Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on June 03, 2014, 02:23:AM
-
It was a gross mistake to tell the jury that the person responsible for the shootings was either Sheila or Jeremy, with no possibility of any third party involvement. None more so, because evidence existed to indicate the additional involvement of June Bamber, and the police...
-
Police knew by mid September 1985, that the rifle already had ammunition loaded into it prior to Jeremy adding new bullets taken from a full box of 50. Police know that five rounds already in the gun had got double magazine markings on them and that these five rounds could not have been directly loaded into the gun from the aforementioned box of 50, by Jeremy, or anybody else. It also helped police to establish that Jeremy had in fact loaded six new rounds from the box on tuesday evening, all of which produce single marked cases. Police were able to pinpoint where at the scene these five double magazine marked cases were found, which provided them with a clear picture of where the first full load of the guns bullet had been fired...
It was possible to do this because of the sequence with which the five double marked rounds had been loaded into the gun, along with the order that Jeremy had loaded six single marked rounds into the gun...
-
Before the shootings started police were able to calculate that the rifle had been loaded with a total of 11 rounds...
-
Before the shootings started police were able to calculate that the rifle had been loaded with a total of 11 rounds...
Five rounds which were dounle marked already in the gun, and six new rounds with single magazine marks on them from the new box of 50 bullets that Jeremy spoke about...
-
It was possible to establish that one of the double marked rounds must have already been sat in the breech of the gun, and that the other four double marked rounds were sat one above the other upon the follower plate. When Jeremy liaded the six new single marked rounds into the gun, these sat perched one above the other on top of the other four double marked rounds inside the ammunition magazine. The way all these individual rounds had been loaded into the gun, dictated the order with which the bullets would be fired from it...
The first round fired during the shootings was the double magazine marked round sat in the breech of the gun, followed in sequence by each of the six single magazine marked rounds loaded into the gun by Jeremy. These would be followed by the discharge from the gun of the other four double magazine marked rounds, until the gun was empty of bullets...
Locating the whereabouts at the scene of the five double magazine marked bullet cases provides a precise account of where the shootings started...
-
Police discovered that two double marked bullet cases were present inside the childrens bedroom, one double marked case in the main bedroom where the parents normally slept, and another two double marked bullet cases recovered downstairs in the kitchen...
-
What this tells us is that the children were shot first and foremost, easily worked out by the fact that the children were shot a total of 8 times. Since Jeremy had only loaded six single marked rounds into the gun on the previous evening, it must follow that two of the 8 shots directed at the child victims must have included two double magazine marked rounds, seemingly confirmed by the recovery of two double marked bullet cases from that location...
So, children shot first, leaving three rounds in the gun, all of which were double magazine marked rounds...
-
We then discover that police recovered a solitary double magazine marked bullet case from the main bedroom, and the other two double magazine marked bullet cases were found by police downstairs in the kitchen...
-
Now, what I am proposing is that the distribution of the five double magazine marked bullet cases at different locations inside the farmhouse, provides the perfect framework with which to help establish what took place at the start, and to see if any of it fits in with Jeremys account regarding the phone call he says he received from his dad...
-
Whoever the shooter was, that person discharged the first 8 rounds inside the childrens bedroom, then went into the main bedroom and discharged one shot, before going downstairs and discharging the last two shots from the first load of the gun...
-
I think it was very wrong to have reached such a conclusion to say that it was either one of them.
What was fair about that when one couldn't speak ?
-
Based upon this new analysis, I believe it safe to say that Ralph Bamber must have recieved a solitary shot upstairs in the main bedroom, somehow made his way downstairs to the kitchen, leaving his blood from a wounded arm on wall paper on the stairs, leaving his blood on the door frame of the kitchen door, and leaving a bloodied hand orint on the edge of the kitchen worktop - he must have been only shot once upstairs in the bedroom because of the blood trail evidence leading from upstairs to the kitchen downstairs, as described, and because of the location of the double magazine marked bullet cases distributed in different parts of the farmhouse...
Knowing this is what must have occurred, sheds a completely different light on the case...
Suddenly, Jeremys account appears to be more believable...
-
A wounded arm would not have prevented Ralph Bamber from speaking on the phone briefly to Jeremy, or to give a more detailed account to police on the phone, later...
-
A wounded arm would not have prevented Ralph Bamber from speaking on the phone briefly to Jeremy, or to give a more detailed account to police on the phone, later...
It wouldn't have taken much effort for him to have added "I'm hit" to what he said.
-
It wouldn't have taken much effort for him to have added "I'm hit" to what he said.
April,,maybe he wouldn't have wanted to have said much more in case it put Jeremy off from going,,,thinking he'd be next.
-
I think if there'd been a list of Sheilas' problems and illness,etc,,the jury then would have been hard-pushed to decide. As it was,,two of them didn't agree,,and at one time,a majority verdict would have been a necessary decision,and not a unanimous one as is requested today.
-
Evidence now exists to prove the sequence with which the first full load of the rifle was fired by the shooter...
Childrens bedroom - 8 shots, Daniel 5, Nicholas 3, 5 single marked bullet cases, 2 double marked cases...
Main bedroom - 9 shots, June 7, Ralph1, Sheila 1, 8 single marked bullet cases, 1 double marked case...
Kitchen - 7 shots, Ralph 6, Sheila 1, 5 single marked cases, 2 double marked cases...
-
I think if there'd been a list of Sheilas' problems and illness,etc,,the jury then would have been hard-pushed to decide. As it was,,two of them didn't agree,,and at one time,a majority verdict would have been a necessary decision,and not a unanimous one as is requested today.
PI Bob Miller, DI Ron Cook, DCS Mick Ainsley, and the rest of the team of SOC at the scene, including DC Hammersley, all conspired to pervert the course of justice, by arranging for the original four bullet cases found in the region of the kitchen, to be transferred as having been found in the main bedroom, this was done deliberately, so that the argument that Ralph had been shot as many as 4 times whilst upstairs in the bedroom, including a bullet fired into his jaw, would have prevented Ralph from being able to speak, and therefore bolster up the claim that Jeremy had made up the details of the allegged call from his father at the scene...
We now know the police tampered with the placement of four bullet cases found downstairs in the kitchen, but moved as though they had been recovered from the main bedroom, a deception which altered the total of shots fired in the main bedroom, from 9 to 13, whilst at the same time reducing the total number of shots disharged in the kitchen by 4, from 7 to 4...
-
I'd like to think that there was 1 " stray " bullet case in the part of the kitchen where Neville wasn't within the area of it.
Have we got the exact positions/areas in which the cases were found ? Is it in the Archives ? If so,,I'll look,,to save someone repeating themselves. I tend to forget these " little " details.
-
It was a gross mistake to tell the jury that the person responsible for the shootings was either Sheila or Jeremy, with no possibility of any third party involvement. None more so, because evidence existed to indicate the additional involvement of June Bamber, and the police...
I think the phone call claim narrows it down to Sheila or Jeremy. If you're saying the phone call still happened BUT Neville was referring to June (said 'she' and not 'Sheila'), then surely you can't believe there was a second call to the police?
-
I think the phone call claim narrows it down to Sheila or Jeremy. If you're saying the phone call still happened BUT Neville was referring to June (said 'she' and not 'Sheila'), then surely you can't believe there was a second call to the police?
Hi Caroline,
I believe there was a great deal of tension, anxiety and confusion in the air when events started to take a turn for the worst around about 3.25am on that particular night. The mix up concerning what Ralph said to Jeremy, as opposed to what he said to the police, can easily be explained away by the counter argument that is the proof which confirms that both of them, June and Sheila were off thier trollys at the same time...
-
Hi Caroline,
I believe there was a great deal of tension, anxiety and confusion in the air when events started to take a turn for the worst around about 3.25am on that particular night. The mix up concerning what Ralph said to Jeremy, as opposed to what he said to the police, can easily be explained away by the counterargumenr that is the proof which confirms thAt both of them were off thier trollys at the same time...
That being the case, why wouldn't he have said that? 'Sheila' or even 'she' implies one person. Had they both turned psychotic, I feel sure IF he made the call, he's have mentioned it.
-
That being the case, why wouldn't he have said that? 'Sheila' or even 'she' implies one person. Had they both turned psychotic, I feel sure IF he made the call, he's have mentioned it.
I believe his first conversation with Jeremy was where he used the phras "She", meaning June, because he had already been shot once by her upstairs in the bedroom. No sooner does Ralph start to tell Jeremy that "she" has got the gun, than all hell breaks loose because Sheila turns up brandishing one of Ralphs guns, which I suspect was the 12 bore shotgun the police later became interested in, and she may have been threatening to use it...
