Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on June 04, 2014, 10:36:PM
-
I will reveal the details of the proposed testing very soon...
-
I will reveal the details of the proposed testing very soon...
Praise be to god, the almighty...
-
Ok, lets begin...
-
I will reveal the details of the proposed testing very soon...
There is no way to prove it wasn't used. In the meantime the evidence that proves it was used no longer exists for DNA testing. DNA testing of the blood determined by the defense and prosecution experts to be group A would not be able to prove the suppressor wasn't used but would be able to prove if that blood wasn't Sheila's which would mean no one could prove whether it was used or not. Such doubts are resolved in the favor of defendants.
But the defense didn't keep the evidence nor did the prosecution so neither is avaialbel to see if DNA testing could have been done. Most of the time such tests destroy DNA anyway but if either saved the tests they could have seen for sure whether DNA testing could be done or not.
-
There is no way to prove it wasn't used. In the meantime the evidence that proves it was used no longer exists for DNA testing. DNA testing of the blood determined by the defense and prosecution experts to be group A would not be able to prove the suppressor wasn't used but would be able to prove if that blood wasn't Sheila's which would mean no one could prove whether it was used or not. Such doubts are resolved in the favor of defendants.
But the defense didn't keep the evidence nor did the prosecution so neither is avaialbel to see if DNA testing could have been done. Most of the time such tests destroy DNA anyway but if either saved the tests they could have seen for sure whether DNA testing could be done or not.
Basically, you are talking bullshit..
To coin a legal phrase, "Fuck off" with your negative attitude, there was never any evidence to prove that Jeremy killed anyone, I will provide the detail to prove beyond doubt that the Bamber owned sound moderator was not fitted to the gun barrel of the anshuzt rifle, when Sheila was shot and killed...
How the fuck can anyone try to negate evidence, without first of all hearing or learning what the proposed testing is?
I am all for free speech, but hey let me spell out what sort of fucking test I am proposing before you put your spin on it - you are one fucking rude dude.What sort of an advocate are you supposed to be, at least have the fucking decency to hear what I have got to say. You appear to be a fucking piece of shit, typical of someone who is corrupt and who enjoys working in a fucking corrupted, system...
"Bollocks", at least give me the opportunity to have my say, before you respond, your arguments thus far in all other matters are simply not factual, you have nothing to back up or support anything you have been saying, thus far...
-
Basically, you are talking bullshit..
To coin a legal phrase, "Fuck off" with your negative attitude, there was never any evidence to prove that Jeremy killed anyone, I will provide the detail to prove beyond doubt that the Bamber owned sound moderator was not fitted to the gun barrel of the anshuzt rifle, when Sheila was shot and killed...
How the fuck can anyone try to negate evidence, without first of all hearing or learning what the proposed testing is?
I am all for free speech, but hey let me spell out what sort of fucking test I am proposing before you put your spin on it - you are one fucking rude dude.What sort of an advocate are you supposed to be, at least have the fucking decency to hear what I have got to say. You appear to be a fucking piece of shit, typical of someone who is corrupt and who enjoys working in a fucking corrupted, system...
"Bollocks", at least give me the opportunity to have my say, before you respond, your arguments thus far in all other matters are simply not factual, you have nothing to back up or support anything you have been saying, thus far...
HAHAHA ;D
-
It is not necessary to have evidence to prove that Bamber murdered his family because all the available evidence overwhelmingly points to Sheila's innocence. And as we all know, the invented telephone call from daddy Bamber to Jeremy leaves only one conclusion and that is that the shooter was Jeremy or Sheila.
Since Sheila is innocent that only leaves one possible suspect. Bamber guilty as charged!
-
Basically, you are talking bullshit..
To coin a legal phrase, "Fuck off" with your negative attitude, there was never any evidence to prove that Jeremy killed anyone, I will provide the detail to prove beyond doubt that the Bamber owned sound moderator was not fitted to the gun barrel of the anshuzt rifle, when Sheila was shot and killed...
How the fuck can anyone try to negate evidence, without first of all hearing or learning what the proposed testing is?
I am all for free speech, but hey let me spell out what sort of fucking test I am proposing before you put your spin on it - you are one fucking rude dude.What sort of an advocate are you supposed to be, at least have the fucking decency to hear what I have got to say. You appear to be a fucking piece of shit, typical of someone who is corrupt and who enjoys working in a fucking corrupted, system...
"Bollocks", at least give me the opportunity to have my say, before you respond, your arguments thus far in all other matters are simply not factual, you have nothing to back up or support anything you have been saying, thus far...
It is not my fault if there is no such thing as a test which at this point could prove that it wasn't fitted.
Since there is none possible that is why I wrote what I did. If there were a possible test I would have suggested it already and in fact others would have suggested it years ago before I ever heard of this case.
If I am wrong I will admit it but I doubt I am and that there is some new procedure I never heard of before.
-
It is not my fault if there is no such thing as a test which at this point could prove that it wasn't fitted.
Since there is none possible that is why I wrote what I did. If there were a possible test I would have suggested it already and in fact others would have suggested it years ago before I ever heard of this case.
If I am wrong I will admit it but I doubt I am and that there is some new procedure I never heard of before.
Ok then chummy, but at least give me the opportunity to point out what needs to be done with the rifle. As I say, the test being proposed will establush beyond doubt that there was no sound moderator fitted to the barrell of the anshuzt rifle that fired the fatal shot under the chin which sent the fatal bullet up through the voud of her mouth into her brain. After which you can have your say based on the information which I have not yet provided. What is now known, is that the rifle in question only fired one of tge two bullets shot into her neck region. The one that was fired sideways across her throat was fired by a different gun...
-
It is not necessary to have evidence to prove that Bamber murdered his family because all the available evidence overwhelmingly points to Sheila's innocence. And as we all know, the invented telephone call from daddy Bamber to Jeremy leaves only one conclusion and that is that the shooter was Jeremy or Sheila.
Since Sheila is innocent that only leaves one possible suspect. Bamber guilty as charged!
Special branch have yet to officially deny that the Bamber clan were not subject of one of thier protection programs. They are in the business of protecting people, groups of people, and families like the Bambers. They have yet to deny that the family were being monitored at the time of the shootings, or to say yeh or no that Ralph made communications to the protection officers as the tragedy was unfolding, or that someone at the scene activated the attack alarm at around 3.29am that was fitted at the farmhouse as part of the package that came with the measures applied by Soecial Branch...
-
Lets start at the beginning:-
(1) - the anshulz rifle said to have been used in the shootings is still in existence, and therefore it has the potential to still produce admissible evidence in any future proceedings...
If anyone disagrees with this statement, please give your reasons for saying so, then I will move on to my proposal...
-
We also now know almost everything there is to know about the various sound moderators, which for arguments sake I shall refer to as the silencer...
The silencer has not been destroyed, so yet again it has the potential to produce admissible evidence in any future proceedings...
Anyone who disagrees with this statement, who has something constructive to say about this, lets hear from you before I move on...
-
Right, lets talk about the silencer first of all, consisting of a metal cylinder, a total of 17 metal baffle plates a top washer that sits internally between the baffles and the screw threaded metal cap...
Blood did not enter the silencer all the way through it. Blood was found to be present on the first six baffle plates...
-
What is now known, is that the rifle in question only fired one of the two bullets shot into her neck region. The one that was fired sideways across her throat was fired by a different gun...
Is this yet another attempt to try and blame the TFG for shooting Sheila?
-
Right, lets talk about the silencer first of all, consisting of a metal cylinder, a total of 17 metal baffle plates a top washer that sits internally between the baffles and the screw threaded metal cap...
Blood did not enter the silencer all the way through it. Blood was found to be present on the first six baffle plates...
According to the defense's own expert it was found on the first 8 baffles, all visible blood had been removed by the prosecution but he detected microscopic blood drops on the first 8 baffles. Beyond that no blood was detected by him.
-
Special branch have yet to officially deny that the Bamber clan were not subject of one of thier protection programs. They are in the business of protecting people, groups of people, and families like the Bambers. They have yet to deny that the family were being monitored at the time of the shootings, or to say yeh or no that Ralph made communications to the protection officers as the tragedy was unfolding, or that someone at the scene activated the attack alarm at around 3.29am that was fitted at the farmhouse as part of the package that came with the measures applied by Soecial Branch...
You seem to be engaging again in your specialty which is to say he other side has to disprove your allegations as opposed to you proving them.
At any rate, the phone company says the only call that was made from the house the night of the murders was to Goldhanger so I fail to see how Nevill could possibly have called anyone else.
-
well the phone company must be wrong, because June phoned her sister that night.
-
well the phone company must be wrong, because June phoned her sister that night.
Buddy, I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that Pam phoned June. It was a late call, POSSIBLY because Pam knew what time June usually got back from her church meeting. I don't recall that I ever knew the reason the call was made but during it June conveyed that she was concerned about Sheila and I think a meeting was arranged.
-
You seem to be engaging again in your specialty which is to say he other side has to disprove your allegations as opposed to you proving them.
At any rate, the phone company says the only call that was made from the house the night of the murders was to Goldhanger so I fail to see how Nevill could possibly have called anyone else.
BT didnt have itemised bills so how do they know? the call counter was electro mechanical. I forgot the senior officers name but I'm sure he is on record as saying this fact made checking impossible.
someone help me out here sure I've read it but cant think where
the callers line would remain open untill the handset was replaced. the receivers line would be blocked untill their handset was replaced and two units had been used. dont know the exact time period at that time of night. I presume that the poilce switchboard equpment being commercial and mulit line that took the call from WHF would not be subject to this working and would automatically reconnect to a free line when they ended the call thus freeing an essential line. the exchange operator could switch into the open WHF line because the line was open the call counter would not be running after the two units as the receiver was disconnected
I recall there was some arguement over the details between telecom experts as it appeared to be a mix and match between exchanges system X and such (remember the hype about system X?)
I doubt that after thirty years we will ever know the fine details unless a line engineer can recall. digital quickly changed all this and dont forget GPO had become BT and deregulation had thrown all manner of dodgy gismos onto the market red triangle green circle remember?
-
Yes you could be right April. Pam said that Sheila seemed detached. Fact is that a call from Goldhanger was made supporting the account made by Jerremy
-
When I can get hold of my bro.,he worked on System X and would know all the answers.
-
Ok then chummy, but at least give me the opportunity to point out what needs to be done with the rifle. As I say, the test being proposed will establush beyond doubt that there was no sound moderator fitted to the barrell of the anshuzt rifle that fired the fatal shot under the chin which sent the fatal bullet up through the voud of her mouth into her brain. After which you can have your say based on the information which I have not yet provided. What is now known, is that the rifle in question only fired one of tge two bullets shot into her neck region. The one that was fired sideways across her throat was fired by a different gun...
Sorry but you have a poor track record with respect to understanding the mechanics of firearms and markings left on bullets/shell casings.
The way to determine whether bullets were fired from a gun or not is to match the lands and grooves. Some bullets expand or are damaged too great for there to be enough lands and grooves to try to match up.
There is no marking left on a bullet by a suppressor such as the one in question. Thus there is no way to determine whether a suppressor was used in the firing of any particular bullet by inspecting it.
If a bullet has sufficient numbers of lands and grooves it can be matched to a particular gun model. If not then it can neither be matched nor ruled out as having been fired from a particular gun. These are called the class characteristics. In addition there are imperfections unique to a singular weapon that can leave marks unique only to that weapon. These are called accidental or individual characteristics.
A bullet where the class characteristics of the weapon that fired it are unable to be discerned can neither matched nor ruled out as having been fired by a particular model of weapon that uses such caliber of ammunition. A bullet that fails to exhibit individual characterists can neither be matched to a specific gun nor rulled out as having been fired by that specific gun. If matched to a specific gun through individual characteristics then it is ruled out as having been fired by any other gun.
The spent shell casings can also be tied to having been fired by a specific gun. The firing pin impression, extraction marks, and breech marks will be peculiar to a specific weapon. Thus they can often be matched as having been fired by a particular weapon.
Unless the bullets and casings are still in existence or blowups made by examining them under a microscope still exist there is little hope of even attempting to prove a different gun was used.
The only way to prove a different gun was used would be to look at the bullet, find striae (lands and grooves), measure the striae and determine that such doesn't match the class characteristics of the murder weapon.
This would not reveal whether a suppressor were attached or not to the weapon that fired it, it merely would speak to whether the gun itself (with or without the sound suppressor) could have fired the bullet in question.
PV/19 and PV/20 were the bullets removed from Sheila. They were .22 rounds. They were intact enough to determine this for certain. The 25 shell casings were all .22 Eley.
The police had no .22 rimfire weapons so they had no means to fire any of these rounds. That alone means your suggestions are likely to go no where fast let alone more analysis of the lands and grooves to try to determine they were fired by a different make of .22 rifle than the murder weapon.
-
BT didnt have itemised bills so how do they know? the call counter was electro mechanical. I forgot the senior officers name but I'm sure he is on record as saying this fact made checking impossible.
someone help me out here sure I've read it but cant think where
the callers line would remain open untill the handset was replaced. the receivers line would be blocked untill their handset was replaced and two units had been used. dont know the exact time period at that time of night. I presume that the poilce switchboard equpment being commercial and mulit line that took the call from WHF would not be subject to this working and would automatically reconnect to a free line when they ended the call thus freeing an essential line. the exchange operator could switch into the open WHF line because the line was open the call counter would not be running after the two units as the receiver was disconnected
I recall there was some arguement over the details between telecom experts as it appeared to be a mix and match between exchanges system X and such (remember the hype about system X?)
I doubt that after thirty years we will ever know the fine details unless a line engineer can recall. digital quickly changed all this and dont forget GPO had become BT and deregulation had thrown all manner of dodgy gismos onto the market red triangle green circle remember?
They didn't issue itemized billing statements but still coudl ascertain calls being made. The testified that the only call made the morning of the murders which is August 7 (not August 6)- was a call to Goldhanger, that such call was ended by the pary at Goldhanger hanging up and that it was never hung up at WHF.
-
They didn't issue itemized billing statements but still coudl ascertain calls being made. The testified that the only call made the morning of the murders which is August 7 (not August 6)- was a call to Goldhanger, that such call was ended by the pary at Goldhanger hanging up and that it was never hung up at WHF.
where did this come from?
-
where did this come from?
Trial testimony from a phone telephone company agent. In addiiton to testifying about the singular call made and the phone then remaining off the hook he discussed the implications such had on Goldhernger's phone. It would take 1-2 minutes of being hung up continuously for the phone at Goldhanger to clear and be able to make a call from there.
This was used to demonstrate Jeremy could not have immeditely dialed anywhere after hanging up and would have to have waited 1-2 minutes to call WHF, Julie or even the police.
-
They didn't issue itemized billing statements but still coudl ascertain calls being made. The testified that the only call made the morning of the murders which is August 7 (not August 6)- was a call to Goldhanger, that such call was ended by the pary at Goldhanger hanging up and that it was never hung up at WHF.
So there was a call to Jeremy the morning of the murders then?
-
Get out of that one,Scipio. Shot yourself in the foot. ;D ;D
-
Trial testimony from a phone telephone company agent. In addiiton to testifying about the singular call made and the phone then remaining off the hook he discussed the implications such had on Goldhernger's phone. It would take 1-2 minutes of being hung up continuously for the phone at Goldhanger to clear and be able to make a call from there.
This was used to demonstrate Jeremy could not have immeditely dialed anywhere after hanging up and would have to have waited 1-2 minutes to call WHF, Julie or even the police.
not if WHF phone had disconnected this would have cleared the line if Ralph had called the police after calling Jeremy the Goldhanger line would be clear.
as I said there was some arguement over the technicalities. I also dont know how long the ringing tone would work WHF to Goldhanger without answer.(technical advice please anybody) you maintain the answer machine was not connected and I have heard no mention of neighbours asking about hearing a continuous phone ringing on a silent night with no doubt open windows. this would be a source of nusance to near neighbours (it has been to me) particularly if it was ringing all the time it took to cycle between the two locations.
-
not if WHF phone had disconnected this would have cleared the line if Ralph had called the police after calling Jeremy the Goldhanger line would be clear.
as I said there was some arguement over the technicalities. I also dont know how long the ringing tone would work WHF to Goldhanger without answer.(technical advice please anybody) you maintain the answer machine was not connected and I have heard no mention of neighbours asking about hearing a continuous phone ringing on a silent night with no doubt open windows. this would be a source of nusance to near neighbours (it has been to me) particularly if it was ringing all the time it took to cycle between the two locations.
The phone at WHF was left off the hook and never hung up and therefore made no calls.
If the phone had been hung up at the same time that the phone at Goldhanger wa shung up then at that point both lines woudl have been clear and each could have mad e acall without having to wait 1-2 minutes for the line to clear.
The phone company would have had a record of the call just like a record of the call to Goldhanger if another call was made no call was made according to them after the call to Jeremy.
Nor do any police or civilians police personnel who answer phones claim to have received a call.
If you have nobody to testify they received a call from Nevill and no evidence from the phone company to prove a call was made to the police then how do you prove it?
At least the telephone company saying there is a record would prove someone called police though not who dialed. But this is out the window and there are no police who say they received any call from anyone at WHF let alone Nevill.
The burden of proving the claim rests with the person making the claim. There are no ways left to prove the claim. Both avenues of proof are closed.
-
We have got to the stage, where everyone is in agreement that there was a complete absence of any blood in at least 9 baffle plates of the silencer...
This "gap", is very important and no matter what anybody tries to say, or insinuate, no blood at all made it beyond the 6/8th internal baffle plate of the suppressor...
-
We have got to the stage, where everyone is in agreement that there was a complete absence of any blood in at least 9 baffle plates of the silencer...
This "gap", is very important and no matter what anybody tries to say, or insinuate, no blood at all made it beyond the 6/8th internal baffle plate of the suppressor...
baffle 1 - blood
baffle 2 - blood
baffle 3 - blood
baffle 4 - blood
baffle 5 - blood
baffle 6 - blood
baffle 7 - claim of microscopic traces of blood
baffle 8 - claim of microscopic traces of blood
GAP
bafle 9 - absence of any blood
baffle 10 - absence of any blood
baffle 11- absence of any blood
baffle 12 - absence of any blood
baffle 13 - absence of any blood
baffle 14 - absence of any blood
baffle 15 - absence of any blood
baffle 16 - absence of any blood
baffle 17 - absence of any blood
-
There is something very odd about the claim that blood was only found on the top surfaces of baffle plates in view of the violent turbulance generated in the voids between the baffles, which would cause any blood that was being forced under compression into the suppressor to swirl and contaminate both sides of each baffle plate and the external wall of the suppressor adjacent to each of the 16 voids between baffles, but no such blood was ever found on the underside surfaces of any baffle plate, nor upon any external wall of any void internally? This suggests that the blood did not get into the silencer under compression, but rather that somebody dripped blood deliberately into the silencer which fell and settled upon the upper facing surfaces of the contaminated baffles...
If any blood had been forced into the silencer as suggested by the prosecutions case, blood would have been present on the upper and lower surfaces of these contaminated baffle plates, and the inner surfaces of the cylindrical tubing adjacent to the corresponding individual voids, but since no other blood was found or detected upon or in any of these other internal parts of the silencer, everything points to it having been a case of someone deliberately contaminating the silencer with blood...
-
No expert from either side has ever spoken about any blood being found to be present on the lower surfaces of any of these blood contaminated baffle plates, nor given even the slightest mention that this blood had also been present on the walls of the corresponding voids between all the confirmed bloodstained baffle plates...
If this is true...
blood did not get into the silencer under suppression, but must have been deliberately dripped into it...
-
Now lets continue to look at the conflicting presence and absence of blood on various internal baffle plates, since by reference to photographic evidence taken by Cook on 29th August 1985, when he deliberately dismantled the silencer, the jaws of the removed baffle plates were downward facing, and Cook never makes any mention of seeing any blood at all on any of the removed and separated baffles on that occasion. The silencer has then subsequently been rebuilt and sent to the lab' on the very next day (30th August) for the attention of the ballistic expert, Fletcher, who supposedly discovers a loose flake of blood inside the first couple of baffles, which Cook had previously examined and found nothing at all...
By April 1986, according to Lab' records the baffles of the silencer are subject to examination again by Glynis Howard - on this occasion the jaws of the baffle plates are upward facing, whereas previously they had been downward facing...
