Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on May 27, 2014, 07:24:PM
-
People here post articles that insist Sheila is guilty based on her mental illness and little more. Likewise many people here suggest the same thing.
Sheila has mental illness she must have done it even though there is no physical or forensic evidence at all to suggest she did. Great effort is put into her mental state to try to find away to insist her mental state alone proves she did it.
Many of these same people though insist Jeremy did not get a failr trial because he was convicted without any forensic evidence proving he did it.
Anyone who feels that it would be fair to convict Sheila under the following facts have no cause at all to complain about Jeremy's conviction.
Fact pattern:
Workers show up at WHF and find the place locked up. They enter through a window to try to find out why Nevill is not working and has not opened the house for work yet. They find him dead in the kitchen and then go around the house finding the other victims. Sheila is the only one not dead she is still breathing though she suffered serious wounds and is in a coma. The murder weapon was dumped on her body. She eventually recovers and asserts that someone wearing a hood attached them. From the body shape she thinks it was Jeremy but because of her injury it is a blur and she is not positive.
Police do no believe her and try her for murder.
The prosecution case asserts:
1) she had known mental problems and back in 1983 she indicated that before she was treated she felt she could project evil on her children and had some suicidal thoughts.
2) That she had relapses and was in and out of treatment
3) that the night of the murders Nevill spoke to her about having the kids in part-time foster care. She had little reaction and simply stated she would rather stay in London. The prosecution posits she became angry the more she thought about it and decided to kill everyone including herself
4) the prosecution states that the gun was found top of her sand Jeremy claims she was him load a magazine so she knew how to use the weapon and is the one who did it.
The defense counters with the following:
1) She responded well to treatment and did not have delusions about her family anymore or discuss suicide anymore according the the prosecution's own witnesses- her doctors
2) Her relapses occurred when she stopped taking her medication and/or was high on narcotics. She transitioned to injections precisely so she no longer could skip her medication and was not high on any narcotics the night of the murders based on toxicologgy tests. The dosage she was on was the highests safe level and optimal efficacy level. There therefore is no reaosn that she would have relapsed or had delusions the night of the murder
3) The alleged motive to kill her family and commit suicide makes no sense. Her husband testifies how she had shown little interest in caring for the kids and they told him that she would be in her own world and ignore them when they were with her. Her doctor testifies how she welcomed part time care in the past and would have been likely to appreciate it again and would not have been likely to respond in a negative manner let alone a violent one. Even in 1983 he didn't believe she was a threat to harm anyone or commit suicide and he doesn't think she is a harm now he doesn't believe she tried to kill anyone or herself. In her most recent stay at the hospital she didn't mention her family at all she had a problem with Freddie who she viewed as the devil. He was corrupting her with drugs and the like and she thus viewed him as the devil. She thus had absolutely no motive to kill her family. Jeremy had a motive to kill everyone- to inherit the estate.
4) There was no GSR or blood from any of the victims found on her clothing or body. Nor was there any elevated levels of lead on her hands as would be the case if she had loaded the gun. Nor did she have any broken nails or injuries as would be the case from the struggle with Nevill and loading the bullets very fast. In fact all witnesses agree they have not seen her fire a weapon let alone the murder weapon. Jeremy originally told police she fired all wepaons in the house but he retracted the claim. Sheila says tha this claim he loaded a magazine in front of her was a lie and that he didn't get the murder weapon out before leaving. She says that she has no idea how to load the gun or operate it. After being explained how to load it she indicates she had no idea it needs to have a round fed inside first before you pull the trigger let alone how to chamber a round.
5) She can't remember if the suppressor was attached or not to the gun when it was fired at her. Experts testify that the second wound which immediately sent her into a coma was a contact wound and would have sent spatter into the muzzle of the weapon or if the suppressor had been used then into the suppressor. Both the prosecution and defense experts found group A blood inside. The defense expert found microscopic drops on the first 8 baffles and this is consistent with high velocity spatter. Nothing except high velocity spatter would explain this blood. Sheila is the only victim with group A blood. Thus the experts insist it had been attached and put away by the murderer and that she can't have done it since she was immediately unconscious. Moreover there is evidence that the suppressor was attached during the struggle in the kitchen. With the suppressor attached the gun was tall enough to break the ceiling lamp shade while Nevill and his killer struggled over it and it also scratched underneath the aga as they wrestled over it. Therefore it was used and likely still attached as Sheila was shot.
6) Experts also testify blood on Sheila's body indicates she was shot sitting up and then was dragged flat very soon afterwards. She had to be leaning up against something or would have fallen over immediately and would not have dripped blood in her lap and down her arm. She could not have moved down herself while in a coma someone had to move her body quite soon after she was shot. So someone else had to be there to do it.
6) Experts testify that the bible was dropped in a pool of her blood then closed then reopened before the blood could dry. Sheila was passed out so could not have done it, someone else had to be present to do this.
7) Julie testifies that Jeremy had talked to her for a long time about killing his family and announced around 10PM the night before that it was tonight or never and after the bodies were found he indicated he had hired a hitman to do it and told her details about the murders even though police had not revealed such details to him at the time he supposedly told them to Julie.
The defense asserts there is no evidence she shot or beat any of the victims, no evidence she shot herself and in fact evidence she can't have shot herself someone else had to be there to put the suppressor away, move her body and opena nd close the bible. There is no reason she would have had delusions her medicine was working and the last people to talk to her said she was calm including Jeremy. She had no motive to kill anyone but Jeremy did and he even lied to police about various things to make her look guilty. Someone framed her and it likely was him because he had motive and opportunity, he had no alibi, claims to have been at home sleeping alone and he admitted to Julie he was responsible after announcing hours before he was going to do it.
I fail to see how anyone can argue that Sheila definitely did it under these circumstances. The main thing I changed was her living to be prosecuted not anything significant in terms of evidence. The same exact evidence the prosecution used against her is the same that those here who argue in favor of her guilt use against her. The evidence in her favor is the same evidence the prosecution used in real life against Jeremy. This illustrates how the arguments work on the flip side.
It is hard to claim Sheila definitely did it and should have been convicted had she lived. Just because she died doesn't mean people who want her to be guilty have less of a burden to establish it. There is a double standard as far as proving her guilt becuase people want Jeremy to be innocent and she has to be guilty for that to be true so they overlook the absence of evidence that killed anyone and worse ignore the evidence that proves she can't have killed herself by insisting police staged all such evidence and everyone was lying except Jeremy. It is hard to see objectivity in those claiming such.
-
Could you narrow this down a little bit please ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
if jeremys innocent that doesnt for a fact prove sheila is guilty.
most likely suspect maybe but it doesnt make her guilty beyound reasonable doubt.
-
Could you narrow this down a little bit please ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Nope the fact pattern includes the prosecution case against her and the defense case.
When the claims that were used against Jeremy are used for her defense they take on a new light.
It will be interesting to see who argues still that she is guilty based on her mental condition alone let alone in spite of the evidence that suggests she can't have shot herself.
-
Nope the fact pattern includes the prosecution case against her and the defense case.
When the claims that were used against Jeremy are used for her defense they take on a new light.
It will be interesting to see who argues still that she is guilty based on her mental condition alone let alone in spite of the evidence that suggests she can't have shot herself.
Scorpio I hate saying this but, who said what to who is totally irrelevant. There is no proof of what Jeremy said like there is no proof what anyone said prior to the killings. What someone is supposed to have said cannot be used and is unsafe to use it as concrete evidence.
What I fail to see is facts, facts that are supported by evidence and sincere documentation. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Scorpio I hate saying this but, who said what to who is totally irrelevant. There is no proof of what Jeremy said like there is no proof what anyone said prior to the killings. What someone is supposed to have said cannot be used and is unsafe to use it as concrete evidence.
What I fail to see is facts, facts that are supported by evidence and sincere documentation. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I hate to tell you this but you are wrong factually and legally.
A statement against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule. Telling someone you would like to commit a crime and why and that you did so are admissible even though you wish that were not the case. This legally it can indeed be used as proof and outside of court the same principle holds true.
In the case at hand though Sheila's claims are working for creating reasonable doubt.
I realize you are as biased as can be but this thread is about the hypocrisy of many Jeremy supporters as well as the complete lack of evidence against Sheila.
As we speak there are threads galore about notes that no one has any evidence Sheila wrote but that are being deciphered in an attempt to suggest these notes demonstrate how crazy she was and therefore she must be guilty. Instead of trying her on evidence people are trying her on mental state of mind alone precisely because there is no evidence of her guilt.
I have layed out what evidence has been used to try to suggest she is guilty and the evidence that disputes that.
Many of the same people clammoring for justice and insisting there are so many cases of defendants being railroaded support railroading Sheila. It is quite the pathetic spectacle.
The funny part is that I doubt the hypocrites will ever owe up to it and will continue to claim the evidence against her is strong evne though there is less evidence than in the cases they complained about as MOJs.
-
My answer is NO.
-
My answer is NO.
You win a cupie doll, they are fun to run over by the way
-
You win a cupie doll, they are fun to run over by the way
Run over ? What's that supposed to mean ?
-
Run over ? What's that supposed to mean ?
I think he is resorting to sarcasm. :)
-
I hate to tell you this but you are wrong factually and legally.
A statement against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule. Telling someone you would like to commit a crime and why and that you did so are admissible even though you wish that were not the case. This legally it can indeed be used as proof and outside of court the same principle holds true.
In the case at hand though Sheila's claims are working for creating reasonable doubt.
I realize you are as biased as can be but this thread is about the hypocrisy of many Jeremy supporters as well as the complete lack of evidence against Sheila.
As we speak there are threads galore about notes that no one has any evidence Sheila wrote but that are being deciphered in an attempt to suggest these notes demonstrate how crazy she was and therefore she must be guilty. Instead of trying her on evidence people are trying her on mental state of mind alone precisely because there is no evidence of her guilt.
I have layed out what evidence has been used to try to suggest she is guilty and the evidence that disputes that.
Many of the same people clammoring for justice and insisting there are so many cases of defendants being railroaded support railroading Sheila. It is quite the pathetic spectacle.
The funny part is that I doubt the hypocrites will ever owe up to it and will continue to claim the evidence against her is strong evne though there is less evidence than in the cases they complained about as MOJs.
Telling someone that they could kill their parents is one thing, but proving that that person carried it out is another.
It is my opinion that neither Sheila or Jeremy is proved beyond my doubt that they either of them carried this horrendous crime out.
The only sceptical Scorpio is that people wont dig enough to find the real truth of what happened that night. OK Jeremy is convicted of the murders, he is guilty in the eyes of the law. There is no doubt about that.
Had the series of events leading up to, and after the murders been documented correctly and all forensic evidence gathered and thoroughly examined then we would not be here today discussing it.
I personally doubt a jury of today would convict Jeremy based on what the CPS gave them in 1985.
When you examine the case fully there is more flaws in it than a farmers colander.
1. No forensic evidence exists to place Jeremy at the scene. No fibres, no prints, no break in, no evidence found at his home, in his car, on his clothes....
No killer can be so squeaky clean both at the crime scene and home....nearly all killers leave a trace.
Please. I hope you don't mean I am a hypocrite? I seek the truth, I don't blaspheme those who think he guilty..
It takes a strong person and a reasonable one to have a good debate without the name calling.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I think he is resorting to sarcasm. :)
I couldn't expect anything else,really. Being that it's the lowest form of wit. ???
-
Telling someone that they could kill their parents is one thing, but proving that that person carried it out is another.
It is my opinion that neither Sheila or Jeremy is proved beyond my doubt that they either of them carried this horrendous crime out.
The only sceptical Scorpio is that people wont dig enough to find the real truth of what happened that night. OK Jeremy is convicted of the murders, he is guilty in the eyes of the law. There is no doubt about that.
Had the series of events leading up to, and after the murders been documented correctly and all forensic evidence gathered and thoroughly examined then we would not be here today discussing it.
I personally doubt a jury of today would convict Jeremy based on what the CPS gave them in 1985.
When you examine the case fully there is more flaws in it than a farmers colander.
1. No forensic evidence exists to place Jeremy at the scene. No fibres, no prints, no break in, no evidence found at his home, in his car, on his clothes....
No killer can be so squeaky clean both at the crime scene and home....nearly all killers leave a trace.
Please. I hope you don't mean I am a hypocrite? I seek the truth, I don't blaspheme those who think he guilty..
It takes a strong person and a reasonable one to have a good debate without the name calling.
;D ;D ;D ;D
How well you put it!
-
Run over ? What's that supposed to mean ?
With a car, cupie dolls are ugly things that are considered worthless but are fun to break/destroy in creative ways
-
With a car, cupie dolls are ugly things that are considered worthless but are fun to break/destroy in creative ways
Yeah,,,like when I wring a cloth out and imagine it's somebodys' neck !
-
A statement against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule. Telling someone you would like to commit a crime and why and that you did so are admissible even though you wish that were not the case. This legally it can indeed be used as proof and outside of court the same principle holds true.
not if he never actually said those words - and the person was not telling the whole truth.
Because they were jilted
Because they were offered money by the N.O.W ( and then promptly said he never admitted his guilt)
Because they were convinced by the 30 plus interviews with the police that he was guilty and they were part of the "noble cause"
They were perhaps "embellishing" some odd comments that had been made in the heat of the moment but were twisted to Suit the "cause "
etc etc etc.
BTW my boss had better look out , he seriously seriously threatened to kill a member of a staff the other day - in front of 5 witnesses . And I am not joking - it was scary.
-
Run over.... THIS??? WHY?
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/3a/b1/ea/3ab1eacc6dff6b402ed95aba97ce04bd.jpg)
-
A statement against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule. Telling someone you would like to commit a crime and why and that you did so are admissible even though you wish that were not the case. This legally it can indeed be used as proof and outside of court the same principle holds true.
not if he never actually said those words - and the person was not telling the whole truth.
Because they were jilted
Because they were offered money by the N.O.W ( and then promptly said he never admitted his guilt)
Because they were convinced by the 30 plus interviews with the police that he was guilty and they were part of the "noble cause"
They were perhaps "embellishing" some odd comments that had been made in the heat of the moment but were twisted to Suit the "cause "
etc etc etc.
BTW my boss had better look out , he seriously seriously threatened to kill a member of a staff the other day - in front of 5 witnesses . And I am not joking - it was scary.
You know what they say about some bosses,Jansus !
-
A statement against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule. Telling someone you would like to commit a crime and why and that you did so are admissible even though you wish that were not the case. This legally it can indeed be used as proof and outside of court the same principle holds true.
not if he never actually said those words - and the person was not telling the whole truth.
Because they were jilted
Because they were offered money by the N.O.W ( and then promptly said he never admitted his guilt)
Because they were convinced by the 30 plus interviews with the police that he was guilty and they were part of the "noble cause"
They were perhaps "embellishing" some odd comments that had been made in the heat of the moment but were twisted to Suit the "cause "
etc etc etc.
BTW my boss had better look out , he seriously seriously threatened to kill a member of a staff the other day - in front of 5 witnesses . And I am not joking - it was scary.
We have gone over this several times.
Jeremy was also offerred money by the NOTW. He accepted but complained it was not enough.
Julie had no idea a NOTW offer would be forthcoming when she bravely approached the police.
It is inconceivable Julie would tell such serious lies for such a trivial reason. There is dispute whether Julie was jilted. Anyway scorned woman are just as likely to tell the truth.
Julie has never said Jeremy did it. Just said about Jeremys hatred, resentment & plans. Then said Jeremy said Matthew Mcdonald was hired.
-
Telling someone that they could kill their parents is one thing, but proving that that person carried it out is another.
It is my opinion that neither Sheila or Jeremy is proved beyond my doubt that they either of them carried this horrendous crime out.
The only sceptical Scorpio is that people wont dig enough to find the real truth of what happened that night. OK Jeremy is convicted of the murders, he is guilty in the eyes of the law. There is no doubt about that.
Had the series of events leading up to, and after the murders been documented correctly and all forensic evidence gathered and thoroughly examined then we would not be here today discussing it.
I personally doubt a jury of today would convict Jeremy based on what the CPS gave them in 1985.
When you examine the case fully there is more flaws in it than a farmers colander.
1. No forensic evidence exists to place Jeremy at the scene. No fibres, no prints, no break in, no evidence found at his home, in his car, on his clothes....
No killer can be so squeaky clean both at the crime scene and home....nearly all killers leave a trace.
Please. I hope you don't mean I am a hypocrite? I seek the truth, I don't blaspheme those who think he guilty..
It takes a strong person and a reasonable one to have a good debate without the name calling.
;D ;D ;D ;D
I don't believe for 1 second that those here insisting he is innocent and the evidence is flawed would have different views if police had crossed their ts and dotted their Is better.
Those who insist he is innocent look for any excuse int he world to try to pretend the evidence is not reliable and to ignore it.
There is nothing at all to suggest the suppressor evidence was planted and it would have taken an extraordinary effort to do so. The claim that people would believe the suppressor evidence if there were more police documents is disingenuine. You are unwilling to accept the testimony of the police on the issue though they were questioned more than twice after the murders and gave staements before the murders. Choosing not to trust them has nothing to do with them having too many people and how they handled it. It has to do with wanting to believe Jeremy is innocent and making any excuse in the world to pretend that is possible.
The truth is that anyone planting blood would have used a dropper or a vial not to have sprayed blood inside.
Only the lab would have had the skill to plant the evidence in the manner it was distributed not the family and not police. only the lab would have been able to conceal evidence found in the rifle as well because if the rifle were used it would have had back spatter in it.
