking or retracting in the last 29 years. None of them had nothing to gain but everything to lose.
proficient is a paraphrase.
from the dictionary:
Proficient
adjective, competent or skilled in doing or using something.
"The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before."
The funny thing is he didn't just exaggerate her gun use and knowedge he exaggerated his own as well.
This is true, he puts so much effort into writing them but then I don't have time to answer, then I forget or just can't find it again.
Just updated my list (point 6) after a good point by Scipio earlier in the week.
Related to point 6 is the fact that Jeremy could have committed the massacre alone. Already discussed previously.
so could Sheila
Much less likely with Sheila.
If it was Sheila, Neville & June were not asleep in bed. Neville was up & wide awake. Even having time to make two phone calls (according to Jeremy). Surely June was awake as well. Therefore virtually no element of surprise & Sheila up against two adults.
Why are you presuming that we are suggesting that they WERE in bed and asleep? OH YES!!! I KNOW!!!!! Coz if you didn't, you couldn't apply your scenario.
If it was Jeremy then Neville & June were surely in bed.
Scipio made an interesting point, that Neville managed to get out of bed & followed Jeremy into the kitchen when Jeremy went to re load. Rather than Jeremy chasing Neville.
Much less likely with Sheila.scipio just said they were asleep.
If it was Sheila, Neville & June were not asleep in bed. Neville was up & wide awake. Even having time to make two phone calls (according to Jeremy). Surely June was awake as well. Therefore virtually no element of surprise & Sheila up against two adults.
If it was Jeremy then Neville & June were surely in bed.Oh I see. If it was Sheila Nevill and June were wide awake. But if it was Jeremy they were up and awake. I get your reasoning now. ::)
Scipio made an interesting point, that Neville managed to get out of bed & followed Jeremy into the kitchen when Jeremy went to re load. Rather than Jeremy chasing Neville.
It has also been suggested that Jeremy went into Sheila´s room and woke her up, then "led" her into their parents´ bedroom, you know, with all the blood and the body of her mother, not expecting that to upset her the least bit, then shoot the 100% passive and submissive Sheila (funny how men have no problem seeing a young woman being just that - fantasy, not reality!!!), allowing Jeremy to shoot her, first with gun at one angle, then another - both awkward.Well to me it certainly doesn't look as if her bed had been slept in?
Not only was Jeremy incredibly careful not to leave any traces of blood in Sheila´s room when he gently knocked on the door, went in and woke her up, he also allowed her time to make her bed - or did he make the bed, while Sheila waited around to be "led" and shot?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18697;image)
Oh I see. If it was Sheila Nevill and June were wide awake. But if it was Jeremy they were up and awake. I get your reasoning now. ::)
Well to me it certainly doesn't look as if her bed had been slept in?
It has also been suggested that Jeremy went into Sheila´s room and woke her up, then "led" her into their parents´ bedroom, you know, with all the blood and the body of her mother, not expecting that to upset her the least bit, then shoot the 100% passive and submissive Sheila (funny how men have no problem seeing a young woman being just that - fantasy, not reality!!!), allowing Jeremy to shoot her, first with gun at one angle, then another - both awkward.
Not only was Jeremy incredibly careful not to leave any traces of blood in Sheila´s room when he gently knocked on the door, went in and woke her up, he also allowed her time to make her bed - or did he make the bed, while Sheila waited around to be "led" and shot?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18697;image)
Just updated my list (point 6) after a good point by Scipio earlier in the week.
Related to point 6 is the fact that Jeremy could have committed the massacre alone. Already discussed previously.
Scipio suggested she was "dragged" from her bedroom - in which case she would have had marks on her arms.
Well that's one theory out of the way then.
Adam when Jeremy carried Sheila from one room to another did she remain asleep ???
Adam when Jeremy carried Sheila from one room to another did she remain asleep ???
No Graheme. If it was Jeremy, they were asleep. As people are at 2am. Neville waking & managing to get out of bed. June being shot in bed, with her head on the pillow.Oh I had it round the wrong way did I? They were asleep if it were Jeremy. But wide awake if it were Sheila. ::) I see.
Yes. Quite possible if in a deep sleep.
Remember when 7 I went to sleep at one house & woke up at home. My dad had taken me & my sister home in the middle of the night. He said I slept right through it.
To me it looks as if Sheila may have laid down on top of the covers, not gone to bed properly - there is an indentation on the pillow. I think she was restless that night and couldn´t sleep. That claim is substantiated by the undigested food in her stomach. She ate later (again) after the rest of the family.Yes. Sheila had undigested food in her stomach, but the others didn't?
Imagine the thoughts going through this ill woman´s head this sleepless night. "Please, please, please".
Oh I had it round the wrong way did I? They were asleep if it were Jeremy. But wide awake if it were Sheila. ::) I see.
Perhaps they were asleep if it was Sheila. But how did Neville make two phone calls ?
Yes. Quite possible if in a deep sleep.
Remember when 7 I went to sleep at one house & woke up at home. My dad had taken me & my sister home in the middle of the night. He said I slept right through it.
Children ARE known for it. Adults, unless drugged -Rohipnol?- or unconscious, AREN'T. Had you forgotten that her meds had been reduced to prevent he becoming drowsy? I imagine with the emotional trauma she was under sleep eluded her.
Yes. Quite possible if in a deep sleep.
Remember when 7 I went to sleep at one house & woke up at home. My dad had taken me & my sister home in the middle of the night. He said I slept right through it.
If you take a medication, say a tranquiliser and then move or walk around you prevent that drug from working. Ordinary nurses will tell you this. Sit down Mr. Jones or it won't work they say. Sheila's bed looks unslept in to me. May I suggest that something was playing on her mind that night? Would it have been this discussion that Jeremy testified took place between her and her parents? Perhaps she was pacing around as the others slept? Went downstairs. Spotted the gun on the settle and saw the solution to all her problems?
Children ARE known for it. Adults, unless drugged -Rohipnol?- or unconscious, AREN'T. Had you forgotten that her meds had been reduced to prevent he becoming drowsy? I imagine with the emotional trauma she was under sleep eluded her.
You were a CHILD!! Jeeez, it bothers me to no end that especially men have no problem in reducing Sheila to a blathering idiot, passive, easily led GIRL. Sheila was a grown WOMAN approaching 30. I know that men generally have low opinions of women and in their own minds blow themselves up to unrealistic brilliance, but this is scraping the bottom!
I could throw up!
Sheila was on powerful drugs. Which would have made her drowsey & uncordinated.
I am a deep sleeper. Can sleep anywhere & not be woken up. Howrver would wake if someone tried to pick me up. However a 7 year old or light woman....
That is nothing to do with anything.
Sheila was a light woman. Jeremy a strong man.
If asleep Jeremy could easily pick her up & take her a few yards to another room. Sheila could remain asleep, or by the time she starts to wake, it is too late.
Sheila would have been hyper,,no doubt about that. Schizophrenics aren't known for their regular 8 hour sleeping pattern at night. Even June woke at the least noise as she too was known as a poor sleeper,which Sheila would have known about,so it wouldn't have proved difficult for either women to engage themselves in conversation at an early hour.I know for a fact that their sleep patterns are very irregular. I know someone who suffers from this illness and she sleeps during the day, but is up all night doing washing ot housework etc. Unless you live with someone like that you do not know what schizophrenics are like. You have to have eyes in the back of your head sometimes and it is very wearing at times. Something you just simply cannot understand or see the complexities of the illness unless you have someone close to you who suffers from it.
If you take a medication, say a tranquiliser and then move or walk around you prevent that drug from working. Ordinary nurses will tell you this. Sit down Mr. Jones or it won't work they say. Sheila's bed looks unslept in to me. May I suggest that something was playing on her mind that night? Would it have been this discussion that Jeremy testified took place between her and her parents? Perhaps she was pacing around as the others slept? Went downstairs. Spotted the gun on the settle and saw the solution to all her problems?
I know for a fact that their sleep patterns are very unregular. I know someone who suffers from this illness and she sleep during the day, but is up all night doing washing ot housework etc. Unless you live with someone like that you do not know what schizophrenics are like. You have to have eyes in the back of your head sometimes and it is very wearing at times. Something you just simply cannot understand or see the complexities of the illness unless you have someone close to you who suffers from it.
I'll tell you another thing about them. They do not believe there is anything wrong with them either and they will not take their medication unless you administer them to them yourself. They can be sneeky as well and fool you into thinking they take their medication. But secret it in their mouths and when you are not looking they spit them out down the toilet. So I don't need no "expert" to tell me about schizoprenics. In my experience most of the psychiatrists are loony as well.
Bullshit. You talk about Sheila as if she were a child, she was almost thirty. What you are doing is sullying her dignity. I am appalled.
I said Sheila was very light. As highlighted in the pictures of her. Easy for a 6 foot 24 year old to carry a few yards.
She was greatly upset when Colin sprung it on her that he'd met someone else. For it was her dream that they were going to get back together. The rest of the journey to WHF she spent in silence. Her dream shattered. You can imagine what was going through her head can't you? Colin was going to probably get married to his new girlfriend (it is well to point out here that schizoprenics are so wrapped up in themselves that they simply cannot move on. They are locked into their own little world) and he would take her children with him and a stranger was going to become their mother and she was to be left alone. She had much that played on her mind that night and the world was all black to her.
Or how about the fact that she'd just been rejected by Colin and he'd left her at the one place she'd have given anything NOT to be, OR how about that her birth mother had recently rejected her on the grounds that her family -SUCH irony- knew nothing of Sheila's existence. It doesn't take much to imagine how little she felt loved and valued.
She would have woken up, you are taking this out of thin air. Won´t discuss it anymore, it is just too stupid!
Sheila was known to skip her medication, but the Haloperidol was injected, so she couldn´t skip that. However, it was HALVED and she was due the next shot, so there wouldn´t have been much of it left in her system allowing her demons free reign.This injection would not work on her if her mind was active and disturbed. It is sometimes easy to counteract the effects of drugs.
Sheila was on powerful drugs. Which would have made her drowsey & uncordinated.
I am a deep sleeper. Can sleep anywhere & not be woken up. Howrver would wake if someone tried to pick me up. However a 7 year old or light woman....
I said Sheila was very light. As highlighted in the pictures of her. Easy for a 6 foot 24 year old to carry a few yards.Speculation.
That is nothing to do with anything.
Sheila was a light woman. Jeremy a strong man.
If asleep Jeremy could easily pick her up & take her a few yards to another room. Sheila could remain asleep, or by the time she starts to wake, it is too late.
She may not have woken up. If in a deep sleep. Or by the time she started waking up Jeremy had her where he wanted her.
It would only take a few seconds to carry Sheila a few yards.
Nah! They've been there and found out it was honeycomb. They tried to bring some moonrock back, but the time they got here they'd eaten it all except for a crumb of chocolate.
And the moon COULD be made of cheese!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Speculation.
She may not have woken up. If in a deep sleep. Or by the time she started waking up Jeremy had her where he wanted her.
It would only take a few seconds to carry Sheila a few yards.
Because it is vital in order to fit in with his scenario.
I wonder why it's so important to you that Sheila was asleep. Perhaps if you share it with us it will prevent you from behaving like an irritating child.
Adam, isn´t it time for your nappie? 8)
I wonder why it's so important to you that Sheila was asleep. Perhaps if you share it with us it will prevent you from behaving like an irritating child.
Yes it is.
There are lots of ways Sheila ended up into the far corner of the bedroom.
Carried.
She woke & went into her parents bedroom. Cowering in the corner when seeing a gun man enter the room.
She was taken there after brother Jeremy took her there.
Either way Sheila would not have known what was happening, so not putting up a fight.
I am pleased that I have discovered another possible way Jeremy killed Sheila.
Jeremys supporters claim Sheilas bed was not slept in. If she was laying on top of the bed, it would then be even easier for Jeremy to pick her up without waking her.
Oh dear.
The only thing you have managed to prove is that, as I said in a previous post, men have unrealistically high opinions of themselves and their "brilliance". It is quite hard to stomach! :o
The thing is that it is very difficult to come up with something plausible when it comes to where Sheila was during the shootings (yelling, screaming, dogs barking, commotion, a lot of noise) and how the shots to Sheila were delivered.
What nons come up with is never satisfactory and sometimes, like in this case, simply absurd.
I am pleased that I have discovered another possible way Jeremy killed Sheila.Yes. Oh dear. It means that she was not asleep.
Jeremys supporters claim Sheilas bed was not slept in. If she was laying on top of the bed, it would then be even easier for Jeremy to pick her up without waking her.
Oh dear.
The twins were asleep when shot. June was shot with her head on the pillow. Neville shot in the bedroom 4 times. A silencer attached. What screaming & yelling ?Whoa there. You've just contradicted your original scenario. For in that you said he's been shot in the back and then Jeremy chased after him. I told you then that he was not shot in the back but in the arm. She didn't believe me. But now that NCIS boy has turned up suddenly that one shot in the back has become 4 shots? Oh dear, your scenario is gradually being broken down by your fellow guilters.