-
What we now know, is that when Ralph called Jeremy, he had already been shot once in the arm, and by the time Ralph had finished talking to police, he was in line to be shot again by the last two rounds inside the anshuzt rifle...
-
Police knew by mid September 1985, that the rifle already had ammunition loaded into it prior to Jeremy adding new bullets taken from a full box of 50. Police know that five rounds already in the gun had got double magazine markings on them and that these five rounds could not have been directly loaded into the gun from the aforementioned box of 50, by Jeremy, or anybody else. It also helped police to establish that Jeremy had in fact loaded six new rounds from the box on tuesday evening, all of which produce single marked cases. Police were able to pinpoint where at the scene these five double magazine marked cases were found, which provided them with a clear picture of where the first full load of the guns bullet had been fired...
It was possible to do this because of the sequence with which the five double marked rounds had been loaded into the gun, along with the order that Jeremy had loaded six single marked rounds into the gun...
First of all, there is no evidence to establish there were 5 rounds in the gun prior to Jeremy loading more. Your supposed single/double marked claims are hogwash. At BEST there could be marks on a case that suggest it had been ejected from a gun prior. That would merely mean the gun was unloaded though. For instance, working the bolt to eject 5 rounds until the gun is empty. There would be breech marks and ejection marks left on the live rounds. Far from establishing these rounds were still in the magazine of the gun it indicates they had been unloaded through the ejection port.
When a round is unfired markings of this sort will stand out. When fired any previous marks will belnd in with the new ones and the claim it is possible to tell for sure a bullt was previously unloaded from the gun is specious.
If 5 rounds were unloaded from the gun through the ejection port then they woudl have been placed in the tray again not the magazine. No one unloads 5 rounds through the ejection port to then immediately load them back into the magazine. You drop the magazine, eject the round in the chamber and load it into the magazine again you don't eject all 5 to reload into the magazine.
You supposed evidence, if true, at best can prove 5 of the rounds used to commit the murders were unloaded through the ejection port previous to Jeremy loading the weapon. That falls far short of establishing they were in the a magazine when he picked up the weapon. In fact it cuts against it because when you empty a magazine by ejecting all shells out of the ejection port it means you are doing so specifically so the weapon will remain empty. Instead of unloading the magazine by hand you unload it by ejecting them out of the weapon.
Second, Jeremy stated that the magazine was empty or he would have ran outside with it immediately. He claimed he was in such a rush he wasn't even sure how many bullets were in it after he loaded it he claimed between 8 and10 in one interview and between 5 and 10 in another. He stated he was in such a rush he might not have made sure he loaded it fully because he was scared the rabbits would get away. He would not have looked for a box of ammunition if the gun already had been loaded.
This 5 round business is an invention by Jeremy advocates to try to pretend he didn't stage the bullets in the kitchen. He claimed that because the gun was empty he sought out a tray of ammunition that was full or near full, carried it to the kitchen, dumped the rounds out and quickly loaded the magazine with 8-10 rounds. 25 rounds were used in the murders so even if the tray had been full only 25 rounds would remain but there were 30 left. Why would Sheila load 18-20 rounds from the bullets in the kitchen then stop loading a magazine part way and go to the closet to seek out 5-7 more bullets to finish when there were 30 more from the stockpile she supposedly was using?
This establishes the bullets were staged by Jeremy. To try to pretend they were not staged the fable about 5 bullets already being in the magazine was born. Jeremy advocates would rather pretend their were 5 rounds in the gun already though this doesn't fit Jeremy's claims at all because the alternative is that he definitely staged these bullets. The gun was not normally stored with ammunition, Jeremy himself claimed it was empty so he had to rapidly try to load it to get the rabbits before they left and there is in fact no evidence which can establish they had already been in the gun at the time Jeremy picked it up.
Why would there be 5 rounds in it? If someone stopped using it mid way and simply put it away loaded there would even be a round in the chamber already. It would routinely put away empty though not loaded. Someone who ejects 5 rounds would simply but those bullets back with other ammunition not reload it immediately.
The evidence cited doesn't in any way, shape or form establish there were 5 rounds in the gun already.
But if there were 5 rounds already then it just shows even more how Jeremy's entire tale about the rabbits was complete BS because he would have just ran outside with the already loaded gun according to his own claims, not taken time to make sure it was loaded to capacity.
That brings us to your claim there were 5 rounds in it already and Jeremy loaded 6 more. The only way to load 11 rounds total is for 1 round to be in the chamber. If there was 1 round in the chamber and 4 in the magazine then he could have loaded 6 as you claim. If the wepaon is empty then you have to load the magazine fully, insert it into the weapon, chamber a round, release the magazine, load another round into the magazine and then reinsert the magazine. That is how you load 11 rounds. His own claims were that he loaded the magazine in a different room than he had the weapon sitting so this would not have been possible if his claims were true.
Moreover, he claims he unloaded the weapon after the rabbits got away. He claims he removed the magazine and unloaded the round in the chamber- which means that said unloaded round would have had breech and ejection marks on it. So one of the 5 supposed rounds with double marks can be attributed to such.
Neither June nor Sheila would be bothered dropping the magazine to load an 11th round. Only Jeremy would do such and indeed 11 shots were fired June and Nevill in the master bedroom.
If Jeremy did load 11 rounds in the gun before he left then he didn't unlaod it as claimed and would not have left it where someone else could find it. He would have either put it back in the closet or a place where only he knew where it was so that he could immediately use it instead of having to load it after sneaking in.
-----------
With respect to the defense making a mistake by admitting it was either Sheila or Jeremy- they simply admitted the obvious. Your case against June is that we can't prove she didn't fire a gun because she was not tested for GSR and foreign blood. That means the defense can't prove she did though. The defense bears the burden of establishing it is plausible June did it.
It is not plausible though because there is no motive, waiting to 2:30AM to take action makes no sense, and allowing Sheila to disarm her makes no sense and the evidence establishes she was shot in bed then got up. Your suggestions otherwise don't hold up to scrutiny.
Jeremy framed his sister not only with the phone call, but other claims he made to police as well as how he staged her body. He is th eone who fingered Sheila so the defense had little choice but to admit it was either him or her. If the frame fell apart then it was the framer who did it.
Sheila could not have killed herself based on the forensic evidence and that means he had to have done it.
Let's be frank, the claim June beat and shot Nevill and the boys is an invention to explain away why Sheila had no blood from Nevill or the boys on her, had no lead on her fingers and didn't have broken nails. This tale features Jeremy and June loading all the bullets so Sheila had no means to get lead on her hands from loading. It features June beating Nevill instead of Sheila because if Sheila had done it she would have had back spatter and broken her nails.
The only thing this tale doesn't explain away is why Sheila would not have any GSR on her body and hands but at least it explains in part how she could be so clean. Jeremy himself claimed maybe Nevill said she got the gun. His lawyers found no way to use this but you did.
This is not an example of you following the evidence where it leads but rather constructing a story around the evidence to try to find a way to make Jeremy innocent. On a message board yo ucan claim anything you want and proof is not necessary.
To suggest an alternative kille rin court requires having an evidentiary basis and the evidence you presented of June not being tested so not knowing either way if she had GSR or foreign blood falls far short.
There is no evidence at all of June's involvement and hosts of reasons why it makes no sense.
The more leaps you take the less credibility you have with others and if you lose credibility with a jury you can forget about winning the case. So even if a judge allows poorly sourced blame being placed elsewhere pressing the claim not only will it be rejected but worse it can result in a complete loss of credibility.
-
At that juncture, the bullets had ran out, and the gun needed reloading...
-
Hi Caroline,
I believe there was a great deal of tension, anxiety and confusion in the air when events started to take a turn for the worst around about 3.25am on that particular night. The mix up concerning what Ralph said to Jeremy, as opposed to what he said to the police, can easily be explained away by the counter argument that is the proof which confirms that both of them, June and Sheila were off thier trollys at the same time...
I agree entirely that there was tension, anxiety and confusion. However, had Nevill been shot, whilst he MAY not have said so to Jeremy, IMO, he most definitely WOULD have told the police to let them know of the urgency.
-
I think the phone call claim narrows it down to Sheila or Jeremy. If you're saying the phone call still happened BUT Neville was referring to June (said 'she' and not 'Sheila'), then surely you can't believe there was a second call to the police?
There was no call form Nevill to Jeremy let alone one to police but especially not a call directly to police.
The telephone company confirms a call from WHF to Goldhanger took place but the phone was never hung up at WHF and no calls thus made from WHF subsequently. That alone is fatal to a calim of a 2nd call.