There has NEVER been a documented case of a lab planting back spatter in a weapon. WHat is described as the worst MOJ in UK history involved the prosecution failing to disclose the existence of semen on a victim because the defendat was incapable of productng sperm. So not even the worst documented MOJ involved planting blood let alone back spatter in a weapon. Intentional lab wrongdoing is rare but there are no cases of any grand conspiracies between labs and police.
If police were going to plant evidence and lie they had no need at all to involve the fmaily. They could just pretend they took the suppressor the first day if they wanted. If the guy filling the forms out was in on it as alleged then he could simply have falsified a form. There was no need to pretend the family found it.
Cop after cop said they saw no significance in the suppressor even after it was collected. It took the lab to understand the significance if there were group A blood inside. Yet you claim police should have been able to know it's significance.
The attacks on the suppressor are contrived plain and simple the same way excuse after excuse is made to try to pretend Jeremy could have received a call from Nevill.
There is nothing police could have done to Sheila's body to affect how her body proves she didn't kill herself.
Sheila was sitting up leaning against something when she was shot that is the only way blood could have gotten on her arm and gown the way it did. If she were not sitting up the blood could not have gotten there and if she had not been sitting against something she would have fell backwards and been flat so the blood would not have gotten there.
She wasn't sitting up for long though, shortly after being shot she was moved flat to the location where police found her. The blood pool indicates such and so does the blood running down the side of her neck. She died seated but someone moved her flat shortly after she was shot.
She was long dead before police moved her body they can't possibly have caused the blood pool or blood down the side of he rneck.
So the complains about their shoddy work have nothing at all to do with the evenidence that proves she didn't kill herself.
The reason why peopel insist it doe sis because they want desperately to believe in Jeremy's innocence.
People believe police, family and Julie lied and framed Jeremy not because ther eis any evidence to suggest it but rather because they want desperately to believe Jeremy didn't do it and in order for him to be innocent the lab, police , family and Julie all had to frame him in a vast conspiracy.
Don't insult my intelligence trying to tell me that this vast conspiracy is suppsecte dbecause of the sloppy job police did. People who want to believe in this conspiracy grasp at any straw possible to try to pretend it happened and the sloppy police work is one of those straws.
People who doubt his guilt do so not because of the evidence leads them to believe such they refuse to believe police testimony and the evidence no matter what simply because they want Jeremy to be inocent.
The same way 9/11 conspiracy theorists decided what they want to believe before reviwing any evidence and decide to believe regardless of the evidence that proves them wrong.
-
A statement against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule. Telling someone you would like to commit a crime and why and that you did so are admissible even though you wish that were not the case. This legally it can indeed be used as proof and outside of court the same principle holds true.
not if he never actually said those words - and the person was not telling the whole truth.
Because they were jilted
Because they were offered money by the N.O.W ( and then promptly said he never admitted his guilt)
Because they were convinced by the 30 plus interviews with the police that he was guilty and they were part of the "noble cause"
They were perhaps "embellishing" some odd comments that had been made in the heat of the moment but were twisted to Suit the "cause "
etc etc etc.
The trier of fact decides whether to believe the claim it is admissible and if credible can be very powerful evidence.
BTW my boss had better look out , he seriously seriously threatened to kill a member of a staff the other day - in front of 5 witnesses . And I am not joking - it was scary.
The staff member better be careful because you never know. Some peopel who make threats actually follow through. I witnessed a guy run over his exgirlfriend and stab her to death and he did so right in front of her little girl, the car just missed her. They were walking from the grocery store and the wagon protected the girl. The guy waited for cops to get him he didn't run either. You never know.
He also better watchout because if anyone hates him or the boss enough the person could kill him and frame the boss. The witnesses could indeed testify about his threat.
Unless you are saying that in jest and everyone knows it not wise at all. Plus just making the threat can constitute a crime and could even be sued for civil damages in some instances including hostile work environment.
Did the guy do anything to deserve it? I have gotten death threats over stupid things neve ranything good.
-
We have gone over this several times.
Jeremy was also offerred money by the NOTW. He accepted but complained it was not enough.
Julie had no idea a NOTW offer would be forthcoming when she bravely approached the police.
It is inconceivable Julie would tell such serious lies for such a trivial reason. There is dispute whether Julie was jilted. Anyway scorned woman are just as likely to tell the truth.
Julie has never said Jeremy did it. Just said about Jeremys hatred, resentment & plans. Then said Jeremy said Matthew Mcdonald was hired.
you have got a cheek .you repeat things more than anyone. It is not relevant that Jeremy got offered a deal .It was not exactly going to influence his testimony was it? And she said in her statement on the night .She laid in bed and she knew he had done it. Not a hit man but him.
-
I knew I was in for a big one lol
We can argue points all day long about the same old thing and I'm afraid I'm not going to lured into that.
Do you rattle a lot in real life? lol
Take care Scopio.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Firstly,,I believed in 9/11. I don't do theories..I'm not looking for excuses for his innocence for as far as I'm concerned,he could be absolutely anyone who is seeking to find justice,,and I would do all I could,,no matter who they were,,to try and help in some way.
You can't just jump in feet first like everyone else did,,on the say-so of others,,as this is exactly what's happened and resulted in an unfair trial.
-
Run over.... THIS??? WHY?
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/3a/b1/ea/3ab1eacc6dff6b402ed95aba97ce04bd.jpg)
how can you not think it is an ugly, annoying thing? It is asking for a beating.
-
you have got a cheek .you repeat things more than anyone. It is not relevant that Jeremy got offered a deal .It was not exactly going to influence his testimony was it? And she said in her statement on the night .She laid in bed and she knew he had done it. Not a hit man but him.
and she stayed with him for a little while after so what does that say about her? It astonishes me how people can stand by someone knowing they killed someone. It happens a lot but is still incomprehendable.
-
how can you not think it is an ugly, annoying thing? It is asking for a beating.
I guess I have a mean streak - I am giggling now! Yes, it is ugly! 8)
-
I hate to tell you this but you are wrong factually and legally.
A statement against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule. Telling someone you would like to commit a crime and why and that you did so are admissible even though you wish that were not the case. This legally it can indeed be used as proof and outside of court the same principle holds true.
In the case at hand though Sheila's claims are working for creating reasonable doubt.
I realize you are as biased as can be but this thread is about the hypocrisy of many Jeremy supporters as well as the complete lack of evidence against Sheila.
As we speak there are threads galore about notes that no one has any evidence Sheila wrote but that are being deciphered in an attempt to suggest these notes demonstrate how crazy she was and therefore she must be guilty. Instead of trying her on evidence people are trying her on mental state of mind alone precisely because there is no evidence of her guilt.
I have layed out what evidence has been used to try to suggest she is guilty and the evidence that disputes that.
Many of the same people clammoring for justice and insisting there are so many cases of defendants being railroaded support railroading Sheila. It is quite the pathetic spectacle.
The funny part is that I doubt the hypocrites will ever owe up to it and will continue to claim the evidence against her is strong evne though there is less evidence than in the cases they complained about as MOJs.
Steady on there old chap. I most strongly object to that prejudicial remark. You are judging people's motives which you are not qualified to do being an ordinary non mind reading human.
Also I thought this thread was about whether Sheila was guilty or not? Not about judging an unknown membership from your ivory tower?
-
and she stayed with him for a little while after so what does that say about her? It astonishes me how people can stand by someone knowing they killed someone. It happens a lot but is still incomprehendable.
Sorry are you being sarcastic - or are you actually saying you believe her second statements ( not the first) and she stayed with him knowing he was responsible - even after doing the ID on those poor twins? And especially knowing ( according to her) that he had planned every everything?
-
Sorry are you being sarcastic - or are you actually saying you believe her second statements ( not the first) and she stayed with him knowing he was responsible - even after doing the ID on those poor twins? And especially knowing ( according to her) that he had planned every everything?
Not to forget - she cold have prevented this and saved them, if we are to believe her story.
-
if we belive her story that makes her even worse than if she was lying.
-
if we belive her story that makes her even worse than if she was lying.
It also begs the question why she wasn't considered an accessory?
-
It also begs the question why she wasn't considered an accessory?
Maybe that was part of a "You scratch our back, we'll scratch yours" deal???
-
Steady on there old chap. I most strongly object to that prejudicial remark. You are judging people's motives which you are not qualified to do being an ordinary non mind reading human.
Also I thought this thread was about whether Sheila was guilty or not? Not about judging an unknown membership from your ivory tower?
If people want to be consistent and thus not hypocritical, they have to apply the same standars for determining guilt whether they are looking at Sheila or Jeremy.
I presented a way to highlight how there is less evidence agaist Sheila than many of the MOJs being bandied about.
I flipped the script so to speak to demonstrate that simply concentrating on her mental illness accomplishes nothing at all to establish her guilt. If one looks at it with an eye to prosecuting her then it can be seen quite clearly.
-
I guess I have a mean streak - I am giggling now! Yes, it is ugly! 8)
It stares out you as well with a stupid smirk. Only clown dolls are worse. My father's cousin collects clows. Her house was full of clown painings, clown dolls and clown anything you can think of. I would never want to live around clown stuff like that it is freaky and it is not simply because of movies with murderous clowns or possessed clowns. I just find them disturbing on so many levels.
-
It also begs the question why she wasn't considered an accessory?
well if they only had her word that it ever happened then couldn't really charge her as an accessory she could of just retracted her statement.
-
Sorry are you being sarcastic - or are you actually saying you believe her second statements ( not the first) and she stayed with him knowing he was responsible - even after doing the ID on those poor twins? And especially knowing ( according to her) that he had planned every everything?
I believe her second statements; however, I think she might not have been as disturbed as she claims. She claims she drifted from him because of guilt of the murders but it seems more like they drifted because he was enjoying his new found "freedom without his parents" and had little intention of settling down.
Jeremy and Julie had been engaged but he broke it off. He blamed his family for that. She thought that with the fmail dead the engagement would be back on. So I personally think she somewhat welcomed the deaths of the parents figuring they would become engaged again. When that didn't happen it seemed the murders no longe rhad a purpose for her and we seen as bad.
She was willing to steal with him so evidently didn't have such high morals, it was about her and what she could get out of things.
There are people who marry convicted murderers while they are in prison. There are people who stand by lovers who are convicted murders. The sister of my dad's best friend was poisoned by her husband. He got caught only because even while she was in the hospital he continued to poison her. She didn't die but was so badly damaged that she had severe medical problems for years and died 5 years later of cancer that developed because of the poisoning. He got 7 years for attempted murder, served less than half of his sentence before being paroled and got another lady to marry him. How could you marry someone knowing what they did that to a previous wife? It really boggles the mind.
If she wanted to make up something to harm him she would not make up a hit man claim and would not have been able to come up with such a detailed account of him talking about killing them for so long. In combination with the other evidence her claims are credible.
It still doesn't speak well though that she would want to marry someone who kept talking about wanting to kill his family, even if she did think he was just blowing off steam, and still wanted to marry him after knowing what he did. When you joke in jest about killing someone it is short and sweet not talk about an elaborate plan. She missed telling someone about red flags that could have prevented the murers. To someone with a conscious that would haunt them.
-
It stares out you as well with a stupid smirk. Only clown dolls are worse. My father's cousin collects clows. Her house was full of clown painings, clown dolls and clown anything you can think of. I would never want to live around clown stuff like that it is freaky and it is not simply because of movies with murderous clowns or possessed clowns. I just find them disturbing on so many levels.
I would describe it as menacing.
-
If people want to be consistent and thus not hypocritical, they have to apply the same standars for determining guilt whether they are looking at Sheila or Jeremy.
I presented a way to highlight how there is less evidence agaist Sheila than many of the MOJs being bandied about.
I flipped the script so to speak to demonstrate that simply concentrating on her mental illness accomplishes nothing at all to establish her guilt. If one looks at it with an eye to prosecuting her then it can be seen quite clearly.
Ok ol' feller. I think we may be speaking at crossed purposes? What is your own definition of hypocritical?
-
It also begs the question why she wasn't considered an accessory?
Jeremy would have to have admitted they did talk about it to implicate her.
She claimed she thought he was just blowing off steam and not seriously going to do it.
Unless she actually did something to help him, even if only encouraging him to do it, she can't be considered a co-conspirator.
At best they could get her for obstruction of justice for lying but sheframed her new statement as supplemental not that she previously lied. She said she didn' tell information she knew that ocudl have helped she didn't lie. If Jeremy came out and said she's full of crap at 3AM I told her the family had been killed then in that case she lied in all her statements to conceal her full knowledge.
There is no obligation to tell every detail but you can't lie and not mentioning that would be an outright lie. Only Jeremy could reveal though the true extent of her knowledge and participation. For all we know she encouraged him. Of course she is going to say it disgusted her, she's not going to admi tshe thought killing them would result in them mattying and living a weathy good life so she welcomed his plan.
That leaves only Jeremy to implicate her since she didn't implicate herself.
When people who made ommissions come clean they are not prosecuted even if they did lie originally because they ended up coming clean. The exception to this rule is if the newest statements still contained falsehoods to obstruct justice by concealing what truly happened. You have the right to remain silent and not implicate yourself but you can't tell half the truth and lie about the rest to protect yourself or someone else that is still obstruction. So either you shut up entirely or you have to be honest.
Short of Jeremy saying her most recent story was only partially true and that she played a bigger role than she claims who else could testify to such? MAYBE Collins if he had also been privy to th emurders and was also part of the conspiracy. But he would have to implicate himself and Jeremy to implicate Julie.
So at the end of the day the only people who could establish Julie was an accomplice in some form would have to harm themselves in order to expose whatever role she might have played.
-
Jeremy would have to have admitted they did talk about it to implicate her.
She claimed she thought he was just blowing off steam and not seriously going to do it.
Unless she actually did something to help him, even if only encouraging him to do it, she can't be considered a co-conspirator.
At best they could get her for obstruction of justice for lying but sheframed her new statement as supplemental not that she previously lied. She said she didn' tell information she knew that ocudl have helped she didn't lie. If Jeremy came out and said she's full of crap at 3AM I told her the family had been killed then in that case she lied in all her statements to conceal her full knowledge.
There is no obligation to tell every detail but you can't lie and not mentioning that would be an outright lie. Only Jeremy could reveal though the true extent of her knowledge and participation. For all we know she encouraged him. Of course she is going to say it disgusted her, she's not going to admi tshe thought killing them would result in them mattying and living a weathy good life so she welcomed his plan.
That leaves only Jeremy to implicate her since she didn't implicate herself.
When people who made ommissions come clean they are not prosecuted even if they did lie originally because they ended up coming clean. The exception to this rule is if the newest statements still contained falsehoods to obstruct justice by concealing what truly happened. You have the right to remain silent and not implicate yourself but you can't tell half the truth and lie about the rest to protect yourself or someone else that is still obstruction. So either you shut up entirely or you have to be honest.
Short of Jeremy saying her most recent story was only partially true and that she played a bigger role than she claims who else could testify to such? MAYBE Collins if he had also been privy to th emurders and was also part of the conspiracy. But he would have to implicate himself and Jeremy to implicate Julie.
So at the end of the day the only people who could establish Julie was an accomplice in some form would have to harm themselves in order to expose whatever role she might have played.
Somthing similar happened to Maxine Carr. But she wasn't so lucky.
-
Maybe that was part of a "You scratch our back, we'll scratch yours" deal???
If people come clean then false information they gave previously is considered nullified. They want people to be motivated to tell the truth. Who would be motiviated to tell the truth if they knew it would be used against them as proof they lied. They would be better off leaving the lie in place and not worrying about it.
If there is extraneous proof they lied and it was so strong they could be convicted of lying then in that case it no longer pays to maintain the lie and they agree to tell the truth in exchange for not being punished for the lie.
Proving someone lied about somethign material is not that easy because the mens rea requirement. They can claim they made a mistake or the like. In generla prosecutors don't try peopel evne if they are not needed as witnesses because they don't care about just trying to punish peopel for lies it is small potatoes.
They punish when someone refuses to come clean and continues to support a position that harms the government. So if someone is going to falsely give someone an alibi and refuses to change course then in that case the government might want to prosecute. If the person gives up the false alibi claim and doesn't help the defendant in court then the prosecution won't care. Rarely do authorities charge peopel for lying.
Helping someone carry out a crime, convincing the to carry it out or helping dispose of a body or other post crime activites they care about much more. These are the kinds of things they prosecute unless there is an immunity deal. The only people who could implicate her in any of these serious things though are Jeremy and Collins if he was also a co-conspirator and they would harm themselves by revealing her role if she had one. So nothing surfaced as far as her involvement that authorities would be interested in prosecuting.
There is one more wrinkle. Police learned about Julie's knowledge because Susan was going to tell police what Julie told her. If Julie had not gone to police and Susan talked to them instead then they would have threatened to charge Julie with lying and obstruction in order to get her to talk. If she still refused they might charge her to try to force her and get her to crack. That is moreso what charges are used for. To get people to tell the truth or to punish in cases where they maintained a lie to the bitter end and that lie was used by someone to try to escape punishment.
-
well if they only had her word that it ever happened then couldn't really charge her as an accessory she could of just retracted her statement.
True but they don't usually prosecute these kinds of things anyway fora host of reaosns including they don't care about minor things like this. Plus if you read her supplemental statement you will see she framed it in a way to say she didn't lie she just didn't tell police everything she knew and could have told them.
We don't know that there wasn't more to the story than this. She could have been told more and played a bigger role doing something they actually do routinly charge people as an accessory over. It is common for people to minimize their own role. But unless the other conspirators flip on such person, which usually amounts to shooting themself in the foot, it ends up not exposed.
-
Ok ol' feller. I think we may be speaking at crossed purposes? What is your own definition of hypocritical?
"Hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions, behaviors, virtues, motivations, or other characteristics that one does not in actual fact hold. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another."