The fight was in another part of a big house. So with Sheilas bedroom door shut she may not have heard the fight.
But as I said she may have woken & cowered in the corner of the bedroom when she saw a gunman.
I am pleased that I have discovered another possible way Jeremy killed Sheila.
Jeremys supporters claim Sheilas bed was not slept in. If she was laying on top of the bed, it would then be even easier for Jeremy to pick her up without waking her.
Oh dear.
Whoa there. You've just contradicted your original scenario. For in that you said he's been shot in the back and then Jeremy chased after him. I told you then that he was not shot in the back but in the arm. She didn't believe me. But now that NCIS boy has turned up suddenly that one shot in the back has become 4 shots? Oh dear, your scenario is gradually being broken down by your fellow guilters.
It was quite cool that night too,,so it doesn't make sense not being under the covers. Afterall,,there was even a pair of bedsocks lying around which would indicate that it wasn't exactly roasting hot.
Why get under the covers and just lie there if you're not tired---------as Sheila wasn't !
It was quite cool that night too,,so it doesn't make sense not being under the covers. Afterall,,there was even a pair of bedsocks lying around which would indicate that it wasn't exactly roasting hot.
Why get under the covers and just lie there if you're not tired---------as Sheila wasn't !
Yes. Quite possible if in a deep sleep.
Remember when 7 I went to sleep at one house & woke up at home. My dad had taken me & my sister home in the middle of the night. He said I slept right through it.
When you were 7 ::)
I thought Sheilas bed had not been slept in ?
It was August, so certainly the time when people would lay on, rather than in a bed. Meaning it was even easier for Jeremy to pick her up.
Jeremy may have made the bed himself before leaving WHF. To make it look like Sheila had not been to bed.
Can you believe this? And he keeps going out on that tangent - it is unbearable!
Can you believe this? And he keeps going out on that tangent - it is unbearable!
Is he still 7? ;D
Is he still 7? ;D
Is it not possible for a young, strong 6 foot man to pick up a small woman and take her a few yards ?
Did he lay the breakfast table also? To what ends would he make Sheila's bed?
Is it not possible for a young, strong 6 foot man to pick up a small woman and take her a few yards ?
To make it look like Sheila had been up all night.
Adam's scenario: Jeremy, with gun, goes in to Sheila's room. Puts gun down, picks up Sheila. Realizes he can't pick gun up. Puts Sheila back on bed. Picks up gun but hasn't got Sheila. Asks Sheila to hold the gun while he carries her into her parents room to shoot her. YEH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First of all, why would he? Secondly, she WOULD have woken up, grown ups do that!
You contemplate the possibility that Jeremy made Sheila´s bed before leaving the farm - that makes it very, VERY hard to take anything you say seriously. I can see why I have you on ignore. (Chose to read your posts today - I´m bored...)
Why would Jeremy pick up Sheila to take her into another room ?
How could she have got the gun, massacred the children she was attached to, brutally beaten the father she was very attached to, & killed herself if she was in bed ?
There is no guarantee Sheila would wake up in the 30 seconds it would take to pick her up and take her a few yards. If she did start to wake she would not have a clue what was happening.
Adam's scenario: Jeremy, with gun, goes in to Sheila's room. Puts gun down, picks up Sheila. Realizes he can't pick gun up. Puts Sheila back on bed. Picks up gun but hasn't got Sheila. Asks Sheila to hold the gun while he carries her into her parents room to shoot her. YEH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have established something important today.
That Jeremy could have carried an asleep Sheila into the main bedroom. Fact.
I thought Sheilas bed had not been slept in ?
It was August, so certainly the time when people would lay on, rather than in a bed. Meaning it was even easier for Jeremy to pick her up.
Jeremy may have made the bed himself before leaving WHF. To make it look like Sheila had not been to bed.
Adam I have lost my way :'( why would Jeremy wish to make it look that Sheila had not slept by making her bed yet he picked her up whilst asleep carried her to another room and shot her :'( HELP
I have established something important today.
That Jeremy could have carried an asleep Sheila into the main bedroom. Fact.
Use you're loaf. Or read my other posts on this thread.In other words so she would look like she did when she was found, right? So what you are suggesting is that Jeremy put her into the position she was found in order to make it look like she had done it, right? So if she had been put into the position so that it looked like she did it how would you know that it was Jeremy and not Sheila if it was made to look right?
He can't shoot Sheila in her bed. She has to out of bed to make it look like she has been charging around with the rifle. So Jeremy could have spent 30 seconds carrying a small Sheila a few yards to where most of the bullets were fired.
He could have made the bed afterwards to make it look like Sheila had been up all night in a crazy rage.
I have established something important today.
That Jeremy could have carried an asleep Sheila into the main bedroom. Fact.
Use you're loaf. Or read my other posts on this thread.
He can't shoot Sheila in her bed. She has to out of bed to make it look like she has been charging around with the rifle. So Jeremy could have spent 30 seconds carrying a small, asleep Sheila a few yards to where most of the bullets were fired.
He could have made the bed afterwards to make it look like Sheila had been up all night in a crazy rage.
To make it look like Sheila had been up all night.
First of all, why would he? Secondly, she WOULD have woken up, grown ups do that!
You contemplate the possibility that Jeremy made Sheila´s bed before leaving the farm - that makes it very, VERY hard to take anything you say seriously. I can see why I have you on ignore. (Chose to read your posts today - I´m bored...)
Adam you are just trying to wind us up. You can not be serious, good try though
. ::)
I have established something important today.
That Jeremy could have carried an asleep Sheila into the main bedroom. Fact.
Jeremys supporters often go on about Sheilas bed apparently not being made. It shows Jeremy is innocent.
However it is quite possible Jeremy made the bed afterwards. To suggest Sheila had been up all night & was too crazy to sleep.
Or Sheila may have slept on top of the bed, it was August. Making it easier for Jeremy to carry her a few yards.
Jeremys supporters often go on about Sheilas bed apparently not being made. It shows Jeremy is innocent.
However it is quite possible Jeremy made the bed afterwards. To suggest Sheila had been up all night & was too crazy to sleep.
Or Sheila may have slept on top of the bed, it was August. Making it easier for Jeremy to carry her a few yards.
Caroline hope he did not eat all those sweets in the shop and left without paying for them ;D because he could not take them back and say I only borrowed them ;D ;D ;D ;D
Caroline I agree what difference does it make whether Sheila's bed was slept in or not. If Jeremy did murder his entire family he would not have been carrying Sheila around the house sleeping or making beds too ridiculous to even think about.
Caroline I agree what difference does it make whether Sheila's bed was slept in or not. If Jeremy did murder his entire family he would not have been carrying Sheila around the house sleeping or making beds too ridiculous to even think about.
Perhaps he hoovered the stairs and put the washing in t soak? This is taking OCD too far!! ;D ;D
Caroline wonder if he fed Crispy and let the cat out ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I've had wonderful cleaning ladies with OCD. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
He would not have carried her around the house. He would have carried her a few yards.
Sheila was mentally ill. Sometimes she saw the people closest to her as the Devil or the Devil´s childrem. What part of mentally ill don´t you get? Why is this so easily dismissed by nons?
It is not logical that Jeremy would have taken Sheila into the main bedroom, it was filled with blood, and June lay dead on the floor smeared in blood. If I step into your crazy scenario for a minute, he would more likely have carried her to the corridor.
OOOOOH, NOW we know who put the childrens' and Sheila's clothes into soak. WASN'T he well house trained. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
What difference would that make?
I have established something important today.And I COULD drink a double whiskey in one go. FACT. ;D
That Jeremy could have carried an asleep Sheila into the main bedroom. Fact.
It is logical, the goal was to suggest she shot June and then killed herself.
The delusions you speak of were when she was not medicated and/or on narcotics at the time of said delusions. She was medicated and not under the influence of narcotcs so there is nothing to fear especially since she would be dead in a minute.
Jeremys supporters often go on about Sheilas bed apparently not being made. It shows Jeremy is innocent.Can't you get past your paranoia about Jeremy making things look as they should be and just accept the fact that they may just have been as they should have been without Jeremy making it so?
However it is quite possible Jeremy made the bed afterwards. To suggest Sheila had been up all night & was too crazy to sleep.
Or Sheila may have slept on top of the bed, it was August. Making it easier for Jeremy to carry her a few yards.
Well, he did have the Marigolds on, seems a shame to waste them!! ;DIt's a wonder he didn't move all the bullet casings if he was going to create a suicide scene.
Grahame did you know that when Adam was 7 he was moved from one house to another without waking up and did not know he had been moved till he woke up and thought "where I am"
A great deal. It is unlikely for someone on tranquilizers to wake up, be distrubed by absolutely nothing because everyone else is asleep and then to go bezerk.You clearly haven't a clue about what you are talking about. I've tried to educate you but it appears that your fingers are in your ears and your palms are covering your eyes?
SInce there were 2 pairs of panties soaking she obviously ruined two the same day, you would expect someone to learn after the first pair. I am glad I am a man and don't have to worry about that just putting up with women on PMS.
It is not logical at all. It is very illogical that Jeremy would choose to "drag" Sheila into the bloodfilled room with her heavily bloodstained, dead mother. It would upset her immensely - a very stupid move of Jeremy in fact. All that for some flimsy, unclear "staging".He must have tiptoed through all the blood since he left no footprints and absolutely no forensic evidence was found on him, in WHF or even at his own house. For a foolish man he must have been very smart?
I find this to be a problem for the nons, which has never been addressed properly. Not to my satisfaction anyway.
You are dismissing that Sheila was gravely mentally ill. She attacked the Meter Man who got very scared of her. She was not in a stable, calm state during this period as you try to make it seem.
You have to twist and bend a little here and a little there to make things fit. That is a fact.
P.S. I don´t mention her running screaming from the monastary the previous day. I am not sure where that rumour comes from. Perhaps it is more than a rumour, I just don´t know where it stems from. Anybody?
It is not logical at all. It is very illogical that Jeremy would choose to "drag" Sheila into the bloodfilled room with her heavily bloodstained, dead mother. It would upset her immensely - a very stupid move of Jeremy in fact. All that for some flimsy, unclear "staging".
I find this to be a problem for the nons, which has never been addressed properly. Not to my satisfaction anyway.
You are dismissing that Sheila was gravely mentally ill. She attacked the Meter Man who got very scared of her. She was not in a stable, calm state during this period as you try to make it seem.
You have to twist and bend a little here and a little there to make things fit. That is a fact.
P.S. I don´t mention her running screaming from the monastary the previous day. I am not sure where that rumour comes from. Perhaps it is more than a rumour, I just don´t know where it stems from. Anybody?
He must have tiptoed through all the blood since he left no footprints and absolutely no forensic evidence was found on him, in WHF or even at his own house. For a foolish man he must have been very smart?
No rumour Alias. It happened and it is MILES from WHF to the monastery and unless she hitched a ride she could only have got there on foot.
A great deal. It is unlikely for someone on tranquilizers to wake up, be distrubed by absolutely nothing because everyone else is asleep and then to go bezerk.
you don't even know if she went to sleep
A great deal. It is unlikely for someone on tranquilizers to wake up, be distrubed by absolutely nothing because everyone else is asleep and then to go bezerk.
Who saw her?
Alias, I think there's a WS in archives.
The lack of bloodied footprints have always baffled me. But then, did the EP even look for any? Did they photograph all bloodstains found scattered about the house?
One imagines they'd have clod hopped blood all over the house. How could they have avoided it?
I would like to hear scipio´s take on the state of Sheila´s bed. Can´t deal with your fantasies anymore, Adam, sorry.
She could have slept on top or it could have been made to give the impression she didn't sleep that night. She was in her nightgown so obviously ready for bed. If she were planning to kill anyone I would expect her to put on something easier to move in and not stay barefoot.
If we want to investigate in detail we would need to know more about her habits to see if she did often or at least sometimes sleep on top. I doubt many people knew her habits because who used to go watch her sleeping? You check in on kids, who checks in on an adult? For many years I slept on my bed. If you do it always it should wear the comforter if you don't change it. If you you do it sporadically when it is warm or change the comforter around or even put on a different comforter it might not show a pattern. She didn't sleep at WHF but 3 days so not long enough to leave any tell tale signs one way or the other.
The bottom line is that Jeremy might have staged it like he staged other things or might not have we just don't have enough information to know. If someone reliable said she would never sleep on covers and had to be under sheets no matte rwhat then that would suggest the scene was staged and the bed made.