But worse the person alleged to have received a direct call from Nevill denies it and the allegation is based on a report which states as clear as day a cop contacted him and passed the message to him.
Anyone pushing the claim Nevill called police has no crediiblity in the eyes of most because it is pushing a knowlingly false claim. Abandoning this claim thus doesn't hurt at all but only cna help one's reputation.
Jeremy himself is the one who started with maybe he said she instead of Sheila claim. He says he wasn't sure whether he said she or Sheila. Even if he is given the benefit of the doubt that he said she not Sheila and meant June the problems are the same exact problems as when it was claime dhe said Sheila.
How would he get away from June to call Jeremy?
Why would he call Jeremy since he got along poorly with June and could not have calmed her down.
Why would he call Jeremy knowing he had an answering machine so probably would not answer and probably would not wake up even given how far the phone was from the bedroom.
Why would he not try to disarm her himself and instead call Jeremy to do it?
Why would he call Jeremy instead of using the time to arm himself and then challenge June?
Why would she go crazy at 2:30AM of all times when everyone had been asleep?
Why would she go crazy at all? What would be the motive?
Why would she not kill Sheila? Why would she go to bed leaving Sheila with access to the gun?
There are many other questions as well.
We have all these questions that need to be answered and at the end of the day what is all this aimed to establish? It is aimed to explain away Sheila not breaking her nails, not having elevated levels of lead on her hands and not having Nevill's blood on her body/clothing. It still doesn't address the lack of high velocity spatter from June or gunshot residue.
None of this addresses the elephant in the room though.
There is no evidence at all to suggest there is a reaosnable likelihood this happened but this tale still features Sheila killing herself and being the final person alive in the house.
Why would she kill herself just because her mother murdered everyone else? She would have been upset but enough to kill herself? She loved them and would miss them but she liked doing her own thing and havd largely ignored the boys anyway. She stood to gain half the estate so it is not as if she suddenly would find herself cut off from their financial help on the contrary she would get more. She could do her own thing still so why would she kill herself?
Worse though there is evidence she can't have killed herself. Sheila was shot sitting down. She was still sitting down for a while as she bled on her arm and gown. Shortly after this she was moved flat. She could not have moved her dea dbody someone else moved it and did so very soon after she was shot. Zero police report seeing her seated and moving her body flat and if they had moved her body flat the blood on her neck would have been dry and not have leaked down the side. It leaked down the side shortly after she was shot so she was moved quite soon after. She also can't have put the suppressor away after killing herself with it. The bible was also repeatedly opened and closed while the blood was still wet, which she could not have done after dying. Someone else was still alive and moved things around after she died.
At the end of the day making June the killer and Sheila killing her in self-defense or out of revenge then committing suicide still doesn't help the core problem of which is evidence that Sheila didn't kill herself.
-
And if ANY of the above had transpired, do you really believe that Nevill would have rationalized the situation by asking the questions YOU'VE asked. Do you EVER empathize or is there nothing but cold logic?
-
And if ANY of the above had transpired, do you really believe that Nevill would have rationalized the situation by asking the questions YOU'VE asked. Do you EVER empathize or is there nothing but cold logic?
I use my head.
Motive:
Why would June go crazy? Why would June threaten him with a gun at all?
Timing:
The boys were in bed earlier than everyone else and then Nevill goes to bed next. Why would June wait till 2:30AM or later to go after Nevill? What would set June off at that hour while they are sleeping and she had been in bed?
Confrontation:
June yells at Nevill and waves a gun. How does he get away from her to use the phone? If she were just interested in killing why would she not shoot at him right away? Why would she leave him alone?
Call:
He gets away from June and truly fears for his life what are his choices? 1) Get out of the house and seek help (in this manner he will be safe). 2) Call for help and hope help arrives before June can kill anyone. 3) arm himself to fight back 4) freeze with fear and do absolutely nothing at all and wait to be killed
Those are his choices. If you decide to go with the call for help one then you are panicked. You will call 999 when panicked and scared or at minimum call someone you know will answer and know can provide help. Jeremy is neither likely to be able to help nor likely to answer. So why would someone panicked pick him to call? Empathy you say- well someone panicked out of their mind would not call their son to come be in harms way too they would call 999. To not want to call police would mean he DIDN'T think it was that serious. If it wasn't that serious he could handle it himself.
Jeremy had a poor relationship with June and Sheila so either way he would not be someone to call to calm them down if anything he would be likely to provoke them to shoot. He certianly want's tougher or braver or stronger than Nevill, if anythign he was a chicken sh!t smartass so he offered nothing in that regard. So there was nothing he could bring to the table and would not even be likely to answer so if one is desperate why call him?
----
So we have no explanation of how Nevill would be in a position to make a phone call let alone why he would make a phone call instead of arming himself or trying to disarm June/Sheila let alone why he would call Jeremy instead of 999 if he did decide instead to use the phone.
The evidence proves he didn't freeze after being shot he either ran after his attacker or away from his attacker and then tried to disarm the attacker in the kitchen before being beaten unconscious so he did fight back. Someone like that would not run begging a chicken sh!t son he didn't even trust to come try to save him.
To believe something so ridiculous there needs to be credible evidence to substantiate it. Instead there is compelling evidence that proves this didn't happen.
-
I believe his first conversation with Jeremy was where he used the phras "She", meaning June, because he had already been shot once by her upstairs in the bedroom. No sooner does Ralph start to tell Jeremy that "she" has got the gun, than all hell breaks loose because Sheila turns up brandishing one of Ralphs guns, which I suspect was the 12 bore shotgun the police later became interested in, and she may have been threatening to use it...
So why didn't he just call the police on the emergency number and why no blood on the phone? Sorry but the idea of Jeremy being guilty makes more sense than a scenario including June and Sheila going berserk.
-
So why didn't he just call the police on the emergency number and why no blood on the phone? Sorry but the idea of Jeremy being guilty makes more sense than a scenario including June and Sheila going berserk.
I agree, I cannot buy that. :o :o
-
I use my head.
Motive:
Why would June go crazy? Why would June threaten him with a gun at all?
Timing:
The boys were in bed earlier than everyone else and then Nevill goes to bed next. Why would June wait till 2:30AM or later to go after Nevill? What would set June off at that hour while they are sleeping and she had been in bed?
Confrontation:
June yells at Nevill and waves a gun. How does he get away from her to use the phone? If she were just interested in killing why would she not shoot at him right away? Why would she leave him alone?
Call:
He gets away from June and truly fears for his life what are his choices? 1) Get out of the house and seek help (in this manner he will be safe). 2) Call for help and hope help arrives before June can kill anyone. 3) arm himself to fight back 4) freeze with fear and do absolutely nothing at all and wait to be killed
Those are his choices. If you decide to go with the call for help one then you are panicked. You will call 999 when panicked and scared or at minimum call someone you know will answer and know can provide help. Jeremy is neither likely to be able to help nor likely to answer. So why would someone panicked pick him to call? Empathy you say- well someone panicked out of their mind would not call their son to come be in harms way too they would call 999. To not want to call police would mean he DIDN'T think it was that serious. If it wasn't that serious he could handle it himself.
Jeremy had a poor relationship with June and Sheila so either way he would not be someone to call to calm them down if anything he would be likely to provoke them to shoot. He certianly want's tougher or braver or stronger than Nevill, if anythign he was a chicken sh!t smartass so he offered nothing in that regard. So there was nothing he could bring to the table and would not even be likely to answer so if one is desperate why call him?
----
So we have no explanation of how Nevill would be in a position to make a phone call let alone why he would make a phone call instead of arming himself or trying to disarm June/Sheila let alone why he would call Jeremy instead of 999 if he did decide instead to use the phone.
The evidence proves he didn't freeze after being shot he either ran after his attacker or away from his attacker and then tried to disarm the attacker in the kitchen before being beaten unconscious so he did fight back. Someone like that would not run begging a chicken sh!t son he didn't even trust to come try to save him.
To believe something so ridiculous there needs to be credible evidence to substantiate it. Instead there is compelling evidence that proves this didn't happen.
YOU might. YOU have the luxury of examining this from a comfortable and objective position nearly 30 away from when it happened. If we put this poor guy in the situation where ONE of his family -let alone the possibility of TWO- has suddenly started to display ungovernable behaviour unlike anything they have previously done, I don't think logic and reason will play a huge part in what he does. I certainly believe that any negative thoughts he MAY have had about his son would have been forgotten coz when the chips are down, THAT'S what parents do.
In case you misconstrue my meaning, I'm in NO way suggesting that June played any part in what happened.