Either, we are talking about two different silencers here, or somebody is responsible for reconfiguring the internal component parts of the same silencer...
-
Is there a correct way for the baffle plates to sit inside the outer casing of the silencer?
Jaws downward facing, or Jaws upward facing?
Top end of silencer being the end via which the bullet exits the silencer, the bottom end being a reference to the end which screws directly onto the thread of the rifles barrel...
-
Before I go on to say what ultimate test can still be done to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the silencer was not fitted to the gun at the time of the fatal shot beneath Sheila's chin, there are other matters which need to be mentioned, so that no-one can be accused of trying to lead anyone astray...
Lets start off then by saying that no dna was matched with any blood found on, or inside the silencer...
-
There is something very odd about the claim that blood was only found on the top surfaces of baffle plates in view of the violent turbulance generated in the voids between the baffles, which would cause any blood that was being forced under compression into the suppressor to swirl and contaminate both sides of each baffle plate and the external wall of the suppressor adjacent to each of the 16 voids between baffles, but no such blood was ever found on the underside surfaces of any baffle plate, nor upon any external wall of any void internally? This suggests that the blood did not get into the silencer under compression, but rather that somebody dripped blood deliberately into the silencer which fell and settled upon the upper facing surfaces of the contaminated baffles...
If any blood had been forced into the silencer as suggested by the prosecutions case, blood would have been present on the upper and lower surfaces of these contaminated baffle plates, and the inner surfaces of the cylindrical tubing adjacent to the corresponding individual voids, but since no other blood was found or detected upon or in any of these other internal parts of the silencer, everything points to it having been a case of someone deliberately contaminating the silencer with blood...
Once again you have demonstrated you have no idea what you are talking about.
First of all, the fact no blood was found beyond the 8th baffle is bad for Jeremy supporters. Back spatte rin unlikely to travel beyond a couple of inches so blood found deeper would be a sign of a problem. It would indicate at minimum tampering of some form. The blood being found on the initial 8 baffles is consistent with what would be expected from spatter.
Second your claim blood should be on the backs of the baffles is wrong. It would be rare that blood would get to the back of the baffle plates. There was some blood under the baffles including the small flake removed by the prosecution. The prosecution didn't test all the blood that was removed. There was more blood removed than just the blood tested.
From the 2002 appeal decision, "The evidence of Mr Hayward was not to the effect that all the blood in the moderator had been tested but rather that some of that blood had been tested."
The prosecution tested blood found on the baffles as well as the flake detecting group A blood for each. The defense tested only microscopic traces that remained after the prosecution cleaned them and also got the same result group A.
The blood from these tests probably would not be suitable for DNA testing at this point anyway if saved but wasn't saved. There is thus no way for the defense to ever prove this group A blood wasn't Sheila's.
Back spatter is a spray of blood it would not get on the back of baffles and would not travel much more than 2 inches. High velocity spatter is often fine like the drops detected by the defense expert. There is nothing at all inconsistent with the distribution of the blood being back spatter.
Curse me all you like but you have no command at all of the scientific issues incvolved anymore than you did with your claims about 5 casings being double marked so proving they had to be in the gun already or about how the last round in a magazine has to have a follower mark.
You make up a great deal of things especially scenarios like police shooting Sheila as a way to render Jeremy innocent but never have evidence that establishes any of the sceanrios you make up actually happened.
Yes you have the right to believe them all you like regardless of evidence to prove anything but without proof you are not going to convince anyone who is objective only those here who don't care about evidence either.
Posting scenarios that have no evidentiary support is not going to move public opinion let alone convince an appeal court to do anything.
-
And who's the biggest champion of scenarios ? None other than yourself !
-
I have it on good authority that when a sound moderator is used during the shooting of a weapon such as the anshuzt rifle (in this case) that gases at the fore of the round, and propellent behind, passing through the silencer, create a swirling environment in the voids situated between the 17 baffle plates. This has to be the case if the purpose of fitting a suppressor to a guns barrel is to make any difference in reducing noise made at the time of firing a round. If backspatter occured in the instant Sheila was shot and killed by use of the anshuzt rifle, any blood that followed the bullet under Sheila's chin would have been dragged into the wound and mixed with gases and manufacturers propellent into the end of the silencer. Experts will tell you, that turbulance is generated to the fore of the bullet, and to the rear the bullet, as it passes through the voids situated between the 17 baffle plates. Wherever you have turbulance and swirling gases and manufacturers proppellent swirling around at the rear of a bullet traveling through a silencer, there is an excellent prospect of any blood entering into the silencer of becoming deposited on all surfaces it comes into contact with...
Anyone who says differently does not know what they are talking about, and should be regarded as an imbecile, who hasn't got a clue of what they are trying to talk about...
Blood on the upper surfaces of the baffle plates, and an absence of the same blood on the reverse surfaces of the same baffle plates, suggests in the strongest possible terms that blood did not get inside the silencer at the time of the shootings, but rather, that blood was dripped into the silencer deliberately at a later time...
-
How odd that on the 29th August when Cook dismantled the silencer and separated the first five baffle plates from eachother, that he did not see or report the presence of any blood on them at all, and more importantly that Cook did not repirt seeing a small flake of blood between any of the baffles he had separated on that occasion - but within 11 days or so the all important loose flake suddenly materialises and is found by the ballistic expert at the lab' on 11th September 1985...
Flake was not there one moment, but there the next...
How convenient was that?
-
Crucial flake of blood identified as being unique to Sheila, was not present in the silencer when Cook dismantled it on 29th August 1985, but suddenly appears there by 11th September...
Where did it come from?
-
Loose flake of blood, arrives inside the silencer after 29th August 1985...
-
Loose flake of blood arrives inside silencer by 11th September 1985...
-
There was an unofficial test fire of the anshuzt rifle, prior to 12th September 1985, using two control rounds, fired once with the silencer attached, the other without...
It is now believed that the loose flake of Sheila's blood was fired into the silencer during these unofficial test fire exercises, from originally being present inside the barrel of the anshuzt rifle...
-
There was an unofficial test fire of the anshuzt rifle, prior to 12th September 1985, using two control rounds, fired once with the silencer attached, the other without...
It is now believed that the loose flake of Sheila's blood was fired into the silencer during these unofficial test fire exercises, from originally being present inside the barrel of the anshuzt rifle...
It was after the unofficial test fire of the rifle, with silencer attached, and use of one of two control rounds, that the crucial flake of blood was discovered inside the silencer - no guessing then, of how the loose flake ended up inside the silencer?
-
WHAT HAPPENED IS / was, that whilst the rifle was being test fired with use of the silencer and control ammunition, a loose piece of Sheila's blood inside the end of the guns barrel was blasted into the silencer, hence why the loose flake suddenly appeared inside the silencer, when Fletcher examined it on 11th September 1985, despite no such loose flake being present on 29th August, when Cook (Soco) dismantled it...
This is why police and thier ballistic expert, tried to withhold details of the unofficial test fire of the rifle, before 12th September 1985...
The official test fire of the rifle, using 27 of the 29 control bullets, was not undertaken until between 20th September and the 2nd October 1985...
-
There is a very high risk that the crucial flake of blood did not get sucked into the silencer at the time Sheila was shot by the bullet under the chin that killed her, but rather the small flek of Sheila's blood was blasted into the silencer during an unreported test fire of the gun and silencer with control ammunition prior to the 12th September 1985...
If true, the jury would almost certainly have accepted that Sheila had killed herself...
-
There is a very high risk that the crucial flake of blood did not get sucked into the silencer at the time Sheila was shot by the bullet under the chin that killed her, but rather the small flek of Sheila's blood was blasted into the silencer during an unreported test fire of the gun and silencer with control ammunition prior to the 12th September 1985...
If true, the jury would almost certainly have accepted that Sheila had killed herself...
Even though in truth, she did not...
-
Before I finally get around to detailing the ultimate test of the gun which can prove that the silencer was not fitted to the rifles barrel at the time Sheila was shot and killed, I want to spell it out that there was an unofficial test firing of rifle, silencer and control. bullets, long before the official test fire of the same, which took place between the 20th September and 2nd October 1985. If I can prove that an earlier test fire of the gun and silencer had indeed taken place beforehand, it surely throws into doubt the overall integrity of the firearms and ballistics evidence relied upon by the prosecutions case to make sure that they got a conviction, wrongly...
With this in mind, I will draw everyone's attention to dated information contained upon Lab' GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS, where it is clearly stated that on dates prior to the 20th September 1985, that the ballistic expert used test fired rounds to make comparison with the batch of crime scene ammunition - on 12rh, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985...
-
Before I finally get around to detailing the ultimate test of the gun which can prove that the silencer was not fitted to the rifles barrel at the time Sheila was shot and killed, I want to spell it out that there was an unofficial test firing of rifle, silencer and control. bullets, long before the official test fire of the same, which took place between the 20th September and 2nd October 1985. If I can prove that an earlier test fire of the gun and silencer had indeed taken place beforehand, it surely throws into doubt the overall integrity of the firearms and ballistics evidence relied upon by the prosecutions case to make sure that they got a conviction, wrongly...
With this in mind, I will draw everyone's attention to dated information contained upon Lab' GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS, where it is clearly stated that on dates prior to the 20th September 1985, that the ballistic expert used test fired rounds to make comparison with the batch of crime scene ammunition - on 12rh, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985...
Sorry but your longwinded drawn out posts have a history of ending the same way. You drag it out and then your anti-climactic end is a complete thud where your claims fall apart completely.
It doesn't matter how many bullets were test fired, whether it took place one day or multiple days doesn't tend to establish any wrongdoing that would support your claims of multiple guns being used on the victims.
This smacks of your bogus claims of there having been 3 suppressors which you still maintani though you not only have no evidence at all to support but worse was thoroughly rejected already as nonsense.
You have a long history of throwing sh!t at the wall to see if anythign sticks but nothing does.
The stuff you posted about June committing the killings had no legs and neither does your claim that police shot Sheila/ mulitple guns were use don the victims.
I don't understand why you think you are helping Jeremy with outrageous claims that when the public at large reads causes them to dismiss all of us who post here as nuts.
With that kind of reputation even when there is an accurate point that can be made it winds up being dismissed simply because of the source instea dof being viewed on the merits. You might want to consider that.
-
Before I finally get around to detailing the ultimate test of the gun which can prove that the silencer was not fitted to the rifles barrel at the time Sheila was shot and killed, I want to spell it out that there was an unofficial test firing of rifle, silencer and control. bullets, long before the official test fire of the same, which took place between the 20th September and 2nd October 1985. If I can prove that an earlier test fire of the gun and silencer had indeed taken place beforehand, it surely throws into doubt the overall integrity of the firearms and ballistics evidence relied upon by the prosecutions case to make sure that they got a conviction, wrongly...
With this in mind, I will draw everyone's attention to dated information contained upon Lab' GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS, where it is clearly stated that on dates prior to the 20th September 1985, that the ballistic expert used test fired rounds to make comparison with the batch of crime scene ammunition - on 12rh, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985...
Furthermore...
In his lab' working notes, the ballistic expert, Fletcher, wrote the following just before he commenced the first of the official test fire of the rifle, silencer and 27 remaining control rounds (originally 29), he wrote, "I do not know when the rifle was last fired"...
Basically, Fletcher the scum bag is a fucking dirty no good lying bastard...
He should be arrested immediately and charged with perverting the course of justice, and conspiracy...
Bring back hanging, just for him, and people like him...
The fucking Evil no good bastard...
-
I am going to post the evidence on here to prove to everybody that the prosecutions ballistic expert, Fletcher, is nothing but a fucking scum bag, like all those who believe that the ballistics evidence somehow proves that Sheila did not kill herself, and therefore Jeremy must have done it, what an absolute load of bollocks....
Jeremy Bamber killed no-one, actually...
-
Sorry but your longwinded drawn out posts have a history of ending the same way. You drag it out and then your anti-climactic end is a complete thud where your claims fall apart completely.
It doesn't matter how many bullets were test fired, whether it took place one day or multiple days doesn't tend to establish any wrongdoing that would support your claims of multiple guns being used on the victims.
This smacks of your bogus claims of there having been 3 suppressors which you still maintani though you not only have no evidence at all to support but worse was thoroughly rejected already as nonsense.
You have a long history of throwing sh!t at the wall to see if anythign sticks but nothing does.
The stuff you posted about June committing the killings had no legs and neither does your claim that police shot Sheila/ mulitple guns were use don the victims.
I don't understand why you think you are helping Jeremy with outrageous claims that when the public at large reads causes them to dismiss all of us who post here as nuts.
With that kind of reputation even when there is an accurate point that can be made it winds up being dismissed simply because of the source instea dof being viewed on the merits. You might want to consider that.
FUCK OFF, you are a scum bag, a lying bastard like the rest of the conspirators, and the we hate Bamber lunatics...
-
Jeremy Bamber killed nobody...
-
I have not yet outlined the ultimate test of the gun which, I truly believe will prove that when police shot Sheila under the chin, that there was not a silencer fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle...
But, before then I have specific points to make, so that scumbags cannot make unrealistic claims without knowing the absolute truth about connected or linked matters...
-
I am prepared to respond to anyone being serious about any issue, but I fucking detest scumbag liars, who do not even know the truth about what they are saying. I mean, if you are going to say something, at least do a bit of research to find out if what you are saying is the truth, or not...
-
FUCK OFF, you are a scum bag, a lying bastard like the rest of the conspirators, and the we hate Bamber lunatics...
If I were then I would not be trying to get people to discuss actual facts and evidence and instead resort to nonsubstantive discussion.
If there is truly some test scientifically reliable that could establish whether a suppressor was attached or not you should be able to explain it and provide some scientific support. There is no such thing as science so new that it would be admissible in a court and yet not have any books, journals etc about it.
If such exists I would welcome it.
The problem is that I can find no such thing and you seem to be going off on a tangent again about multiple guns being used and bullets being taken form tests and planted instead.
-
If I were then I would not be trying to get people to discuss actual facts and evidence and instead resort to nonsubstantive discussion.
If there is truly some test scientifically reliable that could establish whether a suppressor was attached or not you should be able to explain it and provide some scientific support. There is no such thing as science so new that it would be admissible in a court and yet not have any books, journals etc about it.
If such exists I would welcome it.
The problem is that I can find no such thing and you seem to be going off on a tangent again about multiple guns being used and bullets being taken form tests and planted instead.
FUCK OFF, either talk about truthful things or else count me out of playing any role in your pantomime, I'm fucking sick to death of corrupted police, judiciary, CCRC, Judges of appeal, fucking twisting everything and anything to get thier view point across to the masses, they are all liars, evil fucking individuals who are not interested in whether or not Bamber is innocent, or not...
-
FUCK OFF, either talk about truthful things or else count me out of playing any role in your pantomime, I'm fucking sick to death of corrupted police, judiciary, CCRC, Judges of appeal, fucking twisting everything and anything to get thier view point across to the masses, they are all liars, evil fucking individuals who are not interested in whether or not Bamber is innocent, or not...
And Bamber is innocent, he didn't shoot his sister under the chin and kill her, the police did it...
-
I will continue with a true account of what did take place, in so far as the involvement of the ballistic expert (Fletcher), and testing he carried out or knew about, prior to the date of the so called official test fire of the rifle, silencer and control ammunition - Fletcher is a liar, was a liar, and always will be a liar, details contained on lab' GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS, signed and dated in Fletchers name, bear witness to this FACT. He knew perfectly well, when the rifle had last been fired prior to the commencement of the first of the official test fire of the same, on 20th September 1985. Fletcher is corrupt was corrupt, he lied about an important feature of the evidence - he used control ammunition fired in the rifle, to make comparison tests with crime scene ammunition, on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985. He must have known when the rifle had been fired after the shootings, because he used control ammunition to complete comparison tests between control rounds fired through the silencer, against the batch of crime scene ammunition...
Fletcher is a lying scumbag, as I say, bring back hanging just for him and all the evil lying scumbags, who think nothing of saying anything, just for the sake of saying it...
-
The prosecutions ballistic expert (Fletcher) has been well and truly discredited, he is nothing but a lying bastard, and a conspirator involved in perverting the course of justice...
You cannot believe anything he says about the case, he is a criminal who has not yet been punished by the criminal justice system...
The system that is in place to try and if convicted punish offenders like this, is itself corrupt...
-
The prosecutions ballistic expert (Fletcher) has been well and truly discredited, he is nothing but a lying bastard, and a conspirator involved in perverting the course of justice...
You cannot believe anything he says about the case, he is a criminal who has not yet been punished by the criminal justice system...
The system that is in place to try and if convicted punish offenders like this, is itself corrupt...
Bias is also prevalent...
-
Bring back hanging for lying prosecution witnesses....
-
I would gladly apply for the role of executioner, let me be the UK's official hang man, I will not even want paying for carrying out my duties, I hate fucking lying witnesses and corrupted police officers, and other lying bastards in the chain of command in the criminal justice system...
I have been a victim of this kind of corruption, and no-one can convince me that it doesn't go on, because it fucking well does....
-
I would gladly apply for the role of executioner, let me be the UK's official hang man, I will not even want paying for carrying out my duties, I hate fucking lying witnesses and corrupted police officers, and other lying bastards in the chain of command in the criminal justice system...
I have been a victim of this kind of corruption, and no-one can convince me that it doesn't go on, because it fucking well does....
Jeremy Bamber killed no'one...
-
If I can prove that the ballistics expert (Fletcher) has lied, then his evidence and testimony, has to be rejected, and treated, as discredited...
-
If I can prove that the ballistics expert (Fletcher) has lied, then his evidence and testimony, has to be rejected, and treated, as discredited...
His contribution to the discovery of the so called flake inside the silencer can no longer be relied upon as being true, and accurate...
-
To recap thus far...
Silencer exhibit referencing is dodgy to say the least - silencer starts off as SBJ/1, then becomes DB/1, and eventually changes into DRB/1...
It first of all has a lab' item number of 22, then becomes 23, and is later changed back to 22...
-
The sudden appearance of a loose flake of blood producing blood group activity similar to that of Sheila Caffell inside the first few baffles of the silencer on 11th September 1985, casts doubt on the suggestion that this so called unique flake of blood got into the silencer at the time Sheila was shot and killed. The very nature of the flake and its uniqueness was not reproduced anywhere else inside the same silencer...
The size of the flake was so small that it could easily fall through the holes or bore at either end of the silencer at the top and bottom end, as well as any of the holes of the individual 17 internal baffle plates, and solitary top washer...
With this in mind, surely concern should be given to the almost certain movement of the flake inside the silencer unit from whenever it got into the silencer, since by the time the flake was apparently discovered on the 11th September 1985, over a month had elapsed since the time of the shootings, and it had been handled at the scene by various relatives of the family who did not take any measures to protect its integrity either at the scene or elsewhere when it was supposedly put into storage at a relatives home. Imagine how many times it was turned upside down, this way and that way, and transported away from the scene in the boot of a relatives car with other bloodstained exhibits that relatives also took away from the scene at the same time?
That small piece of unique blood did obviously not remain static in one place if it was already inside the silencer, it had the potential to move around, to fall out of the silencer, or as it were, also fall into it...
-
By evening of 12th August 1985, another relative (Peter Eaton) is handling the silencer, he must have picked it up from wherever it had been put days previously, carried it before handing it to Ds Jones, who eventually took it away in his car back to the police station. Not to be forgotten, is that DS Jones had been to the scene on the morning of the shootings, and examined Sheila's body at close quarters, without having taken any precautionary measures to prevent any of Sheila's blood becoming transferred onto parts of his body and clothing. So, on evening of 12th August when DS Jones collects the silencer from the relatives, there is a serious risk that blood from Sheila at the scene became transferred onto or into the silencer. In any event, if the small loose flake of blood could not possibly have remained static inside the silencer whilst being handed over to Jones by Eaton, and transported away to the police station, silencer would have been turned around, bounced up and down, providing the ideal environment for a small flake of blood to move considerably around or into the silencer...
-
When Jones arrives at the police station he places the silencer inside a locked drawer...
The drawer has to be slid shut, producing movement of the silencer. We do not know whether or not any other bloodstained exhibit from the scene had been placed inside that drawer previously, or present on that occasion. On the following morning, Jones goes to retrieve the silencer from the aforementioned drawer, sliding the drawer open, again causing movement of the silncer, he picks the silencer up and takes it away to show PI 'Bob'Miller. Again movement of the silencer, which potentially contains a small loose flake of blood small enough to pass through into or out of the many larger holes of the silencer...