To claim one has a certain standard for assessing criminal guilt that applies to Jeremy and other accused but to apply a different standard to assess Sheila's guilt would be hypocrisy.
-
She could have been prosecuted for perverting the course of justice though .
Because according to her own statements she knew he had done it on the night of the murders and as she was alone with the police on the day of the ID she had ample opportunity to tell them then, without fear and they would have taken her into protection.
As she did not (In theory if he is guilty) she gave him every opportunity to destroy any evidence .
Therefore Perverting the cause of justice - which could have resulted in prison.
-
She could have been prosecuted for perverting the course of justice though .
Because according to her own statements she knew he had done it on the night of the murders and as she was alone with the police on the day of the ID she had ample opportunity to tell them then, without fear and they would have taken her into protection.
As she did not (In theory if he is guilty) she gave him every opportunity to destroy any evidence .
Therefore Perverting the cause of justice - which could have resulted in prison.
There was no legal duty to rat out others. On the other hand she could not lie about what he told her legally during the 2 calls in question that she described. She says she didn't lie she just didn' tell everything she knew.
Since she subsequently told them what she knew and testified it is moot, they only prosecute when people still won't tell the truth even if it can be proven they lied as opposed to simply didn't reveal everything they knew. Moreover evne in thos erare cases when they do prosecute it more often is because they think the person played a role in the actual crime but they can't prove it so they just get them on lying so they at least get some punishment.
-
There was no legal duty to rat out others. On the other hand she could not lie about what he told her legally during the 2 calls in question that she described. She says she didn't lie she just didn' tell everything she knew.
Since she subsequently told them what she knew and testified it is moot, they only prosecute when people still won't tell the truth even if it can be proven they lied as opposed to simply didn't reveal everything they knew. Moreover evne in thos erare cases when they do prosecute it more often is because they think the person played a role in the actual crime but they can't prove it so they just get them on lying so they at least get some punishment.
Knowing what her propensity MAY have been for "blurring the truth" it's very difficult to accept what she SAYS was said over the phone when there was unlikely to have been anyone standing beside her to hear a two way conversation.
-
"Hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions, behaviors, virtues, motivations, or other characteristics that one does not in actual fact hold. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another."
To claim one has a certain standard for assessing criminal guilt that applies to Jeremy and other accused but to apply a different standard to assess Sheila's guilt would be hypocrisy.
Yes thats about it. It comes from the Greek meaning a mask. An actors mask. The actors put on these masks or hypocrites to portray the character they were playing. The actors were not actually those characters. But were pretending to be those actors. But personally I would hesitate to challenge the various beliefs and motives of any members here though? The Muslims have a saying, "You must never call anyone a hypocrite. Only God can do that. You must say, you are acting like a hypocrite" Which basically is true. We haven't the depth of knowledge of that person to accuse them of such things.
The Grrek philosophers used to say, "Son know yourself".
-
Knowing what her propensity MAY have been for "blurring the truth" it's very difficult to accept what she SAYS was said over the phone when there was unlikely to have been anyone standing beside her to hear a two way conversation.
She is likely to downplay her role in it not to make up the entire thing.
Jeremey had no reason to call her at all even if he had received a call from Nevill. Someone in his place would either go investigate or call police and then go investigate.
Waking her up to say there might be trouble but he is not positive makes no sense at all. He called so he could claim that proof Nevill called him is that he called her and told her about it. He called around 6AM to tell her not to go to work so that she could confirm to police his story that he called her to tell her about it. Both calls were for a contrived purpose.
So was insisting police pick him up and then because they wouldn't parking on the side of the road waiting for them to pass and then driving up later so they could see he arrived after them.
Nothing he did was natural or what someone in his posiiton would have naturally done.
A call to Julie that he needed comfort and wanted her with him after learning his family was dead in contrast would be credible and something a person would do.
-
She is likely to downplay her role in it not to make up the entire thing.
Jeremey had no reason to call her at all even if he had received a call from Nevill. Someone in his place would either go investigate or call police and then go investigate.
Waking her up to say there might be trouble but he is not positive makes no sense at all. He called so he could claim that proof Nevill called him is that he called her and told her about it. He called around 6AM to tell her not to go to work so that she could confirm to police his story that he called her to tell her about it. Both calls were for a contrived purpose.
So was insisting police pick him up and then because they wouldn't parking on the side of the road waiting for them to pass and then driving up later so they could see he arrived after them.
Nothing he did was natural or what someone in his posiiton would have naturally done.
A call to Julie that he needed comfort and wanted her with him after learning his family was dead in contrast would be credible and something a person would do.
Sorry Scipio, I'm not letting you get away with that. Innocent or guilty, Jeremy ASKED the police if they would pick him up and they told him to make his own way there and in that situation I'd have made damn certain that they got there first.
-
Sorry Scipio, I'm not letting you get away with that. Innocent or guilty, Jeremy ASKED the police if they would pick him up and they told him to make his own way there and in that situation I'd have made damn certain that they got there first.
Why did he ask police to pick him up? Because he wanted them to se ehe was home
Why did he make sure he pulled up 3 minutes after them? So they would see he arrived after them
Why did he do such? So that they would think he had been home for hours as claimed and had not been to the site at all so they coudl not claim he might have been involved.
In that situation I would have gone to my parents' and AT MINIMUM looked in the windows to try to see what was going on if not tried to get inside.
I would not be too scared to even drive near their home but rather sit waiting for police ot drive by and finally go pursue them a few minutes later. That action wwas contrived.
Eveyrthing Jeremy did was contrived and if you think I am going to let you get away with such BS then you are th eone mistaken.
-
Why did he ask police to pick him up? Because he wanted them to se ehe was home
Why did he make sure he pulled up 3 minutes after them? So they would see he arrived after them
Why did he do such? So that they would think he had been home for hours as claimed and had not been to the site at all so they coudl not claim he might have been involved.
In that situation I would have gone to my parents' and AT MINIMUM looked in the windows to try to see what was going on if not tried to get inside.
I would not be too scared to even drive near their home but rather sit waiting for police ot drive by and finally go pursue them a few minutes later. That action wwas contrived.
Eveyrthing Jeremy did was contrived and if you think I am going to let you get away with such BS then you are th eone mistaken.
The police drove past within YARDS of his door. I don't imagine they wanted him to get there first.
Do you imagine he worked it out with a calculator HOW to arrive 3 minutes after them?
I frankly can't see how the above would make them think he'd been home for hours.
What do you think he might have done HAD he looked through the windows?
NONE of this is about what you would have done although you frequently compare yourself with Jeremy.
-
Sorry Scipio, I'm not letting you get away with that. Innocent or guilty, Jeremy ASKED the police if they would pick him up and they told him to make his own way there and in that situation I'd have made damn certain that they got there first.
I understood that the police asked him to wait for them anyway - in other words not to go barging into what could be a volatile situation - which considering the time they waited outside a completely silent house with no movement before going in to save the children ( considering they did not even know if a single shot had been fired ) makes perfect sense .
-
Hence Jeremys' alleged calm behaviour while waiting in the police car,,as up until then,,he hadn't known what had gone on,,,until he was told,,then he broke down uncontrollably,wanting to see his father,believing he was still alive.
-
The police drove past within YARDS of his door. I don't imagine they wanted him to get there first.
Do you imagine he worked it out with a calculator HOW to arrive 3 minutes after them?
I frankly can't see how the above would make them think he'd been home for hours.
What do you think he might have done HAD he looked through the windows?
NONE of this is about what you would have done although you frequently compare yourself with Jeremy.
He watched them drive by and then instead of immediately putting the car in gear to follow he waited a while longer so that he could pull up severla minutes after them.
His supposed excuse was he was putting a sweater on.
What he was doing is patently obvious to anyone who actually looks at it objectively instead of looking at everything with Jeremy blinders on.
Everything he did was cotrived and served a purpose of trying to frame Sheila from the fake phone call that attributed the shootings to Sheila, the staging of the 30 bullets which backfired and gave away that he staged them, to claiming she fired all the guns in the house.
There is considerable evidence that he framed Sheila. There is no evidence police of anyone else framed Jeremy. Yet the same people who insist Jeremy was framed completely ignore all the evidence that he framed Sheila. The irony is astounding.
-
He watched them drive by and then instead of immediately putting the car in gear to follow he waited a while longer so that he could pull up severla minutes after them.
His supposed excuse was he was putting a sweater on.
What he was doing is patently obvious to anyone who actually looks at it objectively instead of looking at everything with Jeremy blinders on.
Everything he did was cotrived and served a purpose of trying to frame Sheila from the fake phone call that attributed the shootings to Sheila, the staging of the 30 bullets which backfired and gave away that he staged them, to claiming she fired all the guns in the house.
There is considerable evidence that he framed Sheila. There is no evidence police of anyone else framed Jeremy. Yet the same people who insist Jeremy was framed completely ignore all the evidence that he framed Sheila. The irony is astounding.
Heaven preserve me from pedants!!!!
Since when did "within YARDS" mean within sight?
As one might. England. 3.30am.
What he was doing appear patently obvious to anyone looking through your blinkered eyes.
It's possible to slant ANYTHING the way one wishes to see it.
In order to say Jeremy framed Sheila you have dismissed everything said of her as being of no moment or consequence. By contrast, that Jeremy puts on a sweater has sinister connotations.
-
I would think that most would feel the cold at having to get out of a warm bed at that hour of the morning. It was about 11 degrees and damp as it had been raining,,so would have felt on the chilly side.
I'd have been more suspicious if he'd just been in his shirt sleeves,,as that would have indicated that he was overheated through exertion !
-
The police drove past within YARDS of his door. I don't imagine they wanted him to get there first.
Do you imagine he worked it out with a calculator HOW to arrive 3 minutes after them?
I frankly can't see how the above would make them think he'd been home for hours.
What do you think he might have done HAD he looked through the windows?
NONE of this is about what you would have done although you frequently compare yourself with Jeremy.
1) it doesn't prove he was home for hours but apparently he thought the claim of recieivng the call in combination with seeing he had been home would convince them to believe him as opposed to them finding him there and thinkin ghe had been there touching things before police arrived. It was not a great plan but one ovbiously contrived. He would not have had difficulty pulling behind police and arriving seconds later as opposed to driving slowly to make sure they arrived several minutes before him.
This is just one example, everything he told police was calculated to frame Sheila and staged. From saying he saw her shoot all weapons in the house including the murder weapon to changing to her no seeing her fire it or any other weapon but that she saw him load the magazine so would know how to do so. Claiming he left it out also was contrived to accomplish several different goals. The calles to Julie contrived. Very little he did is what someone would naturally have done and what he claims Nevill did would not have come naturally either.
2) Going there and listening from the outside and in addition looking in the windows to see if the family was in trouble and needed help is what someone would naturally do in his position. Then either try to find a way in or knock on the door if it didn't appear that there was too much danger.
Neither my brother nor sister have fired a gun to my knowledge and I don't believe either would know how to chamber a round let alone know they need to do so thus I would not be frighted to try to disarm either if they had a gun unless I heard shots being fired. I would not make up a story to police that they fired all my weapons and were thus definitely capable of using them and thus try to scare police from going in peering inside.
When I was in college my sister phoned in the middle of the night crying and said my brother had a gun and she feared he was going to kill everyone in the house. He had a drinking problem at the time. I went over to see what was going on. It turned out the gun was in a case in the closet. I assumed he had it on him. She woke me up not because he had a gun in his hands currently, she saw him in he kitchen with it, he put it in the box and then the box in the closet. Instead of hiding the box she woke me up and made it sound urgent. Did I call police or tell anyone? No because I didn't believe my brother would shoot anyone even if drunk (mean drunk not a happy drunk) except maybe by accident.
I open the box and what was the gun? A pellet gun. It used CO2 to shoot metal pellets.
Maybe someone in my place would have in addition phoned police it depends on if they truly fear the relative in question using a gun against the family. Evne if i had calle dpolice i would have gone over without qualm to at minimum listen from outside if there was any shooting and would not lie ot police about my brother's capabilities with a gun to make them scared and want to shoot him as soon as they encountered him.
Before I call police I would want to make sure they are needed to resolve it rather than risk them just killing my brother for nothing.
Jeremy's actions demonstrated no concern at all for those inside he was too busy trashing Sheila to convince police that she had done it when they went inside and found the bodies and calmly talked with them about cars and guy stuff as opposed to suggesting they go inside and find out how his fmaily was. Hours went by before he asked what was taking so long and feigned being worried and did so to justify calling Julie to have her not go to work so she coudl be a witness for him.
you try so hard to find evidence of police doign things out of fals epretense and despite straining can't find any examples but intentionally ignore all the evidence of Jeremy having done such down to staging the 30 bullets in the kitchen. Never does anyone answer the question asked hundreds of times- why would Sheila use 18-20 bullets from that batch then suddeenly stop loading the magazine half way and go to the closet to get another 5-7 rounds? It makes so sense quite obviously those bullets were staged by Jeremy.
Pretending these things ar enot contrived and irraitonal so you don't have to deal with them doesn't make these issues go away. It simply issulatrates how you choose to beleive what you want to becaus eo fbias and that is the great dividie between guilters and non-guilters.
-
Scipio can you show me the document from the police logs / notes from the original incident where it says he told the police she had shot all the guns in the house.
If he had been planning this for months and it was a calculated frame of Sheila then if he had been clever he would have made damn sure there WAS evidence that she had used the guns - and yet he told the police in his statement he had NOT seen her use the guns - only that she may have gone out with his father.
If he had said that she had gone out with himself sometimes - who would have been able to disprove it ? No one .
And why did the statement of the relatives get changed when they said they had seen her with guns?
And why do you thing her fingerprints were on the shotgun in the house?
-
her fingerprints were found on 3 guns i belive
-
Nobody cracked on though,nugs. Bit like the Bible.
-
so shes dosent like guns but shes aperantly touched 3 of them.
-
Scipio can you show me the document from the police logs / notes from the original incident where it says he told the police she had shot all the guns in the house.
If he had been planning this for months and it was a calculated frame of Sheila then if he had been clever he would have made damn sure there WAS evidence that she had used the guns - and yet he told the police in his statement he had NOT seen her use the guns - only that she may have gone out with his father.
If he had said that she had gone out with himself sometimes - who would have been able to disprove it ? No one .
And why did the statement of the relatives get changed when they said they had seen her with guns?
And why do you thing her fingerprints were on the shotgun in the house?
1) I have yet to see any reliable evidence her prints were found on any guns other than the murder weapon.
2) Various police statements note that he told them she fired all weapons in the house. He changed his story after relatives denied such. The appeal decision didn't make up the claim police stated he told them such and it was a major factor of why they were scared to go in and called for an armed team.
3) Under questioning his family and others indicated Sheila had no interest in guns and had not fired them. The police messed up in typing the statement which is why it was crossed out. Her relatives stated she didn't go with them to shooting but eventually said she might have gone to Scotland on an occasion but no once could recall her going to the actual shooting events let alone firing a weapon there.
There is a big difference between saying, "Sheila may have come with us on a vacation to Scotland where we golfed but she didn't come golfing with us if she did come" and "Sheila came golfing with us on a vacation".
She could have gone shooting and fired a shotgun anyway without learning how to load that weapon let alone would it mean she could load and operate any weapon in existence. Semi-automaic weapons operate different from bolt-action, level action, pump action annd double barrel shotgins and from airguns.
People who never used a Semi-auto before often do not relaize they need to chamber a round let alone how to do so. Lynette Fromme never chambered a round before trying to shoot US President Gerald Ford so th egun di dnot go off. Sometimes it is misreported that the gun misfired.
At Fromme's trial for attempted murder her defense attorneys argued that she spent her life around people who used shotguns and therefore she would have known how to use the semi-auto (pistol) that she aimed at Ford. They claimed she intentionally di dnot chmaber a round and just wanted to scare people. Why would she have a loaded gun if that were the case? She didn't need bullets at all in the gun. The defense failed and she was convicted. He goes down in history as being saved by a woman not knowing she needed to chamber a round before firing.
-
so shes dosent like guns but shes aperantly touched 3 of them.
And used one at the shoot in Scotland,,which DB and PE finally spluttered out the truth.
-
And used one at the shoot in Scotland,,which DB and PE finally spluttered out the truth.
They still deny she shot any guns in Scotland. The claim they admitted it comes from statement crossed out and ignoring everything actually written in their statements.
-
Scipio can you show me the document from the police logs / notes from the original incident where it says he told the police she had shot all the guns in the house.
If he had been planning this for months and it was a calculated frame of Sheila then if he had been clever he would have made damn sure there WAS evidence that she had used the guns - and yet he told the police in his statement he had NOT seen her use the guns - only that she may have gone out with his father.
If he had said that she had gone out with himself sometimes - who would have been able to disprove it ? No one .
And why did the statement of the relatives get changed when they said they had seen her with guns?
And why do you thing her fingerprints were on the shotgun in the house?
Page 12 of Wilkes book. Jeremy told the police Sheila could use all the guns in WHF.
-
They still deny she shot any guns in Scotland. The claim they admitted it comes from statement crossed out and ignoring everything actually written in their statements.
Yes,at first they denied it,,but had to come clean in the end when their " memories " were jogged somewhat.
-
PE's a fine one to deny anything. His pedigree wasn't so hot.
-
They still deny she shot any guns in Scotland. The claim they admitted it comes from statement crossed out and ignoring everything actually written in their statements.
they may deny it but the fingerprints prove them not to be telling the truth.
-
Yes,at first they denied it,,but had to come clean in the end when their " memories " were jogged somewhat.
Jogged that she MIGHT have gone to Scotland once not that she went shooting with them.