Given the different possiiblities this issue is not dispositive anymore than a bucket with 2 pairs of soaking panties is. That is why I don't suggest this as more evidence of Jeremy staging the scene, there isn't enough evidence to suggest it is more likely that he staged it than that she just slept on top. I would expect that if Jeremy were staging it he would make the bed flawless so it didn't look like she was even sitting on it. It was not made perfectly though someone could have been sitting on it so I'm not going to chalk it up as proof Jeremy staged it.
Making sure he didn't kill her in bed and that she was killed outside her room I do think was staging. He wanted it to look like she shot June and then herself. Nevill going downstairs actually screwed things up in a number of respects and so did the shot to his voicebox. People worry about minor details but the bigger things that can end up happeing often spoil it. Especially if you don't appreciate the scientific implications of various things.
Jeremy overengineered some aspects like the phone call but failed to adequately consider others.
I would have staged it as a break in so that there was a possiiblity of anyone doing it. I would have made sure to shoot and kill Nevill first because he was the most dangerous and then to shoot June. I would have shouted to get the boys to come to the hall, blocked the stairs and shot them or marched them form their rooms to shoot them and then to kill Sheila in the hall. In this manner it appears thecrook was discovered by the husband and wife and killed then the rest of the house woke up as the killer was trying to run away and then had to shoot them too. Executing everyone in bed is a sign of an execution. A crook need not kill everyone who is sleeping they get out of there and just kill whoever gets in their way. So the goal is to make it look not like an assassinaion.
Of course if you end up getting blood spatter on your body or clothes or having possession of the murder weapon you are toast but it is hard for there to even be a search warrant executed if you stage the crime right.
Sheila would have made a better patsy if she had not been on medication that was being injected by doctors but even then there are more ways to mess up like the suppressor ended up being and you still look like you are framing her if you claim to be a witness against her. Make cops find her and draw their own conclusions. Feeding the flames and claiming the victims called you to tell you what happened is not sound. It makes you involved and that is not what you want. You want to be totally uninvolved and to know nothing.
Police have a hard time pinning anything on you under those circumstances.
Just thought I'd tell you Scipio. It's nearly 9.30 and I can still see perfectly clearly outside but the squirrels have gone to bed.
The lack of bloodied footprints have always baffled me. But then, did the EP even look for any? Did they photograph all bloodstains found scattered about the house?
Glad you were not the killer - that was cruel and hard to read. :'(
I think we can discard the theory that Jeremy made the bed - it has been used, just not the covers Jeremy would have made it look like no one had been on/in the bed.
Personally I have never come across anyone who went to sleep for the night on top of the covers. Perhaps during heat waves, you just use a sheet - or nothing; but there was no heatwave, it wasn´t that warm at all. June and Nevill slept with big covers.
I find that my suggestion that Sheila was restless that night to be more plausible.
He must have tiptoed through all the blood since he left no footprints and absolutely no forensic evidence was found on him, in WHF or even at his own house. For a foolish man he must have been very smart?
There were drops of blood on the floor, at least in the bedroom, If Jeremy and/or June, Sheila, Nevill were walking/running around, it would at least be smeared. The victims wouldn´t have worried about making footprints.
Please don´t take me for an idiot and resort to explaining how to avoid stepping in pools of blood to not leave footprints. Seriously!
But Sheila easily could have done it without leaving any footprints though she had barefeet and would have cut hers to boot on the stuff on the floor?
Anytime you claim Jeremy would have had evidence the same applies to Sheila is she were the killer. The only difference is she had the additional hazard of cutting her feet and the additiona way of leaving fingerprints because she didn't have gloves though Jeremy did.
Finally, he was not inspected after the murders and could have cleaned up and changes his clothes. She
would have no reaosn to do so.
Her body and clothing was actually inspected for evidence like gunshot residue, back spatter, and injuries, his wasn't. So we can say she lacked any such evidence we don't know whether he did lack such evidence.
People can move around drops of blood on the floor without getting evidence on themselves or leaving prints or the like. Trying to pretend it isn't possible doesn't work and worse yet by your suggestions Sheila should have left evidence but didn't and had none on her body though she should have.
You make a great deal of assumptions about what would have to be ther that in fact doesn't have to be there by way of evidence but if it did have to be present as you claim would further exonerate Sheila anyway. In the meantime you ignore what would be on the killer- back spatter and gunshot residue.
Scipio,,how do you then suppose Sheila knocked a chunk off her big toe-nail ? Any suggestions ?
So, a bed that doesn't look slept in must have been slept in? And Neville must have been shot in bed even though there is no blood on his side? Don't you think you're simply pushing the pieces into holes that don't fit because they coincide with your view? (Obviously you're going to say no).
I am a little bit confused about this, but wasn´t it a false fingernail that was found?
A chipped toenail wouldn´t neccessarily bleed, would it?
I am a little bit confused about this, but wasn´t it a false fingernail that was found?
A chipped toenail wouldn´t neccessarily bleed, would it?
He is talking about varnish missing from her toenail. Not that the nail itself had been broken.
No, she is talking about a chipped toenail and that it would have bled.
He is talking about varnish missing from her toenail. Not that the nail itself had been broken.
Then he doesn't realize he is talking about the varnish and is way off base in the blood suggestion. He didn't mention blood the other day he just mentioned the varnish chip the photograph expert claims he could see in the photo that the court and everyone else laughed at him for.
This is what Lookout is referring to;
Thanks Caroline. It's making me wince just looking at it. I bet it was painful,though--------------------
The photo isn´t very clear.
Looks like Sheila had long toenails from this photo.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=34137;image)
Well your picture is the left foot, the one I posted is the right in which the nail looks short.
But Sheila easily could have done it without leaving any footprints though she had barefeet and would have cut hers to boot on the stuff on the floor?I doubt it. Not with eagle eye Mugford around. She reported everything else about him apparently?
Anytime you claim Jeremy would have had evidence the same applies to Sheila is she were the killer. The only difference is she had the additional hazard of cutting her feet and the additiona way of leaving fingerprints because she didn't have gloves though Jeremy did.
Finally, he was not inspected after the murders and could have cleaned up and changes his clothes. She
would have no reaosn to do so.
Her body and clothing was actually inspected for evidence like gunshot residue, back spatter, and injuries, his wasn't. So we can say she lacked any such evidence we don't know whether he did lack such evidence.
Was a piece of her toenail found in the kitchen?
He is talking about varnish missing from her toenail. Not that the nail itself had been broken.Nope. It was a chunk of toenail that Ann Eaton found downstairs near the Aga.
They look like different feet !
The photo isn´t very clear.That foot looks as if it has been traipsing around the house to me?
Looks like Sheila had long toenails from this photo.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=34137;image)
That foot looks as if it has been traipsing around the house to me?
I think so too. Hard to tell though when you see one from the top and one from the bottom.
Alias,,I don't think they are the same feet.Look at the structure of the toes. One foot is older than the other-------------which throws the cat among the pigeons a bit. Young toes don't curl under,nor do they have nails like hooves. I don't know about a pedicure---------more a farrier.
It's not until you see them together,that you realise there is a difference.Junes' foot,perhaps ? But why ?
It's not until you see them together,that you realise there is a difference.Junes' foot,perhaps ? But why ?
They look like different feet !
I don´t think that June wore red nail varnish. There is a picture of her legs - and her toes appear varnish-free.
Only the nail varnish was found, not part of the nail. This is from the OS
"Part of her toe nail polish was found on the floor in the kitchen below the mantle placing Sheila at the scene of the attack on Nevill in the kitchen. Forensic expert Peter Sutherst confirmed this “The red object is not paint from the mantle shelf. It is more likely to be a particle of red nail varnish from Sheila Caffell’s right foot since it is a close match in hue to her varnish and also matches damage to the varnish on her right big toe.”
Oh, OK, thanks. So her nail wasn´t broken. They also found a fake fingernail, right?
Actually, it looks like an older ladies foot not a 26/27 year old foot?
That's what I'm saying,Caroline. The foot with the blood underneath doesn't appear to have nail varnish,,just old toenails for a young'un.
Besides,,those wizened feet never did modelling. Compare the lengths of the big toes. Totally different.
I see nail varnish on the toes.
The only other thing is that we could be comparing those feet which have recently deceased as opposed to the cadaverous form of the same feet-------------I don't know,,but it's feasible I suppose.
Oh, OK, thanks. So her nail wasn´t broken. They also found a fake fingernail, right?
Her nail wasn't broken there was some varnish supposedly missing from her nail.
Since she wore sandals and walked around barefoot her varnish could have chipped off any at time and could have naturally been left in the kitchen prior to the murders.
At any rate there is no proof that her varnish was in the kitchen. No one collected varhnish that was tested and matched to the varnish on he rnails.
The photo expert claimed that he blew up a tiny speck in a photo and that the blow up of the speck is the same exact shape and color as the missing varnish. Most people consider his claim he was able to blow up a speck in such crappy photos to such a great degree that he was able to match the shape and color of a tiny bit of varnish missing incredulous.
I don't know that the foot has blood on it. The marks on the feet look to be under the skin. I don't know what these discolorings are called but I have seen older people with marks like that and they do not go away. I don't know how people can have a foot fetish, I find feet gross maybe look for one of them for an expert opinion.
Sheila was 5'5" according to the autopsy and was thin all over so I would assume she would not have hooves as someone else referred to it.
So, a bed that doesn't look slept in must have been slept in? And Neville must have been shot in bed even though there is no blood on his side? Don't you think you're simply pushing the pieces into holes that don't fit because they coincide with your view? (Obviously you're going to say no).
As I thought, Venezis quoted her height as 5' 7.5"
Why must Nevill have been shot in bed? I can’t see why that is necessarily true. Isn’t that an assumption made in support of the prosecution’s claim that the idea of Nevill phoning after he was shot is quite absurd? I agree with the prosecutor that it is.
If he phoned, it must have been before he was shot and when he was not in bed.
I said 5'7" the other night and someone told me I was wrong that the report said 5'5" I didn't bother to check since 2 inches is no big deal but nice to see I wasn't crazy.
I'm not a foot fan so idea what counts as big feet for women.
I think you read my post incorrectly - I'm NOT saying her was shot in bed - I was questioning Scipio's claim that he was.
Sorry, I didn’t really read it incorrectly. I just meant to add a comment based on your criticism. But looking at it, I admit it looks like I mistook it for your opinion.
I think you read my post incorrectly - I'm NOT saying her was shot in bed - I was questioning Scipio's claim that he was.
Someone 5'7" would hold a rifle 56" high or less. Nevill's shoulder wound was around 65" high and a downward trajectory. His jaw wound was higher than that even and also a down trajectory. To have a down trajectory. It standing then Sheila would have fired up instead of down.
Even Jeremy would have a problem shooting down since he would hold a rifle around 62-3 inches high. It should be a relatively level shot or even up. The jaw shot also should have been upwards. The trajectories suggest he was not standing for these shots. Otherwise Jeremy was standing on their chair which I don't really see why he would do that.
Does it look like the sheets in the left photo have blood on them to anyone else?
The right side looks like the fitten bottom sheet after the top sheet was reoved.
http://users.skynet.be/dosscrim/jeremybamber/Sheila_Caffell_crime_scene.jpg
My basic theory is that most, if not all, of the accurate shots to the head were fired when Nevill was already incapacitated and no longer standing up. Similarly, I believe that Sheila shot June in the forehead after she was already dead or at least unable to move. To be sure, Sheila, was no expert marksman, but accuracy is easy, close up and with an immobile target.
Someone 5'7" would hold a rifle 56" high or less. Nevill's shoulder wound was around 65" high and a downward trajectory. His jaw wound was higher than that even and also a down trajectory. To have a down trajectory. It standing then Sheila would have fired up instead of down.
Even Jeremy would have a problem shooting down since he would hold a rifle around 62-3 inches high. It should be a relatively level shot or even up. The jaw shot also should have been upwards. The trajectories suggest he was not standing for these shots. Otherwise Jeremy was standing on their chair which I don't really see why he would do that.
I am 6 feet and could easily pick up someone of Sheilas size.
One hand underneath the back of the knees. One hand underneath the back. A Sheila in a deep sleep would not notice.
I am 6 feet and could easily pick up someone of Sheilas size.
One hand underneath the back of the knees. One hand underneath the back. A Sheila in a deep sleep would not notice.
If someone picked me up when I was asleep - I would wake up - FACT!!
If they pointed a gun at you and said march would you do it?
If they pointed a gun at you and said march would you do it?
If someone picked me up when I was asleep - I would wake up - FACT!!I kill Japanese in my sleep. >:(
If they pointed a gun at you and said march would you do it?Not if she was Steven Seagal. ;)
Not if she was Steven Seagal. ;)
Adam,,why didn't Jeremy kill Sheila first knowing that she was a " nutter " and capable of doing anything,,even picking up one of the guns and shooting him.?
Afterall,,Jeremy had experienced Sheilas' psychosis in the past.