-
PI Miller, is another officer who attended the scene and viewed the bloodstained body of Sheila Caffell, making him another prime candidate as the source where the small loose flake of blood had got into the silencer whilst handling it...
-
Miller tells Jones to give the silencer to DI Cook because he was going slong to the lab' later that day with other exhibits of the cade. Cook was head SOCO at the scene, not only had he viewed Sheila's bloodstained body at close quarters, but he had physically disturbed Sheila's bloodstained right hand, and arm to permit PC Bird to photograph bloodied marks on the front lower part of the victims nightdress, Cook had also removed the bloodstained rifle from her body and had stood it by the bedroom window. He had not worn gloves whilst carrying out these duties, so obviously there was obviously a very good chance that blood from Sheila got transferred onto his body ir clothing...
-
Cook receives possession of the silencer from Jones, and transports it to the lab'...
Throughout this journey, the silencer is bounced around, this way that way, until upon arrival at the lab' Cook hands the silencer over to Glynis Howard...
Thus far, there has been considerable movement of the silencer, through handling and transpirtation, with many opportunities for a small flake of dried blood to get into the silencer from witnesses who themselves could have inadvertently contaminated the silencer with that small loose flake of blood picked up by anyone of them at the scene...
-
By the time Glynis Howard received the silencer at the lab' on 13th August 1985, she was the only person who had not been in direct contact with the silencer and the bloodstained scene - everyone else who had handled the silencer in the meantime had had such access and opportunity to contaminate the silencer with that small flake of dried blood...
-
During Glynis Howards examination of the silencer on 13th August 1985, the silencer was turned around, this way, and that way...
Had the small flake of dtied blood already been inside the silencer by that stage, it had the potentisl to move around to different parts inside the silencer, because the flake was much smaller that the holes or bore of component internal parts of the silencer...
It is important to remember that the small flake of unique dried blood had this potential for movement inside the silencer because of its size...
-
No sooner does Howard complete her examination of the silencer on 13th August 1985, than she hands it back to Cook...
-
No sooner does Howard complete her examination of the silencer on 13th August 1985, than she hands it back to Cook...
Yet another opportunity to disturb the position of the small flake of blood inside the silencer, if it was already present inside the silencer by that point...
-
What I am going to say next, beggars belief, and I make mention of this, because this is precisely what Cook told the COLP investigators when interviewed as part of their 1991 / 92 investigation:.
He told COLP investigators, that after the silencer was returned to him by Glynis Howard on 13th August 1985, he did not put the silencer in question into any property store at any police station, but instead he kept the silencer in his coat pocket for the next 17 days and nights, until he returned it back to the lab' to be re-examined on the 30th August 1985...
-
What I am going to say next, beggars belief, and make mention of this, because this is precisely what Cook told the COLP investigators when interviewed as part of their 1991 / 92 investigation:.
He told COLP investigators, that after the silencer was returned to him by Glynis Howard on 13th August 1985, he did not put the silencer in question into any property store at any police station, but instead he kept the silencer in his coat pocket for the next 17 days and nights, until he returned it back to the lab' to be re-examined on the 30th August 1985...
Pity the jury weren't told all of this during the trial...
-
In any event, cook lied to the COLP investigators, because based upon information elsewhere in the disclosed police file, Cook fingerprinted the silencer on the 15th August 1985, so obviously he must have taken the silencer out of his pocket in order to fingerprint it by way of oblique light technique, and presumeably returned it back to his pocket...
Think of all the movement of the silencer as all of this was unfolding, again the small loose flake of blood had the capacity to get into and move around inside the silencer. It is even possible that the small flake of unique blood got into the silencer from inside Cooks pocket that it was being carried around in everywhere...
-
On the previous day (14th August) Cook had gone along to whf in the company of Ann Eaton, and PI Miller, and had taken the paint sample (RWC/1) from underneath the aga mantlepiece - he had the silencer in his pocket all the while of course....
Imagine all the movement of the silencer inside Cooks coat pocket traveling to and from the scene. Why did he take that paint sample from the aga on that occasion, because no-one at the lab' had said there was any red paint on the end of the silencer by that stage? So what we have then is Cook with the silencer in his pocket at the scene on 14th August, and he takes a paint sample (RWC/1) from the aga, which is eventually used to match paint ingrained into the end of the silencer once the silencer is returned back to the lab' on 30th August 1985...
Presumeably, Cook didn't get the silencer out of his picket whilst at the scene to compare any paint found on the silencer, against the red paint on the aga...
-
To recap thus far...
Silencer exhibit referencing is dodgy to say the least - silencer starts off as SBJ/1, then becomes DB/1, and eventually changes into DRB/1...
It first of all has a lab' item number of 22, then becomes 23, and is later changed back to 22...
The reasoning of which was easily explained and failed miserably at trying to establish the blood found by the defense and prosecution that was group A was sprayed there by someone not back spatter.
-
On the 29th August 1985, Cook removed the silencer from his pocket once again, and proceeded to dismantle it, by unscrewing the silencers end cap, removing the top washer, and all 17 baffle plates laying them out on a worktop, before separating the silencers end cap, top washer, and the first 5 of the 17 baffle plates so that there was a gap between them, without a trace of the loose flake of dried blood...
I wonder where the loose flake of dried blood was when Cook was dismantling the silencer?
-
On the 29th August 1985, Cook removed the silencer from his pocket once again, and proceeded to dismantle it, by unscrewing the silencers end cap, removing the top washer, and all 17 baffle plates laying them out on a worktop, before separating the silencers end cap, top washer, and the first 5 of the 17 baffle plates so that there was a gap between them, without a trace of the loose flake of dried blood...
I wonder where the loose flake of dried blood was when Cook was dismantling the silencer?
What loose flake? The flake of blood that was removed wasn't loose it was stuck to the metal and had to be scraped off.
The prosecution tested the flake of blood tha twas scraped from the end as well as blood that was removed from the baffles. The flake tested group A as did the blood on the baffles.
After all visible blood was removed the defense tested it finding that the inital 8 baffles tested positive for blood. Microscopic drops of blood had bee found on these 8 baffles and they tested group A.
The microscopic drops are consistent with high velocity spatter. It leaves fine microscopic drops not just visible blood. These microscopic drops invariably do criminals in because they do not know such drops are on their clothing and thus don't change or launder clothing that they should. In this case the fine drops helped seal the deal that the suppressor had been used to shoot someone with group A blood. There are no known humans shot previously with said gun/suppressor so obviously the back spatter was from this event and Sheila was the only one with group A blood and she had the only wound that definitely would result in back spatter being drawn into the weapon.
Which means that in order to carry out the planting alleged all of the following had to occur:
1) recognizing that spatter would definitely end up in the weapon
2) remove spatter from the weapon
3) figure out Sheila's blood type or obtain blood that wa shers that coudl then be planted
4) plant blood in the suppressor and to recognize that just using a dropper or tiny vial to pour it in would not mimick back spatter so appreciating the need to spray it inside and finding a way to spray it inside in a manner that distributed it as found.
5) get various police and lab personnel to assist and lie in this endeavor.
Most police had no idea of the implications of the suppressor even after the lab declared it had found group A blood. It was the lab personnel acting together who determined the significance by tying the fact that Sheila's fatal wound would definitely result in back spatter in the weapon (drawback) no back spatter being found in the wepaon but her blood type being found in the suppressor and that no other victims had group A blood to establish conclusively that the suppressor was used to fire the fatal shot.
So unless you can prove the lab planted it and eliminated blood found in the muzzle of the weapon ther eis no way to discount the suppressor evidence.
In the meantime there is other evidence proving Sheila's body was moved shortly after she died and the bible opened and closed repeatedly shortly after she died. Which is why you allege police shot her or that someone else shot her.
So on one hand you devote a great deal of time claiming the suppressor evidence was faked to pretend she didn't kill herself but on the other hand you admit she didn't kill herself and suggest police or someone else did it.
You undercut your own position with contradictions like that.
-
Loose flake of dried blood, trapped between the first two baffles when Fletcher recovered it...
-
Loose flake of dried blood, trapped between the first two baffles when Fletcher recovered it...
Fletcher recovered the loose flake of dried blood on 11th September 1985, which was subsequently tested between 12th and 19th September 1985 - yet when Ron Cook dismantled the silencer on 29th August 1985, he did not report seeing any blood at all on any surface of the five separated baffle plates...
If there had been any blood on any of the baffle plates when Cook dismantled it on the 29th August 1985, he would have been the witness who discovered it, not Fletcher on the 11th September 1985, so where did the blood on the surfaces of the baffle plates come from in the interim period?
-
If you are Cook, the first thing you do not do is carry a bloodstained silencer around in your pocket for 17 days without booking it into a police property store. Secondly, you do not notice blood on baffle plates of the silencer after you dismantle it on 29th August 1985, and do not tell anyone at all about it. Such a bloodstained silencer would not be rebuilt by Cook and sent back to the lab' on 30th August 1985, without the lab' being told that Cook had disturbed the inner component parts of the silencer, and exposed the internal parts of it to the risk of contamination...
-
Lets talk about the risk of contamination which Cook exposed the silencer to on 29th August 1985, when he dismantled it, laid the baffle plates exposed on the same worktop that the bloodstained anshuzt rifle was laid on, and then Cook rebuilt the dismantled silencer and screwed it directly onto the barrel of the gun...
Lets just recap at this point...
The external screw thread on the end of the rifles barrel had not by that stage been tested for the presence of blood upon it...
Therefore, as Cook screwed the rebuilt silencer back onto the barrel of the bloodstained rifle, any dried blood which had set upon the external thread on the guns barrel, was forced into the bottom end of the silencer and potentially became deployed into the silencer at this point....
-
Lets talk about the risk of contamination which Cook exposed the silencer to on 29th August 1985, when he dismantled it, laid the baffle plates exposed on the same worktop that the bloodstained anshuzt rifle was laid on, and then Cook rebuilt the dismantled silencer and screwed it directly onto the barrel of the gun...
Lets just recap at this point...
The external screw thread on the end of the rifles barrel had not by that stage been tested for the presence of blood upon it...
Therefore, as Cook screwed the rebuilt silencer back onto the barrel of the bloodstained rifle, any dried blood which had set upon the external thread on the guns barrel, was forced into the bottom end of the silencer and potentially became deployed into the silencer at this point....
During the process of Cook dismantling and rebuiding the silencer, and leaving the internal component parts exposed to the risk of contamination from dried blood flakes which may had been detached from the rifle during mishandling by Cook, or simply picked up off the worktop upon which the same individual baffle plates had been placed, before being put back into the tube of the silencer...
Once Cook had rebuilt the silencer and exposed it to the prospect of contamination, he sent the rebuilt silencer and the bloodstained rifle back to the lab' on 30th August 1985...
-
The Prosecution were not told that Cook had dismantled the silencer and rebuilt it before the crucial flake of blood was found inside the silencer on 11th September 1985. If they had done, the prosecution would have been duty bound to inform the defense of these matters, which in turn would have been subject of a legal challenge during the trial to have the silencer, blood evidence excluded because of the strong risk that it could have got into the silencer by a process of contamination, and not by backspatter...
-
Not widely reported, is the fact that the ballistic expert retained 14 bullet cases under an exhibit reference of MDF/100...
-
Not widely reported, is the fact that the ballistic expert retained 14 bullet cases under an exhibit reference of MDF/100...
These 14 bullet cases are still being retained in storage at Huntingdon Lab' (according to Mr Renshaw, ballistics expert)......
-
Ballistics Expert, Fletcher, only produced two exhibited items as part of his contribution to the police investigation, namely, MDF/100 (the 14 spent bullet cases, and MDF/1, (the cloth pull through of the. Anshuzt rifles barrel...
-
Only one of the two exhibited items introduced into the investigation by Fletcher, has got a lab' item number...
-
Only one of the two exhibited items introduced into the investigation by Fletcher, has got a lab' item number...
Only the cloth pull-through (MDF/1) of the barrel of the anshuzt rifle had a lab' item number, issued though out of date / sequence.....
-
These 14 bullet cases are still being retained in storage at Huntingdon Lab' (according to Mr Renshaw, ballistics expert)......
and?
These 14 had remnants of latent fingerprints but they were not of sufficient quality to match them to anyone. They were only partial fingerprints and not able to be matched.
-
Since Fletcher did not receive the batch of crime scene ammunition until 20th September 1985, any bullet cases which eventually became re - labelled MDF/100, from MDF/1, had to follow on in sequence after other exhibits at the lab' had already been given corresponding lab' numbers in sequential order, as per order exhibits received at the lab' or produced at the lab...
Well, I can report that the official test fire of control bullets via the anshuzt rifle and silencer, took place between 20th September and 2nd October 1985, which becomes significant when you realize that the lab' number allocated to the cloth pull - through of the guns barrel, which was supposedly undertaken on 12th September 1985, could not have been issued until on or after the 2nd October 1985. This indicates that the evidence of the cloth pull -through is significantly tainted, since it could not have been taken on the 12th September 1985, otherwise it remained at the lab' for a large number of days and nights, until on or after the 2nd October 1985, without being allocated a proper lab' item number which fitted in sequential order aside every other exhibit received or produced at the lab'...
-
We now know of course, that there was an earlier unofficial test fire of the gun and silencer with at least two of the 29 control bullets, and that these were used to make comparison tests with some of the crime scene bullets and bullet cases, on the following dates, which preceded the date of the official test fire of the same...
12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985...
So, what appears to have happened in the minds of police and the ballistic expert, is that they introduced the cloth pull - through evidence under an exhibit reference which had previously been attributed to the 14 bullet cases still in storage at the lab' with part fingerprints upon them. These fingerprints are understood to have originated from June Bamber, not Jeremy or Sheila. This is why this fingerprint evidence from these 14 bullet cases (originally exhibit, MDF/1) was not disclosed or mentioned by police to the prosecution, or in turn by the prosecution to the defence...
Had this evidence not been deliberately withheld by unscrupulous police officers, it would almost certainly have led to Bambers acquittal...
-
Exhibit reference of the 14 bullet cases (MDF/1) was altered and made into MDF/100, by the addition of two additional noughts, so that the cloth pull through of the guns barrel could be slipped in, bolstering up the claim that the silencer was used on the gun at the time Sheila was shot and killed by the bullet under the chin...
-
The cloth pull - through test results are dodgy just like the silencer, blood and paint evidence associated with the silencer...
-
The cloth pull - through test results are dodgy just like the silencer, blood and paint evidence associated with the silencer...
Dodgy find of the silencer by relatives not the police, dodgy exhibit labelling of the silencer, dodgy loose flake floating around here there and everywhere inside the silencer, dodgy grey coloured hair that went missing, dodgy evidence surrounding all features and aspects of the silencer evidence, by involvement of dodgy police officers and prosecution witnesses, no matter which part of the investigation you choose to look into or examine, its all dodgy and in turmoil...
Then of course, we come to another cross road in the evidence trail involving the part fingerprints on the substituted 14 bullet cases (MDF/1). Forget whose fingerprints they belonged to, what matters is that whoever handled these / those bullet cases, did so without wearing gloves of any kind, and that only part fingerprints were found to be present on all of these cases. Incomplete, you may well wonder, because the other parts of the fingers which picked up the 14 additional rounds touched or handled or manipulated the 14 lead bullet heads which formed part and parcel of these crucial 14 rounds recovered from the bodies of the victims, or the crime scene...
-
So, with this in mind, had the fingerprint evidence found upon these 14 bullet cases (MDF/1) - subsequently altered into MDF/100, by the addition of two additional noughts, the fact that the results of hand swab test carried out on the fingers and hands of Sheila Caffell supported the argument for her not having handled any bullet cases which needed to be picked up and loaded into the gun so that everybody, including herself could be killed off, when all along police had this part fingerprint evidence on these 14 bullet cases, incomplete because whoever picked up those 14 rounds touched the leaded bullet head and the brass bullet cases during the reloading of the gun phase, and that person was not Sheila...
-
June Bambers fingers and her hands were not swabbed, so it remains a very distinct possibility that the part fingerprints found upon these 14 bullet cases, had been picked up and handled and loaded into the gun by June Bamber, not Jeremy, otherwise you could bet your bottom dollar that the police would have told the prosecution about the existence of these 14 bullet cases with part fingerprints upon them, set in superglue, during tests which Ronny Cook performed on the 23rd August 1985, at the police research and development branch, etc, etc, etc...
-
Part fingerprints, on 14 bullet cases recovered from various locations around the farmhouse, which police believed were the additional 14 rounds required to be loaded into the gun, so that the 25 shots could all be accounted for...
These are still held at Huntingdon Lab' according to the ballistic expert, Mr Renshaw (2004), and were not destroyed in 1996, as alleged by Essex police...
-
Part fingerprints, on 14 bullet cases recovered from various locations around the farmhouse, which police believed were the additional 14 rounds required to be loaded into the gun, so that the 25 shots could all be accounted for...
These are still held at Huntingdon Lab' according to the ballistic expert, Mr Renshaw (2004), and were not destroyed in 1996, as alleged by Essex police...
Since, 25 bullet cases, and 25 bullet heads were destroyed in 1996 on the instruction of Special branch, it begs the question, where did 14 of the 25 bullet cases which were destroyed in 1996, originate from?
Who put them there?
Why?
Oh, FUCK...
-
We could go further, and cause further embarrassment to the police, Special branch, and the CPS, judiciary, court of appeal, CCRC, and every other corrupt organisation or individual who has supported the use of all this false evidence to help convict Jeremy Bamber for these murders, which he could not have committed....
The police have tampered with the ballistics evidence, now in my book that is very very bad...
The dodgy ballistic expert only made comparisons of marks on the control bullets fired through the gun and silencer, against 11 bullet cases which formed part of the 25 cases recovered from the scene - but the other 14 substituted bullet cases against which he made similar comparison tests against recorded on GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS, were not fired during the shooting of the victims, and not even recovered from the crime scene...
Bloody hell, we are about to open a nasty can of worms...
-
So many liars, so many lies, so much dodgy evidence, introduced by dodgy characters who call themselves police officers, servants of the state, and their supporters...
An absolute shame on the lot of you...
-
I have not yet got around to mentioning the ultimate test of the gun, which will help to establish that a silencer was not fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, when Sheila was shot and killed by the round fired beneath her chin...
-
So, with this in mind, had the fingerprint evidence found upon these 14 bullet cases (MDF/1) - subsequently altered into MDF/100, by the addition of two additional noughts, the fact that the results of hand swab test carried out on the fingers and hands of Sheila Caffell supported the argument for her not having handled any bullet cases which needed to be picked up and loaded into the gun so that everybody, including herself could be killed off, when all along police had this part fingerprint evidence on these 14 bullet cases, incomplete because whoever picked up those 14 rounds touched the leaded bullet head and the brass bullet cases during the reloading of the gun phase, and that person was not Sheila...
Cases are brass, touching a case doesn't leave evidence on people's hands, touching the lead portion of an unjacketed bullet leaves lead on the hands.
It is impossible to load the cartridges without touching the bullet because you have to push from front to back. Some rifle magagazines, particularly double stacked magazines you can simply load by pushing the cartridges down. The single stack magazine in quesiton was constructed like a pistol magazine so you had to push the bullet to the back not just snap it down.
In the meantime prints on a cartridge case can be from handling it prior to being loaded, handled during loading or handled after firing. That is why you need to rule out potential innocent handling before determining a print means for sure someone fired the round.
If Jeremy's prints had been found on numerous cases then the defense would have claimed it was because he loaded some by his own admission.
If his prints were on some in each of the 3 rooms that would be problemmatic because any he used should have been used in 1-2 rooms at most not all 3. But the defense might try claiming he touched some of those he didn't actually load while sifting through the pile.
It would be up to the jury to decide whether to buy such or not in light lf all the other evidence in the case.
But there was too little present of any latent prints to be matched to anyone.
I agree that the evidence establishes Sheila isn't the one who loaded the gun.
This is where you part with many other here.
You take this fact and then say June did it or sometimes alteratively suggest police did.
Others refuse to face Sheila didn't load the bullets and would rather pretend she did so.
You have no way to establish that June or police did it. If police did then nothing short of someone talking will do. Short of testing June's hands and clothes for GSR and elevated lead levels (which were not done) there is no way to prove she did anything.
The cartridges have no useable prints so taking another look at them still won't be able to prove she handled them at all.