They went to Scotland and stayed over so they coudl go shooting at an event. None of them recall her at the events and don't know whether she ever went to Scotland or not.
-
they cant rember weathe she was therer i find that hard to belive.
surely thats somthingthey could give a definite answer to.
-
they cant rember weathe she was therer i find that hard to belive.
surely thats somthingthey could give a definite answer to.
I'd have thought so too,,they were not that old at the time that their memories were going.
Selective,,it's called,,,as they seemed to have remembered a lot of other things !
-
Whether Sheila went to a shooting party 10 or 15 years earlier is neither here or there.
She would not know how to re load.
-
I'd have thought so too,,they were not that old at the time that their memories were going.
Selective,,it's called,,,as they seemed to have remembered a lot of other things !
i cant belive that shiela was that forgetable.
-
Of course she would. A kid of 10 could reload a rifle after only being shown once.Sheila wasn't that dumb.
-
they may deny it but the fingerprints prove them not to be telling the truth.
NO evidence has been put forth to establish her prints were on any of the other guns. There was no such testimony at trial, nothing in the appeal decisions, nothig in the various written statements by experts and police.
-
Of course she would. A kid of 10 could reload a rifle after only being shown once.Sheila wasn't that dumb.
well once she had been shown how to do it it would be very easy.
-
I don't know how to load a rifle.
It is doubtful Sheila went on shooting parties with her relatives 10 or 15 years earlier. If she did she may have fired one or two bullets from an already loaded rifle. Which had 11 bullets. But there was no reason to show her how to load.
Sheila was too un cordinated to load. As testified by Ann Eaton. She was also apparently having a major psychotic episode. So even more uncordinated.
-
grew up on a farm and dident know how to shoot a riffle i dont buy it.
and nobdy else mentioned her being uncoordinated her friends dident her husband certanly dident.
-
well once she had been shown how to do it it would be very easy.
That's not true at all, a kid of 10 would be unlikely to recognize all actions taken.
At any rate he claims she watched him load a magazine not load the gun. He claimed he took the magazine to another room to load it into the gun.
That means even if his bogus story of going to shoot a rabbit with this rifle for the first time ever were true she would not have seen him stick it in the weapon let alone to charge the weapon (chamber a round).
-
grew up on a farm and dident know how to shoot a riffle i dont buy it.
Frankly what you buy makes no difference because yo ubuy extremely stupid things that have no evidentiary basis to establish at all but refuse to believe well established things that are documented. Your bias prevents you from facing reality.
The gun was purchased in 1984 and ther eis no evidence of any other semi-auto's being on the farm prior.
There is no evidence ANYONE saw her touch let alone fire any weapons.
Just living on a farm doens't make one skilled in wepaon use. One has to actually take an interest in them to learn how they operate and the murder weapon operated differently than all other weapons on the farm.
Lynette Fromme allegedly grew up around people using guns and didn't know to chamber around so her effort to kill Gerald Ford failed. She is hardly the only person not to know how to chamber or round or that a round needed to be chambered before a semi-auto will work.
I learned how to load and fire an M-16 by being taught like all military. Just observing someone rapidly do it without actions being explained does little.
But yuo will believe what you want to believe because you are biased which is why this thread exists in the first place ot demonstrate how backwards you are in your treatment of SHeila compared ot how you treat Jeremy.
-
Stop talking about Sheila as if she were stupid. It isn´t rocket science to load a rifle! ::)
-
shiela was clever enough to load a riffle the conndion she suffred with wouldenty of stoped her knowing how to do simple tasks.
-
Frankly what you buy makes no difference because yo ubuy extremely stupid things that have no evidentiary basis to establish at all but refuse to believe well established things that are documented. Your bias prevents you from facing reality.
The gun was purchased in 1984 and ther eis no evidence of any other semi-auto's being on the farm prior.
There is no evidence ANYONE saw her touch let alone fire any weapons.
Just living on a farm doens't make one skilled in wepaon use. One has to actually take an interest in them to learn how they operate and the murder weapon operated differently than all other weapons on the farm.
Lynette Fromme allegedly grew up around people using guns and didn't know to chamber around so her effort to kill Gerald Ford failed. She is hardly the only person not to know how to chamber or round or that a round needed to be chambered before a semi-auto will work.
I learned how to load and fire an M-16 by being taught like all military. Just observing someone rapidly do it without actions being explained does little.
But yuo will believe what you want to believe because you are biased which is why this thread exists in the first place ot demonstrate how backwards you are in your treatment of SHeila compared ot how you treat Jeremy.
i also dont buy that someone could be a shooting party and not remember if they took there cousin with them.
-
i also dont buy that someone could be a shooting party and not remember if they took there cousin with them.
As a matter of fact, I happen to have been with my avid-hunter cousin at a shooting party. I am positive he remembers I was there. ;D
-
Stop talking about Sheila as if she were stupid. It isn´t rocket science to load a rifle! ::)
Then I guess all the guys who watched me with an M16 but could not dupicate my actions without having it explained to them were stupid sinc eit is just so easy and Lynette Fromme must be a virtual idiot in your book.
Chambering a round is something people don't think about unless they have it explained to them or have used semi-autos before.
-
Stop talking about Sheila as if she were stupid. It isn´t rocket science to load a rifle! ::)
-
That's not true at all, a kid of 10 would be unlikely to recognize all actions taken.
At any rate he claims she watched him load a magazine not load the gun. He claimed he took the magazine to another room to load it into the gun.
That means even if his bogus story of going to shoot a rabbit with this rifle for the first time ever were true she would not have seen him stick it in the weapon let alone to charge the weapon (chamber a round).
-
I don't know how to load a rifle.
It is doubtful Sheila went on shooting parties with her relatives 10 or 15 years earlier. If she did she may have fired one or two bullets from an already loaded rifle. Which had 11 bullets. But there was no reason to show her how to load.
Sheila was too un cordinated to load. As testified by Ann Eaton. She was also apparently having a major psychotic episode. So even more uncordinated.
-
Then I guess all the guys who watched me with an M16 but could not dupicate my actions without having it explained to them were stupid sinc eit is just so easy and Lynette Fromme must be a virtual idiot in your book.
Chambering a round is something people don't think about unless they have it explained to them or have used semi-autos before.
You were probably doing it super-fast to impress their asses off. Wouldn´t put it past you! :P
-
Adam, why do you keep quoting posts?
-
That's not true at all, a kid of 10 would be unlikely to recognize all actions taken.
At any rate he claims she watched him load a magazine not load the gun. He claimed he took the magazine to another room to load it into the gun.
That means even if his bogus story of going to shoot a rabbit with this rifle for the first time ever were true she would not have seen him stick it in the weapon let alone to charge the weapon (chamber a round).
i think your forgeting other posters here have used guns as well.
and we only have your word for what you cliam to have done.
-
Adam, why do you keep quoting posts?
hes trying to bury other posts i think.
-
i think i might start a thread about the shooting party.
-
hes trying to bury other posts i think.
This habit of his is very annoying. The posts are there - no need to bloody quote them!!
-
i think i might start a thread about the shooting party.
yes please do
I think it was mentioned in court as well as the statement crossed out as NO!
What gets me is that they rely on what the family said who apparently in the last few months had not even visited the farm - they only met up for meetings about the caravan park as far as I can see.
I wonder what happened about people that might know such as farm workers / game keepers etc.
-
They all perjured their way through--------------and people believed them ! Honesty certainly wasn't their best policy,,any of them.
-
yes please do
I think it was mentioned in court as well as the statement crossed out as NO!
What gets me is that they rely on what the family said who apparently in the last few months had not even visited the farm - they only met up for meetings about the caravan park as far as I can see.
I wonder what happened about people that might know such as farm workers / game keepers etc.
Apparently ?
Farm workers are farm workers. There is no reason why they should be close to the family. If they knew things which could support Jeremy, the defence could call them up as witnesses.
-
They all perjured their way through--------------and people believed them ! Honesty certainly wasn't their best policy,,any of them.
well the i dont know if she was there answer thats a blatent lie if they said it.
-
Apparently ?
Farm workers are farm workers. There is no reason why they should be close to the family. If they knew things which could support Jeremy, the defence could call them up as witnesses.
If you'd read the right literature,,it would have told you that most character references pertaining to Jeremy,,,were pushed to one side,,and not even the defence had privy to them. Also Mrs Foakes told one of the officers that " Jeremy didn't have the gumption to have murdered anyone ".Her statement went walkies. So what chance did Jeremy stand with all this going on ? They wanted a conviction,,and patsy Jeremy fitted the bill.
-
If you'd read the right literature,,it would have told you that most character references pertaining to Jeremy,,,were pushed to one side,,and not even the defence had privy to them. Also Mrs Foakes told one of the officers that " Jeremy didn't have the gumption to have murdered anyone ".Her statement went walkies. So what chance did Jeremy stand with all this going on ? They wanted a conviction,,and patsy Jeremy fitted the bill.
Several people testified on Jeremys behalf.
The defence had the option to call whoever they wanted at trial.
-
if they knew they existed yes.
-
Several people testified on Jeremys behalf.
The defence had the option to call whoever they wanted at trial.
And the defence were duff.They needed a swift kick up the backside to get them going.
-
if they knew they existed yes.
That is where the defence can use the the person who knows most - Jeremy.
-
well to call somone they have to know there was someone to call
-
And the defence were duff.They needed a swift kick up the backside to get them going.
Jeremy paid for the most expensive lawyers available. And best.
If David Napley could not win the case. No one could .
-
Jeremy paid for the most expensive lawyers available. And best.
If David Napley could not win the case. No one could .
The best ? It wouldn't have appeared so. I thought Napley passed it to Terzeon,of the same company.
-
i she no reason to think they were best best and expensive arnt the same thing.
and it dont matter how good a barrister is if evidence is withheld from him.
-
That's right nugs. Evidence had no right whatsoever to be withheld-------and still is.Why ?
They were working with one hand tied behind their backs.
-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/sir-david-napley-1.483443
-
that just the herlad was in groveling mood that day.
-
i she no reason to think they were best best and expensive arnt the same thing.
and it dont matter how good a barrister is if evidence is withheld from him.
What evidence was withheld ?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5213.0.html
-
What evidence was withheld ?
We don't know because it's withheld------d'oh !
-
they few laywers have psycjc abilitys have ever good they are so cant work on evedence they dont know about.
-
Adam has obviously never worked on a farm. Because the farm workers would see the family every day. I was not say I got they would be character witnesses. But it seems they may never have been interviewed. Therefore the defence could not call them.
-
i would of thought yes especially in those days.
-
Someone probably thought it unnecessary,,but that someone was very wrong not to have included every piece of paperwork that there was available.
-
well i supose it sepends how many pieces of paperwork there were.
-
Adam has obviously never worked on a farm. Because the farm workers would see the family every day. I was not say I got they would be character witnesses. But it seems they may never have been interviewed. Therefore the defence could not call them.
I have not worked on a farm.
Interviewed by who ? The defence can call who they want to testify. Jeremy would have told his defence if he thought the farm workers could assist him.
-
well i supose it sepends how many pieces of paperwork there were.
exactly - in the first case file.
I did read somewhere ( not verified) that there was a close neighbour ,old guy , who said he knew a lot but the police had never asked him. I think his wife asked him to go to the police and he said no let them come to me.
And before you ask the source Adam I don't know - I think it came from a local person who reported it back.
-
The trouble here is that a lot of those old neighbours will either have died or perhaps suffering in some way that they can't remember. It seems that this is a waiting game to those who could,or can still speak out,,are preparing to " meet their makers ". Then it'll all blow away and be forgotten.
-
exactly - in the first case file.
I did read somewhere ( not verified) that there was a close neighbour ,old guy , who said he knew a lot but the police had never asked him. I think his wife asked him to go to the police and he said no let them come to me.
And before you ask the source Adam I don't know - I think it came from a local person who reported it back.
Hi jansus, think you may be remembering NNs report back from when she visited the area and discussed the case in the pub with the locals. It was said one of the farmworkers living in the farm cottages in the lane.had said it couldn't have been Jeremy because of something he'd seen but as you say he didn't go to the police or they go to him ...... these old timers can be unbelievably bloody minded.
-
exactly - in the first case file.
I did read somewhere ( not verified) that there was a close neighbour ,old guy , who said he knew a lot but the police had never asked him. I think his wife asked him to go to the police and he said no let them come to me.
And before you ask the source Adam I don't know - I think it came from a local person who reported it back.
An old guy.
A close neighbour ( although WHF was in the middle of nowehere).
Who knew things ( like how he liked his hot chocolate).
But he did not want to go to the police regarding a massacre ( in case he missed 'The Antiques Roadshow).
The police had to somehow find out about this mystery man and approach him. Or Jeremy could tell his lawyer. ( but even Jeremy did not know about him).
Interesting.
-
An old guy.
A close neighbour ( although WHF was in the middle of nowehere).
Who knew things ( like how he liked his hot chocolate).
But he did not want to go to the police regarding a massacre ( in case he missed 'The Antiques Roadshow).
The police had to somehow find out about this mystery man and approach him. Or Jeremy could tell his lawyer. ( but even Jeremy did not know about him).
Interesting.
Adam there were farm cottages near the farmhouse. I putvup an answer but you have chosen to ignore it.
-
Hi jansus, think you may be remembering NNs report back from when she visited the area and discussed the case in the pub with the locals. It was said one of the farmworkers living in the farm cottages in the lane.had said it couldn't have been Jeremy because of something he'd seen but as you say he didn't go to the police or they go to him ...... these old timers can be unbelievably bloody minded.
When I was in highschool I witnessed a murder. I was collecting shopping carts (back then there were not corrals for the carts to sit in nor machines to push them we had to do it all manually). I wa smaybe 30 feet away when a guy ran a woman over as she walked across the road. He then got out and stabbed her to finish her off. He then calmly waited for police. Nobody in the lot did anything. There not enough time to react he was out of the car in seconds. Maybe 20 other people saw it. I heard so many tales about it from supposed witnesses who I know for sure were never there because I saw how many were and the hundreds who claim to have seen it can't have done so. There was a crown that appeared after the fact. Some of the claims even involved helping capute the person and trying to save her which is bunk. No one approached her to help and no one approached him. After police arrived is when people stopped being scared. The girl's daughter was there and saw it all and no one tried to help her by pulling her away. She got to safety by walking on her own. The police station was less than a ile away so a cop was there quite fast as well as an ambulance but it did no good.
The moral though is that there are always fake witnesses who make up not only being a witness but crazy details just because they want to be a part of what happened. I went intot he store and told the manager who made me stay inside so I could not talk to police and gave them some witness statement though he saw nothing. What he said was never reported but I still wonder what he said because he was a jerk so could have been a doozy.
The grapevine is not a reliable source for information that is why such information is not allowed at trial.
-
What ?? And what about " hearsay ?".Is that not allowed in court either ? Don't make me laugh.
The whole case was based on hearsay and gossip and lies.
-
What ?? And what about " hearsay ?".Is that not allowed in court either ? Don't make me laugh.
The whole case was based on hearsay and gossip and lies.
Once again you make an absurd claim. You seem to be a maste rat it. The case was built around Jeremy's own lies as well as forensic evidence that established Sheila could nop have killed herself. There was no gossip that made its way to the trial nor any hearsay, hearsay is not admissible.
Anonymous pub chatter is to you reliable so long as this gossip suts your agenda but not any sourced claims that are actually reliable if they defeat your agenda. So your definition of crediblity is whether it supports your agenda or not.
I laid out the extensive case against Jeremy and until all that evidence is seriously challenged an appeal court will never release him and there is no way to establish his conviction is a MOJ.
-
Jeremy had no reason to lie at all,,nor was there any forensic evidence connecting Jeremy to the crimes either.
The use of the bicycle was a lie,,as was the wetsuit,,and the Matthew McDonald saga. These are just a few among many falsehoods.
Suiting ones agenda also applies to you too ! So please don't lecture me on what you think is right.
-
Matthew McDonald not involved FACT
No blood found on Jeremy or his possesions FACT
Juries question wrongly answered FACT
PII in force why? FACT
-
Once again you make an absurd claim. You seem to be a maste rat it. The case was built around Jeremy's own lies as well as forensic evidence that established Sheila could nop have killed herself. There was no gossip that made its way to the trial nor any hearsay, hearsay is not admissible.
Anonymous pub chatter is to you reliable so long as this gossip suts your agenda but not any sourced claims that are actually reliable if they defeat your agenda. So your definition of crediblity is whether it supports your agenda or not.
I laid out the extensive case against Jeremy and until all that evidence is seriously challenged an appeal court will never release him and there is no way to establish his conviction is a MOJ.
yes we all read your posts we just decided we dont agrea with them we are not ingonoring your points we just dont agrea that really mean hes guilty.
you may be unware but this is what happens in a debate.
-
Matthew McDonald not involved FACT
No blood found on Jeremy or his possesions FACT
Juries question wrongly answered FACT
PII in force why? FACT
well mathew MacDonald has a cast iron albi the fact mugford brought him in it makes her word rather suspect.
did she have some sort of personal grudge agianst him.
-
Matthew McDonald not involved FACT
No blood found on Jeremy or his possesions FACT
Juries question wrongly answered FACT
PII in force why? FACT
Jeremy wasn't searched for blood or GSR so how could any be found? He had the ability to clean up and change anway upon arriving home.
Sheila would have neither the ability to clean herself up or change her clothes after killing herself nor the ability to move her own body let alone put the suppressor away.
Sheila also would have no reason to change or washup and there is nothing to suggest she did. She would not have the ability to repai broken nails as she would have suffered from bludgeoning someone with a rifle.