-
YOU might. YOU have the luxury of examining this from a comfortable and objective position nearly 30 away from when it happened. If we put this poor guy in the situation where ONE of his family -let alone the possibility of TWO- has suddenly started to display ungovernable behaviour unlike anything they have previously done, I don't think logic and reason will play a huge part in what he does. I certainly believe that any negative thoughts he MAY have had about his son would have been forgotten coz when the chips are down, THAT'S what parents do.
If you panick all reason doesn't go away. OMG she's got a gun on us I am just so scared let me push my son in the way so I can escape... If all reason goes away then you dial 999 you don't think about who to call to try to help without the police arresting the culpret it's not mindless panick if you do that.
In the meantime there is no evidence at all Nevill could have had access to the phone before the shooting started.
Still no explanation of how he would get away to access the phone.
Why would the killer wait for him to use the phone and still not shoot but rather march him upstairs to do it?
If you have no evidence something happened then you better have a really good reason why it would have happened anyway.
-
If you panick all reason doesn't go away. OMG she's got a gun on us I am just so scared let me push my son in the way so I can escape... If all reason goes away then you dial 999 you don't think about who to call to try to help without the police arresting the culpret it's not mindless panick if you do that.
In the meantime there is no evidence at all Nevill could have had access to the phone before the shooting started.
Still no explanation of how he would get away to access the phone.
Why would the killer wait for him to use the phone and still not shoot but rather march him upstairs to do it?
If you have no evidence something happened then you better have a really good reason why it would have happened anyway.
Scipio, if that's how you tell me it is for you, who am I to argue ;D HOWEVER, you're in no more knowledgeable place to tell me Nevill would replicate YOUR actions, than am I to say he wouldn't. What I AM certain of is that neither of us can guarantee what he's have done.
IS there evidence, other than your own, that Nevill DIDN'T have access to the phone before the shooting started?
-
And why are we even starting this discussion
Read this and you know why.BALLISTICS NOT ATTENDING!
-
Scipio, if that's how you tell me it is for you, who am I to argue ;D HOWEVER, you're in no more knowledgeable place to tell me Nevill would replicate YOUR actions, than am I to say he wouldn't. What I AM certain of is that neither of us can guarantee what he's have done.
IS there evidence, other than your own, that Nevill DIDN'T have access to the phone before the shooting started?
Someone wakes Nevill up from bed and has a gun aimed at him.
How does he get to the kitchen to use the phone? Why does the killer allow him to go to the kitchen and allow access instea dof shooting him? Why does he use the phone instead of grabbing a weapon?
Why would he call Jeremy instea dof 999 or someone else knowing Jeremy would be unlikely to answer and not be of any help anyway even if he did answer?
These are the questions for starters related to the supposed phonecall.
-
For all anyone knows,Neville could,at one stage,have been threatened if he attempted to ring the police.
For all we know,,Neville could have been forced to ring Jeremy on the pretext of getting him to WHF too .
If only Jeremy had all the answers,,he wouldn't be where he is now.
-
How can we be sure Nevill was in bed,?
We know Nevill used to take the dogs out about 10.30.
He also often fell asleep in his favourite chair in the kitchen, with a g&t and a fag, the cushions were burned where he dropped his cigarettes so there is a possibility Nevill had fallen asleep in his chair and had been awoken by Sheila in the kitchen.
-
Hello Maggie that is a possibility but Sheila had eaten later than the others so Ralph must have been in bed when that happened I suspect it is all so confusing.
-
Someone wakes Nevill up from bed and has a gun aimed at him.
How does he get to the kitchen to use the phone? Why does the killer allow him to go to the kitchen and allow access instea dof shooting him? Why does he use the phone instead of grabbing a weapon?
Why would he call Jeremy instea dof 999 or someone else knowing Jeremy would be unlikely to answer and not be of any help anyway even if he did answer?
These are the questions for starters related to the supposed phonecall.
They did if he WAS in bed and asleep.
-
Hello April
think Ralph was in bed but heard something in the kitchen and got up to investigate.
-
Hello April
think Ralph was in bed but heard something in the kitchen and got up to investigate.
OR had sat downstairs with a stiff G&T.
-
Hello Maggie that is a possibility but Sheila had eaten later than the others so Ralph must have been in bed when that happened I suspect it is all so confusing.
Well, just because Nevill drppoed off in his chair at some point doesnt mean Sheila didn't make and eat a sandwich. On the other hand she may have just had a slower digestion than the others, atr a packet of crisps in her bedroom ...... anything.
Fact is we don't know but it could be a possibility??
-
So why didn't he just call the police on the emergency number and why no blood on the phone? Sorry but the idea of Jeremy being guilty makes more sense than a scenario including June and Sheila going berserk.
Hi Caroline,
no, your not thinking logically, since how could blood from one wounded arm get onto the phone that Ralph was holding with his other unbloodied hand?
-
Maggie of course it could have been a possibility but we will never know will we :'( he could have been sleeping in the chair.
-
Hi Caroline,
no, your not thinking logically, since how could blood from one wounded arm get onto the phone that Ralph was holding with his other unbloodied hand?
But that still doesn't explain why he didn't use 999 nor why he didn't mention that they had 'both' gone berserk.
-
But that still doesn't explain why he didn't use 999 nor why he didn't mention that they had 'both' gone berserk.
Cannot believe if Nevill was injured that he would phone Jeremy and put him in danger like that am sure in those circumstances he would phone 999. If Sheila was being difficult and had locked herself in somewhere with the gun, maybe threatening to shoot herself, in that kind of situation he may very well have rung Jeremy.
As for June and Sheila both shooting, cannot go there, thought June was depressive not psychotic anyway. It doesn't make sense at all.
-
Maggie,,June had been diagnosed with" religious psychosis". This is what Doctor Ferguson had said if we're to believe him.
-
Maggie,,June had been diagnosed with" religious psychosis". This is what Doctor Ferguson had said if we're to believe him.
Really, that is so strange, but wasn't that way back? It does seem very odd that both June and Sheila suffered from psychosis, however paranoid schizophrenia is usually far more complex than a psychosis which may have been sorted out sometime before and probably never returned.
-
Really, that is so strange, but wasn't that way back? It does seem very odd that both June and Sheila suffered from psychosis, however paranoid schizophrenia is usually far more complex than a psychosis which may have been sorted out sometime before and probably never returned.
It was the last diagnosis which was made,following Junes' second session of ECT,,was it in 1983? When June was first treated in the 70's it was for a severe depressive illness,,but after a string of problems with Sheila and the worry over the twins,,,June had relapsed and had to repeat the treatment. Whether or not she herself was on any sort of medication,I wouldn't know,,because the poor woman suffered from nightmares when she did eventually get to sleep. Other than that,,she too was a poor sleeper,the same as Sheila was.
Night-time was Sheilas' worst time,as being a schizophrenic,,they find sleep difficult,,as neighbours at Maida Vale soon found out when they heard her screaming at all hours of the early morning. What those little boys must have thought if they heard her,,I don't know.
-
1982 it was when June was treated. It was also said that religion had become an obsession with her.
I wonder why Doctor Ferguson ignored Sheila when she told him that she could kill,,and also commit suicide ? He knew that she had a schizoaffective disorder where she struggled with good over evil,,yet he didn't appear to take her as seriously as he should have done.
-
1982 it was when June was treated. It was also said that religion had become an obsession with her.
I wonder why Doctor Ferguson ignored Sheila when she told him that she could kill,,and also commit suicide ? He knew that she had a schizoaffective disorder where she struggled with good over evil,,yet he didn't appear to take her as seriously as he should have done.
I agree Dr Ferguson seemed quite dismissive of much of Sheila's. Symptoms but I seem to have missed that last diagnosis of June. Jeremy has said that she had calmed down and become much easier to interact with than she had been.
-
I agree Dr Ferguson seemed quite dismissive of much of Sheila's. Symptoms but I seem to have missed that last diagnosis of June. Jeremy has said that she had calmed down and become much easier to interact with than she had been.
It's known as the calm before the storm,,Maggie.
-
But that still doesn't explain why he didn't use 999 nor why he didn't mention that they had 'both' gone berserk.
Hi Caroline,
There was really no need for Ralph Bamber to dial 999, this claim was judt a red herring introduced as a tool to help discrefit Jeremys account. Special Branch were quickly aware that there had been shootings inside the farmhouse by the time Ralph called Jeremy, and when Ralph called police. The family were subject of a special branch protection program, why else do you think they are involved in the investigation, and why was one of thier officers the first to enter the farmhouse, and shot Sheila in the kitchen, when Sheila was one of the subjects he was responsible for protecting?