Even if your unlikely scenario of June conducting shootings were true there is no hope of ever proving it.
If police did something the only hope of ever proving it woudl be if a cop were to admit what was done and had some way of backing the claims up.
Short of that it is a lost cause.
-
Police substituted 14 of the original 25 bullet cases, with control bullet cases fired via the anshuzt rifle - despite Fletcher saying he did not receive the batch of crime scene ammunition until 20th September 1985, yet Fletchers signature and comments appear upon several GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS at the lab' confirming that comparison tests on bullets and bullet cases had been carried by him prior to the 20th September. The only way this could have been done was if Fletcher had access to some of the bullets and bullet cases, and control ammunition prior to the date he says he received them for the first time...
Dodgy FLETCHER, the liar...
-
Returning to the silencer issue, Glynis Howard told COLP investigators during thier 1991 / 1992 inquiry, that she only had dealings with the silencer on one occasion and that was on the 13th August 1985. Yet lab' records confirm that she also re-examined the silencer on the 28th May 1986...
She also could not explain why in her witness statement she refferred to the silencer by the exhibit reference of DRB/1 in her witness statement regarding her original handling of the silencer on 13th August 1985, when the one she examined had got the SBJ/1 exhibit label upon it at that stage. She told COLP that she did not know who had altered the exhibit reference of the silencer from SBJ/1 to DRB/1 in her witness statement. So, somebody else altered the contents of her witness statement without her knowlege or consent which constitues the commissioning of a criminal offence, otherwide Glynis Howard is also a prosecution expert liar...
-
Evidence is still in existance which can help to establish that the silencer was never fitted to the barrel of the gun, thanks to the contribution into this matter by gun enthusiast Keith Mallinson's opinion regarding the possibility that minute particles of Sheila Caffells blood and DNA still being retained inside the lining of the guns barrel, consealed from detection of any cloth pull-through examination as that carried out by the dodgy prosecution ballistic expert, Fletcher...
Mallinson produced a report in 2004 stating that the barrel of the rifle could be cleaned of such debri hidden from view which will be retained in the lands and grooves, and fine stration marks which line the inner wall of the guns barrel by use of special cleaning tools which are in existence to help detach any miniscule amounts of dried blood and dirt currently deposited in these remote areas of the guns barrel, so that this debri can be tested for the presence or otherwise of Sheila Caffells blood at the muzzle end of the rifles barrel...
For my part I suggest that the barrel of the anshuzt rifle should be re-examined to try and establish a presence of Sheila Caffells blood and DNA is still present inside remote areas in the lining of the gun barrel...
If found it will help to solve the mystery of the silencers involvement in the shootings at the time she was killed by the shot under the chin (bullet PV/19)...
We know there was a significant gap in the silencer when it was examined, of any microscopic trace of blood in the silencer after the 8th of 17 internal baffle plates, so if any of Sheila Caffells blood is still nestled in the remote regions of the gun barrel, it should be sufficient to establish once and for all whether the silencer was fitted to the gun barrel when she was shot and killed by the bullet fired under her chin...
Techniques are available today, which were not available back in August 1985, to extract the sort of miniscule blood debri from the remote areas of the gun barrel and to analyse the debri to help prove the required association of the use or not, of the silencer on the gun barrel at the crucial point of when Sheila was shot and killed...
-
Blood from other victims being retained in remote regions of the gun barrel will also help to prove that a silencer was not used in the shootings with use of the anshuzt rifle, since as already indicated there was a significant gap consisting of 9 internal baffle plates upon which no miniscule trace of any human blood was ever found or detected...
-
The indepth svritiny of the remote regions inside the guns bsrrel with use of fine tools to get into these normally inexcessible sress of the barrel have never yet been undertaken insofar as the Anshulz rifle is concerned. I feel extremely opitistic thst amongst the debri extracted from inside the barrel of the gun, we are going to find blood that was unique to Sheila...
Evidence which would help to establish that the silencdr was not fitted to the gun when Sheila was shot and killed by the shot under the chin...
-
There are a wide variety of fine (barrel) cleaning tools available to the chosen ballistic expert who will carry out the necessary tests with a view to settling the argument regarding whether or not the silencer was used on the barrel of the anshuzt rifle when Bambers sister was killed...
I can tell you all now, that there was no silencer fitted to the barrel of the weapon which fired the fatal bullet...
The muzzle of the barrel of the anshuzt rifle was in contact with the surface of Sheila's neck when she was shot and killed with bullet PV/19, which is why I am so optimistic that some of Sheia's blood got into the end of the guns barrel by virtue of thephenpmena lnown as backspatter
-
Human blood from Sheila, if found in remote regions of the gun barrel will effectively be the vehicle with which the convictions for these murders, will be quashed on appeal in due course.
-
Neither human or animal blood got beyond the 8th of the 17 baffle plates inside the silencer, providing a reliable barreir betwee blood at one end of the silencer and the muzzle of the gun barrel...
-
Neither human or animal blood got beyond the 8th of the 17 baffle plates inside the silencer, providing a reliable barreir betwee blood at one end of the silencer and the muzzle of the gun barrel...
Human blood will not travel more than a few inches into a weapon. The principle is the sam efor a barrel as a suppressor. The mechaics that determine depth relate to the distance blood will spray from the wound.
Blood found deep inside the weapon would not be consistent with drawback.
-
When the appointed expert gets into a position to examine debri from remote regions of the rifles barrel, there have to be strigent rules adopted in which only the end of the gun barrel is forensically cleaned to a depth equal in distance to the measurement of the 8th baffle in the silencer upon which it has been claimed blood in one form or another was found to be present...
Imagine if when the proportionate distance of scientifically examined gun barrel, produces traces of blood upon the debri removed from the lining of the guns barrel, which a cloth pull -through could not possible hope to have detected back in September 1985, would impact upon that part of the prosecutions case, to prove to the satisfaction of the jury, that blood found in silencer, and no blood at all inside gun barrel by a reliance upon the result of the cloth pull - through test, that the silencer must have been fitted to the barrel of the gun when Sheila was shot and killed, when all along, blood from one or more of the victims is almost certainly deployed in remote areas on the inside of the guns barrel, blood and debri which is only accessible when using the correct type of fine cleaning tools built specifically for the purpose of removing a build up of debri in these remote places...
How could there be any blood inside the gun barrel close to the muzzle end of the weapon, if the silencer was used and none of the blood which supposedly found its way into the inner workings of the said silencer, yet none of this blood managed to get beyond the 8th of 17 baffles...
-
A cold case review carried out by CYCLOPS reviewers regarding the silencer / blood evidence has highlighted an astonishing scenario linking the blood found in the silencer, to the unofficial test fire of the anshuzt rifle, silencer and control ammunition...
-
CYCLOPS reviewers have concluded that Essex police carried out the unofficial test fi of the anshuzt rifle, prior to the 30th August 1985, for reasons to follow...
-
This'll be interesting Mike. I've been reading about,,not so much blood,but DNA,,as blood alone isn't enough to give any information,,whereas DNA is,,and two lots of DNA were taken from the blood relatives of both June and Sheila which were Christine and Pamela.
All very confusing,,but makes sense when you've read it half a dozen times. :)
It's not enough to say whose blood was whose where there is a mixture of blood found. Such as the flake,which could only have adhered to soot from inside a moderator,to have formed a flake,,and that was cut into such tiny pieces as to be deemed impossible,so was destroyed.
-
This'll be interesting Mike. I've been reading about,,not so much blood,but DNA,,as blood alone isn't enough to give any information,,whereas DNA is,,and two lots of DNA were taken from the blood relatives of both June and Sheila which were Christine and Pamela.
All very confusing,,but makes sense when you've read it half a dozen times. :)
It's not enough to say whose blood was whose where there is a mixture of blood found. Such as the flake,which could only have adhered to soot from inside a moderator, to have formed a flake,,and that was cut into such tiny pieces as to be deemed impossible,so was destroyed.
Hi Lookout
The flake was treated differently at the lab' than other blood found upon the top surfaces of baffle plates. This is because blood from the flake was from loose unattached blood, whereas the blood on the baffles was static. Furthermore, blood group results obtained from the loose flake were not duplicated in the other blood found on the baffles. What we had then at the time of the trial was a situation which favoured the prosecution case, biasly...
They manipulated themseles into a win win situation, a tale of "heads I win, tails you lose", when forming an agreement with defence counsel about how the blood issue found in the silencer could resolve the question of Sheila being responsible, or Jeremy - let the jury decide whose blood it was...
Basically, the prosecution would argue that it was Sheila's blood, whereas, the defence would be seeking to promote the idea it was an intimate mixture of the parents blood...
-
The trial judge confused the issue by stating in his summing up speech, and whilst responding to a question on a juries note, that blood from Sheila and the parents could have been present in different parts of the silencer...
-
No-one sought to try to distinguish the blood of the loose flake, from the bloodstains found on the baffles...
Blood from each source produced different blood group results...
-
That was not a definite and safe test by any stretch of the imagination.
-
That was not a definite and safe test by any stretch of the imagination.
Hi lookout,
No, it was not...
CYCLOPS REVIEWERS...
-
Hi Lookout
The flake was treated differently at the lab' than other blood found upon the top surfaces of baffle plates. This is because blood from the flake was from loose unattached blood, whereas the blood on the baffles was static. Furthermore, blood group results obtained from the loose flake were not duplicated in the other blood found on the baffles. What we had then at the time of the trial was a situation which favoured the prosecution case, biasly...
They manipulated themseles into a win win situation, a tale of "heads I win, tails you lose", when forming an agreement with defence counsel about how the blood issue found in the silencer could resolve the question of Sheila being responsible, or Jeremy - let the jury decide whose blood it was...
Basically, the prosecution would argue that it was Sheila's blood, whereas, the defence would be seeking to promote the idea it was an intimate mixture of the parents blood...
you are lying again.
The flake of blood was scraped off the inside.
Moreover blood was scraped off the baffles and both the flake and blood from the baffles tested group A.
The defense had their own expert test the suppressor after the prosecution tested it and he found microscopic drops of blood on the first 8 baffles that were group A blood.
Trying to pretend that the flake of blood was mobile and could have been planted is a waste of time because not only is it documented that this flake was static and scraped off, worse there was blood on the baffles found even by the defenses own expert that was static and group A.
-
NO-----------------You're lying !
-
NO-----------------You're lying !
These are quotes from the 2002 Appeal Ruling
The flake dried under the first 2 baffles and was stuck there is was not loose:
"Inside the moderator, on the four or five baffles nearest to the end from which the bullet would exit, there was a considerable amount of blood. At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing. Results were obtained for four of the five tests performed. Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist said that they showed that the blood could have come from Sheila Caffell but not from any of the other individuals involved.
He [Dr Lincoln] said that it was not clear from Mr Hayward's statement that he had obtained the blood from which the different group testings had been done from the same area of the moderator. On 8 September 1986, Dr Lincoln again went to the laboratory and this time met and discussed the matter with Mr Hayward. As a result of this meeting, Dr Lincoln appreciated that the blood tested all came from a single flake trapped under the first or second baffle. In a letter to the defence solicitors, Dr Lincoln said that Mr Hayward "used this single flake to produce a solution from which he was able to determine the groups". He said that this meant that the possible explanation he had earlier suggested as to a combination of more than one persons blood no longer applied.
No questions were asked at trial of Mr Hayward to establish what part of the blood he had tested. The position was, however, known to the defence through their own expert Dr Lincoln. Dr Lincoln had seen the evidential material upon which the group testing results were based and agreed with the conclusions. He recorded that evidence in the course of his report of 19 September 1986. He said that Mr Hayward had "found a flake of blood trapped under the first or second baffle plate" and that it was this flake that was tested and produced the groupings A, EAP BA, AK1, Hp2.1 upon which reliance was placed by the prosecution. Dr Lincoln further recorded:
"Mr Hayward states that he could detect visible staining on the "upper baffle plates" and that he swabbed these plates so that the blood was taken onto cotton material which could subsequently be used in grouping tests. On this material Mr Hayward successfully determined the ABO and EAP groups and showed the blood to be groups A, EAP BA."
"In dealing with this evidence, the defence were limited by the evidence available from their own expert. They called no such evidence at trial but the material that they had obtained pre-trial has been disclosed in the course of this appeal. The defence had instructed Dr Patrick Lincoln, whose expertise in such matters was well known. On 29 April 1986, he visited the forensic science laboratory and examined the relevant material. He carried out tests on all seventeen baffles. The first eight plates all gave weak or very weak positive reactions for blood. The other nine plates "did not produce any evidence for the presence of blood". He agreed with Mr Hayward's conclusion that the combination of blood groups revealed in his testing of the inside of the moderator could have come solely from Sheila Caffell but did not come from any one of the other individuals."
I didn't lie about anything
-
The flake was stuck to soot. Contaminated by the time it was finished being cut into little pieces.
-
The flake was stuck to soot. Contaminated by the time it was finished being cut into little pieces.
There is no evidence at all it was stuck to soot. A clown hired by the defense posited MAYBE it was stuck to soot despite not having a shred of evidence to suggest it actually was. The court rejected the claim out of hand.
"Mr Webster made a number of points:
i) He suggested that the flake, which was a quarter of an inch across, might not have been a flake of blood but a flake of soot splattered with blood that had been mistaken by Mr Hayward for a flake of blood. His one basis for this rather surprising suggestion was that he had noted a flake of soot on one of the baffles.
ii) He accepted that if the blood from Mr and Mrs Bamber had become "intimately mixed", the results certainly could not have been mistaken for Sheila Caffell's blood alone.
iii) However, "if the blood from the two sources did not become completely intimately mixed, then the test could not be guaranteed to detect the mixture".
iv) If the sample tested was a blood stained flake of soot, this increased the chance that the two different sources of blood might not have been completely intimately mixed.
There were a number of features of Mr Webster's evidence that we found less than satisfactory and we have little doubt that if it had been placed before a jury they would have shared that view. Firstly, there is Mr Webster's suggestion that Mr Hayward might have mistaken a flake of soot which was blood stained for a flake of dried blood. Mr Hayward had given evidence at trial of a close visual examination of the flake. He was an experienced forensic scientist. If he had made the sort of mistake suggested by Mr Webster, it must have represented a significant failing in the performance of his duties in what was clearly a highly important case. There was no suggestion, then or now, that Mr Hayward was other than a competent and careful forensic scientist. Before such a suggestion was made by another forensic scientist, one would expect to see some evidential basis for that suggestion. There was absolutely none. That fact that soot was found on the baffles did not begin to suggest that Mr Hayward would have made the sort of error suggested."
-
The flake was loose inside the silencer, people should try to get thier facts right, there is absolutely no evidence that the crucial flake of blood was scraped off the first two baffles, how the heck could that have been done? Who scraped it off if it was scraped off, I have never heard anything so ludicrous as this until now, and take it from me the flake in question was loose, not static...
None of the static blood discovered on baffles 1 and 2, had the exact same matching blood group results as those obtained from the flake which gives a clear indication that the flake was not scraped off baffles 1and 2...
-
The flake was loose inside the silencer, people should try to get thier facts right, there is absolutely no evidence that the crucial flake of blood was scraped off the first two baffles, how the heck could that have been done? Who scraped it off if it was scraped off, I have never heard anything so ludicrous as this until now, and take it from me the flake in question was loose, not static...
None of the static blood discovered on baffles 1 and 2, had the exact same matching blood group results as those obtained from the flake which gives a clear indication that the flake was not scraped off baffles 1and 2...
A presence of "A" type static blood found on baffle plates does not mean that it was Sheila's blood, since it could well be a reference to Junes blood. AK 1 nor AK 2-1 blood was detected any where on the static bloodied baffle plates, unlike the results obtained from the loose flake, which produced a AK1 result...
The case turned on the inclusion of AK1 type blood obtained from examination of the loose flake, and an absence of June Bambers AK 2-1 blood type from the same. But it now transpires, that two lots of animal blood was detected inside the silence, which is the only common blood enzyme in human and animal blood...
Seems to me, that the argument relied upon during the trial that a presence of AK1 type blood, and an absence of Junes Ak2-1, falls by the wayside, if the detection of the AK1 blood enzyme has to be discounted as possible animals blood...
-
In view of the presence of (AK1) two lots of animal blood found to be present inside the silencer, it is problematic to the prosecutions argument that the blood from the loose flake belonged exclusively to Sheila Caffell, since without inclusion of AK1 type blood, blood from the flake was not unique to her alone, it could have (AK1) belonged to, or originated from either or noth animals blood known to have been present inside the silencer...
-
As far as is known, it is not possible to distinguish AK1 animal blood enzyme, from AK1 human blood enzyme...
If true, jury were deliberately hoodwinked into accepting the blood from the loose flake (inclusive of the contradictory AK1 blood enzyme) as being blood unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell, when ordinarily it might not have been...
-
How utterly bizarre that despite two lots of animals blood being found inside the silencer, that no corresponding AK1 animal blood enzyme was detected as being present on sny of the blood contaminated static baffles...
Lo and behold, the only AK1 enzyme reportedly discovered anywhere at all inside the silencer, is in the loose flake..
-
Having the AK1 enzyme in the blood,is a genetic fault,,so the only way of knowing if it belonged to Sheila would be to test her birth mother,if she hasn't already been tested. If Christines' blood test is negative of AK1,,then it's rat,mouse,rabbit blood,,and not Sheilas'.
-
I would be 100% certain that it wouldn't be from Sheila.
-
I would be 100% certain that it wouldn't be from Sheila.
Hi Lookout,
Sounds promising...
Any further information?
-
Hi Lookout,
Sounds promising...
Any further information?
No further info Mike,,but it stands to reason that if Christine was tested and there was no sign of the AK1 enzyme ( antibodies ) then chances are that Sheila wouldn't have it either,,so the answer is that it's animals blood and not Sheilas'.
-
We'd only find out if we knew the results of any test performed on Christine. I think her DNA was taken,I'm not sure.
-
No further info Mike,,but it stands to reason that if Christine was tested and there was no sign of the AK1 enzyme ( antibodies ) then chances are that Sheila wouldn't have it either,,so the answer is that it's animals blood and not Sheilas'.
Lookout, I had NO idea that Christine was tested. Just made a boob!!!! Have deleted it ;D
-
Lookout, I had NO idea that Christine was tested. Just made a boob!!!! Have deleted it ;D
Yes,,April,,I believe that she was,,being Sheilas' birth mother and all that ..The same as Pamela was tested as being a direct relative of Junes'.
-
Another thing worth thinking about was when the moderator was dis-assembled,,the baffle plates weren't replaced in the order in which it was dis-assembled,,so therefore after it was assembled,,after testing,,the arrangement in which blood the baffle plate was on,,wasn't a true feature either.
-
The flake was loose inside the silencer, people should try to get thier facts right, there is absolutely no evidence that the crucial flake of blood was scraped off the first two baffles, how the heck could that have been done? Who scraped it off if it was scraped off, I have never heard anything so ludicrous as this until now, and take it from me the flake in question was loose, not static...
None of the static blood discovered on baffles 1 and 2, had the exact same matching blood group results as those obtained from the flake which gives a clear indication that the flake was not scraped off baffles 1and 2...
I have my facts straight you do not.
The flake of blood was scraped off according to the expert who tested it. The court noted that the blood DRIED In the suppressor in between the 1st and second baffles.
There was no loose blood floating around you just pretend it was because that is the only way you can pretend the blood could have been transferred while already dry.
You have no basis to make such a claim though. You do not follow the evidence you try to misrepresent it for your biased purposes.
That is why you have no credibility with the public at large.
You may not care but having no crediblity means you ar enever going to be able to convice the public of anything and certainly not any court.
Your claims about June loading the gun and being the one who beat Nevill is clever because the physical evidence out there can't disprove it for sure. But on the other hand can't confirm it either so it is an argument worthless at freeing Jeremy (because only something that can be proven would be of value to free him)and at best could serve to sway the opinion of some of the public to get them behind Jeremy.
Based on the reaction here though it will not even do that since staunch Jeremy supporters don't even accept June taking part, especially since she was shot in bed before getting up. They didn't buy your claim she fell onto the bed after being shot (save look who would believe you are Jesus if you told her it).
You can make any claims you want but when you say things that are wrong like that the tested flake was floating around then you go from someone trying to find ways to establish Jeremy could be innocent to someone distorting to try to pretend Jeremy is innocent.