The simple fact that Sheila can't have killed herself and Jeremy was aware of the murders is sufficent to convict him since he could be aware if he were the killer. So the fact he was never searched for blood and hence none was doesn't prove him innocent in the least.
-
yes we all read your posts we just decided we dont agrea with them we are not ingonoring your points we just dont agrea that really mean hes guilty.
you may be unware but this is what happens in a debate.
A debate features evidence being used to support an argument.
Many do not debate much they simply assert they refuse to accept any evidence against Jeremy goign so far as to deny Nevill had a struggle with his killer and choose to believe everyone lies except Jeremy and then claim there was no evidence to convict though there was plenty and simply stated you choose to believe none of it and instead to believe wild conspiracy claims.
That's not a debate it is just pretending there was no evidence and insisting there was a MOJ without being able to back up the claim with anything. And while that might sooth your soul it doesn' amount to debating.
Some people actual debate certain issues but not the entire case against Jeremy and others never debate at all they just post rhetoric.
-
Aren't sniffer dogs reliable,then ? There was a dog-handler outside WHF when Jeremy was there,,but the animal didn't flinch. These dogs are trained to sniff out the most minute of residue left behind,,as you know,,their noses are far more powerful than ours.
It would also have detected stale blood,excess body odour which is given off in such circumstances as having exerted yourself beyond the norm, which is likened to a nervous sweating.
I can partially agree that Sheila hadn't shot herself,,simply because she was shot by someone else,,but I reiterate,,,it wasn't Jeremy.
-
Jeremy wasn't searched for blood or GSR so how could any be found? He had the ability to clean up and change anway upon arriving home.
Sheila would have neither the ability to clean herself up or change her clothes after killing herself nor the ability to move her own body let alone put the suppressor away.
Sheila also would have no reason to change or washup and there is nothing to suggest she did. She would not have the ability to repai broken nails as she would have suffered from bludgeoning someone with a rifle.
The simple fact that Sheila can't have killed herself and Jeremy was aware of the murders is sufficent to convict him since he could be aware if he were the killer. So the fact he was never searched for blood and hence none was doesn't prove him innocent in the least.
theres no evedence he was aware of the murders that i can see.
and weather you would break wile hitting someone with a riffle is pure speculation theirs no definite answer.
and therss absolutely no evidence she couldn't of shot herself.
it cant be proved she did but no evidence she dident ethere.
-
Jeremy had left himself wide open a few times,unsuspectingly and innocently,,while the police seized their opportunity.He was easy meat. Who else could the police blame ?
-
theres no evedence he was aware of the murders that i can see.
and weather you would break wile hitting someone with a riffle is pure speculation theirs no definite answer.
and therss absolutely no evidence she couldn't of shot herself.
it cant be proved she did but no evidence she dident ethere.
It is impossible for her to have shot herself and put the suppressor away and impossible for her to have moved her body flat after being killed. She can't have killed herself.
Someone else did it and framed Sheila that leaves only Jeremy who knew because he is the one who called police and blamed her.
If he didn't insert himself and call police and stayed quiet then they would not have been able to establish he did it. By inserting himself into the situation to blame Sheila and frame her he established that he did it including staging the bullets which he admitted to doing. Thanks to the fact only 20 bullets were missing from the box and 25 had been used it is obvious they were staged after and he knew they were there and stated he left them there.
-
that depend the absurd story of how the silencer was found.
-
It is impossible for her to have shot herself and put the suppressor away and impossible for her to have moved her body flat after being killed. She can't have killed herself.
Someone else did it and framed Sheila that leaves only Jeremy who knew because he is the one who called police and blamed her.
If he didn't insert himself and call police and stayed quiet then they would not have been able to establish he did it. By inserting himself into the situation to blame Sheila and frame her he established that he did it including staging the bullets which he admitted to doing. Thanks to the fact only 20 bullets were missing from the box and 25 had been used it is obvious they were staged after and he knew they were there and stated he left them there.
If you are saying that the moderator was on the rifle then the pathologist is not making a correct diagnosis that the marks on NB'S arms were done with the barrel of of the rifle. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
well mathew MacDonald has a cast iron albi the fact mugford brought him in it makes her word rather suspect.
did she have some sort of personal grudge agianst him.
She may have done but it seems Liz Rimmington had an affair with him, in fact it is said she lived with him.
Those two, Liz and Julie, spent the evening before Liz went to the police together possibly talking about their exs. I find that quite interesting,
Maybe there were two scorned women, constancy doesn't seem to be one of MMs things judging by his statements.
Am not sure where this is from, think it was in a book but not sure which.
Maybe someone else does?
-
If you are saying that the moderator was on the rifle then the pathologist is not making a correct diagnosis that the marks on NB'S arms were done with the barrel of of the rifle. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
The assessment was that some marks were made by the stock. Moreover, the sights and barrel could scratch him whether the suppressor was attached or not.
Only the muzzle would be hidden by the suppressor.
-
She may have done but it seems Liz Rimmington had an affair with him, in fact it is said she lived with him.
Those two, Liz and Julie, spent the evening before Liz went to the police together possibly talking about their exs. I find that quite interesting,
Maybe there were two scorned women, constancy doesn't seem to be one of MMs things judging by his statements.
Am not sure where this is from, think it was in a book but not sure which.
Maybe someone else does?
Julie recounted the hitman claim before this supposed brainstorming before she went to police.
At any rate, why would she spend days making up detailed acocunts of when he told her he wanted his family dead for nothing to help her by adding Liz's ex to the conspiracy? It would cause only a minor inconvenience to him and in the process ruin what would have taken a very long time to make up.
Why would she put so much effort into making up a long string anyway. Saying he was talking about it the month before the murders and then night before would have been sufficient.
-
I have always wondered just how iron cast MM´s alibi was. I believe it was a girlfriend who said she had been with him that night.
-
if it wasnt cast iron im sure the police would of managed to discredit it.
-
I have always wondered just how iron cast MM´s alibi was. I believe it was a girlfriend who said she had been with him that night.
I do wonder myself Alias, not sure who the lucky lady was but the police seemed convinced so it does make you believe it was cast iron. ???
-
I have always wondered just how iron cast MM´s alibi was. I believe it was a girlfriend who said she had been with him that night.
He was out of town staying with friends. He would have been too far away the last time he had been seen by third persons (other than his girlfriend) to have been able to reach WHF in time to commit the murders and indeed also had a girlfriend who said he was in bed with her after everyone turned in.
Also the claims of him being a mercinary in Africa were little more than rumors.
I don't understand why people who insist Jeremy is innocent and Julie a liar would question his alibi.
The police surely would have questioned it though if there were any hope of blaming him. Giving him a reduced sentence ot out Jeremy would have pleased them. Even if the evidence they found against him was not enough to get him to turn on Jeremy they still would have liked to use it to establish he did it and then link him to Jeremy through Julie.
-
He was out of town staying with friends. He would have been too far away the last time he had been seen by third persons (other than his girlfriend) to have been able to reach WHF in time to commit the murders and indeed also had a girlfriend who said he was in bed with her after everyone turned in.
Also the claims of him being a mercinary in Africa were little more than rumors.
I don't understand why people who insist Jeremy is innocent and Julie a liar would question his alibi.
The police surely would have questioned it though if there were any hope of blaming him. Giving him a reduced sentence ot out Jeremy would have pleased them. Even if the evidence they found against him was not enough to get him to turn on Jeremy they still would have liked to use it to establish he did it and then link him to Jeremy through Julie.
You have demonstrated time and time again that you have no clue where I stand regarding this case. I have to ask you again: stop lumpng me together with everybody else, my stance is mine, and mine alone.
In this particular instance, I know I am not the only one to question MM´s alibi - and it is not from the innocent camp. Not going to say who it is, I promised not to.
-
the police wouldn't of wanted to believe his albi because it dident fit mugfords claims so im guessing that they were forced to believe by the fact it couldn't be pulled apart no much they tried.
-
I have always wondered just how iron cast MM´s alibi was. I believe it was a girlfriend who said she had been with him that night.
He was cheating on his wife. He went on to marry his girlfriend who he claimed to have been with on the night of the tragedies.
I wouldn't call it air tight either, but on saying that it might be that he was there. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
im kind of thinking would of wanted him to be guilty so the fact he wasnt arested means he cant of been.
-
the police wouldn't of wanted to believe his albi because it dident fit mugfords claims so im guessing that they were forced to believe by the fact it couldn't be pulled apart no much they tried.
Several people saw him at a location not close to WHF and by the time he was alone with his GF he would not have had time to reach WHF so as you say they gave up on the hit plot and switched gears to Jeremy acting directly.
The mercenary rumor seems to be why Jeremy picked his name of all names to choose.
-
All I will say is that Jeremy B. could not have carried this out alone. I am open to the possibility that he had an accomplice.
-
I have repeatedly said Jeremy could commit the massacre alone. His supporters often claim he could not to try to show his innocence.
The massacre was committed at the perfect time for an execution. Everyone should be asleep in bed.
Jeremy had access to WHF and the element of surprise on his side. He was fully clothed, probably wearing several layers, gloves & protective head gear. He had a rifle with 11 bullets in and more bullets available.
He was up against two six year olds, a 61 year old woman & a small woman. They were managable, even if they woke up. As it happened only Sheila may have woken up for any lenght of time. Or she was lead or carried to the main bedroom while half asleep. June & the twins were shot in bed.
Only an awake Neville could prove a threat. As it proved. Jeremy was banking on Neville not waking up. One head shot into Neville when he was in bed would have killed or at least immobilised him, so Jeremy could fire more shots.
-
I have repeatedly said Jeremy could commit the massacre alone. His supporters often claim he could not to try to show his innocence.
The massacre was committed at the perfect time for an execution. Everyone should be asleep in bed.
Jeremy had access to WHF and the element of surprise on his side. He was fully clothed, probably wearing several layers, gloves & protective head gear. He had a rifle with 11 bullets in and more bullets available.
He was up against two six year olds, a 61 year old woman & a small woman. They were managable, even if they woke up. As it happened only Sheila may have woken up for any lenght of time. Or she was lead or carried to the main bedroom while half asleep. June & the twins shot in bed.
Only an awake Neville could prove a threat. As it proved. Jeremy was banking on Neville not waking up. One head shot into Neville when he was in bed would have killed or at least immobilised him, so Jeremy could fire more shots.
So, YOU have repeatedly said.!!!!!! SUCH an enormous ego to imagine that even a fraction of what you've said has changed the thinking of ANYONE from either side of the divide. When someone DOES agree with you it's more than likely that it was their own long held belief.
-
Do you believe Jeremy 'could' have committed the massacre alone ?
If not how the hell did Sheila manage it. In a nightie without any element of surprise. Letting Neville make two phone calls. But June & the twins staying in bed ?
-
Do you believe Jeremy 'could' have committed the massacre alone ?
If not how the hell did Sheila manage it. In a nightie without any element of surprise. Letting Neville make two phone calls. But June & the twins staying in bed ?
Use your loaf. Sheila was in her " day clothes " up to a point,,as it was them which were found covered in blood most likely,,,soaking in the buckets. Hence why very little blood was found on her nightdress.
-
Oh. So Sheila committed the crime in her clothes. Then took them off and put them in a bucket. Then put her nightie on. I have never seen the proof of that.
Did she then make a cheese & pickle sandwich ?
-
Scipio made an interesting point.
Neville may have followed Jeremy into the kitchen.
It is quite clear Jeremy entered the main bedroom first. Fully loaded. Firing all 11 bullets into June & Neville.
Thinking he had killed and/or immobilised them both he went downstairs to reload.
Neville knew Jeremy was going to return upstairs fully loaded, so bravely got downstairs to confront Jeremy & try to protect the four people upstairs.
However it is still quite possible Jeremy chased Neville downstairs. But wouldn't Neville have fought Jeremy upstairs ? There was no point trying to run away and desert his family, who may still be alive. Jeremy would have caught a fleeing, injured Neville.
-
Oh. So Sheila committed the crime in her clothes. Then took them off and put them in a bucket. Then put her nightie on. I have never seen the proof of that.
Did she then make a cheese & pickle sandwich ?
Perhaps you can explain the buckets of blood then.
-
Perhaps you can explain the buckets of blood then.
They were buckets with clothes in. Perhaps they were being washed or soaked. People do wash clothes.
There was never any suggestion at trial that Sheila changed.
Do you think Neville may have chased Jeremy downstairs, as suggested ?
-
They were buckets with clothes in. Perhaps they were being washed or soaked. People do wash clothes.
There was never any suggestion at trial that Sheila changed.
Do you think Neville may have chased Jeremy downstairs, as suggested ?
Well I'm glad my washing doesn't consist of clothes soaking in volumes of blood.
Look Adam,,that trial made a laughing stock of the whole justice system.It was an ill-prepared one in every sense of the word,,as admitted by their own senior officers. At worst,,it was an unfair one as I think everyone will admit,,even the doubters and anti's.
Give me a break.Neville chasing Jeremy downstairs ? He'd have caught up and hoofed him down the rest of them onto the floor below,,end of.
-
All I will say is that Jeremy B. could not have carried this out alone. I am open to the possibility that he had an accomplice.
Why couldn't he have carried it out alone? What specific tasks require at least 1 additional person? Are you tlaking about before and after or are you talking about during the actual commission?
-
Perhaps you can explain the buckets of blood then.
You mean the bucket with panties that had been bled in while she had her period?
Well that is rather easy to explain- she bled in panties and then instead of using a maxipad or whatever she bled in more panties and soaked them in a bucket to try to salvage them instead of throwing the in the trash. Being a female apparently she was attached to them. A man will just throw away dirty underwear or stained underwear not try to salvage them because they are inexpensive and we are lazy and in some instance don't want anyone to know how we got them dirty because it is embarrassing.
The other bucket was not reported as having blood in he water merely soaking leggings. Whether a little blood seeped out of her panties into the inside of her leggings has never been revealed.
Nothing suggests this had anything to do with the murders. It has to do with women's biology.
-
Well I'm glad my washing doesn't consist of clothes soaking in volumes of blood.
Look Adam,,that trial made a laughing stock of the whole justice system.It was an ill-prepared one in every sense of the word,,as admitted by their own senior officers. At worst,,it was an unfair one as I think everyone will admit,,even the doubters and anti's.
Give me a break.Neville chasing Jeremy downstairs ? He'd have caught up and hoofed him down the rest of them onto the floor below,,end of.
There is nothing at all unfair abou tth etiral. Nothing unfair has been established by you or anyone else alleging such.
Nevill and his killer did indeed struggle over the weapon which is why he was beaten. EIther he pursued his killer to the kitchen or his killer pursued him. Either way the result was the same, the killer bludgeoned him into unconsciousness then reloaded and shot him.
Those who are not objective refuse to admit this because th enotion that Sheila beat him so viciously without breaking a nail and reeciving some kind of marks on her body including medion velocity back spatter defy credibility. So instead the beating is denied though the proof it occurred is overwhelming.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5213.0.html
-
Why couldn't he have carried it out alone? What specific tasks require at least 1 additional person? Are you tlaking about before and after or are you talking about during the actual commission?
The actual comission. It is a daunting task to climb into a dark house in the middle of the night, EXPECTING to be able to control five people all on your own. You cannot be sure that everyone is in their beds. Elderly people usually get up during the night to go to the bathroom for one. Dogs barking waking everyone up is another risk factor.
I have heard some attempts of explaining where Sheila was while the rest of the family were being killed, but none of them sound plausible to me. She wasn´t "led" to the bedroom by Jeremy - it is BS, somebody must have gone directly to her room to control her! She wouldn´t have been passive while her boys were being shot - even Colin says so.
If I am to believe Jeremy did it - and I am quite willing to - there must have been an accomplice. Save yourself the trouble of trying to convince me otherwise, won´t work, I can´t see Jeremy doing this alone.
-
id say for him to have done it there would of had to have been an acomplice but nobodys ever came up with a credible acomplice.
-
The actual comission. It is a daunting task to climb into a dark house in the middle of the night, EXPECTING to be able to control five people all on your own. You cannot be sure that everyone is in their beds. Elderly people usually get up during the night to go to the bathroom for one. Dogs barking waking everyone up is another risk factor.
I have heard some attempts of explaining where Sheila was while the rest of the family were being killed, but none of them sound plausible to me. She wasn´t "led" to the bedroom by Jeremy - it is BS, somebody must have gone directly to her room to control her! She wouldn´t have been passive while her boys were being shot - even Colin says so.
If I am to believe Jeremy did it - and I am quite willing to - there must have been an accomplice. Save yourself the trouble of trying to convince me otherwise, won´t work, I can´t see Jeremy doing this alone.
The whole reason to do it at the hour in question is in part because they will be easier to manage because they are in their beds. The chance of any being up at 2:30 is unlikely let alone more than 1 up.
There are numerous cases where single killers have slaughtered entire families overnight. There ar ealso cases where they salughtered some an d fled and the remaining members of the house di dnot wake up and only found out in he morning what happened.
Not all such cases involve guns. There are cases of knives and axes being used to kill everyone.
Just recently someone in California who went on a rampage with guns killed his 3 roomates using a knife.
The suggestion it is not possible for one person to do it is not true.
It would be safer to use an accomplice but on the other hand that leaves an extra person to talk and who needs an alibi.
If he hid the keys instead of leaving them in the locks and replaced them after the murders tha towuld make it harder for anyone to get out of the house before he killed them even if they did manage to reach a door. Whether he did that or not who knows.
He might not have bothered expecting them to be killed in bed.
-
The problem with this case for me is that I cannot see where Sheila was. I also cannot see her being "led". People resort to making her out to have been a blathering idiot of an easily led "girl" (she was a 28 year old mother!) to make their scenarios fit.