Instead,,Sheila was the last one to die,,so how do you think that came about ? You'd have thought she'd have rang the police from the upstairs office while Jeremy was downstairs bashing his father ?
Sheila had,,afterall,,her children to consider,didn't she ? So in the time it took while Jeremy was down 3 flights of stairs,,,you can't tell me that Sheila couldn't have dialled 999 and WHF,,that's all it would have taken to have got the police out.
She was the weakest adult and on tranquilizers. She was the least threatening adult not the most. Nevill was the most dangerous and the struggle proves that quite clearly.
The whole reason to use a suppressor is so that she and the boys would not be aware of anyone else being shot so that each could be taken in turn.
If she died first and police were able to figure that out then it could ruin the whole frame job.
Jeremy was concerned if police were able to figure out the order of the killings. So he was cognizant of the potential to do so and that likely played a role in his actions of shooting her last.
She was the weakest adult and on tranquilizers. She was the least threatening adult not the most. Nevill was the most dangerous and the struggle proves that quite clearly.If Ralph was the most threatening then why didn't Jeremy shoot him first in the head? Job done.
The whole reason to use a suppressor is so that she and the boys would not be aware of anyone else being shot so that each could be taken in turn.
If she died first and police were able to figure that out then it could ruin the whole frame job.
Jeremy was concerned if police were able to figure out the order of the killings. So he was cognizant of the potential to do so and that likely played a role in his actions of shooting her last.
She was the weakest adult and on tranquilizers. She was the least threatening adult not the most. Nevill was the most dangerous and the struggle proves that quite clearly.
The whole reason to use a suppressor is so that she and the boys would not be aware of anyone else being shot so that each could be taken in turn.
If she died first and police were able to figure that out then it could ruin the whole frame job.
Jeremy was concerned if police were able to figure out the order of the killings. So he was cognizant of the potential to do so and that likely played a role in his actions of shooting her last.
If Ralph was the most threatening then why didn't Jeremy shoot him first in the head? Job done.
I had no knowledge that Sheila was on tranquilizers. I thought all the pm found was traces of marijuana and Haloperidol, which to my understanding is an anti psychotic.
If Ralph was the most threatening then why didn't Jeremy shoot him first in the head? Job done.
Holoperidol is a tranquilizer that is used to treat anti-psychotics. That is why an upper countering agent is needed by those on it. This counteirng agent is what Sheila was not taking which means nothing to counter the dexterity loss, hand eye coordinaton problems and to give her any energy.
Holoperidol is a tranquilizer that is used to treat anti-psychotics. That is why an upper countering agent is needed by those on it. This counteirng agent is what Sheila was not taking which means nothing to counter the dexterity loss, hand eye coordinaton problems and to give her any energy.
Haldol can have tranquilizer effects, true, but here are the most common side effects:
Side effects
Medicines and their possible side effects can affect individual people in different ways. The following are some of the side effects that are known to be associated with this medicine. Just because a side effect is stated here does not mean that all people using this medicine will experience that or any side effect.
Very common (affect more than 1 in 10 people)
Abnormal movements of the hands, legs, face, neck and tongue, eg tremor, twitching, stiffness, rigidity, slowness or difficulty of movements (Parkinsonism or extrapyramidal effects).
Headache.
Difficulty sleeping (insomnia).
Feeling agitated.
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/brain-and-nervous-system/medicines/haldol.html
There are some indications that Sheila was up that night after her parents and sons went to bed. She had undigested food in her stomach + the state of her bed, which looks as if it was not slept in.
The tranquizing properties are not side effects they are intended effect, that is how it works. People on these drugs do not lead normal lives as you or I know it. It just enables them to be in the world instead of locked up in a hospital. Keeping them on drugs is seen as better than locked up and thus away from society altogether.
The agitation and insmnia is from the countering agents. That's why Sheila stopped taking hers. When she was on 200MG she had to have the countering agent but on 100MG she was able to do without it. She could not sleep while on 200MG but after the reduction and stopping of the countering agent that problem subsided.
Note the dexterity problems though that you chose not to highlight. Those problems would make loading a gun a chore let alone trying to land 25 of 25 shots successfully.
Good question.If that was ebay I made the same mistake. I has a colour photocopier ink for sale. It started at 99p and I forgot about it and someone got it for 99p and I had to pack it and post it whih cost me about £3 plus ebay costs. Then the bloke said he didn't receive it and demanded a refund and then asked me if I had another one. Yeah right. As if I was going to fall for that a second time.
OT - got my Colin Caffell book this weekend, can´t imagine why someone goes to the trouble of selling a book for 1p! The person still has to go trhough the trouble of packing and shipping it! Oh, well, I am happy that I got it and got it for free virtually! ;D
If that was ebay I made the same mistake. I has a colour photocopier ink for sale. It started at 99p and I forgot about it and someone got it for 99p and I had to pack it and post it whih cost me about £3 plus ebay costs. Then the bloke said he didn't receive it and demanded a refund and then asked me if I had another one. Yeah right. As if I was going to fall for that a second time.
He tried, he hit Nevill in the face 2 times but either because of Nevill moved or he wasn't the best shot these blows did not disable him as hoped. One shot a piece of his lip off and the other shattered his jaw and severed his voicebox. The shots that hit his shoulder, arm and side were obviously aimed at his chest not his arms. the shots did not land where hoped. It's not as if he did't try.The blows to his head were made downstairs. The chip from the rifle butt was found downstairs. You can't tell me he couldn't get a good aim at Ralph when he was asleep. He allegedly managed to hit the boys at close range and most of the guilty camp sai he was a good shot. Well if he was such a good shot, then one shot to his head while he was asleep would have done it. He alledgely did it with Sheila when she was awake.
The tranquizing properties are not side effects they are intended effect, that is how it works. People on these drugs do not lead normal lives as you or I know it. It just enables them to be in the world instead of locked up in a hospital. Keeping them on drugs is seen as better than locked up and thus away from society altogether.I thought you said before that the reduction from 200mg to 100 mg would make very little difference?
The agitation and insmnia is from the countering agents. That's why Sheila stopped taking hers. When she was on 200MG she had to have the countering agent but on 100MG she was able to do without it. She could not sleep while on 200MG but after the reduction and stopping of the countering agent that problem subsided.
Note the dexterity problems though that you chose not to highlight. Those problems would make loading a gun a chore let alone trying to land 25 of 25 shots successfully.
The blows to his head were made downstairs. The chip from the rifle butt was found downstairs. You can't tell me he couldn't get a good aim at Ralph when he was asleep. He allegedly managed to hit the boys at close range and most of the guilty camp sai he was a good shot. Well if he was such a good shot, then one shot to his head while he was asleep would have done it. He alledgely did it with Sheila when she was awake.
I thought you said before that the reduction from 200mg to 100 mg would make very little difference?
It makes little difference in efficacy from treating mental illness. It makes a big difference in side effects. It is not safe to stay on more than 100MG for long term health not just the side effects that affect everyday life functions. Your life expectancy decreases if you stay on more than 200MG (because it affects overall health) plus the tremors and other side effects are even more pronounced. Since the efficacy rate doesn't go up above 100MG it means there is no medical reason why someone should be prescribed more. Today those who are prescribed more are pretty much desired to be kept as vegetables in instituitions so that they workers in such institutions need not do much to take care of them.
He stood right at the foot of each bed to shoot the boys. The shots fired into the masterbedroom were all fired to the right of the bed near the door.So you disagree with the majority of guilty club members then, who state quite categorically and allegedly quote family members that he was a crack shot? You of course realise that you are contradicting David Boutflour who stated that he was a crack shot?
There is no evidence he fired a weapon anytime recently let laone was agreat shot. The surprise factor as well as shooting at close range enabled him to hit his targets but he needed so many rounds to kill them because he wasn't a good enough shot to fatally wound them right away.
Sheila not only never loaded or fired a gun before she had the added problem of her medication's side effects which cause tremors and dexterity problems. For her landing all 25 shots at all would have been difficult even considering the ranges invovled and Nevill woul dhave little reason to call Jeremy to disarm her instead of doing so himself.
It makes little difference in efficacy from treating mental illness. It makes a big difference in side effects. It is not safe to stay on more than 100MG for long term health not just the side effects that affect everyday life functions. Your life expectancy decreases if you stay on more than 200MG (because it affects overall health) plus the tremors and other side effects are even more pronounced. Since the efficacy rate doesn't go up above 100MG it means there is no medical reason why someone should be prescribed more. Today those who are prescribed more are pretty much desired to be kept as vegetables in instituitions so that they workers in such institutions need not do much to take care of them.Ah! So now you are adding to what you have said before then?
Can you provide documentation for this? I have been reading material that contradicts it - on several websites.You've got to remember Alias that he has extensive knowledge of these things, because he had a girfriend once who was a nurse. ;D
You've got to remember Alias that he has extensive knowledge of these things, because he had a girfriend once who was a nurse. ;D
It makes little difference in efficacy from treating mental illness. It makes a big difference in side effects. It is not safe to stay on more than 100MG for long term health not just the side effects that affect everyday life functions. Your life expectancy decreases if you stay on more than 200MG (because it affects overall health) plus the tremors and other side effects are even more pronounced. Since the efficacy rate doesn't go up above 100MG it means there is no medical reason why someone should be prescribed more. Today those who are prescribed more are pretty much desired to be kept as vegetables in instituitions so that they workers in such institutions need not do much to take care of them.The fact is Sheila was able to apply her make up, roll her own ciggies and and do her nails so cannot see why she couldn't fire a vermin rifle.
The fact is Sheila was able to apply her make up, roll her own ciggies and and do her nails so cannot see why she couldn't fire a vermin rifle.Well anyone can see that she was able to paint her tor and finger nails at least with no problem. This whole business about the drugs doesn't convince me at all. She didn't appear to be very drugged up when she answered the phone the evening before. I think it's all a ruse by the guilty party to steer the blame away from the person who is the reall guilty party ond on to an innocent party.
It had hardly any recoil and a child could easily use it.
I have read somewhere that Jeremy won certificates for target shooting while at Greshams.
The fact is Sheila was able to apply her make up, roll her own ciggies and and do her nails so cannot see why she couldn't fire a vermin rifle.
It had hardly any recoil and a child could easily use it.
I have read somewhere that Jeremy won certificates for target shooting while at Greshams.
Well anyone can see that she was able to paint her tor and finger nails at least with no problem. This whole business about the drugs doesn't convince me at all. She didn't appear to be very drugged up when she answered the phone the evening before. I think it's all a ruse by the guilty party to steer the blame away from the person who is the reall guilty party ond on to an innocent party.
Well anyone can see that she was able to paint her tor and finger nails at least with no problem. This whole business about the drugs doesn't convince me at all. She didn't appear to be very drugged up when she answered the phone the evening before. I think it's all a ruse by the guilty party to steer the blame away from the person who is the reall guilty party ond on to an innocent party.
The tranquizing properties are not side effects they are intended effect, that is how it works. People on these drugs do not lead normal lives as you or I know it. It just enables them to be in the world instead of locked up in a hospital. Keeping them on drugs is seen as better than locked up and thus away from society altogether.
The agitation and insmnia is from the countering agents. That's why Sheila stopped taking hers. When she was on 200MG she had to have the countering agent but on 100MG she was able to do without it. She could not sleep while on 200MG but after the reduction and stopping of the countering agent that problem subsided
Note the dexterity problems though that you chose not to highlight. Those problems would make loading a gun a chore let alone trying to land 25 of 25 shots successfully.
He was described as a 'crack shot' Maggie.Ah! But according to scipio the murderer doesn't need to be a crack shot or even a particularly good shot. Now what can we say about this contradiction within the guilty camp? ;)
Ah! But according to scipio the murderer doesn't need to be a crack shot or even a particularly good shot. Now what can we say about this contradiction within the guilty camp? ;)
Can you provide documentation for this? I have been reading material that contradicts it - on several websites.
I can point out studies in journals that you would have to pay to access. This though is what I posted the other day which is free to acess:
"Optimally effective doses appear to be around 50-100 mg/4 weeks. The use of doses above 100 mg/4 weeks is difficult to support given data available."
http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/29/3/104.full
The studies found a 2 percentage point difference in relapse rate between 100MG and 200MG. It is considered not statistically significant given the margin or error. Above 100MG requires a greater dose of a countering agent and she studies found problems caused by these agents which undercut efficacy. The countering agents are uppers so can cause agitation, insomnia and other problems that make things worse instead of better.
Here is how you are supposed to assess what to prescribe:
"Oral:
Initial dose: 0.5 to 5 mg orally 2 to 3 times a day. Maintenance dose: 1 to 30 mg/day in 2 to 3 divided doses. Daily doses of up to 100 mg have been used. Infrequently, haloperidol has been used in doses above 100 mg for severely resistant patients; however, the limited clinical usage has not demonstrated the safety of prolonged administration of such doses.