-
Bews knew that Jeremy was telling the truth,,as in the TV programme a couple of years ago,,he actually stated that Jeremy,too,saw the figure at the window.
Because of Jeremys' weak legal representatives,,they failed him,,as they should have hammered this subject and not taken Bews's word that it was " a trick of the light ".
Didn't anyone question why,,since that sighting,the need to order a team from the firearms department to be sent,pronto ? Was it because of Bews seeing the moon cast shadows that he'd sent for the team ? I don't think so,,because they all scattered when they saw the figure,,,including Jeremy.
How can such evidence be dismissed just like that ! With their " criminal " standing right by them !
-
Lights within the farmhouse were also going on and off too which suggested that someone was still alive. Why wasn't that noticed ? Or was everyone too busy running away from the moons' reflections ?
-
Polygrams are 100%. Even for psychopaths in catching them out !
-
i wwouldent say anything was 100 percent.
-
i wwouldent say anything was 100 percent.
Nugs,,what I tried to point out here,are the hundreds of people who say that polygrams don't work on those who are psycopaths. They certainly do,,as the psychopath doesn't like,or want to be caught out and in doing so tries to put more effort into his or her answers,and when that's recorded,the needle knows exactly in which direction it's going,for a negative result,as it detects that effort.
It's a psychopaths very determination to get it right,that fails him. Whereas someone who tells the truth,it comes out naturally without any disturbance to the bodys' way of not having to deal with a lie.
Contrary to belief,,they are pretty sensitive machines which can detect changes in breathing,discomfort,and those things a person feels when they're not telling the truth.
-
Meaning that they're 100% when someone lies,,as it's detected,,particularly if there's a certain uncomfortable question.
-
Special branch are in the game of protection - so who were they protecting at the time of the the shootings? And hey, who did they shoot not once, but twice? Yep, they shot one of the targets they were supposed to have been protecting.
The original investigation was Special branch orientated, they manipulated the exhibits - without moving 4 bullet cases into the main bedroom scenario increasing. capacity from 9 to 13, they could never have hoped to get away with convicting Jeremy for the murders. These were murders, but none committed by Jeremy. The real murderers in sequential order were / are:-
June Bamber
Sheila Caffell
DS WOODCOCK...
Amen.
-
Lights within the farmhouse were also going on and off too which suggested that someone was still alive. Why wasn't that noticed ? Or was everyone too busy running away from the moons' reflections ?
Another made up claim.
-
Another made up claim.
Just because I'm probably right,,you tell me I'm making things up ? So what are your claims if they're not made up ? Hard facts,are they ? Unless you were there personally overseeing the case ?
The trouble is that a lot of these supposed " made-up " claims,,which in real terms were originally right,,have been contradicted to such an extent to fit in with other agendas,that they appear,in your eyes,and those of a lot of others,,,to be wrong.
-
Special branch are in the game of protection - so who were they protecting at zhe time of the the shootings? And hey, who did they shoot not once, but twice? Yep, they shot one of the targets they were supposed to have been protecting.
The original investigation was Special branch orientated, they manipulated the exhibits - without moving 4 bullet cases into the main bedroom scenario increasing. capacity from 9 to 13, they could never have hoped to get away with convicting Jeremy for the murders. These were murders, but none committed by Jeremy. The realreal murderrers in sequential order were / are:-
June Bamber
Sheila Caffell
DS WOODCOCK...
Amen.
Mike, WHO were SB protecting? If Nevill was 61 he was only 15 at the outbreak of war. Hardly old enough to make much of a contribution, so hardly a Master Spy. Any connections that Sheila/Jeremy MAY have had at birth would have been totally and irrevocably severed when they were adopted into new families.
-
Another made up claim.
Never forget,,I'm as right as you think you are !
-
Special branch are in the game of protection - so who were they protecting at zhe time of the the shootings? And hey, who did they shoot not once, but twice? Yep, they shot one of the targets they were supposed to have been protecting.
The original investigation was Special branch orientated, they manipulated the exhibits - without moving 4 bullet cases into the main bedroom scenario increasing. capacity from 9 to 13, they could never have hoped to get away with convicting Jeremy for the murders. These were murders, but none committed by Jeremy. The realreal murderrers in sequential order were / are:-
June Bamber
Sheila Caffell
DS WOODCOCK...
Amen.
You have no evidence whatsoever to back up such allegations though.
No one on the scene, which includes Jeremy, heard any shots, all police testified they found Sheila on the floor in the position of the first photo taken -the left photo here:
http://users.skynet.be/dosscrim/jeremybamber/Sheila_Caffell_crime_scene.jpg
You have no evidence at all to establish she died after police arrived at the house let alone after police entered the house.
The ME found no evidence to suggest she died significantly later than any of the other victims.
You have no evidence that June did a thing except manage to get up from bed after being shot and to collapse on the floor.
This scenario is not being driven by the facts it was invented by you to get around the facts to try to suggest a manner in which Jeremy could be innocent.
June is used for 3 purposes:
1) because if Sheila had beaten Nevill with the rifle then surely she would have broken at least one nail in the process and have gotten medium velocity back spatter on her gown. June doing this eliminates such problems with Sheila's physical state.
2) If Sheila had reloaded the weapon she would have had elevated lead levels on her hands but didn't according to the lab. With June doing all the reloading this eliminates the requirement for Sheila to have elevated lead levels.
3) Sheila killing everyone doesn't fit known murder-suicide paradigms. People who murder while having delusions usually kill other or commit suicide not both. Those who do commit murder and suicide together do so because of depression and typically kill those they are responsible to take care of only. The exception to this are people who want to kill as many people as they can before authorities can kill them and they kill strangers not just people they know. This scenario features Sheila killing June for self-defense.
Since the evidence proves Sheila can't have killed herself and there was no one left in the house to kill her police are conveniently blamed for killing her.
This tale is built around the evidence to find a way to make Jeremy innocent. If police actually killed Sheila with a gun near her it could just have been chalked up as self-defense. Why would they all lie about not hearing any shots and how she was found when it would not be necessary?
There is no evidence to suggest this as a likely possibility and there are still other problems like how Nevill woudl get away to make a phone call, why Nevill would call Jeremy if he were so panicked as opposed to arming himself or calling 999 and why the killer would not shoot him if he was found on the phone and instead march him upstairs to shoot him. Someone in a crazy rage doesn't decide they want to shoot someone in a select location and march the person there. While on the phone he coudl not move far because of the short cord so that is the optimal time to shoot. There is also a reason to shoot- to silence. To get so close to hang up the phone so that Nevill would be able to try to disarm the killer makes little sense.
I know what you will say- you have the right to your opinion. Yes you do but you voice your opinion on here to try to sway others. Without any evidence you are not going to sway many only the likes of lookout and certainly there is no hope of convincing a court of this. If this did happen Jeremy will never see freedom because there is no hope of proving any of it.
-
Just because I'm probably right,,you tell me I'm making things up ? So what are your claims if they're not made up ? Hard facts,are they ? Unless you were there personally overseeing the case ?
The trouble is that a lot of these supposed " made-up " claims,,which in real terms were originally right,,have been contradicted to such an extent to fit in with other agendas,that they appear,in your eyes,and those of a lot of others,,,to be wrong.
Who are you trying to kid? You defy the law of averages, even a broken clock is right 2 times a day (unless a 24 hour military clock which is right only once a day) but you are always wrong.
You have no command of the facts of this case at all you make things up and the things not entirely made up are things you completely misunderstand. For instance your bogus claim that a piece of Sheila's toenail was found in the kitchen. A claim that you kept making after it was proved was not true.
There are no police accounts of lights turning on and off. This is one of your inventions.
-
Who are you trying to kid? You defy the law of averages, even a broken clock is right 2 times a day (unless a 24 hour military clock which is right only once a day) but you are always wrong.
You have no command of the facts of this case at all you make things up and the things not entirely made up are things you completely misunderstand. For instance your bogus claim that a piece of Sheila's toenail was found in the kitchen. A claim that you kept making after it was proved was not true.
There are no police accounts of lights turning on and off. This is one of your inventions.
Well it would seem that indeed I do have command of all the facts judging by your post. The more you tell me that I'm wrong,,making things up,,don't have an understanding of the case,etc etc,,brains of a rocking horse,,,the more I'm inclined to think I'm right,,so keep shovelling the sh1t if it makes you feel good. Unfortunately,,I just look upon you as being an arrogant and pedantic oaf,,who,,when the time comes,,,won't like losing,,one bit. Not nice being insulted,is it ??