-
The actual comission. It is a daunting task to climb into a dark house in the middle of the night, EXPECTING to be able to control five people all on your own. You cannot be sure that everyone is in their beds. Elderly people usually get up during the night to go to the bathroom for one. Dogs barking waking everyone up is another risk factor.
I have heard some attempts of explaining where Sheila was while the rest of the family were being killed, but none of them sound plausible to me. She wasn´t "led" to the bedroom by Jeremy - it is BS, somebody must have gone directly to her room to control her! She wouldn´t have been passive while her boys were being shot - even Colin says so.
If I am to believe Jeremy did it - and I am quite willing to - there must have been an accomplice. Save yourself the trouble of trying to convince me otherwise, won´t work, I can´t see Jeremy doing this alone.
Contol ? They should all be asleep. Jeremy just had to control a gun.
There have been lots of reasons & ways Sheila was found in the bedroom.
-
I don´t find any of them neither reasonable nor plausible. Jeremy came from outside and couldn´t know whether one of them was out of bed.
Sheila was IN the house, she would have the advantage of knowing where people were. Besides, her parents wouldn´t be startled by her moving around, they would know the sounds of her and expect them, since she was staying over.
June was a light sleeper - perhaps Sheila too. Another risk factor for Jeremy coming from the outside.
-
besides theres no sighn of forced entry.
-
The problem with this case for me is that I cannot see where Sheila was. I also cannot see her being "led". People resort to making her out to have been a blathering idiot of an easily led "girl" (she was a 28 year old mother!) to make their scenarios fit.
She could have been in bed till he woke her up to take her in the master bedroom to kill her.
People suggest Nevill was too scared to try to disarm Sheila and willingly di dwhatever she told him to yet have a problem believing Sheila would be too scared to try to fight back and would simply march to the master bedroom and sit. The first shot was fired several inches from her body it is believed. Making her sit down and then shooting her would not be some great feat. He coudl have told her if she didn't he woudl go kill the twins. They could already have been killed but she didn't necessarily know one way or the other if she were in bed. He could have dragged her out of bed kicking and screaming we have no idea. Making the bed after to the limited extent it was made doesn't take substantial effort.
Under the influcence of her medicine she would be less likely to physically resist. That can't be forgotten as well.
If everyone were together in 1 room the task would have bee much harder which is why it was done at night. More magazines would have been necessary and help had they all been in the same room unless someone were a really goot shot and immobilized the all using the 11 shots and then would have time to reload to finish them. Otherwise reloading would be a challenge because who would let someone relaod without trying to attack them or alternative to run away? That's not what happened though. June and Ralph were together when shot she was immobilized he wasn't so that accounts for what happened in the kitchen. Eithe rhe chased his killer or his killer chased him they struggled, Neville was beaten unconscious then the killer could safely reload and kill him.
Had eveyrone been in the same room then more would have been able to either run away or help subdue the killer before reloading. Bu again because this was at night and people were in bed that didn't happen. The boys didn't wake up so why would Sheila have to wake up?
She simply had to have been woken up before she was shot not necessarily before anyone else was shot.
-
You are not convincing me - I told you to save yourself the trouble.
-
I don´t find any of them neither reasonable nor plausible. Jeremy came from outside and couldn´t know whether one of them was out of bed.
Sheila was IN the house, she would have the advantage of knowing where people were. Besides, her parents wouldn´t be startled by her moving around, they would know the sounds of her and expect them, since she was staying over.
June was a light sleeper - perhaps Sheila too. Another risk factor for Jeremy coming from the outside.
The expectation would be to have everyone in bed at that hour.
In fact they ate dinner and went to bed later than usual. Colin said that the boys would go to bed after dinner and Nevill typically went to bed by 9:30 and June a little after that. He said Sheila had been tired lately and would typically go to bed early as well. She left the party the night before they went to WHF early to go home to sleep. There would be an expecation they would be alseep and there is nothign to suggest anyone found him after he entered.
He didn't shoot someone downstairs and then go upstairs to finish the rest off. The shooting started upstairs in the master bedroom and proceeded downstairs after that.
Since people were staying over if there was any noise it could have been Sheila or the boys going to the bathroom so noise would not necessarily warrant any attention anyway.
Noise when only Nevill and June were home would be different. But he surely would want to try to be quiet and could very well have gone unnoticed till he entered their bedroom and turned on the lights because who would shoot them in the dark?
-
Dogs would have been barking in the Jeremy entered the farm scenario. The family dog was called "the Pest" because it was so noisy and barked all the time.
-
besides theres no sighn of forced entry.
Jeremy said in court & to the police he knew how to into WHF through windows. The judge suggested in his summing up it was plausible Jeremy may have entered WHF on the night.
A hack saw was found outside the bathroom window. It has been suggested this was used days beforehand to ensure a quiet entry on the night.
-
You are not convincing me - I told you to save yourself the trouble.
When there is so much evidence to the contrary you have to face that it means you believe what you want to believe jsut because you want to believe it not because that it how things are.
If you refuse to believe people will likely be in bed at 2:30AM who go to sleep hours earlier typically then your problem is simply not wanting to believe something because you don't want to as opposed to not believing it because it objectively is not a credible claim.
The same principle holds true for some other hangups you have suggested you have.
While you may not ever allow your opinion to change regardless of the evidence it is only evidence that could sway many who believe Jeremy is guilty to change their beleifs.
Some may be the same way as you and refuse to accept any evidence of his innocence.
Others like me would accept credible evidence if some were actually found for instance credible evidence of police planting blood would negate the suppressor though more evidence than that needs to be eliminated before his innocence would be genuinely established. That would be enough for a retrial and if enough evidence were eliminated then there would not even be a basis for a retrial he would simply be set free period.
-
no matter how I try to run the details through my mind I still come up with the same question what was Shiela doing when Ralph and June were shot? why were the children not disturbed? any mother could NOT be dragged away from going to her children without putting up a fight that left marks. and how the hell can you get someone to stay still whilst you position a shot to look like suicide? (even a good shot like Jeremy would find this difficult but then some people say he wasnt)
sorry just does not work!
-
Jeremy said in court & to the police he knew how to into WHF through windows. The judge suggested in his summing up it was plausible Jeremy may have entered WHF on the night.
A hack saw was found outside the bathroom window. It has been suggested this was used days beforehand to ensure a quiet entry on the night.
well its a fact couldn't of been used to get in because there would be signs of its use so that's rather irrelevant.
-
Dogs would have been barking in the Jeremy entered the farm scenario. The family dog was called "the Pest" because it was so noisy and barked all the time.
Sometimes they don't bark and when they do people sometimes ignore them and stay asleep or go back to sleep. Neighbors of the Amityvlle murder victims (Amityvill Horror fame) heard their dog barking furiously, he didn't like the son. The family was still all shot in their bed- 6 of them- and the rifle used did not have a suppressor. They could think the dog was barking at Sheila or the kids going to the bathroom and have ignored it or the dogs could have been slacking. The shots didn't wake the boys and the dogs would have been barking regardless of the killer if they were going to bark so the boys obviously slept through both and so potentially could others.
-
When there is so much evidence to the contrary you have to face that it means you believe what you want to believe jsut because you want to believe it not because that it how things are.
If you refuse to believe people will likely be in bed at 2:30AM who go to sleep hours earlier typically then your problem is simply not wanting to believe something because you don't want to as opposed to not believing it because it objectively is not a credible claim.
The same principle holds true for some other hangups you have suggested you have.
While you may not ever allow your opinion to change regardless of the evidence it is only evidence that could sway many who believe Jeremy is guilty to change their beleifs.
Some may be the same way as you and refuse to accept any evidence of his innocence.
Others like me would accept credible evidence if some were actually found for instance credible evidence of police planting blood would negate the suppressor though more evidence than that needs to be eliminated before his innocence would be genuinely established. That would be enough for a retrial and if enough evidence were eliminated then there would not even be a basis for a retrial he would simply be set free period.
I have not seen any convincing evidence that Jeremy did not have an accomplice. Why can´t you resoect other people´s opinions? What makes you so sure that you are right? Much of what you write is guesswork - just like everybody else.
P.S. you have made it clear what you think of me and that you find me sub-human and as dumb as a door. Why do you bother?
-
I have not seen any convincing evidence that Jeremy did not have an accomplice. Why can´t you resoect other people´s opinions? What makes you so sure that you are right? Much of what you write is guesswork - just like everybody else.
You said he had to have one. I provided evidence that he could have done it on his own.
I don't care what you choose to believe.
The fact of the matter is that he could have done it on his own and didn't have to have an accomplice and there is no evidence that he had an accomplice.
Vould he have had an acocmplice sure but he didn't have to and unless someone establishes he did I am not going to suggest Brett Collins helped him even though others are convinced he did.
Supposedly they engaged in other actions together abroad and even there are claims of murder abroad but unless the book coming out that supposedly makes such claims has credible evidence I am not going to entertain any of it.
-
See the P.S. in my post above.
-
youve provided no evedence just a theory so seem a vey strange idea of what evedence is.
-
P.S. you have made it clear what you think of me and that you find me sub-human and as dumb as a door. Why do you bother?
Calling someone biased is very different from considering them sub-human.
Furthermore, ignorance, twisting out of bias, intentionally lying outright and being dumb are 4 different things.
I am a strongly opinionated person but I base my opinions on evidence and am a fair person. I also am very exacting in how I differentiate between things including the 4 above. When I accuse someone of any of the 4 above I don't play games I do so outright. I have not called you dumb or an intentional liar. I have called you biased and in some intances factually wrong thus ignorant but that is all.
I don't take things perosnally when I argue with others and don't make things personal against them which is why I don't understand the red v blue forum battle which seems to be very personal not simply a debate over issues.
-
i think the fact you have throw in so much personal abuse shows how weak your arguments are.
and i think most posters here can see that.
-
Calling someone biased is very different from considering them sub-human.
Furthermore, ignorance, twisting out of bias, intentionally lying outright and being dumb are 4 different things.
I am a strongly opinionated person but I base my opinions on evidence and am a fair person. I also am very exacting in how I differentiate between things including the 4 above. When I accuse someone of any of the 4 above I don't play games I do so outright. I have not called you dumb or an intentional liar. I have called you biased and in some intances factually wrong thus ignorant but that is all.
I don't take things perosnally when I argue with others and don't make things personal against them which is why I don't understand the red v blue forum battle which seems to be very personal not simply a debate over issues.
You wrote a nasty post to me, you can´t explain that away, and I am not going to forget about it. I don´t understand why you are talking to me when your opinion of me is so low.
-
well its a fact couldn't of been used to get in because there would be signs of its use so that's rather irrelevant.
There were scratch marks on the window which matched the hacksaw.
Anyway Jeremy knew how to get into WHF without smashing windows. And how to lock the kitchen window from outside.
-
so if he could do that why would he try to hacksaw the window if he could get in without doing it.
ive never heard someone trying a window before i think it would make far to much noise.
-
I didn't hear anyone screaming that JB's prints,etc were on the hacksaw. I think we'd have heard soon enough if there had been,,or if he'd cut himself in the process.
-
well i think a hacksaw would make far to much noise i mean it certanly not of someone who wanted to silently to comit murder.
-
There were scratch marks on the window which matched the hacksaw.
Anyway Jeremy knew how to get into WHF without smashing windows. And how to lock the kitchen window from outside.
Adam, the initial forensic examination carried out on 8/9 September 1985 looking in particular for fingerprints, and entry or exit marks to the building, windows were photographed, swabbed and paint samples were taken. No scratches around the windows were discovered at that time. Also no textiles or bloodstains were found. Strangely by 1st October the catch and surrounding area of the downstairs toilet was examined again for scratch marks and there were scratches found on the edge of the catch also damage to the paintwork which had been caused by a thin blade probably used to force open the catch. As the marks weren't noted on the first extremely thorough examination it's likely that these scratches found on 1 October were probably made when Jeremy entered WHF that way using a penknife on 14/15 September. Interestingly he didn't bang the window shut as he couldn't do that so left a note to BW to ask JBoutell to lock the window.
The hacksaw was found outside WHF in full view by the relatives in October. Facts please Adam
-
Adam, the initial forensic examination carried out on 8/9 September 1985 looking in particular for fingerprints, and entry or exit marks to the building, windows were photographed, swabbed and paint samples were taken. No scratches around the windows were discovered at that time. Also no textiles or bloodstains were found. Strangely by 1st October the catch and surrounding area of the downstairs toilet was examined again for scratch marks and there were scratches found on the edge of the catch also damage to the paintwork which had been caused by a thin blade probably used to force open the catch. As the marks weren't noted on the first extremely thorough examination it's likely that these scratches found on 1 October were probably made when Jeremy entered WHF that way using a penknife on 14/15 September. Interestingly he didn't bang the window shut as he couldn't do that so left a note to BW to ask JBoutell to lock the window.
The hacksaw was found outside WHF in full view by the relatives in October. Facts please Adam
Maggie, would those be the true ones or the facts according to Adam? You didn't specify :D
-
so theres 3 theorys of how he got in the batroom was left open.
he hackswad hes way in leaving no trace that hed done it.
or he used trick that only he knew.
-
well i think a hacksaw would make far to much noise i mean it certanly not of someone who wanted to silently to comit murder.
As I said he would have used it 'before' the night. To ensure quiet access on the night.
-
yes and he made just as much noise the night before.
do you think nevile wouldent of noticed.
-
Adam, the initial forensic examination carried out on 8/9 September 1985 looking in particular for fingerprints, and entry or exit marks to the building, windows were photographed, swabbed and paint samples were taken. No scratches around the windows were discovered at that time. Also no textiles or bloodstains were found. Strangely by 1st October the catch and surrounding area of the downstairs toilet was examined again for scratch marks and there were scratches found on the edge of the catch also damage to the paintwork which had been caused by a thin blade probably used to force open the catch. As the marks weren't noted on the first extremely thorough examination it's likely that these scratches found on 1 October were probably made when Jeremy entered WHF that way using a penknife on 14/15 September. Interestingly he didn't bang the window shut as he couldn't do that so left a note to BW to ask JBoutell to lock the window.
The hacksaw was found outside WHF in full view by the relatives in October. Facts please Adam
Either the police did not look very hard at first as Jeremy had lead them to the murder/suicide direction.
Or this was part of the police frame up. This forum has agreed that Julie & the relatives did not have the skills or courage to do something so serious. So it must have been the police who told the lab to expertly put blood into the silencer.
-
yes and he made just as much noise the night before.
do you think nevile wouldent of noticed.
And the dogs wouldn't have barked.
-
Either the police did not look very hard at first as Jeremy had lead them to the murder/suicide direction.
Or this was part of the police frame up. This forum has agreed that Julie & the relatives did not have the skills or courage to do something so serious. So it must have been the police who told the lab to expertly put blood into the silencer.
Can we be clear on something Adam. This forum hasn't agreed with ANYTHING you've said............EVER.
-
Can we be clear on something Adam. This forum hasn't agreed with ANYTHING you've said............EVER.
Well you can only speak for yourself.
-
Can we be clear on something Adam. This forum hasn't agreed with ANYTHING you've said............EVER.
That´s right..... 8)
How come those guilters have so high thoughts about themselves? They think they are God´s gift to humanity, when in fact they are just average Joes guessing on an internet forum. It is unbearable - and super-annoying! :(
-
yes and he made just as much noise the night before.
do you think nevile wouldent of noticed.
Jeremy worked on the farm. He could do it any time when no one was around.
The scratch marks matched the hacksaw. Who used the hacksaw, Judge Drake ?
-
That´s right..... 8)
How come those guilters have so high thoughts about themselves? They think they are God´s gift to humanity, when in fact they are just average Joes guessing on an internet forum. It is unbearable - and super-annoying! :(
With egos being the largest part of their anatomies, Alias :)
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5344.0.html
-
if you were intending to slip a window catch you would take with you the most obvious tool a penknife. if you were attempting to slip the catch on the off chance you would look around for a likely tool a hacksaw blade fits the bill. a penknife is easier to carry than a 10 or 12 inch hacksaw blade.
-
Jeremy worked on the farm. He could do it any time when no one was around.
The scratch marks matched the hacksaw. Who used the hacksaw, Judge Drake ?
not without somnone noticing there house had been vandalized.
-
Jeremy knew how to get into WHF through windows. See his police interview transcripts. Read the judges summing up.
The hacksaw marks on the window & found hacksaw did him no favours either.
-
and how could he of respired the windows after hack sawing them exactly.
-
not without somnone noticing there house had been vandalized.
A few scratch marks on a bathroom window of a very large farmhouse.
Vandalised ?
-
Jeremy knew how to get into WHF through windows. See his police interview transcripts. Read the judges summing up.
The hacksaw marks on the window & found hacksaw did him no favours either.
-
Jeremy knew how to get into WHF through windows. See his police interview transcripts. Read the judges summing up.
The hacksaw marks on the window & found hacksaw did him no favours either.
Probably done weeks/months before the murders. Jeremy wasn't the only one who gained entry in that way either !
-
did he know how it get and bolt the doors from the inside and get out agian. that's the question.
-
I am not sure of the point of this discussion.
The police, DPP & jury beleived Jeremy could get into WHF through windows.
Jeremy has also said this himself.
Opportunity - yes.
You are flogging a dead horse.
-
so how did he do it then explian.
-
Jeremy knew how to get into WHF through windows. See his police interview transcripts. Read the judges summing up.
The hacksaw marks on the window & found hacksaw did him no favours either.
I know he did and so did the Eatons, it was Ann Eaton and RB who reported this just after the murders. The younger generation used the windows as an entrance when June and Nevill were out and the back/front door was locked.