The distinction might not seem like much but there is a big difference between someone pointing out gaps like the failure to test June for GSR and foreign blood and being opportunistic and trying to use those gaps to their advantage and misrepresenting things like the blood flake floating around and not being static.
Once you are known as a liar you lose all credibility, everything you say is dismissed and you are largely ignored.
-
A presence of "A" type static blood found on baffle plates does not mean that it was Sheila's blood, since it could well be a reference to Junes blood. AK 1 nor AK 2-1 blood was detected any where on the static bloodied baffle plates, unlike the results obtained from the loose flake, which produced a AK1 result...
The case turned on the inclusion of AK1 type blood obtained from examination of the loose flake, and an absence of June Bambers AK 2-1 blood type from the same. But it now transpires, that two lots of animal blood was detected inside the silence, which is the only common blood enzyme in human and animal blood...
Seems to me, that the argument relied upon during the trial that a presence of AK1 type blood, and an absence of Junes Ak2-1, falls by the wayside, if the detection of the AK1 blood enzyme has to be discounted as possible animals blood...
The blood the defense expert detected:
"Dr Lincoln recorded that on the 29 April 1986, he examined all seventeen baffles and obtained weak or very weak positive reactions indicating the presence of blood on the first eight baffles.
He agreed with Mr Hayward's conclusion that the combination of blood groups revealed in his testing of the inside of the moderator could have come solely from Sheila Caffell but did not come from any one of the other individuals"
Both men did enzyme tests to make sure they detected human blood.
Unless you have the exact documents written by Dr Lincoln then you have no basis to say that he didn't detect ak-1 and because of your past bogus claims your word would not be enough the actual reports would have to be posted.
-
AK1 is a genetic condition and unless Christine carried the same antibodies,,then it wasn't Sheila !
-
AK1 is a genetic condition and unless Christine carried the same antibodies,,then it wasn't Sheila !
She could have them from her father - or what? Is it only carried through females?
-
She could have them from her father - or what? Is it only carried through females?
These things are usually passed from the mother,,but there's nothing to say that it couldn't have been her father. Saying that,,my eldest daughter is Rh A neg,,and I'm O-pos,,so she'd got her fathers' grouping in that case. Similar " ailments " to him too. Well,sensitive skin anyway.
However,it would still be interesting to find out,,though it could be a generation or two away.
-
In view of the presence of (AK1) two lots of animal blood found to be present inside the silencer, it is problematic to the prosecutions argument that the blood from the loose flake belonged exclusively to Sheila Caffell, since without inclusion of AK1 type blood, blood from the flake was not unique to her alone, it could have (AK1) belonged to, or originated from either or noth animals blood known to have been present inside the silencer...
A human ezyme test was done to make sure it was human blood.
The prosecution and defense expert both found it wa shuman blood.
You have no leg to stand on as usual.
-
No AK1 enzyme was found on any baffle plate inside the silencer, it was only detected in the LOOSE flake found trapped between the first two baffles by Malcolm Fletcher who removed the loose flake and arranged for John Hayward and his assistants to analyse it. Nobody scraped the loose flake off any baffle plates, you are crazy to suggest such a thing, so which baffle was this loose flake stuck to and who the hell supposedly scraped it off, and what did this person who did this imaginary thing use to scrape the loose flake off with?
The flake was loose, and so small it was all consumed during tests carried out on it - if the loose flake had been part of static blood there would have been plenty more of the exact type still on the baffles, bur there wasn't...
-
I have copies of all the lab' working notes, to do with the various tests carried out on blood found on and inside the silencers (SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1). No expert scraped off any blood from a silencer, the only person who admitted to doing anything remotely similar is David Boutflour, but he told the COLP investigators that he used a razor blade to scrape a flakw of blood off the flat surface of the silencers end cap...
Boutflour claims he retained the flake he had taken from the outside of the silencer because it fasinated him...
Yeah, sure...
-
When asked by COLP whether the investigating officers knew what he had done, he responded by saying 'yes'...
It's a pity that Boutflour couldn't or wouldn't say what became of the flake he removed from the silencer, or exactly when he scraped the blood off?
-
Boutflour forgot to make mention of any of this when testifying during the trial...
Investigating officers who knew that Boutflour had tampered with the silencer, also conveniently forgot to mention it to the prosecution, had they done so it is almost certain that the silencer evidence would have been excluded..
-
Where is the Boutflour flake. What happened to it?
-
Did David tell his sister what he had done. Did she know? If he didn't tell her, why not?
-
Lets go back to the day of the silencers find. It is taken to Ann Eatons house, and the lot of 'em pawing over it, there's David, there's Ann, there's Robert, and there's Peter...
-
David was trying to unscrew the metal end cap off to look inside bbur it was fitted too tightly...
Robert told David to put it some where safe, because the police would be needing it, so the silencer wss given to Ann and Peter for safe keeping...
-
We are led to believe that the silencer was kept in a wardrobe in a spare bedroom until Stan Jones came along to collect it...
-
According to other evidence, once Stan Jones took possession of the silencer from Peter Eaton on evening 12th August 1985, David could not have had opportunity to scrape blood from it, unless silencer was returned back to relatives, or a different silencer was introduced by relatives...
-
When asked by COLP whether the investigating officers knew what he had done, he responded by saying 'yes'...
It's a pity that Boutflour couldn't or wouldn't say what became of the flake he removed from the silencer, or exactly when he scraped the blood off?
Mike,,I swear the flake was soot,, in which blood from an animal had adhered to. It would have been disturbed as soon as the shooting took place.
-
Mike,,I swear the flake was soot,, in which blood from an animal had adhered to. It would have been disturbed as soon as the shooting took place.
Hi Lookout,
I am not disputing that...
Since it is one of many explanations for how the silencer got contaminated...
-
Whether or not, the soot contaminated with the AK1 enzyme of a rat or a rabbit, got blasted into the silencer during unofficial test firing of the anshulzt rifle, silencer and control ammunition, remains to be seen...
-
Whether or not, the soot contaminated with the AK1 enzyme of a rat or a rabbit, got blasted into the silencer during unofficial test firing of the anshulzt rifle, silencer and control ammunition, remains to be seen...
EQUALLY, Rat or rabbit blood, may have formed part of the flake that David Boutflour scraped from the outside of the silencer, with use of a razor blade...
The mind boggles...
-
David Boutflour is now in the spotlight, since he deliberately tampered with the silencer and a presence or lack of evidence that may have helped the jury to come to the right conclusion about who did what, when they did it, and why...
-
David Boutflour, was responsible for undertaking criminal activities regarding interferring with the integrity of the silencer, which he failed to bring to the attention of the court, when testifying...
-
David Boutflour, was responsible for undertaking criminal activities regarding interferring with the integrity of the silencer, which he failed to bring to the attention of the court, when testifying...
Any person, supporting what Boutflour did, or has done, has to be treated as a criminal, themselves...
-
There's no doubt about what DB did was criminal.
-
There's no doubt about what DB did was criminal.
Hi Lookout, let us also not forget that what Cook did when he dismantled the silencer, when he rebuilt it, and when he screwed the rebuilt silencer on the barrel of the anshulzt rifle, without telling the court was also a deliberate ploy into deceiving the jury...
David Boutflour, and Ron Cook, are both criminals, not much more to say.,,
-
Hi Lookout, let us also not forget that what Cook did when he dismantled the silencer, when he rebuilt it, and when he screwed the rebuilt silencer on the barrel of the anshulzt rifle, without telling the courtk was also a deliberate pliy into deceiving the jury...
David Boutflour, and Ron Cook, are both criminals, not much more to say.,,
That's right,Mike.I forgot about Cook taking it to bits. It'd certainly done its rounds,,very very wrong.
-
Now, to the crux of the matter...
Whilst Cook the crook still had possession of the silencer, he sent a hand written memo to Fletcher at the lab' asking him if the silencer could have been warped after receiving a hard knock, because bullets being fired through it were becoming damaged...
What this implies in the stronget possible terms is that before Cook arranged for the rifle, silencer and control ammunition to be sent along to the lab' that he had already joined the silencer in his possession to the gun barrel of the rifle, and had fired control bullets through the silencer which were damaging them, leading him to believe that the silencer must have received a hard knock and become damaged...
Essex police did not inform the prosecution that Cook had done this prior to the rifle, silencer and control ammunition had been sent to the lab'. If the defence had known this by the time of the trial it would have made a significant difference to the acceptibility or admissibility of the blood based silencer evidence having allegedly got into the silencer by backspatter in keeping with Fletchers claim. Fletcher knew full well that the silencer had been attached to the barrel of the rifle and that control rounds had been fired through it on an occasion before he himself had carried out the official test fire of the same between 20th September, and 2nd October 1985, because lab' records confirm that Fletcher had carried out comparison tests of markings found upon unofficial test fired founds, against markings on several crime scene rounds, on dates before the 20th September 1985...
How could Fletcher have carried out comparison tests before the start of his official test fire (20th September 1985), on the following dates, if he performed specific comparison tests on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985?
-
So, there it is, Cook performed an unofficial test fire of the rifle, silencer and control ammunition, before the same were eventually sent along to the lab' on 30th August 1985. He effectively destroyed any prospect of the internal condition of the silencer remaining undisturbed until it could be properly (internally) examined at the lab'...
It is a racing certainty that when Cook performed the unofficial test fire of the rifle, silencer and control ammunition, that he disturbed the internal environment of the guns barrel, and the silencer...
-
So, there it is, Cook performed an unofficial test fire of the rifle, silencer and control ammunition, before the same were eventually sent along to the lab' on 30th August 1985. He effectively destroyed any prospect of the internal condition of the silencer remaining undisturbed until it could be properly (internally) examined at the lab'...
It is a racing certainty that when Cook performed the unofficial test fire of the rifle, silencer and control ammunition, that he disturbed the internal environment of the guns barrel, and the silencer...
Cook and Fletcher kept all of this a secret, choosing not to tell anyone about the earlier test fire of the gun with silencer attached to its barre, carried outl by use of control ammunition...
-
This brings me on to matters of the changing position of the baffle plates, from the jaws of baffle plates being downward facing on 29th August 1985, when he (Cook) dismantled the silencer, rebuilt it, and screwed the rebuilt unit directly onto the end of the guns barrel, to the same baffles being turned head over heals on 29th April 1986, when the jaws of baffle plates had become upward facing...
it now becomes clear, that any blood found inside the silencer had been deposited at the wrong end of the silencer for it to have got into the silencer by a process of backspatter - the blood was forced into the silencer at the time of the unofficial test fire of the gun and silencer carried out durings Cooks meddlings before he sent the same to Fletcher at the lab'...
-
Look at the silencer, picture it in your minds eye with blood detected upon 8 of its 17 baffle plates, blood on these 8 baffles all grouped together at one end of the silencer, with the bloodfree baffles (9 of them) at the other end...
The thing is, that although the external metal case of the silencer, metal end cap, top flat washer (at the top end of the silencer) and the inverted screw thread at the other end cannot be altered, it does not apply to the position of its 17 internal baffles which can be flipped over and put back inside the silencer so that the jaws of the 17 baffle plates are facing upward, rather than downward...
When you do this, it has the effect of shifting the position of the bloodied 8 baffle plates from the bottom end of the silencer, to the top end...
-
On the 29th August when Cook dismantled the silencer, the jaws of the internal baffle plates were downward facing, and although Cook had separated the metal end cap, top flat washer, and the first five baffles at the top end of its configuration, he neither saw, nor reports that he found any loose flake of blood, or any bloodstained baffle plates...
This is because there was no loose flake of blood, nor any bloodstained baffles in that part of the dismantled silencer at that stage...
-
However...
you will note that the other 12 baffles, are still compacted with jaws downward facing, when Cook dismantles the silencer...
-
However...
you will note that the other 12 baffles, are still compacted with jaws downward facing, when Cook dismantles the silencer...
Ok...
now turn the whole collection of baffle plates around when Cook rebuilds it...
The 12 compacted baffle plates with jaws downward facing at the bottom end of the silencers configuration, are now at the top end of the silencers configuaration, now with thier jaws upward facing...
-
Any blood deposited in the compacted baffles at the bottom end of the dismantled silencer when Cook dismantles it, will be repositioned at the top end of the same silencer when Cook rebuilds it...
In fact, when the silencer is eventuall examined again by Glynis Howard, and the defence blood expert on the 29th April 1986, blood is detected upon several consecutively placed baffle plates which were originally at the bottom end of the silencer on the 29th August 1985, but which by 29th April 1986, were now at the top end of the same silencer...
All that had happened in the interim period was that the full set of 17 rebuilt baffle plates had been replaced back into the silencers tubing the opposite way around, to how they had originally been removed by Cook, on the 29th August 1985...
-
Another simplistic way of looking at this issue, is to say that at the time Cook removed and dismantled the silencers baffle plates, there was a gap of blood free baffles at one end of the silencer, and blood stained baffles at the other end of the same silencer. In this instance, the gap of blood free baffles was at the top end of the silencer, and the blood stained baffles at the bottom end of the same silencer...
With the configuration of the clean and dirty baffles at opposing ends of the silencer, as of 29th August 1985, it suggests in the strongest possible terms imaginable, that blood at the bottom end of the silencer had not got into the silencer by backspatter because there was no blood at all present at the top end of the silencer. This in turn leads to the inevitible conclusion that blood at the bottom end of the silencer had been forced into the silencer via the guns barrel, or in other words by a process of contamination...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
Any blood deposited in the compacted baffles at the bottom end of the dismantled silencer when Cook dismantles it, will be repositioned at the top end of the same silencer when Cook rebuilds it...
In fact, when the silencer is eventuall examined again by Glynis Howard, and the defence blood expert on the 29th April 1986, blood is detected upon several consecutively placed baffle plates which were originally at the bottom end of the silencer on the 29th August 1985, but which by 29th April 1986, were now at the top end of the same silencer...
All that had happened in the interim period was that the full set of 17 rebuilt baffle plates had been replaced back into the silencers tubing the opposite way around, to how they had originally been removed by Cook, on the 29th August 1985...
There is no evidence at all that the moderator was put back together the wrong way by police.
In fact the evidence that the blood was at the front of the moderator like the blood they found was on these same baffles supports such.
There would be no way for blood to get on the baffles at the end of the suppressor like you are alleging was the case.
You make a great deal of things up without having any basis for what you claim.
I don't care if you want to do so but it accomplishes nothing at all.
-
29th August 1985 - Cook the crook dismantles the silencer, removing its 17 internalised baffle plates. He is a crook because he tampered with the internal settings of arguably the most significant exhibits of the case. Not only diid he remove the baffles but he separated the metal end cap, top washer and the fiest 5 of 17 baffle platess fromm the remainimg 12 compressed baffles...
Cook photographed this exercise - the evidence contained in those photographs.is overwhelming, confirming that Cook separated the baffles before he rebuilt it, screwed in onto the thread on the end of the rifles barrel and on the next day submitted the rebuily solencer and rifle to the lab'..
How astonishing, that on the very first occasion the silencer is stripped bare, and the first 5 of the 17 baffles are separated so that there was a distinctive gap between each of the first 6 baffle plates, that Cook does not report seeing any blood on the first 6 baffles, and he fails to see any loose flake of blood in that part of the silencer. Now how can that be true if on or by 11th September 1985, wgen Fletcher reopens the same silencer at the lab' he discovers the loose flake of blood supposedly trapped between baffles 1 and 2, which had not been present in any shape or form in that same pary of the silencer when Cook dismantled it?
How come Fletcher finds the flake of blood, but not Cook...
-
Photographic evidence taken by Cook of the aforementioned exercises, confirm that the jaws of the 17 baffles were downward facing on the 29th August 1985...
I am making all of this up by referring to the phoyographic evidence...
-
I am making it all up, Cook never dismantled the silencer, he never separated baffle plates leaving gaps, and at all times the jaws of the baffle plates were always the same way up, with jaws upward facing,, despite photographic evidence confirming the opposite...
There are no photographs, mo gaps between the baffles, Cooky the crooky. did nothing untoward with the silencer on 29th August, he didn't tamper with it at all...
Give him a medal, its what usualky hapoens in instsnces like this, ir they get promoted...
-
Thanks Mike for posting all that information. Good bit about the ex SAS man not being able to ride along the sea wall. I have been telling everyone how difficult it would be. But obviously those who have never been here think it an easy thing to do and could do it in 5 minutes.lolololol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I'm glad there is at last someone who has tried it and has found what I have been saying all the time. Abunch of amareurs on here I'm afraid and every time they attempt to scribble their pathetic scenarios I nearly die laughing at their innate ignorance with no prospect of them every learing to come to the truth. ;D
-
Some good information there,Mike.
I've been reading about Sheilas' behaviour and can verify that what's written is the same as I've read.
Sheila was a mess,,both mentally and about her personal appearance,as having to be told about what to wear,then to get her hair cut as it was straggly like " rats tails ",,so she was letting herself go. This was after the divorce when she had the boys with her.
Sheila would attend as many parties as were available,in order to meet men. Though the type of men were the pits,,but the " glamour girls ",models and suchlike,,it was a meal-ticket as they struggled financially.
Sheila was no shrinking violet attending the places where these rich,but ugly men frequented.
I'd rather be broke ! ;D
-
How odd, that despite a claim that there was all this blood on baffle plates when Fletcher re- dismantled it on the 11th September 1985, that no-one thought to take any photogeaphs showing all tjis blood here there and everywhere upon it. Nobody even drew a diagram of the bloodstained baffle plates, at least not until the 29th April 1986 - by which stage blood was detected inside the jaws of baffle plates which as of the 29th August 1985, wrre at the wtong end of the silencer which Cook the crook dismantled...
If by the 29th April 1986, blood was present inside the upturned jaws of baffle plates, then it suggests thay on 29th August when Cook dismantled the silencer at a time when he separated the top 5 baffle plates the jaws of these were downward facing...
At some stage betwee the 29yh August 1985, and the 25th April 1986, somebody haf caise to topple over the 17 baffles so the blood at the nottom end of the silencer, ended up st yhe yop end of the silencer, to accommodate Fletchers backspatter phenomena...
Baffles were turned head over heels, and in the blink of an eye the police had manufactured a case with which to prosecute andconvict Bamber gor the murders...
-
How odd, that despite a claim that there was all this blood on baffle plates when Fletcher re- dismantled it on the 11th September 1985, that no-one thought to take any photogeaphs showing all tjis blood here there and everywhere upon it. Nobody even drew a diagram of the bloodstained baffle plates, at least not until the 29th April 1986 - by which stage blood was detected inside the jaws of baffle plates which as of the 29th August 1985, wrre at the wtong end of the silencer which Cook the crook dismantled...
If by the 29th April 1986, blood was present inside the upturned jaws of baffle plates, then it suggests thay on 29th August when Cook dismantled the silencer at a time when he separated the top 5 baffle plates the jaws of these were downward facing...
At some stage betwee the 29yh August 1985, and the 25th April 1986, somebody haf caise to topple over the 17 baffles so the blood at the nottom end of the silencer, ended up st yhe yop end of the silencer, to accommodate Fletchers backspatter phenomena...
Baffles were turned head over heels, and in the blink of an eye the police had manufactured a case with which to prosecute andconvict Bamber gor the murders...
I'm still puzzled as to what Bavid Boutfour meant when he was supposed to have said to his wife, "I have something up my sleeve"?
-
I'm still puzzled as to what Bavid Boutfour meant when he was supposed to have said to his wife, "I have something up my sleeve"?
It certainly doesn't sound like anything above board that's for sure.
-
29th August 1985 - Cook the crook dismantles the silencer, removing its 17 internalised baffle plates. He is a crook because he tampered with the internal settings of arguably the most significant exhibits of the case. Not only diid he remove the baffles but he separated the metal end cap, top washer and the fiest 5 of 17 baffle platess fromm the remainimg 12 compressed baffles...
Cook photographed this exercise - the evidence contained in those photographs.is overwhelming, confirming that Cook separated the baffles before he rebuilt it, screwed in onto the thread on the end of the rifles barrel and on the next day submitted the rebuily solencer and rifle to the lab'..
How astonishing, that on the very first occasion the silencer is stripped bare, and the first 5 of the 17 baffles are separated so that there was a distinctive gap between each of the first 6 baffle plates, that Cook does not report seeing any blood on the first 6 baffles, and he fails to see any loose flake of blood in that part of the silencer. Now how can that be true if on or by 11th September 1985, wgen Fletcher reopens the same silencer at the lab' he discovers the loose flake of blood supposedly trapped between baffles 1 and 2, which had not been present in any shape or form in that same pary of the silencer when Cook dismantled it?