Haloperidol decanoate:
Initial dose: 10 to 15 times the previous oral daily dose intramuscularly every 3 to 4 weeks. The initial dose should not exceed 100 mg and the balance should be given in 3 to 7 days."
http://www.drugs.com/dosage/haloperidol.html
I don't know what sites you go to on the web. You need to go to medical sites that rely on journal findins if ou want accurate information about drugs. Journal articles and studies are usually relied on in court but also with them discussed by an actual expert. So even if you don't particularly like to use them since that is what courts care about their is no choice but to comb through them and discuss them when you are dealing with an issue like this in court.
I can point out studies in journals that you would have to pay to access. This though is what I posted the other day which is free to acess:
"Optimally effective doses appear to be around 50-100 mg/4 weeks. The use of doses above 100 mg/4 weeks is difficult to support given data available."
http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/29/3/104.full
The studies found a 2 percentage point difference in relapse rate between 100MG and 200MG. It is considered not statistically significant given the margin or error. Above 100MG requires a greater dose of a countering agent and she studies found problems caused by these agents which undercut efficacy. The countering agents are uppers so can cause agitation, insomnia and other problems that make things worse instead of better.
Here is how you are supposed to assess what to prescribe:
"Oral:
Initial dose: 0.5 to 5 mg orally 2 to 3 times a day. Maintenance dose: 1 to 30 mg/day in 2 to 3 divided doses. Daily doses of up to 100 mg have been used. Infrequently, haloperidol has been used in doses above 100 mg for severely resistant patients; however, the limited clinical usage has not demonstrated the safety of prolonged administration of such doses.
Haloperidol decanoate:
Initial dose: 10 to 15 times the previous oral daily dose intramuscularly every 3 to 4 weeks. The initial dose should not exceed 100 mg and the balance should be given in 3 to 7 days."
http://www.drugs.com/dosage/haloperidol.html
I don't know what sites you go to on the web. You need to go to medical sites that rely on journal findins if ou want accurate information about drugs. Journal articles and studies are usually relied on in court but also with them discussed by an actual expert. So even if you don't particularly like to use them since that is what courts care about their is no choice but to comb through them and discuss them when you are dealing with an issue like this in court.
What contradiction?Haven't you been reading my posts Caroline? The guilty camp use the fact that he Jeremy was a crack shot and that Sheils wasn't in order to prove that he was the murderer and they go on to prove he was a crack shot by saying that every shot met its target.
I can point out studies in journals that you would have to pay to access. This though is what I posted the other day which is free to acess:
"Optimally effective doses appear to be around 50-100 mg/4 weeks. The use of doses above 100 mg/4 weeks is difficult to support given data available."
http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/29/3/104.full
The studies found a 2 percentage point difference in relapse rate between 100MG and 200MG. It is considered not statistically significant given the margin or error. Above 100MG requires a greater dose of a countering agent and she studies found problems caused by these agents which undercut efficacy. The countering agents are uppers so can cause agitation, insomnia and other problems that make things worse instead of better.
Here is how you are supposed to assess what to prescribe:
"Oral:
Initial dose: 0.5 to 5 mg orally 2 to 3 times a day. Maintenance dose: 1 to 30 mg/day in 2 to 3 divided doses. Daily doses of up to 100 mg have been used. Infrequently, haloperidol has been used in doses above 100 mg for severely resistant patients; however, the limited clinical usage has not demonstrated the safety of prolonged administration of such doses.
Haloperidol decanoate:
Initial dose: 10 to 15 times the previous oral daily dose intramuscularly every 3 to 4 weeks. The initial dose should not exceed 100 mg and the balance should be given in 3 to 7 days."
http://www.drugs.com/dosage/haloperidol.html
I don't know what sites you go to on the web. You need to go to medical sites that rely on journal findins if ou want accurate information about drugs. Journal articles and studies are usually relied on in court but also with them discussed by an actual expert. So even if you don't particularly like to use them since that is what courts care about their is no choice but to comb through them and discuss them when you are dealing with an issue like this in court.
First, thanks.
Secondly, it irritates me that you feel the need to write this. I am not an idiot.
Were these the guidelines followed/understood in 1985? It occurs to me that we may have very different views on medication NOW from those we had then.
Haven't you been reading my posts Caroline? The guilty camp use the fact that he Jeremy was a crack shot and that Sheils wasn't in order to prove that he was the murderer and they go on to prove he was a crack shot by saying that every shot met its target.
But scipio says Jeremy didn't need to to be a crack shot as he missed Ralph's head and didn't kill him outright. So who is right?
that makes me absurd and you an idiot :oOf course he does because:
He obviously thinks he is some kind of higher being?
If only he got to know us - we are all so lovely . ;)
that makes me absurd and you an idiot :o
He obviously thinks he is some kind of higher being?
If only he got to know us - we are all so lovely . ;)
Well, I guess it boils down to - he was a crack shot but didn't need to be? ;D ;DWhich of course opens the way for Sheila to be the murderer of course. ;)
Which of course opens the way for Sheila to be the murderer of course. ;)
As far as I can see from what I have read, higher dosage is still used in heavier cases, where the patient´s symptoms don´t diminish on lower dosage - up to 300mg in four weeks is the highest reported. At least up to 2008.
Also, it is still very dangerous to HALVE the dose - it is extremely dangerous to do that without monitoring the patient closely. Sheila got her dose halved and was not monitored at all. She was apparently "fine" for a period of time. Haldol injections peak six days after injection, then gradually wear off - halving time about 21 days, which means that Sheila was down on a dangerous less than a quarter of effect, since her last injection had been halved.
Very, very dangerous.
Ah! But according to scipio the murderer doesn't need to be a crack shot or even a particularly good shot. Now what can we say about this contradiction within the guilty camp? ;)
Alias, I'm SO sorry, I wasn't testing YOUR knowledge, I was questioning Scipio. I have consulted a psychiatrist friend and she bears out my own assertion that it is HIGHLY DANGEROUS to quickly reduce anti psychotics. It has to be done in slow stages and monitored.
As far as I can see from what I have read, higher dosage is still used in heavier cases, where the patient´s symptoms don´t diminish on lower dosage - up to 300mg in four weeks is the highest reported. At least up to 2008.
Also, it is still very dangerous to HALVE the dose - it is extremely dangerous to do that without monitoring the patient closely. Sheila got her dose halved and was not monitored at all. She was apparently "fine" for a period of time. Haldol injections peak six days after injection, then gradually wear off - halving time about 21 days, which means that Sheila was down on a dangerous less than a quarter of effect, since her last injection had been halved.
Very, very dangerous.
Alias, it also occurs to me that if the dose was so unimportant WHY did Dr F stipulate 150mg? Arguing that 100mg is equally as effective as 200mg ISN'T the point. A consultant set the dose and a locum countermanded his decision.
I believe Dr. Ferguson stated that he was very upset by this, that he found it highly irresponsible. Which it was.
But to my knowledge, it wasn't fully explored in court. I have put questions "out there" and the response was along the lines of "ranks become closed."
Alias, I'm SO sorry, I wasn't testing YOUR knowledge, I was questioning Scipio. I have consulted a psychiatrist friend and she bears out my own assertion that it is HIGHLY DANGEROUS to quickly reduce anti psychotics. It has to be done in slow stages and monitored.Well we know that it is highly dangerous for psychotic people to reduce or stop their dose of antipsychotic drugs and one of the dangers of doing this is that it can cause suicide attempts and in some cases violent attacks on others or both
Well we know that it is highly dangerous for psychotic people to reduce or stop their dose of antipsychotic drugs and one of the dangers of doing this is that it can cause suicide attempts and in some cases violent attacks on others or both
What difference is there between a patient choosing to lower or stop their dose or a professional. All such changes in drug doses of these powerful and necessary drugs should be closely monitored for that reasons alone.
Alias, it also occurs to me that if the dose was so unimportant WHY did Dr F stipulate 150mg? Arguing that 100mg is equally as effective as 200mg ISN'T the point. A consultant set the dose and a locum countermanded his decision.
Well we know that it is highly dangerous for psychotic people to reduce or stop their dose of antipsychotic drugs and one of the dangers of doing this is that it can cause suicide attempts and in some cases violent attacks on others or both
What difference is there between a patient choosing to lower or stop their dose or a professional. All such changes in drug doses of these powerful and necessary drugs should be closely monitored for that reasons alone.
The danger is reducing it to a level that is ineffective. So they reduce it slowly and monitor to make sure that it is not reduced to a level that is not working anymore.
At the time of the murders they had no idea that anything above 100MG was essentially worthless.
Today Ferguson would not have started her out at 200MG he would have started her at 50-100 and after some time would try seeing if a 20% reduction from that point lost effectiveness or not to try to ascertain the minimum amount needed to keep her from relapsing.
Keeping someone on doasges above 100MG is not considered safe and was reduced because of the problems it and the countering agent were causing her. She was doing better after the reduction than before and the reduction was to the optimal efficacy level.
The most simplistic explanation of schizophrenia is that it caused by overactivity of dopamine in the brain. Haloperidol blocks the receptors that dopamine act upon thus preventing overactivity of dopamine in the brain. This is how it keeps psychotic illness at bay.
The goal is to find the minimum level of Haloperidol necessary to block the overactivity. It must be monitored because if you go too low then you will find it is not working and then realizeneed to go back up to the previous level. That is how you determine the ideal amount.
Since 200 MG doesn't prevent more activity than 100MG it is not really of any value so far as controlling the illness and dropping form 200G to 100MG is not going to suddenly enable overactivity to take place again.
If there is going to be withdrawal issues they would surface shortly after the time of the reduction not 3 weeks later. Haloperidol controls aggression and agitation. 100MG does so quite well. If she were going to become aggressive because of withdrawal it would not have waited until 3 weeks later for such to surface. It would not be likely anyway since 100MG is the optimal efficacy dosage.
The danger is reducing it to a level that is ineffective. So they reduce it slowly and monitor to make sure that it is not reduced to a level that is not working anymore.I understand what you are saying but this doesn't include an explanation of the effects of halving a high dose of Haloperidol without monitoring the effects on Sheila. Whatever is stated by guilters there is plenty of information to tell us Sheila was suffering from psychosis generally. She was regularly smoking cannabis which increases dopamine in various parts of the brain and creates psychosis which would interrupt the treatment of haloperidol. As the dose of haloperidol was halved and Sheila was due her next injection in a few days time the levels in her body would be low allowing the cannabis to have a stronger psychotic effect on her. I don't know but as we are making some assumptions I would assume that Sheila was possibly smoking cannabis quite heavily during her stay at the farm as she found these visits stressful, had discovered any hope of a reunion with Colin was now hopeless and her meeting with her adoptive mother shortly before had at the least been disappointing.
At the time of the murders they had no idea that anything above 100MG was essentially worthless.
Today Ferguson would not have started her out at 200MG he would have started her at 50-100 and after some time would try seeing if a 20% reduction from that point lost effectiveness or not to try to ascertain the minimum amount needed to keep her from relapsing.
Keeping someone on doasges above 100MG is not considered safe and was reduced because of the problems it and the countering agent were causing her. She was doing better after the reduction than before and the reduction was to the optimal efficacy level.
The most simplistic explanation of schizophrenia is that it caused by overactivity of dopamine in the brain. Haloperidol blocks the receptors that dopamine act upon thus preventing overactivity of dopamine in the brain. This is how it keeps psychotic illness at bay.
The goal is to find the minimum level of Haloperidol necessary to block the overactivity. It must be monitored because if you go too low then you will find it is not working and then realizeneed to go back up to the previous level. That is how you determine the ideal amount.
Since 200 MG doesn't prevent more activity than 100MG it is not really of any value so far as controlling the illness and dropping form 200G to 100MG is not going to suddenly enable overactivity to take place again.
If there is going to be withdrawal issues they would surface shortly after the time of the reduction not 3 weeks later. Haloperidol controls aggression and agitation. 100MG does so quite well. If she were going to become aggressive because of withdrawal it would not have waited until 3 weeks later for such to surface. It would not be likely anyway since 100MG is the optimal efficacy dosage.
I understand what you are saying but this doesn't include an explanation of the effects of halving a high dose of Haloperidol without monitoring the effects on Sheila. Whatever is stated by guilters there is plenty of information to tell us Sheila was suffering from psychosis generally. She was regularly smoking cannabis which increases dopamine in various parts of the brain and creates psychosis which would interrupt the treatment of haloperidol. As the dose of haloperidol was halved and Sheila was due her next injection in a few days time the levels in her body would be low allowing the cannabis to have a stronger psychotic effect on her. I don't know but as we are making some assumptions I would assume that Sheila was possibly smoking cannabis quite heavily during her stay at the farm as she found these visits stressful, had discovered any hope of a reunion with Colin was now hopeless and her meeting with her adoptive mother shortly before had at the least been disappointing.