He cannot be held responsible for a hacksaw he hadn't used, it did him no favours because it was presented in court by the prosecution but was never proven as being used. The marks around the window were from a pocket knife.
-
did he know how it get and bolt the doors from the inside and get out agian. that's the question.
Yes he did. He could bang the kitchen window shut from outside.
Sources already posted.
-
Jeremy knew how to get into WHF through windows. See his police interview transcripts. Read the judges summing up.
The hacksaw marks on the window & found hacksaw did him no favours either.
Listen to you, what a cheek telling me what to read, I have just put you straight.
-
Listen to you, what a cheek telling me what to read, I have just put you straight.
Attractive woman like you can put me straight anytime.
Numug obviously has not done much reading. So I am advising him/her what to read.
0nly Jeremy knows if he used the hacksaw prior to the night, to ensure a quiet entry. To me it seems the most likely thing that happened.
-
Yes he did. He could bang the kitchen window shut from outside.
Sources already posted.
Well there were rumours of this but it was never proved as far as I am aware. No one else could do it either, however what has that to do with the hacksaw being found after the forensic examination found no links and a later one on October 1 found marks from a slim blade by the catch after Jeremy had used a pocket knife to open the catch to get his passport from the safe, leaving a note to BW to ask JB to lock the window. Why don't you read the first post so I don't find myself repeating myself.
-
I was answering Numugs post.
Of course it was proved. The police would have tested the kitchen window for themselves.
-
if he had hacksawed his way through it would of been obvios he had done it but the proscution didint say this did they said hed climbed through an open batroom window they never fully how he knew the window would still be open but thats what they said.
-
I certainly don't remember reading of any fingerprints around the windows,,yet the transom window and another were open,,so why bother with a hacksaw blade ?
-
well it all rather contradicts itself if there was already open there would be need to take a hacksaw to a different window.
-
I certainly don't remember reading of any fingerprints around the windows,,yet the transom window and another were open,,so why bother with a hacksaw blade ?
if a window had been hacksawed open there would of been no need for the raid team to get in the way they did.
-
I was answering Numugs post.
Of course it was proved. The police would have tested the kitchen window for themselves.
Adam Essex Police Review
22/8/85 'first opportunity to go to WHF. Examined all windows. Most are sash type and could be opened from outside but could not be closed' ...... Barlow
The police withheld information until Jeremy was convicted that the windows could not be locked from the outside. Jeremy Bamber always admitted the windows could be opened from the outside, including the lounge windows but they could not be locked from the outside.
-
so theres no way he could of got out and closed the window.
-
You can open those old sash windows from the outside by sliding a penknife underneath the centre slide-catch and shifting the lever to one-side,,but unless the windows were counter-balanced and maintained,,could drop down with an almighty bang. Sometimes a book was needed to keep them open if you wanted air in the place,though chances are, they may have remained closed especially if the sash- cords were painted over.
-
but its not just opening them its closing them and locking them behind you.
-
I certainly don't remember reading of any fingerprints around the windows,,yet the transom window and another were open,,so why bother with a hacksaw blade ?
Think they were opened by the police during the day, lookout. Taff Jones checked the windows at 9.15 and found all windows including bathroom and kitchen window secure only dairy/transom window was open.
-
Adam Essex Police Review
22/8/85 'first opportunity to go to WHF. Examined all windows. Most are sash type and could be opened from outside but could not be closed' ...... Barlow
The police withheld information until Jeremy was convicted that the windows could not be locked from the outside. Jeremy Bamber always admitted the windows could be opened from the outside, including the lounge windows but they could not be locked from the outside.
Jeremy knew how to make at least one of the windows lock upon leaving and one window wa snot secure anyway according to police.
Had Jeremy not pretended he received a call form Nevill and not tried so hard to finger is sister and instead did a passive frame job feigning complete ignorance then when the frame fell it he could disclaim all knowledge and say it could have been anyone who killed them. Whiel he woudl have been suspected the evidence to convict him would have been lacking save Julie coming forward and the jury believing her over him.
Knowing about the murders and trying so hard to blame her is what established he is the one who did it as opposed to someone else.
That was his giant error.
-
but its not just opening them its closing them and locking them behind you.
Doesn't work with sash windows,nugs.
-
Jeremy knew how to make at least one of the windows lock upon leaving and one window wa snot secure anyway according to police.
Had Jeremy not pretended he received a call form Nevill and not tried so hard to finger is sister and instead did a passive frame job feigning complete ignorance then when the frame fell it he could disclaim all knowledge and say it could have been anyone who killed them. Whiel he woudl have been suspected the evidence to convict him would have been lacking save Julie coming forward and the jury believing her over him.
Knowing about the murders and trying so hard to blame her is what established he is the one who did it as opposed to someone else.
That was his giant error.
No The police did not ever find a window that would lock from outside, they just allowed that to be believed until after Jeremy was convicted. The police then admitted there was no way of securing the window from the outside during their review of the investigation.
-
so all doors bolted no window that can be opend from the outside the logical conclusion has to be no outside intruder.
-
Exactly. Purely an inside job.
-
but its not just opening them its closing them and locking them behind you.
"Later the appellant said he had decided to shoot his family and he told her that he had discovered that the catch on the kitchen window did not work and he could gain access to the house in that way. The appellant said he planned to leave the address by a different window, which latched when it was shut from the outside. He spoke of Sheila Caffell being a good scapegoat because of her admission to hospital during Easter 1985 and said that afterwards he would make it seem as if Sheila had done it and then killed herself."
"The appellant returned the moderator to the gun cupboard and before leaving the address called his home at Goldhanger, leaving the receiver off the hook, thus lending support to the alibi he would later rely upon. He then left the premises, one available route being to climb out of the kitchen window, banging it from the outside to drop the catch back into position and then cycled home."
These quotes are from the 2002 appellate decision. The police investigated the kitchen window in response to the following claim which also is quoted in said appeal decision:
"It is also of significance that he recorded on 20 August 1985:
"They (Robert Boulflour and Ann Eaton) thought the windows could be locked from outside the premises making particular reference to the window behind the bushes by the Geese pond facing towards the tennis court".
This would appear to be the kitchen window and provides the explanation for DC Barlow's examination of the kitchen window."
Barlow went and examined the Kitchen weindow in response to their claim and it was determined the catch could be closed from the outside. Hence the prosecution argued at trial that is how Jeremy left the house.
-
"Later the appellant said he had decided to shoot his family and he told her that he had discovered that the catch on the kitchen window did not work and he could gain access to the house in that way. The appellant said he planned to leave the address by a different window, which latched when it was shut from the outside. He spoke of Sheila Caffell being a good scapegoat because of her admission to hospital during Easter 1985 and said that afterwards he would make it seem as if Sheila had done it and then killed herself."
"The appellant returned the moderator to the gun cupboard and before leaving the address called his home at Goldhanger, leaving the receiver off the hook, thus lending support to the alibi he would later rely upon. He then left the premises, one available route being to climb out of the kitchen window, banging it from the outside to drop the catch back into position and then cycled home."
These quotes are from the 2002 appellate decision. The police investigated the kitchen window in response to the following claim which also is quoted in said appeal decision:
"It is also of significance that he recorded on 20 August 1985:
"They (Robert Boulflour and Ann Eaton) thought the windows could be locked from outside the premises making particular reference to the window behind the bushes by the Geese pond facing towards the tennis court".
This would appear to be the kitchen window and provides the explanation for DC Barlow's examination of the kitchen window."
Barlow went and examined the Kitchen weindow in response to their claim and it was determined the catch could be closed from the outside. Hence the prosecution argued at trial that is how Jeremy left the house.
NOTW 1986
"Jeremy never admitted to me that he had killed his family" I can't work that one out????
-
No The police did not ever find a window that would lock from outside, they just allowed that to be believed until after Jeremy was convicted. The police then admitted there was no way of securing the window from the outside during their review of the investigation.
Yes they did. They found out that the kitchen window could be closed from the outside. The 2002 appellate decision explains how they discovered it and that as a result police testifed at trial it was possible to close the catch from the outside and the prosecution maintained that is how Jeremy left.
Relatives explained such was possible wiht the kitchen window, the police examined said window and discovered the family was correct and this was testified to at trial.
On appeal the defense argued aong other things that the prosecution had no basis to assert eremy entered through the bathroom or exited through the kitchen.
The Appellate court pointed out that the the prosecution established at trial the bathroom sills had been freshly painted and the paint was scratched as if a knife or other object had been used to open the latch and this was the basis of suggesting the bathroom as an entry location. Moreover, the police testified how after being told by the family about the kitchen window being able to be locked from the outside they examined it and found that to be the case and that was the basis of arguing the kitchen was the exit point.
There is no need to even go through the original trial testimony the appellate decision summarizes most claims and evidence made by the parties at trial.
-
NOTW 1986
"Jeremy never admitted to me that he had killed his family" I can't work that one out????
If you mean why he told Julie he hired a hitman as opposed to admitting he perosnally did the killings he didn't want her to know he was so cold blooded he could kill children even.
-
If you mean why he told Julie he hired a hitman as opposed to admitting he perosnally did the killings he didn't want her to know he was so cold blooded he could kill children even.
No Scorpio I don't mean that. What I meat was JM told the police of his plans to kill his parents yet she told the NOTW that he never admitted to killing his parents to her. Then he tells her MM did it. When she asked him if he had done it he said of course not I couldn't do it. :-\ :-\
-
That's just it,,everyone had surmised that he'd killed his family simply by him allegedly saying that he " could kill his family "as told by RWB and JM.
-
That's just it,,everyone had surmised that he'd killed his family simply by him allegedly saying that he " could kill his family "as told by RWB and JM.
Jeremy had a wide range of friends why didn't he say this to them??????????
-
Exactly. Purely an inside job.
well thats the only thing i can conclude seeing as all the doors were bolted and the windows were locked.
-
well I just read the 2002 appeal - and it does not say to me that the police proved the window could be locked from the outside.
We all know JB went in and out of the of the window but the word of the relatives to me is not enough proof any of the window could be locked form the outside.
I will read it again tomorrow Scipio - so no need to lecture me - but I just can not see what you said
286. The prosecution had established conclusively and without challenge the appellant's ability to enter and leave the White House Farm when it was apparently secure from his own answers. Julie Mugford confirmed the fact. The Crown did not have the burden of proving by which window and by which mechanism the entry was made. The Crown proved capacity both to enter and leave. There was no issue. As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
-
but we have the latter review wich Maggie posted that said they couldn't be locked from the outside.
-
well I just read the 2002 appeal - and it does not say to me that the police proved the window could be locked from the outside.
We all know JB went in and out of the of the window but the word of the relatives to me is not enough proof any of the window could be locked form the outside.
I will read it again tomorrow Scipio - so no need to lecture me - but I just can not see what you said
286. The prosecution had established conclusively and without challenge the appellant's ability to enter and leave the White House Farm when it was apparently secure from his own answers. Julie Mugford confirmed the fact. The Crown did not have the burden of proving by which window and by which mechanism the entry was made. The Crown proved capacity both to enter and leave. There was no issue. As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
Exactly jansus, as far as I can see DC Barlow stated that the windows could not be locked. We know AE and RB claimed the windows could be opened and locked, Jeremy Bamber admitted most windows could be opened from the outside but not locked and I accept he may not have been telling the truth but as far as I can see it was never proven but was stated by the judge that it didn't have to be proven how he could enter and leave just that there was a possibility that he may have been able to.
-
Please don't get me started on the windows lol
In order to prove Jeremy committed the murder one had to prove he entered the house.
It was the crowns case that he entered the windows for the purpose of killing his family.
Maggie you can take it from here..... ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Please don't get me started on the windows lol
In order to prove Jeremy committed the murder one had to prove he entered the house.
It was the crowns case that he entered the windows for the purpose of killing his family.
Maggie you can take it from here..... ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
I will take it tomorrow thank you Patti ;) antibiotics are getting the better of me. Night all. xxx
-
well I just read the 2002 appeal - and it does not say to me that the police proved the window could be locked from the outside.
We all know JB went in and out of the of the window but the word of the relatives to me is not enough proof any of the window could be locked form the outside.
I will read it again tomorrow Scipio - so no need to lecture me - but I just can not see what you said
286. The prosecution had established conclusively and without challenge the appellant's ability to enter and leave the White House Farm when it was apparently secure from his own answers. Julie Mugford confirmed the fact. The Crown did not have the burden of proving by which window and by which mechanism the entry was made. The Crown proved capacity both to enter and leave. There was no issue. As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
You forgot the next part:
"The only way in which the window evidence could have been of importance in the jury's decision is if despite other evidence pointing to the appellant as the killer, they might have been prevented from reaching that conclusion by doubting that he could have got in and out on the night in question with the windows being found next day in the condition in which they were found. On the appellant's own admissions, no such doubt could arise."
What admissions? He admitted to entering the house through the windows including the very window in question- the bathroom while on bail and the windows and doors were found locked up after he allegedly did this so if his claim is true it means he had a way to leave and lock the window behind him.
Hence why the court said there could be no doubt about the fact he knew how to enter and leave with the house being fully locked up before and after.
He might have had another means to do so than the kitchen like out the dairy window or climbing from the second floor who knows but he established he is capable of leaving and the place remaining all locked up by saying he entered and left and the house was found fully locked up after it supposedly occurred. He thus screwed himself royally. He thought he was so smart that he would spoil their evidence by climbing through windows after they told him he used said windows. Instead he proved he is a dumbass by demonstrating he was able to get in and out without the place being insecure afterwards.
Forget Julie, he was his own worst enemy.
-
8th DC Jones examines the ground floor windows. All appear to closed and fastened. With the exception of the living room which was opened by the raid team and the small window in the kitchen which was also opened due to smell and flies.
8th and 9th August forensic team do an extensive examination of all ground floor windows. Nothing was found.
22nd August the windows where examined again. Nothing found.
28th September Cook attends WHF takes a scratched catch from the ground floor bathroom window exhibit RCW/8
1st October Elliot and his team again for the 3rd time do another examination of the ground floor windows. Elliot claims to have identified a catch on the ground floor bathroom window as being scratched.
How Elllot saw this catch let alone take it I haven't got a clue, because Cook took the catch on the 28th...
Note: 2 examinations of the ground floor nothing found.
16th September Jeremy admits to having got in through the said window.
After this date and only after this date did they find the said scratched catch.
If anyone can work this out they are a good one. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I will take it tomorrow thank you Patti ;) antibiotics are getting the better of me. Night all. xxx
Aww Night Maggie xxxx
-
the windows are the key if they couldent of been locked from the outside then the killer couldent be anyone else but sheila.
-
the windows are the key if they couldent of been locked from the outside then the killer couldent be anyone else but sheila.
If memory serves me right Nugs he also left a note that night asking BW to lock the window.
He was a fool to have done this at this point, had he not done then the 3rd examination of the windows would have resulted in nothing found like the two examinations before. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
That's just it,,everyone had surmised that he'd killed his family simply by him allegedly saying that he " could kill his family "as told by RWB and JM.
Hardly. There is irrefutable evidence that Sheila can't have killed herself and then put the suppressor away and can't have killed herself while sitting then moved herself flat. Dead people can't move.
Jeremy is the one who pushed the SHeila did it claim and everything he said and did clearly was ot frame her. Much of it is obvious lies and that is what establishes he did it. Julie's claims is just icing on the cake.
-
If memory serves me right Nugs he also left a note that night asking BW to lock the window.
He was a fool to have done this at this point, had he not done then the 3rd examination of the windows would have resulted in nothing found like the two examinations before. ;D ;D ;D ;D
he certanly was a fool do you rember where you heard this.
-
he certanly was a fool do you rember where you heard this.
Yes Nugs its in the COA document.
This was not mentioned in the original trial.
Had it been, the prosecution would have been a tad embarrassed. The defence would have then told the jury that Jeremy had been under surveillance at the time he went in through the window on the 16th September and left a note for BW. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
so he please lock the windows and make it harder to get in and commit murder.
i wonder what the jury would of made of that one.
because if you planning to break in to somewhere what really want is for someone to lock all the windows.
-
so he please lock the windows and make it harder to get in and commit murder.
i wonder what the jury would of made of that one.
because if you planning to break in to somewhere what really want is for someone to lock all the windows.
I wonder how many burglars are nicked of breaking in through a window without fingerprints, fibres or DNA evidence to support it? :-\ ;D ;D ;D
-
I wonder how many burglars are nicked of breaking in through a window without fingerprints, fibres or DNA evidence to support it? :-\ ;D ;D ;D
Plenty when they sell stolen goods or tell someone what they did and get ratted out.
Jerey not only told someone he made the giant mistake of reporting a crime that he staged and when the staging blew up in his face that left him to get burned.
-
I said yesterday there was not much point in this discussion.
It is common knowledge that Jeremy knew how to get into WHF through windows.
It is common knowledge a hacksaw was found outside a bathroom window.
It is common knowledge the marks on the window matched the hacksaw blade.
It is common knowledge it was possible to lock the kitchen window from outside by banging it.
These are all reasons why the judge said there was a 'mountain of circumstantial evidence' and a 'number of curious coincidences'.
-
I wonder how many burglars are nicked of breaking in through a window without fingerprints, fibres or DNA evidence to support it? :-\ ;D ;D ;D
i wonder how many ak someone to lock lock all the windows before breaking in.
-
That's worse than leaving a note inside to say that you've left the key under the mat at the front door. ;D ;D
-
Plenty when they sell stolen goods or tell someone what they did and get ratted out.
Jerey not only told someone he made the giant mistake of reporting a crime that he staged and when the staging blew up in his face that left him to get burned.