How come Fletcher finds the flake of blood, but not Cook...
You can claim he dismantled it till you are blue in the face you have no evidence at all to prove it though.
-
You can claim he dismantled it till you are blue in the face you have no evidence at all to prove it though.
If you go to the photo section of the forum there is a picture of the silencer dismantled.
-
If you go to the photo section of the forum there is a picture of the silencer dismantled.
Which allegedly was taken after the biologist dismantled it to send to Fletcher and no one has been able to disprove.
In Cook's 1991 statement he spoke about photographing the rifle after super glue fuming it. People alledge he took apart the suppressor the same date and photographed it but have no evidence and falsely claim he stated such in his 1991 statement but he didn't.
Hence I am still waiting for someone to provide proof to refute the official story.
-
Cook the crook sent a hand written memo to Fletcher making mention of the silencer he had been talking to him about, as shown in the attached photographs. The photographs in the forums picture section show the silencer which Cooky the crooky had dismantled, rebuilt and had screwed it onto the barrel of the anshuzt rifle...
This is what happened, as proveable by the fact that at the time Cooky interferred with the silencer and rifle, neither the rifle nor the silencer had any signed exhibit label attached to them. Lets review what labels would be attached to both by the time Fletcher received them and his own dismantling of the same silencer on the 11th September 1985:-
SILENCER
12/08/1985 - SJ/1
13/08/1985 - SBJ/1 (signed by Cook and Howard) lab' item no. 22
30/08/1985 - DB/1 - lab' item no. 23
RIFLE
30/08/1985 - DRH/15 (signed by DC Hammersley) lab' item no.18
If you examine the photographs we are talking about, neither the silencer, nor the rifle, has any signed exhibit label attached to it, and both do not have a lab' item number attached to them...
-
Items of evidential value are not accepted at the lab' unless properly labeled and packaged...
It should be clear to everyone therefore, that the dismantled silencer and rifle subject of the photographs we are talking about, were not taken after they had been resent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985...
-
Nothing could be clearer...
-
Nothing could be clearer...
Is your face blue yet Mike? It's no use the guilters don't read your posts anyway. I've tried it but their needles seem to be set in the same grooves. They much prefer to lying cops that the truth even though the cops re-wrote the entire thing. ;D
-
Is your face blue yet Mike? It's no use the guilters don't read your posts anyway. I've tried it but their needles seem to be set in the same grooves. They much prefer to lying cops that the truth even though the cops re-wrote the entire thing. ;D
Hi Grahame,
I know what you mean...
I have some new information given to me by the "Cyclops" group, which you might be interested in, I am starting a new thread to deal with it...
-
Is your face blue yet Mike? It's no use the guilters don't read your posts anyway. I've tried it but their needles seem to be set in the same grooves. They much prefer to lying cops that the truth even though the cops re-wrote the entire thing. ;D
I read his posts they are all misrepresentations.
He still keeps claiming that SBJ1, DB1 and DRB1 are all different suppressorts though this specualtion was proven wrong many years ago.
He argues that the blood intimately mixed and therefore is a mixture though the complete opposite is what the defense argued and needed to argue because there is no way for the blood to intimately mix and for certain elements to be missing. He doesn't even understand what the defense argued.
His claim that the flak of blood scraped from in between the first 2 baffles was a loose flake that had been floating around int he gun was a lie. He has no source for the claim he made it up.
If the defense had a picture showing the suppressor dismantled with no blood on the baffles tha thad been taken before the blood was scraped away by the biologist and tested the defense woudl have raised this in the appeal because this would be their strongest argument.
The photocopy of a picture is not clear so offers no value at all in assessing whether blood is there or not moreover there is no proof that the photo was taken in August 1985 as claimed. This claim was published on the net merely not made by Jeremy's lawyers. That alone means it is nonsense because his lawyers would have pursued it if any of it were true.
Photographic evidence that there was no blood on the baffles prior to blood being found in the lab would be evidence that the blood has been placed there after the photos were taken. The defense woul dhave loved having evidence of such.
Had such been mentioned to the appeal court and proved then in the section where they discussed possible DNA contamination of the inside of the suppressor they would have mentioned such instance as when contamination could have occurred.
Mike's claims are all unsupported and baseless.
-
I would invite everyone to discount what the other party is alleging, he has nothing constructive or truthful to add to this debate...
Why does he keep reading what I write about if what I am saying is a lie?
Don't worry, the truth will out very soon, justice day is looming large...
-
Key to what took place is contained in the inaccessible parts of the anshulzt rifles barrell...
-
Key to what took place is contained in the inaccessible parts of the anshulzt rifles barrell...
The family owned silencer was not used in the shootings of Sheila...
-
Key to what took place is contained in the inaccessible parts of the anshulzt rifles barrell...
Back spatter can only travel into the barrel about as far as it was reportedly found in the suppressor.
Blood found beyond that in the rifle could not arrive there naturally and would be evidence of contamination or intentional planting. So I don't know what you think coudl be found deep in the barrel that could be helpful.
The first few inches is what matters and if the claim is that the lab concealed evidence found in the first several inches I don't know how anyone would hope to prove that without the person who supposedly did such admitted they did it, how and explaining what they did with the evidence they removed.
-
If you go to the photo section of the forum there is a picture of the silencer dismantled.
Yes,,and the baffles would be in a different place before it was dismantled,,thus giving a wrong report of where any blood might be. Unless the baffles are numbered or fitted in such a way as to go in their original places.
I wonder if this is what DB meant when he had " something up his sleeve " ?
-
Bullets were fired through a gun barrel which had 8 lands and 8 grooves:-
In the following diagrammatic image, this barrel only has six...
-
Small traces of victims blood which entered the unsilenced barrel became nestled in remote inaccessible regions of the guns barrel free from the detection of a basic cloth pull - through test, like the one the ballistic expert Fletcher claims he performed before the official test fire of the anshulzt rifle silencer and control ammunition:-
-
Small traces of victims blood which entered the unsilenced barrel became nestled in remote inaccessible regions of the guns barrel free from the detection of a basic cloth pull - through test, like the one the ballistic expert Fletcher claims he performed before the official test fire of the anshulzt rifle silencer and control ammunition:-
The notion that back spatter only landed in the corner of the grooves and no where else so wasn't found is absurd.
Likewise the notion that a cotton wick would miss such places with each pass is nonsense.
A wick is intentionally thicker than the barrel so that it has to rub against the barrel. The heads get inside the grooves, if they didn't then barrel fouling would not be cleaned out and the cleaning kit would be rather worthless.
(http://s24.postimg.org/w72a3qbat/cottonpullthrough.jpg)
A few specks at the very end of the grooves would not be consistent with drawback which would result in significantly more blood.
Your absolutes that blood will be found and the significance if that happened is bogus, the best you could suggest at this point is that if the lab found a significant amount of blood in the barrel and illegally failed to record such find MAYBE somehow the lab missed tiny drops of blood in the barrel and they remain to be found. That would not be likely though, the pullthrough would likely have cleaned out the barrel quite well.
Nor is it easy to do a DNA test after running a chemical test to determine if something is actually human blood. The DNA profile usually can't be successfully obtained. Just finding blood or DNA doesn't cut it. You need to be able to estbalish blood was found and that there is a DNA match of such blood to Sheila in order to try to suggest that the gun was used without the suppressor to kill her and allege the lab found more blood but concealed the findings.
Since a tiny bit of blood could be accidentally transferred this might not sway an appeal court though if all such were to be proven.
The hope of finding a large quantity of blood consistent with drawback is fools hope.
-
In addition to the lands and grooves which line the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, are straition and tooling marks, and blood from the victims deposited itself deep into the grain of the gun metal...
It was impossible for a cloth pull - through (MDF/1) to have entered into all of these inaccessible regions of the gun barrel, no matter what charlie boy has to say - and in any event, a professional clean using the correct fine tooling equipment to sanitize the end of the anshuzt rifle barrel will apparently not do any harm according to charlie...
So, this is what needs to be done, the barrell of the anshuzt rifle needs to be professionally cleaned using fine tooling equipment, to an equivalent depth of the distance which blood was said to have travelled down into the sound moderator. once all the debri is removed, it can be scientifically examined and tested for blood grouping, and or DNA profiling...
Charlie boy can scream all he likes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Reviewers are confident that cleaning this small part of the anshulzt rifles barrel, and having all the debris which gets removed at that time, will reveal whether or not the silencer was fitted to the gun barrels at the time Sheila Caffell was shot under the chin and killed. Similar tests have been done by experts on other occasions with satisfactory results, so Charlie boy and his gang of "Bamber is guilty", clan will now be worried sick that at long last, a test is available to prove one way or another if a silencer which had blood at its top end (Muzzle) covering 8 baffles, with no blood at the bottom end (screw thread end) consisting of 9 baffles, was on the gun at the critical moment...
Charlie boy can scream all he likes...
The test can be done, the debris from inside that crucial section of the barrel can be scientifically examined, and if Sheila's blood is detected in the remnants of the debris removed, then the game will be up for the great pretenders...
How could Sheila's blood (in those circumstances) have passed beyond 9 spotlessly clean baffle plates and become deposited inside the recessed areas of the lands and grooves, striation and fine tooling marks in that crucial part of the guns barrel...
-
The threads of the cloth pull - through (MDF/1) cannot get right into the corners of the grooves because as the cloth gets pulled through the length of the barrel it starts to twist and turn because of the design features of the rifling, so it does not matter which way the rifling of the barrel twists and turns, you are always going to get remote regions in the corner of these grooves where the padding of the cloth cannot gain access to...
In any event, let charlie boy have his say and if per chance what he is bleeting on about has some truth in it, he won't have anything to worry about...
Test which Cyclops reviewers have drawn attention to, is a scientific test which has not yet previously been undertaken, nor the debris recovered from such tests analyzed to see if any of Sheila's blood and DNA is present inside the end of the anshulz rifles barrel. I have it on good authority that by passing a cloth pull - through a barrel which has dried blood inside that the wadding even if it comes in direct contact with dry blood in the barrel the wadding will not pick up traces of dry blood, it will slip over it without depositing itself upon the cloth, so Charlie boy can say what he likes...
Any gun dealer, gun enthusiast, gun expert will confirm that by simply passing a cloth pull - through along the inner length of a rifles barrel does not guarantee that afterwards the inner surfaces of the barrel will always be spotlessly clean. What you need to achieve that are special tools available to dealers, enthusiasts, and experts which are taylor made for that specific purpose of thoroughly cleaning the barrel...
Don't forget the gap of blood and dna free baffles at the bottom end of the silencer which screws onto the muzzle end of the rifles barrel? A gap of blood and DNA free baffle of which there were 9, and then upon the completion of the proposed testing of that very crucial part right at the end of the guns barrel, and the debris removed under strigent scientific copntrol, tested to establish whether or not blood and DNA belonging to Sheila is present within, finally at long last forces the other party to have to bite the bullet, so to speak...
Game over, charlie boy...
-
In addition to the lands and grooves which line the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, are straition and tooling marks, and blood from the victims deposited itself deep into the grain of the gun metal...
It was impossible for a cloth pull - through (MDF/1) to have entered into all of these inaccessible regions of the gun barrel, no matter what charlie boy has to say - and in any event, a professional clean using the correct fine tooling equipment to sanitize the end of the anshuzt rifle barrel will apparently not do any harm according to charlie...
So, this is what needs to be done, the barrell of the anshuzt rifle needs to be professionally cleaned using fine tooling equipment, to an equivalent depth of the distance which blood was said to have travelled down into the sound moderator. once all the debri is removed, it can be scientifically examined and tested for blood grouping, and or DNA profiling...
Charlie boy can scream all he likes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Reviewers are confident that cleaning this small part of the anshulzt rifles barrel, and having all the debris which gets removed at that time, will reveal whether or not the silencer was fitted to the gun barrels at the time Sheila Caffell was shot under the chin and killed. Similar tests have been done by experts on other occasions with satisfactory results, so Charlie boy and his gang of "Bamber is guilty", clan will now be worried sick that at long last, a test is available to prove one way or another if a silencer which had blood at its top end (Muzzle) covering 8 baffles, with no blood at the bottom end (screw thread end) consisting of 9 baffles, was on the gun at the critical moment...
Charlie boy can scream all he likes...
The test can be done, the debris from inside that crucial section of the barrel can be scientifically examined, and if Sheila's blood is detected in the remnants of the debris removed, then the game will be up for the great pretenders...
How could Sheila's blood (in those circumstances) have passed beyong 9 spotlessly clean baffle plates and become deposited inside the recessed areas of the lands and grooves, straition and fine tooling marks in that crucial part of the guns barrel...
You are doing what you always do- making nonsense claims without providing any evidence.
"It was impossible for a cloth pull - through (MDF/1) to have entered into all of these inaccessible regions of the gun barrel"
Post evidence to prove that a pull through can't reach every crevice of a barrel and thus can't clean every crevice. You can't because this claim is bogus. My barrels a meticulous because I clean them USING a pull through.
You also insist blood of the victims "will definitely be found" though you have no basis to make such a claim. There is no indication that blood is there to be found. Moreover, it woudl be hard to prove blood of any victims is present because they will be reluctant to do chemical blood testing because it could desptry the DNA. They woudl be likely to do a DNA test on anything found but have no way of proving if what they found was blood based or not. In all likelihood though they wond find a thing.
You can scream as loud as you like it won't change the above one bit.
-
Don't forget the gap of blood and dna free baffles at the bottom end of the silencer which screws onto the muzzle end of the rifles barrel? A gap of blood and DNA free baffle of which there were 9,
Back spatter only travels a few inches into a weapon. The fact no blood was found beyond the 8th baffle is expected and one of the signs that it was in fact back spatter. If blood were found deeper then it would not be consistent with back spatter and had to arrive there from some different means.
-
The end of the anshulzt gun barrel has not yet been scientifically examined nor debris from that very small section of the barrel yet scientifically analyzed to see whether or not Sheila Caffells blood and her DNA was sucked back into the end of the guns barrel, when the police shot her under the chin with use of the anshulzt rifle during a re staging of the body on the bedroom floor, which went dramatically wrong, so no need to get yourself agitated just yet, better wait until the tests have been done...
Everybody will know where we stand at that point...
-
Cyclops reviewers suggest that only a very small section of the anshulzt gun barrel needs to be professionally cleaned amid stringent scientific control, to establish beyond reasonable doubt that a silencer was fitted to the barrel of this (anshulzt) rifle) gun when Sheila was shot under the chin and killed b- they say it is the ultimate test which experts can carry out with a view to putting the case to bed, once and for all...
-
Anshuzt rifle barrel had 8 lands and 8 grooves:-
-
How utterly bizarre, that the prosecutions own gun expert, Fletcher, described some of the bullets associated with these shootings, as having wide lands and grooves, but others did not - how then, could all these differently marked rounds have been fired by use of the same anshuzt rifle?
-
Sorry, charlie boy, same rifle could not possibly have fired all 25 rounds used in the killing of three generations of the same family...
-
Look at the land and groove markings upon the surface of this bullet:-
-
Other useful images for forum members and visitors to consider:-
-
More useful images:-
-
More useful images:-
As the one image indicates depending on the area of the bullet that is scraped some parts will have a more narrow impression than others because the grooves and lands twist around the barrel.
Since the bullets get deformed upon impact some parts that had the riflings impressions break into tiny fragments and the impression is lost. Likewise because of expansion the impression can be lost.
The bullets did not demonstrate that some were fired from a gun with wide grooves and others fired by a gun with narrow grooves. He took a reference point of where the land left a narrow impression and tried comparing all the bullets to that reference point. Some exhibited the same characteristics, others failed to exhibit these same characteristics but that doesn't mean they exhibited wide lands instead. The bullets were also compared to see it they shared individual rifling marks unique to the Bamber Anschutz that no other weapon not even another Anschutz would exhibit. Some exibited the makrs others did not. Failing to exhibit the marks doesn't mean a different gun necessarily fired the bullets. These individual characteristics are disturbed by bullets expanding and fragmenting so will not necessarily be found. If they are found it proves they definitely were fired by the gun in question. If not found it is possible they were fired but not proven they were.
The safest way to know if the same weapon was used is to examine the casings. The marks on the casings indicate they were all fired from the murder weapon. It is not possible for 2 different weapons to have been used.
You have failed to consult a firearms expert but instead are repating nonsense from a biased author who set out to assert Jeremy was innocent and did so through distortion and ignorance in combination. He likewise failed to use any firearms experts for his claims.
If your claims were actually true then it is impossible Sheila killed herself. Your claims are that 2 different guns were used to shoot her. For that matter you are claiming 2 different guns were used to shoot Nevill, June and the boys as well because someone bullets in each victim were listed as having narrow lands while others lacked such characteristics.
This would tremendously hurt Jeremy because it would suggest 2 killers firing at each victim together or Jeremy using 2 guns. Sheila can't have used 2 guns and then hid the other.
If these claims were true then it would tend to suggest Jeremy had an accomplice and implicate him even more not less.
-
June fired one of the guns, Sheila fired the gun, and police fired shots, one across neck and other later on under Sheila's chin...
-
June fired one of the guns, Sheila fired the gun, and police fired shots, one across neck and other later on under Sheila's chin...
Ludicrous!
Good luck finding any evidence to establish this because you need airtight proof to get anyone rational to buy this.
The supposed tests being done could not prove any of these things happened.
-
Sorry, charlie boy, same rifle could not possibly have fired all 25 rounds used in the killing of three generations of the same family...
Based on what evidence?
All analysis to date by Jeremy supporters has been pure BS.
I have seen a variety of claims that non-Eley ammunition was used in 5 rounds, another supporter claims 7 rounds, some call them lighter others heavy. The only thing consistent in these claims is no evidentiary support is presented for the claims to estbalish there was any non-Eley ammunition used. There are 2 ways to establish such:
1) testing the chmical composition and finding it totally different from Eley's formula
2) from the shell casings
The latter is the most obvious and easiest manner.
The misrepresentations about the bullet characteristics that match the Anschutz are legion.
Fletcher observed 3 main features that tied the bullets to the murder weapon:
1) 8 L&G
2) narrow lands meaning the grooves are wider than the lands
3) rifling marks that are made by imperfections unique to the barrel of the Anschutz and no other weapon- these are called individual or accidental characteristics while the first 2 are class characteristics
Which bullets suffered the least damage and were most intact? The 3 bullets that exited June and bullet that exited Daniel. These bullets had all 3 of the characteristics above present. PV/29 in Daniel also had all 3 of these present according to Jeremy supprters.
A bullet is round and you can roughly look at 120-150 degrees at any given time. Looking at 120 degrees at a time you can get 3 views that cover everything.
Many bullets fragmented and expanded and the outside parts that broke off were the parts that had the impressions from the lands and grooves. When that happens you might only have a small section that still has any impression remaining from the lands and grooves and/or the unique rifling marks.
Even if there are not 8 lands and grooves you still could be able to potentially match the lands and grooves remaining and the accidental marks to a particular cross section of a test bullet and this match enables you to say it was fired by the same weapon even though you don't have an entire bullet.
A bullet that is damaged too much and can't definitely be tied to the gun coudl still potentially have been fired by it. The only way to rule it out as having been fired is if it has characteristics that demonstrate it was defintiely fired by a different gun.
I have yet to see reliable documents that for sure came from Fletcher that account for all the claims made by Jeremy supporters about what exactly what was observed on each and every bullet.
For instance, the Holab form for PV/2 indicates "general and small amount of detail" match from the Anschutz. General means class characteristics and the detail part refers to the accidental characteristics. The accidental characteristics is what RM refers to. Yet numerous charts and posts say no RM for PV/2.
The claim that Fletcher noted some bullets had wide lands has not been demonstrated at all. Rather where narrow lands were not found because insufficent detail was on the bullet has been misrepresented by Jeremy supporters as Fletcher finding wide lands, though the reality is not being able to make an effective measurement so unable to determine the measurement of the lands.
The first Holab form I looked at is PV/8 which is hard to read but looks like it says same L&G width as the Anschutz but too damaged and small to match.