BTW,there WAS a piece of Sheilas' toenail in the kitchen because it was first mistaken for paint from the Aga. Must have been a relative of yours in the force !
There were contradictory reports by various officers that lights within the farmhouse were on and off in certain rooms,,which again indicated that Sheila was still alive inside. The time of that was 03.45am. Bews saw that the light in the kitchen was on when he went to what he classed as,the back of the farmhouse.
-
i rember somthing about lights as well.
-
Lights within the farmhouse were also going on and off too which suggested that someone was still alive. Why wasn't that noticed ? Or was everyone too busy running away from the moons' reflections ?
Source please.
Maybe Sheila needed the lights on while she changed and washed her clothes in the bucket. Then made herself a cheese & pickle sandwich.
-
I believe there are differing accounts on which lights were on and which were off. Patti knows a lot about this.... YO, PATTI!!!!!
-
yes thats what i was led to belive.
-
I believe there are differing accounts on which lights were on and which were off. Patti knows a lot about this.... YO, PATTI!!!!!
Yo!!! :)
Yes if we look at when the police first arrived and the observations made it was clear that the only lights on within the house were on the white side of the house, thus being the kitchen where NB was later found. The upstairs bathroom light, twins room and landing. Although in later years Bew's has said there were no lights on at the back of the house. His note books say different of course.
Mildenhall was the only person to have have spotted the light on in the main bedroom and the window slightly open from the red/white side where he was stationed.
Bew's, Myall and the other one, ;us Jeremy do not say in any of there statements that a light was on at the front of the house, they say it was in darkness.
My question has always been...who put the main bedroom light on they don't turn on their own?????
Hope this heloops....lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
maybe it was that trick of the light they saw.
-
Source please.
Maybe Sheila needed the lights on while she changed and washed her clothes in the bucket. Then made herself a cheese & pickle sandwich.
PC Myalls' incident report @3.45am, Polly.
Yes,,that would have been the time that Sheila changed,soaked her clothes,washed,then ate something.
-
Yo!!! :)
Yes if we look at when the police first arrived and the observations made it was clear that the only lights on within the house were on the white side of the house, thus being the kitchen where NB was later found. The upstairs bathroom light, twins room and landing. Although in later years Bew's has said there were no lights on at the back of the house. His note books say different of course.
Mildenhall was the only person to have have spotted the light on in the main bedroom and the window slightly open from the red/white side where he was stationed.
Bew's, Myall and the other one, ;us Jeremy do not say in any of there statements that a light was on at the front of the house, they say it was in darkness.
My question has always been...who put the main bedroom light on they don't turn on their own?????
Hope this heloops....lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
It does, thanks! But only in the sense that nothing is "fixed" here - it is indeed unclear which lights were on and which off. Just like everything else in this case. :o
-
It does, thanks! But only in the sense that nothing is "fixed" here - it is indeed unclear which lights were on and which off. Just like everything else in this case. :o
It is Alias, but all of the raid team report lights on at the back of the house. I think we can safely that they were.
The only thing different is that Mildenhall was very precise in his account of what he was looking at, he certainly has an eye for detail, to the point of saying that the window was open.
The crime scene photographs also show the light to be on in the main bedroom yet it was daylight. If the light was on then the trick of the moonlight never happened..... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
So,,Jeremy who knew the inside of the farmhouse like the back of his hand,would be switching on lights here and there,giving himself a full silhouette to any passer-by that might be ?
-
It is Alias, but all of the raid team report lights on at the back of the house. I think we can safely that they were.
The only thing different is that Mildenhall was very precise in his account of what he was looking at, he certainly has an eye for detail, to the point of saying that the window was open.
The crime scene photographs also show the light to be on in the main bedroom yet it was daylight. If the light was on then the trick of the moonlight never happened..... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
It is very important whether that light was on or off! If Jeremy shot Sheila, he could have turned off the light (but why????? would look "wrong" if he wanted it to appear to be a suicide). If Sheila shot herself, she wouldnt have done it in the dark, would she, but would have needed light - then turned the light off! Impossible.
In any case, the lights must have been on during the shootings.
Wish they has been more precise!
-
It is Alias, but all of the raid team report lights on at the back of the house. I think we can safely that they were.
The only thing different is that Mildenhall was very precise in his account of what he was looking at, he certainly has an eye for detail, to the point of saying that the window was open.
The crime scene photographs also show the light to be on in the main bedroom yet it was daylight. If the light was on then the trick of the moonlight never happened..... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Just read Mildenhall´s statement (it is here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1476.0.html).
He does say loud and clear that the light in the bedroom was on. No "flick of light" possible - or is it? Have been looking at windows opposite, and even though the lights are on, you can still see mirroring of sky/other houses in them. It isn´t quite dark yet - will look again later.
I trust this officer´s account because of his meticulous and clear description of everything he saw, so I think the lights were on in the bedroom. Which also makes sense.
What did Bews say about this? Lights or no lights? I remember Jeremy saying the light was on in the bedroom.
-
well you think about it follows that nevile would of turned the light on before going out to struggle with anybody.
-
well you think about it follows that nevile would of turned the light on before going out to struggle with anybody.
That's right,nugs,,and it was Bews who'd said the light was on in the kitchen.
-
Just read Mildenhall´s statement (it is here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1476.0.html).
He does say loud and clear that the light in the bedroom was on. No "flick of light" possible - or is it? Have been looking at windows opposite, and even though the lights are on, you can still see mirroring of sky/other houses in them. It isn´t quite dark yet - will look again later.
I trust this officer´s account because of his meticulous and clear description of everything he saw, so I think the lights were on in the bedroom. Which also makes sense.
What did Bews say about this? Lights or no lights? I remember Jeremy saying the light was on in the bedroom.
Hi Alias I don't think anyone else states the light was on. Its clear in Bew's hand notes and the other raid team statements there in mention of the light being on in the main bedroom. Only that the front of the house was in darkness....Mildenhall's statement was a breath of fresh air, like you say he was meticulous in his description of what he saw.
I too have looked at houses with the lights on and there is no way the moon can play a trick of the light, plus they looked not only once at that window but went back to look at it again...and still not one of them mentions the light being on. Its strange! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes, it´s strange!
Now it is darker - in the windows where lights are on, I cannot see reflection of anything at all. No flick of light...
They saw movement inside - that is what they saw! ;D
Very strange that Jeremy´s defence didn´t make more of this.
I am not sure Jeremy saw anything. I think he may now think he did after thinking about it for years. I think that at the time of the trial, Jeremy did not realize the importance of this, since he didn´t see it himself. It was one of the officers who noticed this.
-
Well it would seem that indeed I do have command of all the facts judging by your post. The more you tell me that I'm wrong,,making things up,,don't have an understanding of the case,etc etc,,brains of a rocking horse,,,the more I'm inclined to think I'm right,,so keep shovelling the sh1t if it makes you feel good. Unfortunately,,I just look upon you as being an arrogant and pedantic oaf,,who,,when the time comes,,,won't like losing,,one bit. Not nice being insulted,is it ??
BTW,there WAS a piece of Sheilas' toenail in the kitchen because it was first mistaken for paint from the Aga. Must have been a relative of yours in the force !
There were contradictory reports by various officers that lights within the farmhouse were on and off in certain rooms,,which again indicated that Sheila was still alive inside. The time of that was 03.45am. Bews saw that the light in the kitchen was on when he went to what he classed as,the back of the farmhouse.
Once again you demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. This was explained to you countless times so at this point the only clnclusionsis that you are either intentionally misrepresenting or you have a low IQ.
The defense hired a phto expert who made outrageous claims that were rejected by the court and also laughed at my other experts. One such claim is that he enlarged a tiny speck in a photo and matched this speck to a piece of varnish missing from Sheila's toenail. He claimed the speck was a tiny fleck of varnish not a toenail. I'm not the only one who explaned this to you so did others. His allegation is was a piece of varnish has not been corroborated by anyone and is not considered credible. The poor quality of the photos combined makes it impossible to enlarge a tin speck to the point it can be shape matched to a piece of varnish missing. His methodology was criticized by prosecution experts.
So even claiming it was definitely a speck of varnish from her toe would be inaccurate but especially to claim it was a piece of toenail.
You claim that police saw lights turning on and off is patently false. Now you claim well some gave conflicting accounts of which ones were on. That doesn't establish that anyone saw a light turn on and off. Many didn't pay close attention to record such and to later include it in their reports. NO ONE claims to have seen a light turn on and off or off and on.
To establish lights were turning on and off you need a witness who saw such. not even Jeremy claimed he saw that.
-
Yes, it´s strange!