Scorpio that's not answering my question is it...Although they might sell stolen goods it does not prove they nicked them. They could well say that they found them dumped at the back of their house or in a field or had bought them at a knock down price from a stranger.....of which they would still be in trouble for receiving stolen property. A court can't prove they actually stole it. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
he certanly was a fool do you rember where you heard this.
yes he said that in his statement - and it was because as he admitted all along he could get in and out of the house - but he always said they would NOT lock from the outside.
I thought I was going to read that the police disproved that - but so far I have not done so.
It seemed to me that the COA were saying the police made some mistakes on their dates ????? And accepted that as well . Great is it not when the people you are relying on for facts can be ambiguous on
Dates
Times
Conversation interpretation
Logs.
Changed notebooks.
Does not give us a lot of hope really.
-
Scorpio that's not answering my question is it...Although they might sell stolen goods it does not prove they nicked them. They could well say that they found them dumped at the back of their house or in a field or had bought them at a knock down price from a stranger.....of which they would still be in trouble for receiving stolen property. A court can't prove they actually stole it. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
If someone is in possession of stolen goods, can't reasonably account for how they got a hold of said goods, and has no alibi for when the robbery occurred they are going to have probles because they could very well be convicted of being the one who stole them. That is why they rat out who sold them goods and that sort of thing. Or why one would admit to being a fence if something they bought had been obtained in a murder.
This case was not like that though this case was a classic frame job that fell apart and the person doing the framing is obviously the real criminal.
How did he try to frame her?
Passive frame
1) he killed her last, killed her in the master bedroom instead of her own bed and left the gun on her and even put her hand on it.
Had he done this only then when the frame fell apart there would be nothing but a proposed motive that he was the true killer (and Julie's testimony which coudl have been avoided by not tlaking to her about his plan for so long)
Active Frame
2) call police saying Nevill had phoned him to say Sheila had the gun and had gone crazy
3) tell police on the scene that Sheila had fired all guns in the house and had gone shooting with him
4) stage the bullets and tell police he left the bullets exactly where they were found and claim he left the gun out (the exact location he left it changed with each interview) and had loaded it in front of Sheila so she would know how to load it. Also to say it had no scope or suppressor attached.
He did other things during the investigation itself that gave himself away like change his testimony from not using the gun the week prior to claiming he used it repeatedly the week prior after the last known user said it had been found and put away with the scope and suppressor attached. Changing claims to try to negate a problem is a sign of making things up.
But the above just speaks to his frame job. The active frame job sunk him because when police found out Sheila could not have killed herself that establishes she was framed and the active frame job revealed who it was that framed her while the passive frame job did not.
It is for this reason even the defense admitted if Sheila wasn't the killer then it was Jeremy.
Trying to pretend this is novel fails. There have been plenty of cases where people who framed others ended up being caught because the frame fell apart and left them holding the bag.
-
you are all talking round in circles. stop and think how would you do it if you had to. look at the photos. its easy . in through the sash window lock it after you carry out the killings all now silent so out the door put a ladder up to the OPEN bedroom window back in through the door lock it out the upstairs window leaving it as found put the ladder away jobs a goodun!!!!
as far as I can see the access exit debate is neither here nor there it proves nothing
wilf
-
so difficult but not impossible then.
-
I wonder how many burglars are nicked of breaking in through a window without fingerprints, fibres or DNA evidence to support it? :-\ ;D ;D ;D
Not many are nicked - probably cuz they watch CSI ;D. CCTV has helped but not all areas are covered (unless someone has their own)
-
Not many are nicked - probably cuz they watch CSI ;D. CCTV has helped but not all areas are covered (unless someone has their own)
There's some WONDERFUL stuff that comes out of the good ol' US of A ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Not many are nicked - probably cuz they watch CSI ;D. CCTV has helped but not all areas are covered (unless someone has their own)
CSI NY was the good one and they went and cancelled it.
Your point is somewhat valid though. Various tv shows have made evidence collection procedures mainstream and provide potential criminals with knowledge needed to avoid getting caught if they really want to execute a crime carefully. But not all people seem to care look at Guede in the Kercher case, he left evidence everywhere, not even using a condom, but got 10 years off his sentence for changing his testimony from some unknown person did it while he was in the toilet to saying knox did it and will be out soon on parole.
-
CSI NY was the good one and they went and cancelled it.
Your point is somewhat valid though. Various tv shows have made evidence collection procedures mainstream and provide potential criminals with knowledge needed to avoid getting caught if they really want to execute a crime carefully. But not all people seem to care look at Guede in the Kercher case, he left evidence everywhere, not even using a condom, but got 10 years off his sentence for changing his testimony from some unknown person did it while he was in the toilet to saying knox did it and will be out soon on parole.
Had my late partner not been the man he was he's have made an excellent criminal ;D "They" would announce that the had put something in place to make it more difficult for others to WHATEVER and just for the hell of it he'd find a way to circumvent it.
-
I had a brother-in-law like that,,April. He was nicknamed " The Godfather ". ;D Sooooo clever.
-
Had my late partner not been the man he was he's have made an excellent criminal ;D "They" would announce that the had put something in place to make it more difficult for others to WHATEVER and just for the hell of it he'd find a way to circumvent it.
Obviously a man who loved a challenge, April ;D ;D :) :)
-
lookout a bit like that myself ;D ;D ;D
-
you are all talking round in circles. stop and think how would you do it if you had to. look at the photos. its easy . in through the sash window lock it after you carry out the killings all now silent so out the door put a ladder up to the OPEN bedroom window back in through the door lock it out the upstairs window leaving it as found put the ladder away jobs a goodun!!!!
as far as I can see the access exit debate is neither here nor there it proves nothing
wilf
so was there a ladder on WHF?
-
CSI NY was the good one and they went and cancelled it.
Your point is somewhat valid though. Various tv shows have made evidence collection procedures mainstream and provide potential criminals with knowledge needed to avoid getting caught if they really want to execute a crime carefully. But not all people seem to care look at Guede in the Kercher case, he left evidence everywhere, not even using a condom, but got 10 years off his sentence for changing his testimony from some unknown person did it while he was in the toilet to saying knox did it and will be out soon on parole.
I think a lot more criminals are now forensically aware. It's a bit worrying really!
-
Not many are nicked - probably cuz they watch CSI ;D. CCTV has helped but not all areas are covered (unless someone has their own)
LOL....Its not the same without Grisom :'( I did mean 1985 ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
lookout a bit like that myself ;D ;D ;D
I can't imagine it,Susan. ;D ;D
-
so was there a ladder on WHF?
ive never heard of it but i would be suprised if there wasnt one on the farm.
-
ive never heard of it but i would be suprised if there wasnt one on the farm.
so how would you access the top of a stack of bales? or a hundred other farm jobs there must have been
-
so how would you access the top of a stack of bales? or a hundred other farm jobs there must have been
but that's like posters saying Sheila would have known how to use a gun because she was bought up on the farm?
I was just wondering if there was one near to the house that was accessible - that he could put away easily
If there was I guess the police would have sussed that out as well and not relied on the "window locking from the outside " theory.
After all they must have come across the Ladder method of entry ALL the time.
-
the qustion would where was this latdder was it lying about or was it locked up somewhere id guess it would of probely been locked up but obviosly i cant be certain of that it would be a good subject for further research...
would it of been easy for him to go and get.
how would he do it without making the dogs bark.
-
I cant think of a farm without at least one ladder easily to hand as for the dogs it wouldnt matter as he would only need the ladder to EXIT the farm when he would be the only one alive.
as I said the entering and exit theory is a red herring neither here nor there just because it could be done (easily) doesnt mean it was.
wilf
-
oh yes your right if you did it afterwoods in wouldent matter.
some farms would lock up the ladders at night though mind you that wouldent matter if he he had a key.
-
I cant think of a farm without at least one ladder easily to hand as for the dogs it wouldnt matter as he would only need the ladder to EXIT the farm when he would be the only one alive.
as I said the entering and exit theory is a red herring neither here nor there just because it could be done (easily) doesnt mean it was.
wilf
I am not disagreeing with you . All I am saying is you think the police would have looked at that possibility rather than taking a risk that the court would accept the fact that they did not have to prove that the downstairs windows could be locked from the outside ( which they did not)
Thought they would have taken the easy option and used your argument. Even if the ladder did not have fingerprints they could have used the " gloves" argument.
But if the ladder was in a barn a long way away then he would have to risk taking it there on his bike :)
-
refresf my memory where any of the window open.
-
refresf my memory where any of the window open.
The main bedroom window was not locked and the dairy window was open.
My guess is this ladder business is because of the main bedroom window wasn't locked.
I have dropped from a second floor window before (no ladder was available) but you can get hurt if you don't land right so it is not something to risk unless you really need to do so. Carrying a ladder to climb out and then carrying it away is not impossible - how far away was this bard where it supposedly was?
I can't imagine someone bothering with this if they had to carry the ladder more than half a mile. Especially if there were a way to get the window in the kitchen to latch.
-
you would need a torch though.
-
you would need a torch though.
A torch for what?
-
well must people who are trying to find there way around in the dark need a torch.
-
well must people who are trying to find there way around in the dark need a torch.
This was 1985, flashlights had been invented. At any rate unless there is no moon at all and solid coud cover many people (myself included) can get along fine in the dark. I have traversed woods without a problem in the dark save getting caught on thorns so walking around the outside of the farm would not be too difficult.
To kill someone I would just turn the light on in their room. They would be blinde dby the light at first even if they did wake up so I would not care. It would be better than trying to shoot by light from the hallway or window. But who knows maybe he did stand next to the window so he could shoot with the light from said window hitting th ebed to give him the best view. Killers are not always smart and sometimes do things the hard way.
Which is why even though I would not bother with a ladder some jackass might. People have been stuck in chimneys even criminals often do stupid things.
-
to fumble about in a pitch black farm to find a ladder would require a torch i think.
-
to fumble about in a pitch black farm to find a ladder would require a torch i think.
A flashlight will do, I used one enough in dark woods to know. Often we had to use a red lens no less.
The bigger problem with a ladder is why bother carrying it around if there is an alternative means that is less work?
The Lindberg baby was kidnapped at night using a ladder. The goal there was to make an exit before living people could find out. If you plan to kill a whole household you don't have to worry about entering and leaving the same way undetected.
-
A flashlight will do, I used one enough in dark woods to know. Often we had to use a red lens no less.
The bigger problem with a ladder is why bother carrying it around if there is an alternative means that is less work?
The Lindberg baby was kidnapped at night using a ladder. The goal there was to make an exit before living people could find out. If you plan to kill a whole household you don't have to worry about entering and leaving the same way undetected.
The Lindenberg case which I am familiar with. The forensic scientist that examined the ladder claimed notoriety for finding out where the ladder was made. The ladder was not on site though. Whoever took the child brought the ladder to the house if memory serves me right. Still a mystery. ;D ;D ;D
-
A flashlight will do, I used one enough in dark woods to know. Often we had to use a red lens no less.
The bigger problem with a ladder is why bother carrying it around if there is an alternative means that is less work?
The Lindberg baby was kidnapped at night using a ladder. The goal there was to make an exit before living people could find out. If you plan to kill a whole household you don't have to worry about entering and leaving the same way undetected.
welll other than wilfs theory i cant see any other way in and out.
-
refresf my memory where any of the window open.
look at the photo of the gun leaning against the window. besides its August whats to think about an unlocked first floor window. look also at the aerial photo the barns are next to the house
p.s. still dont think this has any bearing.
-
The Lindenberg case which I am familiar with. The forensic scientist that examined the ladder claimed notoriety for finding out where the ladder was made. The ladder was not on site though. Whoever took the child brought the ladder to the house if memory serves me right. Still a mystery. ;D ;D ;D
The ladder was left behind broken into 3 parts in the bushes because it didn't matter. The ladder was simply out of sight so the kidnapper could have extra time to get away with the Lindbergh baby. Leavign the adder visible would have made it more likely to know somethign was wrong and discover the baby was missing sooner. In this case the ladder would need to be removed entirely since the whole purpose would have been to leave from a second story window without appearing to have left through it. Unless there was absolutely no possible alternative who would go through the work involved?
PS Yes supposedly the wood was tied to a garage where it had been made from the rafters. The man staying in that house (Hauptmann) also had around $15,000 of the ransom money in it. The defense suggested he was framed by the real killer and a number of people still wonder if he was framed or not.
Someone in the NY area spent several thousand dollars and it actually took quite a while to track the spending to Hauptmann. He had no good excuse for having the money.
A lot of the money never turned up which feeds into the conspiracy theories. Either 1) he had an accomplice(s) who decided to destroy the money after they saw it lead to Hauptmann being caught, 2) he hid it somewhere that to this day no one has discovered, or 3) someone who owned the house subsequently found his stash but never revealed it (The money is no longer legal tender so at this point is only a collectible so unless into numismatics is won't matter and a collector might even be scared to disclose the truth out of dear of the certificates being taken away).
I can't see someone giving him $20,000 so he gets caught, spend nothing theselves and just toss the rest of the money away.
-
The ladder was left behind broken into 3 parts in the bushes because it didn't matter. The ladder was simply out of sight so the kidnapper could have extra time to get away with the Lindbergh baby. Leavign the adder visible would have made it more likely to know somethign was wrong and discover the baby was missing sooner. In this case the ladder would need to be removed entirely since the whole purpose would have been to leave from a second story window without appearing to have left through it. Unless there was absolutely no possible alternative who would go through the work involved?
PS Yes supposedly the wood was tied to a garage where it had been made from the rafters. The man staying in that house (Hauptmann) also had around $15,000 of the ransom money in it. The defense suggested he was framed by the real killer and a number of people still wonder if he was framed or not.
Someone in the NY area spent several thousand dollars and it actually took quite a while to track the spending to Hauptmann. He had no good excuse for having the money.
A lot of the money never turned up which feeds into the conspiracy theories. Either 1) he had an accomplice(s) who decided to destroy the money after they saw it lead to Hauptmann being caught, 2) he hid it somewhere that to this day no one has discovered, or 3) someone who owned the house subsequently found his stash but never revealed it (The money is no longer legal tender so at this point is only a collectible so unless into numismatics is won't matter and a collector might even be scared to disclose the truth out of dear of the certificates being taken away).
I can't see someone giving him $20,000 so he gets caught, spend nothing theselves and just toss the rest of the money away.
Yes it was a very interesting case. Many people thought Lindenberg and the Nanny was in on it. The poor little mite was found dead in some shrub land dead not far from the house. The other case that has always interested me was Jonbenet Ramsey. :-\
-
Yes it was a very interesting case. Many people thought Lindenberg and the Nanny was in on it. The poor little mite was found dead in some shrub land dead not far from the house. The other case that has always interested me was Jonbenet Ramsey. :-\
Me too. I don´t know all that much about the Lindberg case, but have ooked quite a bit into the JonBenet Ramsay case. Who do you think did it?
-
Me too. I don´t know all that much about the Lindberg case, but have ooked quite a bit into the JonBenet Ramsay case. Who do you think did it?
Hi Alias :)
I'm not sure. The parents were persecuted for many years. Jonbenet's mother has since died of cancer.
I found it odd that a 3 pages ransom note was left on the stairs. Yet whoever took her sexually assaulted her and killed her in the basement. Her father was the one that found her. The house still stand empty to this day. Its one of those cases that gets you thinking, who could have done it? Was it a paedophile, a jealous competitor, neighbour or family. I just don't know. :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Hi Alias :)
I'm not sure. The parents were persecuted for many years. Jonbenet's mother has since died of cancer.
I found it odd that a 3 pages ransom note was left on the stairs. Yet whoever took her sexually assaulted her and killed her in the basement. Her father was the one that found her. The house still stand empty to this day. Its one of those cases that gets you thinking, who could have done it? Was it a paedophile, a jealous competitor, neighbour or family. I just don't know. :-\ :-\ :-\
Some ex-cop has written a book about the case recently (James Kolar). He thinks JonBenet´s brother, Burke, did it, and the parents covered up. I have no idea, NONE! Think Burke was too young, nine-ten years old, though he was very jealous of his sister. The strangest case I have come across.
Scipio will soon come hopping along and explain it all to us, sub-humans, he knows what happened, as he knows everything. ;) ;) ;) ;) ::)
SORRY MODS; WE ARE OFF TOPIC; WE KNOOOOOW!!!! ;D
-
Some ex-cop has written a book about the case recently (James Kolar). He thinks JonBenet´s brother, Burke, did it, and the parents covered up. I have no idea, NONE! Think Burke was too young, nine-ten years old, though he was very jealous of his sister. The strangest case I have come across.
Scipio will soon come hopping along and explain it all to us, sub-humans, he knows what happened, as he knows everything. ;) ;) ;) ;) ::)
SORRY MODS; WE ARE OFF TOPIC; WE KNOOOOOW!!!! ;D
Its weird that you should say Kolar thinks that. When I first watched a documentary on it, it did enter my mind that this could have happened. Then I thought no way. I doubt we shall ever find out what happened to the wee lass.
Yep we are a little off topic.....sowwy..... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Its weird that you should say Kolar thinks that. When I first watched a documentary on it, it did enter my mind that this could have happened. Then I thought no way. I doubt we shall ever find out what happened to the wee lass.
Yep we are a little off topic.....sowwy..... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Didn't her parents take a lie detector test and passed?
-
The problem is if people suspend belief, make excuses for and refute the overwhelming evidence pointing towards Bamber, you are left with only one other potential killer. Sheila.
But the forensic evidence does not support Sheila as the killer. Qualified experts hired by the defence said her illness would not result in her going into such a murderous rage. And my 'Sheila on the night' thread shows it was impossible for her to commit the massacre.
So there are two big stumbling blocks.