This is what I have pieced together from the claims of Jeremy supporters without correcting anything so there may be more errors thant the 2 I mentioned above, indeed it is impossible to detect 0 lands and yet claim narrow lands were detected so there was a typo somewhere or someone a mistake in reading something:
Master Bedroom
Nevill
PV/2 (Shoulder) (5L) (NL) (no RM)
PV/5 (jaw) fragment broken from either PV10 or PV11
PV/10 (lip) (WL) (no RM)
PV/11 (neck) (4L) (WL) (no RM)
Arm/chest Graze wound-1 of the following: DRH/5, 9, 15, or 35 (all 8 L&G) (NL) (RM)
June
PV/23 ( 0 )(NL) (no RM)
PV/24 (4L) (NL) (has RM)
PV/25 (5L) (NL) (has RM)
PV/26 (5L) (NL) (no RM)
3 of the following DRH/5, 9, 15, or 35 (all 8 L&G) (NL) (RM)
Sheila
PV/19 (WL) (no RM)
PV/20 (NL) (RM)
Kitchen
Nevill
PV/3 (skull) (NL)
PV/4 (skull) (NL) (RM)
PV/8 (skull) (WL)
PV/9 (skull) (?)
Twins
Daniel
PV/29 (8 L&G) (NL) (RM)
PV/34 (WL)
PV/35 (WL)
PV/36 (WL)
DRH/36 (8 L&G) (NL) (RM)
Nicholas
PV/30 (3L) (NL)
PV/31 (NL) (RM)
[bullet 3 fragmented into small parts in the head and was not recovered]
The wide/narrow lands claims are fiction but at any rate if one wants to claim that the bullets that failed to register narrow lands were fired from a different gun that means Nevill was shot with 2 guns in both rooms he was shot in,that both boys were shot with 2 guns and Sheila was shot with 2 guns. The yellow represents the shots claimed to be from other guns.
In the meantime the shots in both boys and 4 in Nevill's head were tightly grouped and assessed to have been fired in rapid succession from the same gun. 2 people firing together are unlikely to get a nice tight grouping.
I wonder how many other errors I will find in the above claims anyway with respect to number of lands and grooves found, whether the land width matched the Anschutz and whether the individual barrel characteristics were found.
Again though the fact a bullet lacks enough detail doesn't prove it wasn't fired from the Anschutz it merely means there is insufficient detail to say it was eefinitely fired from the Anschutz and other evidence like the spent casings will have to carry the day.
-
Tests on the end of the inner barrel of the anshuzt rifle will establish whether or not when Sheila Caffell was shot and killed by the shot under the chin, the silencer was fitted to the gun or not...
Sheila only had one bullet wound on her neck when the police surgeon confirmed her as being dead at 8.44am, a fact confirmed by PI 'Bob' Miller who escorted him around the farmhouse to view the bodies of the five victims. Let us get the facts right, when Ewen Smith was representing Jeremy in 2003/ 2004 he went to see Dr Craig who confirmed to him that when he viewed Sheila she only had a solitary wound on her throat, and that her body was on the bed, not the floor. Now, this is very significant, because at the time Ewen Smith paid this visit to see Craig, the photograph showing two bullet wounds with fresh looking blood running, leaking and pouring from the two wounds was shown to Dr Craig and he told Ewen Smith that she only had one of these wounds on her neck when he saw her body at 8.44am...
Ewen Smith is now a CCRC Commissioner, and because of his association with Jeremy he is prevented from intervening in any decision about whether or not to refer the case back to the court of appeal...
-
With this in mind, it could not have been Jeremy who fired the second shot beneath the chin, after Dr Craig confirmed Sheila as being dead on the bed at 8.44am, with this in mind, who killed Sheila - it wasn't Jeremy that's for sure...
-
Tests on the end of the inner barrel of the anshuzt rifle will establish whether or not when Sheila Caffell was shot and killed by the shot under the chin, the silencer was fitted to the gun or not...
Sheila only had one bullet wound on her neck when the police surgeon confirmed her as being dead at 8.44am, a fact confirmed by PI 'Bob' Miller who escorted him around the farmhouse to view the bodies of the five victims. Let us get the facts right, when Ewen Smith was representing Jeremy in 2003/ 2004 he went to see Dr Craig who confirmed to him that when he viewed Sheila she only had a solitary wound on her throat, and that her body was on the bed, not the floor. Now, this is very significant, because at the time Ewen Smith paid this visit to see Craig, the photograph showing two bullet wounds with fresh looking blood running, leaking and pouring from the two wounds was shown to Dr Craig and he told Ewen Smith that she only had one of these wounds on her neck when he saw her body at 8.44am...
Ewen Smith is now a CCRC Commissioner, and because of his association with Jeremy he is prevented from intervening in any decision about whether or not to refer the case back to the court of appeal...
Whether Craig actually made these claims or not has never been substantiated but at the time he is alleged to have made these statements he was not of sound mind and mentally unfit to testify to anything.
The physical evidence doesn't match these alleged claims and they conflict directly with all his official statements made in connenction witht he case.
If he did claim these things it was simply the ramblings of a mad man.
As for the supposed tests of the rifle, are you suggesting that when Sheila's blood is not found that you will accept she was murdered by Jeremy?
"Tests on the end of the inner barrel of the anshuzt rifle will establish whether or not when Sheila Caffell was shot and killed by the shot under the chin, the silencer was fitted to the gun or not"
Based on the above when they find none of Sheila's blood it means they will determine that the suppressor was attached afterall. I don't believe you will stop asserting Jeremy is innocent if that happens though.
-
'Cyclops' reviewers noticed that at the time photographs which have been disclosed showed two bullet wounds (not one) on Sheila's neck, that the anshuzt rifle by that stage was photographed in different positions upon her body, and that at this stage (after 10am) there was no sound moderator fitted to the guns barrel...
They reasoned that if what the police surgeon, Dr Craig had said in his witness statements, to the effect that Sheila had only a solitary wound upon her neck at 8.44am, and that by say around 10 O'clock that same morning the rifle was photographed upon her body at a time she now had two bullet wounds, with no silencer attached to the end of the rifles body...
If a silencer was fitted to the gun barrel at the time Sheila was shot under the chin and killed, then police must have been responsible for shooting her under the chin, and removing the silencer before the collection of photographs showing the second shot to the neck, and the rifle on the body minus a silencer were taken...
One of the reviewers (Jake) went so far as to suggest that if this was true, he says it means that even if the blood in the sound moderator belonged to, or originated from Sheila, It suggests that police used the anshuzt rifle to shoot Sheila beneath the chin, but that they removed the silencer from the gun, before police restaged Sheila's body on the floor by the edge of the bed - another Reviewer, (Mary), goes further, and suggests that the silencer recovered from the scene by the late DS 'Stan' Jones, (SBJ/1) on 7th August 1985, was the silencer in question, which was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, under exhibit reference, DB/1, Lab' item 23, inside which the crucial loose flake was found later on (by Fletcher)...
-
Reviewers, Simon, Claire and Phillip, have asked me to point out to everyone, that it is a clear established fact that two different key sound moderators lay at the heart of this conviction, one recovered by DS Jones at the scene on 7th August 1985, and the other found at the scene by relatives, on 10th August 1985, both silencers sent to the lab' at different times of the investigation and eventually merged into the same one...
Claire says, "the COLP investigators who carried out the 1991 / 1992 investigation, confirmed in police interviews of Essex police officers, the existence of the second silencer"...
-
Reviewers, Simon, Claire and Phillip, have asked me to point out to everyone, that it is a clear established fact that two different key sound moderators lay at the heart of this conviction, one recovered by DS Jones at the scene on 7th August 1985, and the other found at the scene by relatives, on 10th August 1985, both silencers sent to the lab' at different times of the investigation and eventually merged into the sane one...
Claire says, the COLP investigators who carried out the 1991 / 1982 investigation, confirmed in police interviews of Essex police officers, the existence of the second silencer...
They are full of crap if they do claim such.
It would make no sense at all for police to plant evidence on 2 different suppressors simultaneously.
Moreover, the supposed evidence meant to prove this has turned out to be little more than BS like taking forms that were revised and misrepresenting that such revised forms were created at the same time as the originals so the originals and revisions are both actually originals and each refers to a different supporessor.
These claims are absurd and clearly rendered in bath faith by intnetionally distorting to try to pretend they are true.
-
Based on information currently being reviewed by reviewers of case facts, even if blood found in one of the silencers did belong to, or originate directly from Sheila Caffell when she got shot beneath the chin, it is not fatal to Bamber being the killer, because Essex police have sought to deliberately suppress the possible use of one of the two key silencers on the barrel of the gun when Sheila was shot beneath the chin after 8.44am...
-
Based on information currently being reviewed by reviewers of case facts, even if blood found in one of the silencers did belong to, or originate directly from Sheila Caffell when she got shot beneath the chin, it is not fatal to Bamber being the killer, because Essex police have sought to deliberately suppress the possible use of one of the two key silencers on the barrel of the gun when Sheila was shot beneath the chin after 8.44am...
Claire confirms, "the COLP investigators acknowleged the existence of the second sound moderator as part of the ongoing investigations" (1985 / 1986)...
-
Why would the COLP investigators mention the existence of a second key silencer which was in the possession of Essex police, if all along there was only ever one silencer with all these different exhibit references, of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1...
-
'Cyclops' reviewers noticed that at the time photographs which have been disclosed showed two bullet wounds (not one) on Sheila's neck, that the anshuzt rifle by that stage was photographed in different positions upon her body, and that at this stage (after 10am) there was no sound moderator fitted to the guns barrel...
They reasoned that if what the police surgeon, Dr Craig had said in his witness statements, to the effect that Sheila had only a solitary wound upon her neck at 8.44am, and that by say around 10 O'clock that same morning the rifle was photographed upon her body at a time she now had two bullet wounds, with no silencer attached to the end of the rifles body...
If a silencer was fitted to the gun barrel at the time Sheila was shot under the chin and killed, then police must have been responsible for shooting her under the chin, and removing the silencer before the collection of photographs showing the second shot to the neck, and the rifle on the body minus a silencer were taken...
One of the reviewers (Jake) went so far as to suggest that if this was true, he says it means that even if the blood in the sound moderator belonged to, or originated from Sheila, It suggests that police used the anshuzt rifle to shoot Sheila beneath the chin, but that they removed the silencer from the gun, before police restaged Sheila's body on the floor by the edge of the bed - another Reviewer, (Mary), goes further, and suggests that the silencer recovered from the scene by the late DS 'Stan' Jones, (SBJ/1) on 7th August 1985, was the silencer in question, which was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, under exhibit reference, DB/1, Lab' item 23, inside which the crucial loose flake was found later on (by Fletcher)...
There is no reason at all to believe that Sheila had only 1 wound. If she received only the first wound and died from that wound then she would have died from bleeding out. That would have taken a while and would have resulted in her bleeding far more than she did. The pathologist determined the second shot was delivered within seconds of the first shot because otherwise she would have bled more. If the shots were delivered hours apart then for sure she would have bled alot more.
The alleged reviewers are operating from an absurd position that holds no water at all. The claim she could have been shot the second time hours later than the first many hours after she was dead is impossible.
Moreover, the claim police would attach the suppressor and shoot her a second time well after she died makes zero sense. Why would police do such? police were content with blaming Sheila at the time so who would shoot her with the suppressor?
If these reviewers actually exists and are claiming what they are then they should be sure to make sure they never reveal their last names because they deserve to be endlessly mocked as either intentional liars or complete buffoons.
-
Sheila only had one wound on her neck at 8.44am, when the police surgeon, Dr Craig, confirmed her as being laid on the bed...
Photographic evidence exists to confirm this to be true...
To be specific, different photographs were taken at different times that morning which show only one bullet wound on Sheila's neck, and later, two bullet wounds on her neck...
Make what you will for now of this limited insight into the photographic evidence which was taken by the police themselves as part of an internal police investigation into the actual cause of Sheila Caffells death - police shot and killed her, she did not kill herself, and Jeremy did not shoot and kill her...
-
There is no reason at all to believe that Sheila had only 1 wound. If she received only the first wound and died from that wound then she would have died from bleeding out. That would have taken a while and would have resulted in her bleeding far more than she did. The pathologist determined the second shot was delivered within seconds of the first shot because otherwise she would have bled more. If the shots were delivered hours apart then for sure she would have bled alot more.
The alleged reviewers are operating from an absurd position that holds no water at all. The claim she could have been shot the second time hours later than the first many hours after she was dead is impossible.
Moreover, the claim police would attach the suppressor and shoot her a second time well after she died makes zero sense. Why would police do such? police were content with blaming Sheila at the time so who would shoot her with the suppressor?
If these reviewers actually exists and are claiming what they are then they should be sure to make sure they never reveal their last names because they deserve to be endlessly mocked as either intentional liars or complete buffoons.
-
Jeremy Bamber did not shoot and kill his sister, and neither did he stage manage her body to present it as a suicide...
Police shot Sheila and killed her by the shot under the chin, police stage managed her body, and promoted the idea that she had taken her own life...
This is the absolute truth, which Essex police do not want to have to admit too, whilst ever those responsible are still alive...
-
A question for you - there is a document showing that the police collected a silencer on the day of the murders ( I am sure Mike can show you )
So do you think they handed it back the relatives and then they kept it for a few days and handed it back from Anne Eatons house on the 12th of august ? Or the 10th Sept as shown in a another document.
Or was this a different silencer?
I am sure mike can show you the documents -I genuinely want to know what you think happened with the Trail of the silencer?
-
Why would the COLP investigators mention the existence of a second key silencer which was in the possession of Essex police, if all along there was only ever one silencer with all these different exhibit references, of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1...
I don't believe COLP investigators did mention 2 suppressors being tested in 1985. Why would COLP investigators go out of their way to publicly assert there was only 1 and yet admit such privately?
It would not make any sense at all to lie and conceal/destory documents detailing a second suppressor and yet to verbally admit they did so.
Moreover, apart from it making no sense at all to plant paint on 1 suppressor and blood on another, Glynis Howard insists that the suppressor she inspected had both blood and paint. So that right there tears a big hole in the claim that there was 1 with blood another with paint.
There is no evidence of a SJ-1 exhibit even existing, that prefix appears to be completely made up. No cops who handled the case use such prefix nor are there any potential civilians to use such prefix. Since there is no evidence that documents discussing such an exhibit will ever be able to be provided (since it was obviously entirely made up) the claim is being made that the documents related to SJ-1 were destroyed/kept hidden and it was renamed DB-1. So the trick is to use the documents discussing DB/1 and make the totally unsupported claim this was a different suppressor than the documents marked SBJ/1 and DRB/1.
But documents and testimony detail how and why SBJ-1 was renamed DB-1 and various people were well aware of this including Glynis Howard who said the change happened before she went on a leave of absense.
It is well documented how SBJ/1 progressed to DB/1 and then DRB/1 and why this progression occurred.
There is no expnation why the prefix SJ would have been used and who it relates to. It's not the prefix used by either of the cops named Jones.
It is bad enough to not be able to explain who the initial SJ relate to. Still it would have been smarter to just use the lie that there was a second suppressor marked SJ/1 for no explainable reason and the records related to which were destroyed or being hidden by COLP than to weave the web of deception even more by claiming SJ/1 was changed to DB/1. That was downright stupid and shows just how bogus the claim is because COLP went out of its way to fully address how SBJ/1 progressed to DB/1 and then finally DRB/1 so the claim there was a different exhibit that progressed to DB/1 is nonsensical.
-
see post 104 on here where the call about the silencer is recorded and the statement from Anne above it where she strangely makes no mention of the silencer (14/8)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,415.msg216524.html#msg216524
-
A question for you - there is a document showing that the police collected a silencer on the day of the murders ( I am sure Mike can show you )
So do you think they handed it back the relatives and then they kept it for a few days and handed it back from Anne Eatons house on the 12th of august ? Or the 10th Sept as shown in a another document.
Or was this a different silencer?
I am sure mike can show you the documents -I genuinely want to know what you think happened with the Trail of the silencer?
If you are asking me (because you seem to have messed up whatever you intended to quote from whomever) there is no document showing any collection of a suppressor on the day of the murders.
There are claims that the suppressor was fingerprinted on scene and left there on the day of the murders but it has not actually been established that they did fingerprint it.
The same way twisting is used to falsely suggest some bullets had wide lands and thus were fired by a different weapon, twisting is also resorted to in order to falsely suggest many other things.
I fell for one bogus claim with respect to the telephone engineer (the bogus claim he testified a call had definitely been made the night of the murders from WHF to Goldhanger). I'm not going to fall for any other tricks people who want to convince me of claims are going to need to bring reliable evidence.
The only trail I have seen as far as documents related to a suppressor all discuss the same suppressor.
The only mention of any other suppressors relate to suppressors seized allegedly during the trial from the the relatives.
-
see post 104 on here where the call about the silencer is recorded and the statement from Anne above it where she strangely makes no mention of the silencer (14/8)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,415.msg216524.html#msg216524
Her statement only spoke about things they asked her about. They wanted her to detail what she knew about Sheila's mental state and any recent interactions with her because at the time Taff Jones was running things and considered only that Sheila did it and nothing else. So it is a brief 1 page statement about Sheila.
She had no idea the suppressor was significant she mentions that in her subsequent statements where they asked her about the suppressor and other things than just about Sheila.
-
COLP did mention the existence of the second silencer (suppressor, sound moderator) in interview of one of the exhibits officers involved in the investigation (DS Davidson), they asked him in interview under caution if he had anything at all to do with the second silencer?
His response was along the lines, "no", he said, "I had nothing to do with it, DI Cook dealt with it"...
-
In a recent communication between one of the reviewers and myself, Claire said, "DS Davidson lied", she told me, " Davidson had involvement in fingerprinting one of the silencers along with DS Eastwood on 13th September 1985", she told me, " at a time when the other silencer was already at the lab", she said, "and had been there from 30th August 1985, onwards"...
-
How could DS Davidson not know anything about the existence of the second silencer, if he fingerprinted one of the silencers aling with DS Eastward on 13th September 1985?
-
Her statement only spoke about things she thought to be significant. She had no idea the suppressor was significant she mentions that in her subsequent statements where they asked her about the suppressor.
what about the record of reporting the silencer on 10th SEPT?
And I don't get your explanation above - they reportedly saw blood and a grey hair on the silencer - thought it important enough to call the police to collect it . but did not think it was significant ? Sorry don't agree with you on that one.
-
It is rather untoward, that there was a training exercise at the scene whilst the bodies of the five victims were still insitu at various locations around the farmhouse between 9am and 11.10am...
Why are Essex police and Special branch refusing to publickly declare what this group of training officers did whilst present inside the farmhouse before, during and after disclosed photographs were taken...
-
It is rather untoward, that there was a training exercise at the scene whilst the bodies of the five victims were still insitu at various locations around the farmhouse between 9am and 11.10am...
Why are Essex police and Special branch refusing to publickly declare what this group of training officers did whilst present inside the farmhouse before, during and after disclosed photographs were taken...
Why would this happen anyway? Has it been known to happen in other murder cases? I have never seen a case where they have had a training exercise after a murder?
-
COLP did mention the existence of the second silencer (suppressor, sound moderator) in interview of one of the exhibits officers involved in the investigation (DS Davidson), they asked him in interview under caution if he had anything at all to do with the second silencer?
His response was along the lines, "no", he said, "I had nothing to do with it, DI Cook dealt with it"...
COLP didn't say there was a second moderator and ask if Davison was aware of it. COLP asked Davidson if he was aware of the existence of any other moderators and if he handled any others. The question was posed to him not because COLP knew the existence of any other moderators but rather because of allegations that SBJ/DB/DRB related to different moderators but COLP put this claim to bed through documentary and testimonial evidence which demonstrated they were references to the same item the prefix was simply changed at various times for legitimate reasons.
.
-
what about the record of reporting the silencer on 10th SEPT?
And I don't get your explanation above - they reportedly saw blood and a grey hair on the silencer - thought it important enough to call the police to collect it . but did not think it was significant ? Sorry don't agree with you on that one.
She wasn't asked to provide an all inclusive statement about every single aspect of the case. She spoke to issues that were deemed significant at the time. At the time the oly information she had that the police deemed significant was her interactions with Sheial and what she knew about Sheila's mental state, nothing else. It is a one page statement only about Sheila.