Now it is darker - in the windows where lights are on, I cannot see reflection of anything at all. No flick of light...
They saw movement inside - that is what they saw! ;D
Very strange that Jeremy´s defence didn´t make more of this.
I am not sure Jeremy saw anything. I think he may now think he did after thinking about it for years. I think that at the time of the trial, Jeremy did not realize the importance of this, since he didn´t see it himself. It was one of the officers who noticed this.
I have often wondered if the flick of light was the light being turned off?
his is only a theory. But, the corner of that building has me puzzled. A firearms officer Jeaps sees a rifle leaning at the window of the box room. Brown also see a rifle in the same window. The window in question cannot have been the window of the main bedroom as first thought because Jeaps is back at base at 8:30 and the photographs of the crime scene were not taken in the main bedroom till 10am.
If I was in that building and wanted to watch what was going off outside I would flit from main bedroom to box room. I would also have to turn the light off because its almost impossible to see the outside clearly when the light is on. Its more clear when the light is off.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes, it´s strange!
Now it is darker - in the windows where lights are on, I cannot see reflection of anything at all. No flick of light...
They saw movement inside - that is what they saw! ;D
Very strange that Jeremy´s defence didn´t make more of this.
I am not sure Jeremy saw anything. I think he may now think he did after thinking about it for years. I think that at the time of the trial, Jeremy did not realize the importance of this, since he didn´t see it himself. It was one of the officers who noticed this.
Make more of what? The cops noted a fact- that moving one's head gives the appearance of object you are looking at to be moving. They said that in retrospect their head movement created the appearance of movement. None recorded seeing a clear image of a person. There was not much the defense could do with this. Plus it would be difficult to claim she shot herself while police were there and them not to have heard a thing.
-
Make more of what? The cops noted a fact- that moving one's head gives the appearance of object you are looking at to be moving. They said that in retrospect their head movement created the appearance of movement. None recorded seeing a clear image of a person. There was not much the defense could do with this. Plus it would be difficult to claim she shot herself while police were there and them not to have heard a thing.
Do me a favour, put me on ignore.
-
I have often wondered if the flick of light was the light being turned off?
his is only a theory. But, the corner of that building has me puzzled. A firearms officer Jeaps sees a rifle leaning at the window of the box room. Brown also see a rifle in the same window. The window in question cannot have been the window of the main bedroom as first thought because Jeaps is back at base at 8:30 and the photographs of the crime scene were not taken in the main bedroom till 10am.
If I was in that building and wanted to watch what was going off outside I would flit from main bedroom to box room. I would also have to turn the light off because its almost impossible to see the outside clearly when the light is on. Its more clear when the light is off.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
No one knows when the earliest photo taken was in fact taken. It is possible a photo was taken right away and the gun then moved. No police gave their statements right away as soon as they got back to the station. There is no way to say they were not influenced by photos taken of the scene or tlaking with others when they made their reports. They also could have been mistaken about details just because that is what happens when you don't document everything. Recollections of acocunts and the actual details captured by a camera often reveals differences.
At any rate, the notion police would not have heard shots is nonsense and she still can't have shot herself and then moved her own body nor shot herself with the suppressor.
-
I have often wondered if the flick of light was the light being turned off?
his is only a theory. But, the corner of that building has me puzzled. A firearms officer Jeaps sees a rifle leaning at the window of the box room. Brown also see a rifle in the same window. The window in question cannot have been the window of the main bedroom as first thought because Jeaps is back at base at 8:30 and the photographs of the crime scene were not taken in the main bedroom till 10am.
If I was in that building and wanted to watch what was going off outside I would flit from main bedroom to box room. I would also have to turn the light off because its almost impossible to see the outside clearly when the light is on. Its more clear when the light is off.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
That could explain the discrepancies.
-
Do me a favour, put me on ignore.
No I will continue to respond to all claims made by anyone when I see reason to do so especially claims that need to be challenged whether made by Adam or you or anyone else.
-
No I will continue to respond to all claims made by anyone when I see reason to do so especially claims that need to be challenged whether made by Adam or you or anyone else.
You pretend to be right about everything. It is annoying. Very often you are just guessing like everybody else. An occasional, "in my opinion" or "I think" or "it is probable", would do wonders, Mr.
-
Once again you demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. This was explained to you countless times so at this point the only clnclusionsis that you are either intentionally misrepresenting or you have a low IQ.
The defense hired a phto expert who made outrageous claims that were rejected by the court and also laughed at my other experts. One such claim is that he enlarged a tiny speck in a photo and matched this speck to a piece of varnish missing from Sheila's toenail. He claimed the speck was a tiny fleck of varnish not a toenail. I'm not the only one who explaned this to you so did others. His allegation is was a piece of varnish has not been corroborated by anyone and is not considered credible. The poor quality of the photos combined makes it impossible to enlarge a tin speck to the point it can be shape matched to a piece of varnish missing. His methodology was criticized by prosecution experts.
So even claiming it was definitely a speck of varnish from her toe would be inaccurate but especially to claim it was a piece of toenail.
You claim that police saw lights turning on and off is patently false. Now you claim well some gave conflicting accounts of which ones were on. That doesn't establish that anyone saw a light turn on and off. Many didn't pay close attention to record such and to later include it in their reports. NO ONE claims to have seen a light turn on and off or off and on.
To establish lights were turning on and off you need a witness who saw such. not even Jeremy claimed he saw that.
-
Another made up claim.
Please don't make things up, just for the sake of making things up, since evidence exists to prove and confirm that various lights within the farmhouse were on and off and back on again at different times - of course, "Crispy" the dog could have been responsible for this...
-
Please don't make things up, just for the sake of making things up, since evidence exists to prove and confirm that various lights within the farmhouse were on and off and back on again at different times - of course, "Crispy" the dog could have been responsible for this...
Well, yes! It could also have been Crispy they saw moving around - he might have darted around and moved a lamp. He might have flung himself onto the window sill and quickly looked outside to see what was going on.
Must have been one erratic little dog!
-
Low IQ I've got now ?
Well I would say to YOU,, that it's better to keep YOUR mouth shut and appear stupid,,,than to open it and remove all doubt
-
Low IQ I've got now ?
Well I would say to YOU,, that it's better to keep YOUR mouth shut and appear stupid,,,than to open it and remove all doubt
If you want a debate with people, don´t offend them! Just sayin´
Jeeez, what manners!!! :o
-
The Yanks aren't known for their good manners,Alias
-
You pretend to be right about everything. It is annoying. Very often you are just guessing like everybody else. An occasional, "in my opinion" or "I think" or "it is probable", would do wonders, Mr.
My opinion is supported by evidence. Most people here intentionally ignore the significant evidence instead of following it. Trying to pretend you are objective and just following the evidence is a waste of time. You and most others are advcates of Jeremy not objective.
I just read Jeapes statement which I never read before since she wasn't part of the raid team. She never went in the house at all. She didn't see a rifle in the box room. Before police ever went in she said she saw something in one of the ground floor windows that looked like it could be a rifle leaning against it.
It is not my fault mistakes keep being made and false claims that need correcting.
-
The Yanks aren't known for their good manners,Alias
I don´t know. Maybe not the Hillbillies. ;D We were in California last summer, and people had very, VERY good manners.
-
My opinion is supported by evidence. Most people here intentionally ignore the significant evidence instead of following it. Trying to pretend you are objective and just following the evidence is a waste of time. You and most others are advcates of Jeremy not objective.
I just read Jeapes statement which I never read before since she wasn't part of the raid team. She never went in the house at all. She didn't see a rifle in the box room. Before police ever went in she said she saw something in one of the ground floor windows that looked like it could be a rifle leaning against it.
It is not my fault mistakes keep being made and false claims that need correcting.
WILL YOU STOP THIS BS! I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE OF JB, Just fucking shut up. You don´t have evidence for everything you say, that is a FACT. Leave me alone, you don´t even read posts properly, you are so busy with your own ego.
-
WILL YOU STOP THIS BS! I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE OF JB, Just fucking shut up. You don´t have evidence for everything you say, that is a FACT. Leave me alone, you don´t even read posts properly, you are so busy with your own ego.
The peanut gallery is crabby today.
-
The peanut gallery is crabby today.
You bet! And you are a moron! 8)
-
No one knows when the earliest photo taken was in fact taken. It is possible a photo was taken right away and the gun then moved. No police gave their statements right away as soon as they got back to the station. There is no way to say they were not influenced by photos taken of the scene or tlaking with others when they made their reports. They also could have been mistaken about details just because that is what happens when you don't document everything. Recollections of acocunts and the actual details captured by a camera often reveals differences.