Some of Sheila's behaviour the few days she was at the farm before they all died was a cause for concern, running screaming from the monastery, attacking a visitor to the farm and even her withdrawn and unresponsive behaviour reported by Pamela Boutflour the night of the murders are all signs of psychosis. We know June was very worried about Sheila's behaviour because she said as much to Pamela and was concerned enough to state she wanted to speak to her about it the following day.
At that time they didn't know that 100MG and 200MG had the same efficacy. At that time they didn't start off at 50MG like is typically the case today. The studies that I cited and the prescribing instructions are from well after the conviction. Science doesn't stand still so we have to always keep looking at the most modern scientific data available.
You don't need to be a crack shot to land rounds at close range. You have to be a competent shot merely. If there were 1-2 shots in each head or heart that instantly killed the victim and that was all that was needed then that would be indication of more competence than what occurred which was shots to various locations that didn't cause severe injuries so 3 plus rounds were needed for most victims.You still contradict the rest of the guilty camp. But I'll let you argue it out with them. You have just confirmed that one does not have to be able to be a good shot to kill at close range, which of course makes it possible that Sheila could have done it just as well as Jeremy. Thank you for confirming that. ;)
Nor is there any informaiton that Jeremy was a crack shot. The tesimony was that he didn't have much more interest in guns than Sheila and didn't go shooting vermin or anything else. He admitted he learned how to load and fire the murder weapon but that hardly makes him a marskman with it. He didn't even know that chambering a round is not cocking the weapon. He seems to have learned the bare minimum needed to operate it for the murders. He didn't even remember how many bullets the magazine held when questioned.
He picked a gun not because he liked them and was great with them, it was better than his fire plan. So he thought anyway, it turned out the house did have valuable antiques. Tying to start a fire without it looking like arson has its own challenges though anyway.
A knife probably would have been a better tool to suggest Sheila did it. But knives require more effort to kill, are much more personal to use and much more bloody so more chance of someone stopping you or leaving evidence behind to get caught.
Aside from no evidence Sheila would know how to use the murder weapon, she had the added problem of being on medication that made it harder for her to load and operate it. The dexterity issues make it harder to shoot straight. Being shorter she also would have been more likely to shoot in an upward trajectory if anyone were standing when shot.
These are all considerations not determinitive in saying something is impossible. They affect likelihood.
Scipio, good morning. Sorry, but you can argue your point until you're blue in the face but it is hypothetical. What is accepted now as the norm was unheard of in 1985. Further, whilst you do an excellent job of posting FACTS, you seem to ignore that we're talking about SHEILA, and whilst you tell us -constantly- that 200mg is no more effective than 100mg, you're entirely missing the point that THIS WAS NOT KNOWN so it doesn't apply AND a locum with no more knowledge of Sheila than she read -or NOT- on her notes, countermanded the directions given by a consultant.
By the way, I think the way you dismissed us on red a pretty scummy thing to to. Most of us here don't have problems with you and most of us have been courteous and welcoming even if we don't agree with you. You're not. IMO, the last word in legal knowledge and what you say is just your opinion, to which you're entitled, but it doesn't make you right.
You still contradict the rest of the guilty camp. But I'll let you argue it out with them. You have just confirmed that one does not have to be able to be a good shot to kill at close range, which of course makes it possible that Sheila could have done it just as well as Jeremy. Thank you for confirming that. ;)
I don't care what others who believe she is guilty asserts. I evaluated the evidence on my own and came to my own conclusions. I was open to the idea of his innocence, in fact I was referred to this case by someone who thinks Jeremy is innocent, but after reviewing the evidence it is clear that is not the case.In fact it was not Jeremy who as you say "exaggerated" his expertise of guns. It was the relatives and they all testified so. The question is though were they wrong and more importantly are the guilty party wrong? If they are wrong then this actually diminishes their case against him, as it is it is a sizable chunk of evidence they say goes against him.
Anyone can potentially kill someone with a gun.
Sure if I were biased I could say well according to Jeremy's testimony he was good with guns and used them frequently so he would be in a great position to land 25/25 shots. That's clearly not the case though. He exaggerated his use of guns, demonstrated he didn't know how suppressors work and didn't even know chambering a round is not cocking a gun. I choose to follow the evidence not pretend he was a skilled gunman. The killer was clearly not a skilled gunman anyway or so many shots would not have been needed for each victim and Nevill would not have been able to go downatairs and struggle with the killer over the weapon.
Sheila had 3 handicaps that Jeremy didn't. Jeremy knew how to use the weapon, though it is clear he was far from an expert and had less experience than he pretended, and Sheila's medication would give her hand/eye coordination problems making it less likely she could land 25 orf 25 shots than Jeremy could. Last it would have been easier for Nevill to disarm Sheila than to disarm Jeremy.
But none of these are determinative.
The things to look at whether it happened are the telltale signs one has fired a gun and shot someone.
Sheila's body and clothes were tested. She didn't have any back spatter from the victims or gunshot residue on her body or clothes. Nor did she have higher than normal lead levels on her hands as would apt to be the case if she loaded the rounds. She would not have been likely to wear gloves or other protective clothing and if she did it wshould have been found at WHF.
There similarly was no evidence she was involved in the kitchen struggle with Nevill. Her footprints were not in the kitchen, she didn't cut he rfeet on the broken crockery though such would have bene likely and no scratches or abrasionas on her hands though such is likely in a struggle esecially given the stock broke.
What about Jeremy did he have any evidence? We don't know because his clothing he wore that night wa snot tested nor was he instepected for wounds, abrasions or back spatter. He had the opprtunity to wear protective clothing like gloves and to dispost of them and dispose of all clothing he wore on the night of the murders and even an opportunity to wash before meeting police. He supposedly wore gloves which would explains the lack of evidence. There is no direct evidence he shot anyone but there is also an explanation for the lack of evidence.
There is no explanation for the lack of evidence against Sheila if she had been the killer.
There is evidence that he was the killer though and fired the weapon:
1) the inabiliy of Sheila to have shot herself and then put the suppressor away proves someone else shot her
2) the fact he is the only person who knew about the murders proves he is the one who had to have shot her
When you add in that Nevill would not have been able to make the call Jeremy claimed he received and other evidence of him trying to frame her it just becomes even more clear.
Scipio, good morning. Sorry, but you can argue your point until you're blue in the face but it is hypothetical. What is accepted now as the norm was unheard of in 1985. Further, whilst you do an excellent job of posting FACTS, you seem to ignore that we're talking about SHEILA, and whilst you tell us -constantly- that 200mg is no more effective than 100mg, you're entirely missing the point that THIS WAS NOT KNOWN so it doesn't apply AND a locum with no more knowledge of Sheila than she read -or NOT- on her notes, countermanded the directions given by a consultant.
By the way, I think the way you dismissed us on red a pretty scummy thing to to. Most of us here don't have problems with you and most of us have been courteous and welcoming even if we don't agree with you. You're not. IMO, the last word in legal knowledge and what you say is just your opinion, to which you're entitled, but it doesn't make you right.
It wasn't necessarily unheard of it simply wasn't the norm in 1985.Haven't seen you defeating anyone you just post long winded half informed diatribes that most on here can't be arsed reading never mind debating.
At any rate, we are not limited to using information known in 1985 nor are appeal courts and if there were ever an order of a retrial the court would not be limited to scientific knowledge from 1985.
The issue before the appeal court and if there were a new trial the trial court would be using today's medical standards.
The defense needs to find someone to establish that 100MG would be unlikely to work and that a chance of relapse would be likely to some degree using today's medical knowledge not 1985s knowledge.
The prosecution is going to use today's knowledge the same way the defense wanted to use today's knowledge of DNA. If you can't use today's knowledge to defeat the prsecution claims then you will lose. The defense needs an expert using modern standards to suggest relapse would be likely as a result of reduction from 200MG to 100MG but finding one to say it will be dififcult if not impossible and a jury hearing another expert cite various studies about how above 100MG doesn't increase efficacy is not likely to believe a defense expert even if one could be foud unless some newer data questions the findings the prosecution is using.
For saying I am not here to conquer you?
For saying I post what is legally significant that needs to be established and how one would have to go about proving such?
For saying if such evidence existed then I would have come out on the other side?
People can hold out hope of finding new crucial evidence to establish innocence but nothing presented here to date does so.
A statement from a non-witness that there were 2 bodies in the kitchen can't be used to counter the testimony of those who say there was only one. It is a lost cause.
A document that asserts a dispatcher received a call on an internal police line from a cop that attributes a quote to man and says it was relayed by his son doesn't establish that Nevill spoke to said dispatcher. Especially where the cop and dispatcher both agree they spoke to one another only. I don't care if others think it is rude or not to point out that unless the dispatcher himself changes his testimony that there is no hope of convicting anyone it occurred and that still would be contradicted by the form itself which states it was relayed by PC West and also still contradicted by the telephone company testimony so the recanting still might not even be enough.
I can lead a horse to drink but I can't make it drink. If it seems horrible that I am trying to lead a horse to drink and admitting I am doing so then so be it.
If one don't understand the arguments of the other side then it is hard to hit them head on, similarly if one doesn't understand the mindset of the appeal court or the legal standards they use then there is no
hope of swaying an appeal court.
It might sound bad to say I am trying to get people to comprehend this and thus to tailor their arguments better but it is a valid thing to do.
A number of people have admitted that their feelings of his innocence are related to him personally and the belief he could not have done it. That is not going to sway people who look at facts which doesn't merely include a sizable amount of the public but more importantly appeal judges. Only certain arguments would suffice to get his conviction overturned and there must be facts that strongly support the claims.
Instead of trying to help explain the legal considerations and what is factually needed to support same I could just spend the day trying to humiliate people and calling them names. I see no value in that. That is what people do when they have esteem problems and decide they want to build themselves up by tearing others down.
Alternatively I could blow smoke up people's butts pretending they are making arguments that could potentially change the minds of people including judges knowing full well the arguments have no legs at all but be please that while wasting time on such they are thus not considering something that could be significant.
This for me is about legal and factual considerations of the case not to make anything personal and attempt to conquer people or make fun as they are bogged down in inconsequention considerations.
In fact it was not Jeremy who as you say "exaggerated" his expertise of guns. It was the relatives and they all testified so. The question is though were they wrong
and more importantly are the guilty party wrong? If they are wrong then this actually diminishes their case against him, as it is it is a sizable chunk of evidence they say goes against him.
Personally I don't think that you have studied those relatives testimonies that speak of his expertise with guns.
Concerning the silencer. Although the court of the day accepted it as evidence nevertheless it clearly should have been rejected for the reasons I gave. Just because the court accepted it, it doesn't mean they were right. That is why I believe that this case is a moj.
What you now have to work out is whether those bullet cases found could have been fired by Sheila and not Jeremy.
As you yourself have pointed out the bullet wounds to Ralph had a downward trajectory, meaning that the shooter was on a higher level to him when he was shot.
Also the finding of part of the toenail of Sheila was found downstairs near the Aga, meaning that Sheila must have been downstairs at some time.
It wasn't necessarily unheard of it simply wasn't the norm in 1985.
At any rate, we are not limited to using information known in 1985 nor are appeal courts and if there were ever an order of a retrial the court would not be limited to scientific knowledge from 1985.
The issue before the appeal court and if there were a new trial the trial court would be using today's medical standards.
The defense needs to find someone to establish that 100MG would be unlikely to work and that a chance of relapse would be likely to some degree using today's medical knowledge not 1985s knowledge.
The prosecution is going to use today's knowledge the same way the defense wanted to use today's knowledge of DNA. If you can't use today's knowledge to defeat the prsecution claims then you will lose. The defense needs an expert using modern standards to suggest relapse would be likely as a result of reduction from 200MG to 100MG but finding one to say it will be dififcult if not impossible and a jury hearing another expert cite various studies about how above 100MG doesn't increase efficacy is not likely to believe a defense expert even if one could be foud unless some newer data questions the findings the prosecution is using.
For saying I am not here to conquer you?
For saying I post what is legally significant that needs to be established and how one would have to go about proving such?
For saying if such evidence existed then I would have come out on the other side?
People can hold out hope of finding new crucial evidence to establish innocence but nothing presented here to date does so.
A statement from a non-witness that there were 2 bodies in the kitchen can't be used to counter the testimony of those who say there was only one. It is a lost cause.
A document that asserts a dispatcher received a call on an internal police line from a cop that attributes a quote to man and says it was relayed by his son doesn't establish that Nevill spoke to said dispatcher. Especially where the cop and dispatcher both agree they spoke to one another only. I don't care if others think it is rude or not to point out that unless the dispatcher himself changes his testimony that there is no hope of convicting anyone it occurred and that still would be contradicted by the form itself which states it was relayed by PC West and also still contradicted by the telephone company testimony so the recanting still might not even be enough.