At any rate, the notion police would not have heard shots is nonsense and she still can't have shot herself and then moved her own body nor shot herself with the suppressor.
Yes they do Scorpio its logged and documented that the photographs inside the main bedroom were taken at 10am It was after that time the police moved the rifle and placed it at the window. The photographer returned to take more photo's later that morning = that is also logged and well documented.
What I am saying is the rifle at the main bedroom window was not the rifle Jeaps and Brown saw for Jeaps was back at base at 8:30. Plus Jeaps was on the white side of the building and not the white/red side where Mildenhall was standing.
The police might not have head any shots at all they removed themselves back from the house and were in contact via radio with base....so it can be likely that they didn't hear any shots....
You have to examine it both ends and not have a one way vision that something is not possible when its could be. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes they do Scorpio its logged and documented that the photographs inside the main bedroom were taken at 10am It was after that time the police moved the rifle and placed it at the window. The photographer returned to take more photo's later that morning = that is also logged and well documented.
What I am saying is the rifle at the main bedroom window was not the rifle Jeaps and Brown saw for Jeaps was back at base at 8:30. Plus Jeaps was on the white side of the building and not the white/red side where Mildenhall was standing.
The police might not have head any shots at all they removed themselves back from the house and were in contact via radio with base....so it can be likely that they didn't hear any shots....
You have to examine it both ends and not have a one way vision that something is not possible when its could be. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Jeapes and Brown don't know what they saw. There was no rifle found in the first floor window in question whatever they thought they saw was something else.
Examining both ends includes the fact that gunshots would be heard. Gunshots are masked by loud background noise which was not present on that scene.
The right hand photo of the double set is the one police took after 10Am. No one knows when the one on the left was taken which is the earliest known photo. When the bedroom was reach supposedly for the first time by the official photographer that is when the one on the right was taken. The one on the left was taken an undetermined amount of time earlier.
-
it might of been somthing else or the riffle could of been moved.
-
According to DC Clarke, the rifle was found on top of the bed between the bidies of June and Sheila...
Clark visited tge bedroom shortly after 9am, and visited the main bedroom and saw Junes bidy, and Sheila's body on the bed with the rifle between both bodies on the bed...
By 10am, Sheila's body was laid out on one side of the bed, whilst the body of June was on the bedroom floor on the other side of the bed, by this stage, the rifle was niw on top of Sheila's body...
Now, how the hell did that rifle get from its original position of being in between the bodies of June and Sheila on the bed, end up on top of Sheila's body on the bedroom floor? Surely, no-one is going to continue suggesting Jeremy moved it from one lication to the other...
-
well it would of been a bit hard for him to do so.
-
Jeapes and Brown don't know what they saw. There was no rifle found in the first floor window in question whatever they thought they saw was something else.
Examining both ends includes the fact that gunshots would be heard. Gunshots are masked by loud background noise which was not present on that scene.
The right hand photo of the double set is the one police took after 10Am. No one knows when the one on the left was taken which is the earliest known photo. When the bedroom was reach supposedly for the first time by the official photographer that is when the one on the right was taken. The one on the left was taken an undetermined amount of time earlier.
Yes they do know what they saw Scorpio. Jeaps being a firearms instructor would know if she had seen a rifle or not. The point I am making is that she said in her statement she saw a rifle and so did Brown.
No there were no rifle found in the box room, that much is true. So what did they see? :-\ :-\ :-\
-
well unless they were all mistaken about seeing a riffle which is possible you have conclude someone moved the riffle and that someone couldn't of been jeremy.
-
According to DC Clarke, the rifle was found on top of the bed between the bidies of June and Sheila...
Clark visited tge bedroom shortly after 9am, and visited the main bedroom and saw Junes bidy, and Sheila's body on the bed with the rifle between both bodies on the bed...
By 10am, Sheila's body was laid out on one side of the bed, whilst the body of June was on the bedroom floor on the other side of the bed, by this stage, the rifle was niw on top of Sheila's body...
Now, how the hell did that rifle get from its original position of being in between the bodies of June and Sheila on the bed, end up on top of Sheila's body on the bedroom floor? Surely, no-one is going to continue suggesting Jeremy moved it from one lication to the other...
PC Collins had the point. He used amirror to look upstairs and could see June on the floor of the master bedroom. He was the first cop to enter the master bedroom quickly followed by Delgado, APS Manners, APS Woodcock. As soon as they continued to clear the floor PC Hall looked in. All of the report Sheila and June were on the floor on opposite sides of the bed and furthermore that Sheila had the rifle on her.
As soon as the team announced the house was clear PS Adams and DI Montgomery toured the premises and also saw June and Sheila on the floor on opposite sides of the bed with the gun on top of Sheila. This was within the first ten minutes of breaking the door down.
Testimony of people subsequent to this is wholly worthless as to the state of the scene upon police entry.
The aforementioned are the people who saw the bodies right away before anyone had a chance to disturb them. They are the accounts that matter most and the ones that have to be overcome to try to prove some of the claims you are making.
-
You bet! And you are a moron! 8)
Tee hee hee hee.
-
Shortly after the murders took place,,and after locks were changed and security installed,,Jeremy was offered a set of new keys to WHF. He declined the offer,instead handing them to AE !
Doesn't sound to me as if he'd murdered 5 people if he refused the " opportunity " to enter the farmhouse.
Didn't he want to re-trace his steps ?
Didn't he want to wipe the blood from the window-sill from which he allegedly got in and out of ?
Didn't he want to put the silencer in his pocket in which to dump across the swamps near to where he'd pedalled hell for leather in his wetsuit ?
Didn't he want to return for the watch of his fathers' ?
Didn't he want to pocket some of the jewellery that nobody would have known about ?
Didn't he want to look for the key to the safe to see what was in it ?
Didn't he want to rifle ( pun ) a few drawers and cupboards ?
Isn't this what greedy murderers do who make money their God ?
NO. Unbeknowns to Jeremy,,all that was done for him ! " Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly ".
Then poor Jeremy,,thinking that he had friends on his side giving him support,,,turned on him as quick as lightening. He,,knowing that relationships had been somewhat strained over the years between families,,was trying to build bridges,,and even gave AE a bunch of flowers for what he thought,,were for their acts of kindness towards him at that dreadful time of having nobody to fall back on.
Then the amateur sleuths got to work !
-
Shortly after the murders took place,,and after locks were changed and security installed,,Jeremy was offered a set of new keys to WHF. He declined the offer,instead handing them to AE !
Doesn't sound to me as if he'd murdered 5 people if he refused the " opportunity " to enter the farmhouse.
Didn't he want to re-trace his steps ?
Didn't he want to wipe the blood from the window-sill from which he allegedly got in and out of ?
Didn't he want to put the silencer in his pocket in which to dump across the swamps near to where he'd pedalled hell for leather in his wetsuit ?
Didn't he want to return for the watch of his fathers' ?
Didn't he want to pocket some of the jewellery that nobody would have known about ?
Didn't he want to look for the key to the safe to see what was in it ?
Didn't he want to rifle ( pun ) a few drawers and cupboards ?
Isn't this what greedy murderers do who make money their God ?
NO. Unbeknowns to Jeremy,,all that was done for him ! " Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly ".
Then poor Jeremy,,thinking that he had friends on his side giving him support,,,turned on him as quick as lightening. He,,knowing that relationships had been somewhat strained over the years between families,,was trying to build bridges,,and even gave AE a bunch of flowers for what he thought,,were for their acts of kindness towards him at that dreadful time of having nobody to fall back on.
Then the amateur sleuths got to work !
Jeremy already did what he needed to at the scene before calling police he had no need to return after police processed it.
He had no need for a key either since he could get in without one but he was given one of the keys he simply chose to never carry it with him since he could get in and out through the windows.
Everything in the house was his because eveyroen else was dead, he had no need to immediately clear everything out. But in fact he did ransack Sheila's place for valuables very soon after her death and did try to sell what he thought was valuable antiques very soon after the deaths but it turned out they were not valuable.
He was so greedly he hought about selling nude photos of his dead sister.
-
Jeremy already did what he needed to at the scene before calling police he had no need to return after police processed it.
He had no need for a key either since he could get in without one but he was given one of the keys he simply chose to never carry it with him since he could get in and out through the windows.
Everything in the house was his because eveyroen else was dead, he had no need to immediately clear everything out. But in fact he did ransack Sheila's place for valuables very soon after her death and did try to sell what he thought was valuable antiques very soon after the deaths but it turned out they were not valuable.
He was so greedly he hought about selling nude photos of his dead sister.
Cobblers.