I can lead a horse to drink but I can't make it drink. If it seems horrible that I am trying to lead a horse to drink and admitting I am doing so then so be it.
If one don't understand the arguments of the other side then it is hard to hit them head on, similarly if one doesn't understand the mindset of the appeal court or the legal standards they use then there is no
hope of swaying an appeal court.
It might sound bad to say I am trying to get people to comprehend this and thus to tailor their arguments better but it is a valid thing to do.
A number of people have admitted that their feelings of his innocence are related to him personally and the belief he could not have done it. That is not going to sway people who look at facts which doesn't merely include a sizable amount of the public but more importantly appeal judges. Only certain arguments would suffice to get his conviction overturned and there must be facts that strongly support the claims.
Instead of trying to help explain the legal considerations and what is factually needed to support same I could just spend the day trying to humiliate people and calling them names. I see no value in that. That is what people do when they have esteem problems and decide they want to build themselves up by tearing others down.
Alternatively I could blow smoke up people's butts pretending they are making arguments that could potentially change the minds of people including judges knowing full well the arguments have no legs at all but be please that while wasting time on such they are thus not considering something that could be significant.
This for me is about legal and factual considerations of the case not to make anything personal and attempt to conquer people or make fun as they are bogged down in inconsequention considerations.
Morning Lookout
I guess we will never know if Taff Jones did see movement at the window maybe he would have told his wife or another officer but that will never be revealed now. :'(
Some of the things that convince me he has not been proven guilty:
Total lack of forensic evidence against Jeremy
Lack of a verifiable alibi [If he were guilty wouldn't he have asked JM to provide an alibi. After all, according to JM he was confiding in her about the murder plans all along]
Why would he take the bloody silencer down to the gun cupboard and find a box to put it in? Then, totally ignore it having ample opportunity to dispose of it later?
Why stick around at the murder scene to burn Nevilles back?
JM's very strange behavior staying with Jeremy after the murders, having the strength to identify the bodies and asking them to tell her what happened and yet breaking down in court. Her unbelievable statements about a hitman with erroneous information about how the crime was committed [Jeremy would have no reason to lie about this, and no mention of the silencer nearly giving the game away].
Sheila had motive, opportunity and the means to commit the crime.
Blood in the silencer is not conclusive.
Struggle in the kitchen is speculative.
He was about to inherit from Gran Speakman and would have inherited from his parents eventually.
JM's strong motive to lie.
How did they exaggerate his expertise? The testimony from Julie, the family and workers at the farm was that he didn't like to shoot animals and didn't even have much interest in guns so rarely did anyone see him touch a gun. Their claims are supported by his own statements where he referred to cocking the murder gun though there is nothing to cock and presumable he meant chambering a round and he erroneously claimed a sound suppressor is to stop the sonic boom caused by bullets. Nor was he aware of the capacity of the magazine. They described someone not experienced and his statements support that.I don't think that you are listening to me scipio? Aske the other members of the euphamistically termed "red" forum when they get their information that Jeremy was a crack shot. In fact they insist that he was a crack shot, as it is the backbone of their case as to why he hit the target every time. In fact it was Ann Eaton and David Boutflour who also insisted that he was a crack shot. I don't really know why you continue to challenge me on this fact. But strangely enough I myself have always held that Jeremy was NOT a crack shot. I have always been reminded by the guilty party that he was a crack shot and they have always pointed to witness statements to prove their case.
If who is wrong about what?
You have presented no legal reasons why it should not have been accepted.
Nor hads anyone produced any evidence that suggests the blood was planted there. The distribution of blood speaks to the opposite because someone planting it would likely have used a dropper or poured it in from a vial. Neither would acocunt for the distribution found by the 2 experts such blood was sprayed inside.
In addition to planting blood they would have beened to eliminate all record of any blood being found in the barrel of the weapon itself. If the suppressor had not been attached then blood would have been in the rifle.
He was slumped over the the kitchen and the shots in his head could have been delivered by someone who wasn't standing on anything.
2 of the remaining shots were too high up to have been delivered by Sheila with Nevill standing upright unless she were standing on something. (left shoulder and left jaw). The prosecution witnesses think that Jeremy was tall enough to deliver the shot with Nevill standing. I doubt that though, even for Jeremy it would not have been easy to accomplish unless he is taller than I have seen quoted.
The last 2 (lip and graze wound part of which ended up in his side and the remainder probably on the bed) could have been delivered while he was standing by either of them.
The shot that grazed his left arm (part of the fragment entered his side and landed in his abdomen) could have been delivered by either while he was standing.
As a practical matter, if Nevill were standing it would be easier for Jeremy to fire at a downward angle than it would for Sheila since she was shorter.
But she could have fired into his slumped head just as easily as Jeremy. Likewise if he was sitting upstairs then she could fired just as easily as Jeremy at the downward angle.
If anything it suggest Jeremy more than Sheila but is not conclusive. The angles do not tell us who the killer was they just tell us the location of the shooter vis a vis the victims.
The shell casings and wound tracts are more useful at figuring out which shots were delivered where than anything else.
Part of her toenail wasn't broken off and missing let alone found anywhere. Some of the varnish had rubbed off merely. A photo expert claims that atiny speck in one of the crime schene photos is a piece of varnish but his claims he could match a speck to her toenail defies belief and is not considered trustworthy. Even if a piece of varnish had chipped off in the kitchen there is no way to prove it didn't happen any of the 3 days preceeding the murders she was there 3 days. It would not establish she was in the kitchen at the time Nevill was killed.
This is the same reason the alleged gray hair on the suppressor is meaningless. Even if Nevill's hair were found on the suppressor that would not prove it got there from the murders. It was his gun, in his gun closet in his house. His hair was likely all around the place and could attach to any object innocently enough.
How did they exaggerate his expertise? The testimony from Julie, the family and workers at the farm was that he didn't like to shoot animals and didn't even have much interest in guns so rarely did anyone see him touch a gun. Their claims are supported by his own statements where he referred to cocking the murder gun though there is nothing to cock and presumable he meant chambering a round and he erroneously claimed a sound suppressor is to stop the sonic boom caused by bullets. Nor was he aware of the capacity of the magazine. They described someone not experienced and his statements support that.So you agree that all the shots to Ralph's head were delivered when he was downstairs in the chair and not upstairs as you said before? In fact it appears that ALL shots to Ralph were delivered in a downward trajectory indicating that he was definitely in a lower position to his assailant.
If who is wrong about what?
You have presented no legal reasons why it should not have been accepted.
Nor hads anyone produced any evidence that suggests the blood was planted there. The distribution of blood speaks to the opposite because someone planting it would likely have used a dropper or poured it in from a vial. Neither would acocunt for the distribution found by the 2 experts such blood was sprayed inside.
In addition to planting blood they would have beened to eliminate all record of any blood being found in the barrel of the weapon itself. If the suppressor had not been attached then blood would have been in the rifle.
He was slumped over the the kitchen and the shots in his head could have been delivered by someone who wasn't standing on anything.
2 of the remaining shots were too high up to have been delivered by Sheila with Nevill standing upright unless she were standing on something. (left shoulder and left jaw). The prosecution witnesses think that Jeremy was tall enough to deliver the shot with Nevill standing. I doubt that though, even for Jeremy it would not have been easy to accomplish unless he is taller than I have seen quoted.
The last 2 (lip and graze wound part of which ended up in his side and the remainder probably on the bed) could have been delivered while he was standing by either of them.
The shot that grazed his left arm (part of the fragment entered his side and landed in his abdomen) could have been delivered by either while he was standing.
As a practical matter, if Nevill were standing it would be easier for Jeremy to fire at a downward angle than it would for Sheila since she was shorter.
But she could have fired into his slumped head just as easily as Jeremy. Likewise if he was sitting upstairs then she could fired just as easily as Jeremy at the downward angle.
If anything it suggest Jeremy more than Sheila but is not conclusive. The angles do not tell us who the killer was they just tell us the location of the shooter vis a vis the victims.
The shell casings and wound tracts are more useful at figuring out which shots were delivered where than anything else.
Part of her toenail wasn't broken off and missing let alone found anywhere. Some of the varnish had rubbed off merely. A photo expert claims that atiny speck in one of the crime schene photos is a piece of varnish but his claims he could match a speck to her toenail defies belief and is not considered trustworthy. Even if a piece of varnish had chipped off in the kitchen there is no way to prove it didn't happen any of the 3 days preceeding the murders she was there 3 days. It would not establish she was in the kitchen at the time Nevill was killed.
This is the same reason the alleged gray hair on the suppressor is meaningless. Even if Nevill's hair were found on the suppressor that would not prove it got there from the murders. It was his gun, in his gun closet in his house. His hair was likely all around the place and could attach to any object innocently enough.
lookout we have to ask ourselves why was Taff removed from the case before his accident which resulted in his death :(
lookout I cannot understand why Taff arrested Jeremy I thought he was removed from the case because he would not change his stance and did get quite cross with the relatives when they were pestering him all the time about changing from 4 murders one suicide to 5 murders.
So you agree that all the shots to Ralph's head were delivered when he was downstairs in the chair and not upstairs as you said before?
In fact it appears that ALL shots to Ralph were delivered in a downward trajectory indicating that he was definitely in a lower position to his assailant.
Possibly one or two shots were aimed at him as he was going downstairs and perhaps turned a little to his left according to your own analysis of the scene? And seeing that those two shots again were aimed in a downward trajectory then it is possible that he was going downstairs at the time.
Moreover because ALL shots to Ralph were aimed at him in a downward trajectory wouldn't it be safe to assume that it matters not how tall the assailant was and could just as easily have been Sheila as well as Jeremy?
All there was,was the silencer and that was a fluke to begin with. It was the ideal thing to use on those who didn't know one end of a rifle from the other ( the jury ) Blind them with science--------and that's exactly what happened. One even fell asleep with boredom. Probably one of the two who thought he was innocent.
No the shot to his left shoulder and left Jaw would not be possible with him slumped over the chair. The top of his head and right sid eof his head was exposed, his left side was shielded.So in effect what you are saying is that Ralph received most of his shots in the bedroom and then ran or staggered downstairs? So using your same scenario if Sheila received her non fatal wound downstairs would she have been able to run or stagger upstairs with just one wound?
You seem desperate to say he could not have been seated in the bedroom but that is not the case.
All shots to the left side were mos tlikely delivered in the bedroom, they are all the left profile shots and there were the casings to estbalish they likely were there. Moreover, the only reasonable explanation of how Nevill got out of the bedroom and down to the kitchen is that the killer ran out of ammo. The gun held 11 rounds max and tha tis how many casings were in th ebedroom and how many shots would have been fired (7 into June, 4 into Nevill = 11)
No it doesn't. I can be shorter than you and you can be standing and I still can deliver a bullet to you that is in a downward trajectory. I simply can't do so to your head or other parts of your body that are higher than where I aim the rifle (for those parts higher than where I hold the rifle the trajectory will be up). Otherwise I have to hold the rifle higher than eye level without being able to aim and just hope I manage to hit you. Aside from when shooting over a barricade you are hiding behind or around corners I can't think of any reason someone would do that.
Who runs down the stairs away from someone with a gun with their left side facing the killer? You can't even walk that way you would have to hop and probably would fall and break your ass. If you are running away your back would be to the shooter. The easiest part of the body to aim at is the chest, it is the biggest part. If someone is running then you aim at the back, if facing you then the chest.
The head is a shot for when you are close and indeed the jaw shot was delivered less than a foot away. The shot into his side and his shoulder are the ones that were 2 feet away.
Jeremy could potentially deliver the shoulder shot while he and Nevill are both standing it is bordeline range for someone of his height. I still would would want to test it to see. Sheila was too short no way she could do so Nevill would have to have been sitting at the time fo rher to be able to deliver that shot. Obviously since the jaw shot is higher that means the same thing is true about that shot with respect to Sheila. The prosecution said that Jeremy could also fire the jaw shot with both standing. I have my doubts, there would really need to be tests done on Jeremy to see if he could do it because that is high enough that most people his height can't. There are variations in army reahc where the eyes are etc of people the same height but usally not enough to make a huge difference.
In this case it doesn't particularly matter because there is no tell tale evidence to prove he was definitely sitting or standing. If there were blood evidence that proved the wound was delivered standing that would rule out Sheila unless she were standing on something, which is unlikely. I would not concede that point if I were his attorney because you never know what the other side will try to argue. I like to be prepared to deal with any potential argument that could arise.
He would have to be sitting when shot in the jaw and shoulder for Sheils to have done it otherwise she had to stand on something. Jeremy might have been able to deliver these shots with Jeremy standing but it is more likely he would not have been able to do so and that Nevill would have been sitting.
Without actually doing a test to see exactly where Jeremy would hold the gun level I can't determine it for sure because it is a borderline case and he could potentially have a higher line of sight than others his height, he could exaggerate his height... Sheila is way off so it doesn't matter. He is, "in the ballpark" so variation could be a big deal one way or the other.
So in effect what you are saying is that Ralph received most of his shots in the bedroom and then ran or staggered downstairs? So using your same scenario if Sheila received her non fatal wound downstairs would she have been able to run or stagger upstairs with just one wound?
2nd point. So now you are trying to convince us that Sheila could not have since all his wounds were of a downward trajectory and that she was too short. But Jeremy although still too short to have shot Ralph from that angle could have exagerated his height? I see so sheila is too short to have done it and Jeremy is too short to have done it. But Jeremy alone could have exagerated his height? ::)
The last time I checked 4 is = 4 and 4/8 is half not most.I'm afraid that the confusion is of your own making.For you stated that even Jeremy would have been too short so he would have had to extend himself in order to make the downward shot. What I am asking if you have not understood it yet is why would Jeremy want to extend himself in order to shoot Ralph in a downward trajectory? In other words why would he want to shoot him on a downward direction?
According to the medical examiner the 4 wounds to the left of his body that were suffered upstairs would not have prevented him from going downstairs the kitchen. If he would not have been able to do so then the struggle in the kitchen would never have occurred.
A piece of his lip was shot off, he had a bullet in his shoulder, a graze of which part of the fragment ended up in his side and a shot to his jaw that ended up severing his voicebox. None of the se wouldns would have immobilized him right away. None of these wound would have been possible to deliver in the position his body was found in.
How would he go down the stairs so that his side profile would be directly facing a shooter at the top of the stairs? Who walks down stairs sideways? Even on purpose it would b difficult. Someone being chased by a killer would be running and that is if Nevill was running away. For all we know the killer was running and Nevill was giving chase. Nevill tried to wrestle the gun away in the kitchen so it could be either way. That is where either where he caught up with the killer or the killer caught up with him and whichever the case is he then tried to disarm the killer.
For sure the gun was out of ammo or Nevill would not have made it out of the bedroom. But for the gun being empty the killer would not have fled to the kitchen with Nevill giving chase or alternatively manage to get hrough the killer out the door to run to the kitchen with the killer giving chase.
Explain how Sheila could have fired the shot into Nevill's jaw or shoulder in a downward trajectory unless he were in a lower position viv a vis her. His jaw and the area of his shoulder are higher than where she would hold a gun level. A level shot is relatively straight. Since these locations are higher than a level shot that means if she hit such locations and he were standing and she were standing on the same level as him then the shots would be upwards. What is confusing about this? It is not rocket science.
So other than if he was sitting or she were standing on something, explain how such could occur.
I'm afraid that the confusion is of your own making.For you stated that even Jeremy would have been too short so he would have had to extend himself in order to make the downward shot. What I am asking if you have not understood it yet is why would Jeremy want to extend himself in order to shoot Ralph in a downward trajectory? In other words why would he want to shoot him on a downward direction?
The prosecution witnesses say he could have fired the shots standing on the same level as Nevill.Abby from NCIS would solve it. ;)
I PERSONALLY have my doubts. It could be possible it might not. Sheila's not in the ballpark even. He's in the ballpark but that doesn't make it definite. I still think it more likely he would have been too low for the jaw shot in particular but the coroner said otherwise.
This is one of those things where I would want exact measurements to test it to see. The defense didn't do it because it was not cruicial to the case. Suppose there were absolute proof that Nevill had to have been standing during the jaw shot. If Jeremy could do the shot standing with the down trajectory but not Sheila then this is strong evidence Jeremy more likely was th eshooter because why would she stand on a chair? In that case the defense would want to try to see if a defense expert could determine otherwise. But because it didn't really matter the defense made no effort to challenge the point by having an expert test the claim.
So at the end of the day I can't say he would not have been able to but I have my doubts and can't say he definitely would just because the prosecution claimed it. The prosecution expert didn't seem to analyze him to see where he would hold a gun level so...
The only way to know for sure would be to do exact measurments of where the rifle would be level for him.
Having read Scipios posts about the back spatter, I can now appreciate that this is a more damning piece of evidence, than I had hitherto appreciated.
As Scipio explains, it would have been almost impossible for relatives or Police to have artificially manufactured this evidence.
Are we all agreed that it's been proved beyond doubt, that the blood in the silencer was human?
Having read Scipios posts about the back spatter, I can now appreciate that this is a more damning piece of evidence, than I had hitherto appreciated.There is nothing in any report which talks about the way the blood found its way onto the baffles of the silencer. All they spoke about was blood found up to the 8th baffle. It could easily be duplicated by anyone. It is only scipio who has made it look as if they had to be precision experts with an airbrush or something similar.
As Scipio explains, it would have been almost impossible for relatives or Police to have artificially manufactured this evidence.
Are we all agreed that it's been proved beyond doubt, that the blood in the silencer was human?
There is nothing in any report which talks about the way the blood found its way onto the baffles of the silencer. All they spoke about was blood found up to the 8th baffle. It could easily be duplicated by anyone. It is only scipio who has made it look as if they had to be precision experts with an airbrush or something similar.Good post Grahame.
But as I explained earlier it should never have reached the courts as evidence. Also we must consider the possibility that the blood was RWB's, as he had the same blood group as Sheila. I'm not saying that it was. But that it could have been.
Why do I say that? Because the silencer was handled by so many people before it got to the lab that it should never have been considered as evidence.
But there is another reason to consider. Since everyone of the family knew how to get into the house without a key (not only Jeremy knew this) how can we be certain that the silencer was planted on a previous night?
I'm probably wrong? I hope I am wrong. Ann Eaton in her statement seems to be sincere when she said that it was put in a wardrobe in her room and was not touched until collected by the police officer.
But wouldn't it have silenced much speculation to have done the correct thing and just left it in situ? Unfortunately as soon ad DB touched it, there was a possibility that it became contaminated and therefore useless as evidence?
Good post Grahame.Or maybe we're not!
We are talking about spatter, minute flecks of blood, rather than droplets of blood.
How could RWB's blood spatter have got into the silencer?
I agree, the handling of the silencer left it wide open to contamination, it doesn't, however, explain how Sheila's blood spatter got into the thing.
Having read Scipios posts about the back spatter, I can now appreciate that this is a more damning piece of evidence, than I had hitherto appreciated.
As Scipio explains, it would have been almost impossible for relatives or Police to have artificially manufactured this evidence.
Are we all agreed that it's been proved beyond doubt, that the blood in the silencer was human?
I am going to ask a stupid question.
is there any chance that SC could have tried to kill herself with the moderator on - it did not work - so she took it off , flung it down and then tried again.
The police found the moderator but did not treat it as an exhibit ( because case was closed) then later had to get a cover story for their incompetence?
the reason I ask is :
1)the post from Roch about the whole history of various moderators and when they were found
2)It seems no more incredible than JB putting the moderator in a box in the cupboard for the police to find
3) it would explain the different size wounds?
4) It sould not be used as evidence if the police had taken it and not recorded it properly
5) the family would go along with the story if they thought it would seal JB conviction?
But also as a different angle the expert that Mat linked to said it was not impossible that it was animal blood and he thought that even if it was the assumption of blood group A was not correct.
I am going to ask a stupid question.But would it explain why the x-ray of her neck showed a shattered bullet, but the bullet produced in court was a whole bullet? Somehow the shattered bullet was transformed into a whole one.
is there any chance that SC could have tried to kill herself with the moderator on - it did not work - so she took it off , flung it down and then tried again.
The police found the moderator but did not treat it as an exhibit ( because case was closed) then later had to get a cover story for their incompetence?
the reason I ask is :
1)the post from Roch about the whole history of various moderators and when they were found
2)It seems no more incredible than JB putting the moderator in a box in the cupboard for the police to find
3) it would explain the different size wounds?
4) It sould not be used as evidence if the police had taken it and not recorded it properly
5) the family would go along with the story if they thought it would seal JB conviction?
But also as a different angle the expert that Mat linked to said it was not impossible that it was animal blood and he thought that even if it was the assumption of blood group A was not correct.
I am going to ask a stupid question.
is there any chance that SC could have tried to kill herself with the moderator on - it did not work - so she took it off , flung it down and then tried again.
The police found the moderator but did not treat it as an exhibit ( because case was closed) then later had to get a cover story for their incompetence?
the reason I ask is :
1)the post from Roch about the whole history of various moderators and when they were found
2)It seems no more incredible than JB putting the moderator in a box in the cupboard for the police to find
3) it would explain the different size wounds?
4) It sould not be used as evidence if the police had taken it and not recorded it properly
5) the family would go along with the story if they thought it would seal JB conviction?
But also as a different angle the expert that Mat linked to said it was not impossible that it was animal blood and he thought that even if it was the assumption of blood group A was not correct.
The first shot was less likely to result in drawback than the second, the first would have more likely resulted in back spatter on the weapon than inside the weapon.I would really like to see a demonstration of that with a .22 rifle. I know it does happen with a more powerful weapon. But before I accept that I really think I'd like to see that for myself. Now who can we get to volunteer? (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-think005.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
The same reach problems as far as pulling the trigger exist either way.
A majority of the time when the first shot fails in a suicie attempt a different location entirely is selected for firing the weapon. She would be more likely to change the location than to removed the suppressor to try again.
The only plausible way to fire with the suppressor attached is possibly with her toe. Whether she wa sin fact tall enough to do tha tis unclear but in some cases the toes have been used for long rifles. But that entails standing up and stepping on the trigger. She was not shot standing up so that is not much of a possibility. She was sitting up based on the bleeding pattern.
It is also unlikely anyone would find the suppressor by her and not recognize it had some relation to the crime.
I know I bring up a lot of different considerations but that is exactly why there are so many different experts consulted in cases like this.
When the bullet enters the cavity of the mouth pressure is released.
Or blow the back of your head off. But with this .22 rifle it wasn't that powerful to send the bullet through the back of the skull. Instead it lodged against the skull at the top of the head and unshattered. As I said I have yet to have it demonstrated to me that backspatter can be created with such a gun with this small calibre. But not only the calibre, but the power as well. I know you can get high powered .22 guns. But this weapon was not that powerful so as to send the bullet through the skull even with the contact shot it appears?
So you'd get drawback ?
here is the timeline again- that is from documented evidence
That's an interesting interpretation and one that is not entirely unreasonable. However, just to put things in perspective regarding the silencer:
7th August:
WHF Incident occurs.
9th August Also see 16th & 17th September near bottom
DS Neil Davison tests a silencer for finger prints. [Davidson was the exhibits officer. During COLP interviewing, Davidson informed a Superintendent McKay that he was not aware the family had found a silencer. He was also questioned by COLP about 'the second silencer'].
10th September:
Pargeter recounts to police about his earlier advice to David Boutflour, that David 'return' the silencer to police after having discovered some time after 10th August from David him self, that the silencer had been 'returned' to the family (presumably by police).
11th September:
Police telephone message detailed from David Boutflour, stating he has found silencer with blood on it (and) silencer was in cardboard box in downstairs office.
11th September:
Police action report details a DC Oakley as attending Ann Eaton’s house. It states that he picked up (exhibit) AE/1 and ‘a silencer,’ which he then referred to SOCO DCI Wright, based at Chelmsford Police Station. [It was asserted at trial in 1986 that the silencer was handed to an Essex Police Officer, DS Jones, on 12th August 1985 by Ann Eaton].
11th September:
DC 769 Oakey (different from above officer) visited WHF and collected telescopic sights DRB/2 and Eley Bullets DRB/3. Oakley made his statement about this on 25th October. [So EP sent two separate officers to WHF, one called Oakley and one called Oakey, on the same day 11th Sept., to collect different exhibits, all of which are alleged to have been found in gun cupboard over one month earlier on 10th Aug].
12th September:
David Boutflour in his statement says he "informed the police of the finding of the telescopic sight and sound moderator".
12th September:
Anne Eaton in her statement mentions (for the first time) that a silencer had been found (one month earlier) on August 10th by David Boutflour. [Ann Eaton’s reply during COLP questioning: “The only silencer found to my knowledge was the one found by my brother David. There never has been any other silencer found at White House Farm”].
16th September:
ACC Simpson issues the following statement to The Essex gazette, which was then retracted:
‘Although a silencer was found shortly after police broke into the house, a few hours after the killings on 7th August 1985, it was not until after enquiries were reopened that this was regarded as significant,’
17th September:
ACC Simpson issues the following statement to The Mirror, which was then retracted:
‘A heavily bloodstained silencer was found by the police hours after the gruesome massacre,’ in addition, ‘Police discovered a blood stained gun silencer at the farm on the day of the massacre.’