Only after the suppressor was established as holding significant evidence did they decide to ask her about it. She is not the one who turned it over to police. She had no way of knowing they would be able to use the suppressor to prove Sheila didn't kill herself. Even the police did not know the significance they thought the value would be in possible fingerprint evidence. Only the lab peiced together that the fatal shot would have resulted in drawback, that the blood in the suppressor was Sheila's blood type and that the rifle had no drawback and thus the suppressor was attached when the fatal shot was fired.
-
In a recent communication between one of the reviewers and myself, Claire said, "DS Davidson lied", she told me, " Davidson had involvement in fingerprinting one of the silencers along with DS Eastwood on 13th September 1985", she told me, " at a time when the other silencer was already at the lab", she said, "and had been there from 30th August 1985, onwards"...
She seems to say alot of things but has not provided you with any evidence to back up these claims and some of the things claims are outright dispelled by the COLP investigation.
I would not get my hopes up too much if I were you because the claims being made are not likely and the chance of them showing you evidence to back up any of their claims is even less likely.
If COLP actually turned up evidence of a second suppressor then it would have been evidence from the various interviews. Instead they tuned up evidence of 3 prefixes being used for the same suppressor. Prefix SJ didn't come up at all in any interview but would have if there were a suppressor with such prefix.
Indeed if their had been a SJ prefix that graduated to DB and they were going to merge the references into 1 to pretend that ther was only 1 suppressor then they would have claimed it started out SJ, went to SBJ then DB and finally DRB.
-
COLP Interview of DS Davidson - they asked him if he had any involvement with the second silencer, and he replied, "No", he said, "that was the domain of Ron Cook", You can choose to ignore what Davison said to COLP during his interview under caution, but Davidson stated he had nothing at all to do with a silencer, and that he did not even know a silencer was involved until a long time afterwards...
Well, he had involvement with one of the silencers on the 13th September 1985, when in the company of DS Eastwood he fingerprinted one in the possession of the police, at a time when the other silencer had already been sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985. Why would Davidson and Eastwood be re-fingerprinting a silencer which (a) police did no longer have possession of because it had been sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and (b) which had already been fingerprinted twice previously, once by oblique light test on 15th August 1985, and secondly by superglue treatment on 23rd August 1985?
Additionally, the very same silencer which Davidson and Eastwood fingerprinted on 13th September 1985, was later submitted to the same lab' as the previous one, with a request attached to the submission of articles document, for the silencer to be checked for blood and fibres, dated, 20th September 1985, when blood had already been found in the other silencer (DB/1) sent to the lab' earluer on the 30th August 1985? Lets set the record straight, by the time this second silencer was being sent to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibers, blood had already been found in the other (first) silencer at the lab' from 30th August 1985, and more significantly, the blood from the submission of that first silencer had already been grouped at the lab' between 12th and 19th September 1985 by the blood experts associates, so the submission of the second silencer to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, had to be a direct reference to a second silencer. which the lab' was being requested to check for blood and fibers, after blood from the other silencer had already been found and to all intents and purposes, identified by due scientific process...
Clearly, two different silencers at the lab' at Huntingdon after 20th September 1985...
Obviously prior to that / this, only ever one silencer at the lab' on 13th August 1985, and 30th August 1985, (SJ/1 on the 13th, and DB/1 on the 30th August 1985) under lab' item numbers 22 and 23 respectively. Clearly different silencers, one (SJ/1) found by relatives at the scene on 10th August 1985, and the other (DB/1) recovered from the scene by DS Jones, on 7th August 1985...
Two different silencers defined by the fact that two different witnesses recovered them, Jones (SBJ/1) at the scene on 7th August 1985, and David Boutflour (SJ/1) at the scene on the 10th August 1985 - where SBJ/1 later became DB/1, and SJ/1 was altered into DRB/1...
Davidson and Eastwood fingerprinted the silencer SJ/1 / DRB/1, the one found at the scene by a relative bearing the lab' ID reference number of 22, they had no involvement with the other silencer, SBJ/1 / DB/1, which had a lab' ID reference number of 23, sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, inside which was discovered the crucial loose flake of blood which produced the damning blood group activity (A, EAP BA, HP 2-1, and the human / animal blood AK/1), through scientific process between 12th and 19th September 1985 - so the silencer Davidson and Eastwood had involvement with, which they fingerprinted after the crucial loose flake was discovered in the other silencer at the lab' (DB/1 - 23), was a different silencer, provable by reference to the dates of submission to the Lab' on official police and Lab' documents, the same silencer could not have been in two places at the same time, police could not possibly have still retained possession of the same silencer they had previously already sent to the lab' inside which the crucial loose flake had already been found on 11th September 1985, by Fletvcher the so called prosecutions ballistics expert...
Two different silencers, not one bearing all these different exhibit references and conflicting lab' reference item numbers...
Animal blood on one of the silencers (SJ/1 - 22), and human blood on the other (SBJ/1), red paint from the aga (SJ/1) on one, none on the other (SBJ/1 - 23), where SJ/1 is DRB/1, and SBJ/1 became DB/1...
Matter satisfactorily resolved...
-
http://poppymeze.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/jeremy-bamber-how-police-and-scientists.html
Contents reviewed by "Cyclops" reviewers:-
A) In 1991, the City of London Police (COLP) were requested by JEREMY BAMBER to investigate the following issues:
‘Allegation One’: that there was no Exhibit Label for the sound moderator SBJ/1 from the original Police investigation, case number SC/688/85, when it was tendered in Court.
‘Allegation Five’: that Essex Police failed to investigate whether the sound moderator tendered in evidence at trial was the moderator bought for the murder weapon.
B) On completion of the COLP enquiry two reports were produced. The published report concluded there was no case to answer to any of the complaints made by JEREMY BAMBER against Essex Police. While the undisclosed confidential report found as fact that fabricated evidence had been adduced to impugn the credibility of Jeremy Bamber thus resulting in a guilty verdict at his trial in 1986.
The Evidence
1) That an Essex Police Officer, probably DS 21 Stanley Brian Jones, seized a sound moderator SBJ/1 from the gun cupboard at White House Farm (WHF) on 7th August 1985.
2) Indeed this is corroborated by Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) PETER SIMPSON stating in a press conference and reported in ‘The Echo’ dated 17th September 1985,
‘A silencer was found at the White House Farm on the day of the killings, but this does not have to mean anything suspicious.’ (See Material Exhibits File News clippings)
3) And yet in a letter, dated 18th July 2002, from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to Glaisyers Solicitors, PAUL CLOSE states that the beginning of the audio tape in question as to the above interview has a considerable section of the tape missing, when Essex Police disclosed it, (see Letter To Ewen Smith from CPS)
4) The beginning of the interview would have evidenced that the sound moderator SBJ/1 was in fact seized on the 7th August 1985, which would have impugned the Crown’s case against JEREMY BAMBER at trial and appeal.
5) Other documents that evidence the above allegations will be identified throughout this statement using the ‘HOLMES 2’ computer reference numbers from ‘ACCOUNT A 49.’
6) It is fact that COLP interviewed Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO) DS 219 DAVIDSON on 3rd October 1991, (HOLMES 76/174). In the précis of his statement at paragraph 17 he asserts that on the 9th August 1985, he was tasked with examining a number of objects including a sound moderator, (SBJ/1).
7) On the 13th August 1985, DI RON COOK submitted this sound moderator SBJ/1, to Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory for examination by scientists, GLYNNIS HOWARD and LESLIE TUCKER, (see HOLMES 67/319 – GLYNNIS HOWARD statement 1st August 1991).
8) See the HOLAB 3, Submission of Articles for Examination Forms, dated 13th August 1985, (See Holab Forms 1,2,3,4,5) reference the sound moderator, ‘Item 22’ and ‘Item 23’, ‘SBJ/1,’ ‘DB/1,’ and ‘DRB/1,’ with the police investigation case number as ‘SC/688/85.’
9) GLYNNIS HOWARD’S witness statement for the 13th November 1985, details that she tested blood on the inside and outside of the sound moderator DRB/1, and in both cases the blood was found to be of human origin, (Holmes 8/224)
While a letter from PETER WINGAD to DR, SCAPLEHORN states, ‘There was no record of blood being seen on the outside of the sound moderator,’ (see HOLMES 78/24). PETER WINGAD wrote this letter in his capacity as Head of the Forensic Laboratory. While GLYNNIS HOWARD simply stated in Court at trial, that she had found blood on the outside of the sound moderator, (see GLYNNIS HOWARD’S Trial Transcript), therefore lack of corroboration is in issue.
10) LESLIE TUCKER states in her 1st August 1991 testimony to COLP that she assisted GLYNNIS HOWARD on the 13th August 1985, (see HOLMES 67/321). Indeed, LESLIE TUCKER took notes and made a diagram of SBJ/1, (EXHIBIT REF GH/1).
In her testimony she states, ‘GH/1 has other notes upon it not made by me. These appear to be made by JOHN HAYWARD and ANDREW PALMER. These notes were not made on 13th August 1985. I am not aware of when they were added.’
11) Four signatures appear on the General Examination Record made at Bench 4 on the 13th August 1985, they are LESLIE TUCKER, GLYNNIS HOWARD, MALCOLM FLETCHER and JOHN HAYWARD. However, the General Examination Record does not corroborate that of the original sound moderator seized SBJ/1, because this document, the one bearing all four signatures refers to the forensic reference number as DB/1. It can now be evidenced that this reference did not in fact exist until 17th October 1985. Thus the General Examination Record cannot be the original one created by LESLIE TUCKER on 13th August 1985, (see GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORD DB/1).
12) The original sound moderator first discovered was assigned the reference number SBJ/1 on the 13th August 1985. A Memo from DI COOK to MALCOLM FLETCHER states,
‘Change sound moderators number to DB/1,’ (see HOLMES 67/241 MEMO dated 17th October 1985).
13) GLYNNIS HOWARD testified to COLP in her witness statement dated 10th July 1991,
‘I did not have any further contact with DI COOK on the matter, or with Essex Police due to my sick leave,’ (see HOLMES 67/318).
14) This is corroborated in a report by DR. WINGAD attached to a Memo from DR. THOMPSON to DR. CLARKE which clearly states,
‘To complicate the issue GLYNNIS HOWARD has been on long-term sick leave since January of this year,’ (see HOLMES 87/3).
15) How is it that GLYNNIS HOWARD has signed a General Examination Record for a sound moderator DB/1 on the 13th August 1985, when the General Examination Record she signed was in fact referenced SBJ/1?(see paragraph 8).
16) Furthermore, GLYNNIS HOWARD asserted in her testimony to COLP dated 1st August 1991 that when she examined SBJ/1 on the 13th August 1985, she discovered five stains on the sound moderator, (see HOLMES 67/319). Four of these stains proved to positively identify human blood, while she tested a fifth stain on the flat surface on the muzzle end of the sound moderator, and identified this as a smear of red paint.
17) GLYNNIS HOWARD failed to record her discovery of a smear of red paint on the end of the sound moderator in her Memo to DI COOK, dated 14th August 1985, or indeed in her numerous pre-trial witness statements and during her trial testimony. It was not until 1991 that GLYNNIS HOWARD asserted this relevant discovery, in view of the facts turning on there being a fight in the kitchen at WHF, scraping the mantel shelf around the Aga. (See Holmes 67.318)
18) Indeed, LESLIE TUCKER corroborates this as she has drawn a smear of red paint on the end of the sound moderator at the 9 o’clock position, (see EXHIBIT GH/1). Thus it is relevant that on the General Examination Record depicting DB/1 and not SBJ/1, as the sound moderator in issue, the identifying smear of red paint is not recorded.
19) The existence of this smear and it being deemed at the time materially relevant by the scientists is corroborated by JOHN HAYWARD in his hand written witness statement signed 8th November 1985, where he asserts that he examined SBJ/1 and that,
‘There is a smear of red paint at the muzzle end of the sound moderator,’ (see HOLMES 67/100 PDF page 7).
20) Indeed JOHN HAYWARD took it upon himself to take a number of photographic images of the sound moderator SBJ/1, when he examined and dismantled it on the 12th September 1985. These images are referred to as reference JH/1. See also document 80/10 reference 24J – 6 X Photo albums of silencers, and 24w – 7 X albums of photographs re silencer.
21) Moreover, BRIAN ELLIOT was shown these photographs by COLP, (see BRIAN ELLIOT’S witness statement dated 3rd October 1991, HOLMES 67/322). These images taken on the 12th September 1985 that are undeniably relevant evidence have never been tendered to the Defence in any event. Similarly those photographs of silencers mentioned in document 80/10 remain undisclosed.
22) In 2002, a third Police enquiry was undertaken to investigate the actions of Essex Police in the STOKENCHURCH enquiry. A number of issues were found as fact.
23) Action Number A204 states:
‘Examine paint on moderator to establish if there is paint thereon.’
‘FSS to examine paint stain (one) on moderator to establish if there are any blood stains underneath the paint marks.’
Result, 20/02/02:
‘The underside of the paint and the exposed area left on the moderator were tested for the presence of blood. The results were negative.’
24) In 2002, STOKENCHURCH asked the FSS to examine sound moderator SBJ/1 that had a smear of red paint on the flat surface of the muzzle end. Sound moderator DB/1 had been found as fact to have numerous red paint flakes impacted upon the knurled pattern, and no smear of red paint on the end of the flat surface, thereby establishing the difference between SBJ/1 and DB/1.
25) COLP misled the Home Secretary at the time, in their published report submitted to him where they state,
‘That the sound moderator should have been photographed at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately this did not happen. The earliest photographs taken of the sound moderator were taken on the 11th November 1985,’ (see COLP Report, paragraph 2/57). It can now be evidenced that this statement lacks credibility.
26) MALCOLM FLETCHER was sent a number of photographs taken of the dismantled sound moderator by DI RON COOK, (see HOLMES 78/14). These images had been taken by DI RON COOK at Chelmsford HQ Scenes of Crime Department on 21st August 1985, (see Holmes 8/215 DI RON COOK’S 25th September 1991 Witness Statement PDF page 33).
27) It remains to be disclosed whether JOHN HAYWARD was aware when he examined SBJ/1 on 12th September 1985, that SBJ/1 had been dismantled in the first instance and had its baffle plates spread out upon a work bench where a blood stained rifle had been placed for convenience at the same time, possibly corrupting its evidential integrity.
28) JOHN HAYWARD stated that he discovered a single flake of blood inside the sound moderator that he used in all his blood grouping tests, the question remains was he aware of the images that MALCOLM FLETCHER had in his possession as to the real possibility of contamination of SBJ/1 by the rifle when he examined it? (see HOLMES 78/14)
29) Both JOHN HAYWARD and GLYNNIS HOWARD gave testimony as expert witnesses at trial. They stated that they had screened the blood stains discovered on the sound moderator SBJ/1, to discern whether they were of human or animal origin. The Jury were instructed by the two of them, that the blood tested did not originate from an animal but was in fact human.
30) JOHN HAYWARD and GLYNNIS HOWARD failed to inform the Jury that they in fact screened the blood for two types of animal – dog and hen, (see HOLMES 12/194 PDF page 5) but the .22 rifle in issue (Exhibit DRH/15), was used to shoot rabbits, foxes and rats. No evidence has been submitted to Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory to suggest that the sound moderator was ever used to shoot hens or dogs. Why then select these two animal types as possible sources of the blood staining on the sound moderator SBJ/1? Indeed, why did JOHN HAYWARD and GLYNNIS HOWARD fail to inform the Jury that they had not tested the blood for obvious farm pests such as foxes, rabbits and rats but instead for hens and dogs?
31) In 1986, on the basis of their expert testimony the Jury were led to believe that all types of animal screening had been undertaken, with a negative result, thus their credibility is in issue.
32) Had it been brought to the Jury’s attention that the sound moderator could well have been contaminated with rabbit blood, then the Defence would have been able to rebut the prosecution’s proposition and illustrate that the positive result for AK/1 an enzyme attributed to Sheila Caffell, as asserted by JOHN HAYWARD, could also be attributed to the AK/1 enzyme found in all rabbit blood (see R-10).
33) Moreover, on the 25th September 1985, BRIAN ELLIOT was prima facie given ‘SBJ/1’ to examine including the smear of red paint on the flat surface on the muzzle end, as discovered by GLYNNIS HOWARD and JOHN HAYWARD, (see HOLMES 67/319, HOLMES 67/100).
34) BRIAN ELLIOT instead found a large quantity of red paint flakes impacted into the knurled end of the sound moderator, and no smear of red paint adhering to the surface of the flat end piece. At the time BRIAN ELLIOT believed he was examining SBJ/1 due to its packaging and labelling, however this sound moderator was in fact DB/1. This fact can be corroborated by BRIAN ELLIOT’S realisation in 1991 when he was shown JOHN HAYWARD’S photographs by COLP of SBJ/1, (see HOLMES 67/322, statement dated 3rd October 1991).
35) Indeed, the sound moderator in photos JH/1 had blood in the dips and the grooves of its knurled pattern (see GLYNNIS HOWARD’S Trial Transcript). These photographs had none of the twenty-five plus red paint flakes that BRIAN ELLIOT found in the dips and grooves of the knurl, and as evidenced in his trial testimony he found no blood in the sound moderator’s knurl (see BRIAN ELLIOT’S Trial Transcript).
36) The diagrams drawn by BRIAN ELLIOT and LOUISE FLOAT on the 25th September 1985 shows that the sound moderator had a large piece of sticky tape adhering to it that was not present when JOHN HAYWARD examined it, and then photographed it on 12th September 1985, (see HOLMES 67/193).
37) It is fact that the sound moderator SBJ/1, also had a white film of super glue covering its outer surface owing to the fingerprinting process undertaken on the 15th August 1985.
38) But DB/1, the sound moderator examined by BRIAN ELLIOT and LOUISE FLOAT did not have such a white film on its outer surface.
39) Indeed DB/1 was found in the same gun cupboard as SBJ/1 by DAVID BOUTFLOUR on the 10th August 1985. It then remained in a card board box at his sister, ANN EATON’S house until 11th September 1985, (see P35). It was then collected by DC OAKEY on 11th September 1985 and handed to DCI WRIGHT SOC Chelmsford.
40) On the 12th September 1985 DI COOK and DC BIRD attended WHF to take photographic images of scratch marks on the underside of the kitchen’s mantel shelf. On that same day they also took photographs of the kitchen in its tidied state, (see Police Reference Number Negative Strip YELLOW LABEL – 34, NEGATIVES 7-10, these appear in the Master Copy Album as Photographs Numbers 148, 149, 150, and 151).
41) It can be clearly seen from NEGATIVE NUMBER 7 of YL-34 that it is an area of red painted surround to the left of the cooker (at waist height), it can be seen to be free of scratch marks or chips/gouges in the red paint work.
42) While it can be seen that NEGATIVE NUMBER 9, of YL-34 shows the same area of this red painted Aga surround, when this area is enlarged it shows that the left hand vertical fascia at (waist height) now has a deep ‘U’ shape, white coloured scratch mark upon it. Also, near the ‘U’ shaped scratch mark is a deep, white coloured gouge in an area of the small cupboard door. This area on the cupboard door was previously covered by the kitchen calendar in the crime scene photographs.
43) These two distinct marks must have been made either by DC BIRD and/or DI RON COOK, as no other person was present at WHF on the 12th September 1985. NEGATIVE NUMBER 7 of YL-34, has been taken in a chronological order and is taken prior to NEGATIVE NUMBER 9 of YL – 34, therefore it is logical to assume that these later marks were gouged using the sound moderator DB/1. Indeed there were over twenty-five flakes of red paint upon DB/1 which would corroborate an intensity of impact upon the Aga surround by the sound moderator and the depth of the mark made, that was later used to bolster the prosecution’s proposition.
44) In 1991, DR. BAXENDALE, using ESDA testing, was requested by COLP to examine the Exhibit Labels for the sound moderator SBJ/1 (Exhibit Label AH/1), (see HOLMES 24/170).
45) Indeed, DR. BAXENDALE’s 23rd September 1991, witness statement shows clearly that he found as fact that the Exhibit Label signed by GLYNNIS HOWARD, DI RON COOK, JOHN HAYWARD, MALCOLM FLETCHER and BRIAN ELLIOT was originally written out specifically for sound moderator DRB/1, case reference number SC/786/85, (see HOLMES 6/109).
46) While GLYNNIS HOWARD testified to COLP that she only signed one Exhibit Label for the sound moderator SBJ/1 on 13th August 1985, case number SC/688/85. Furthermore, she stated that the Exhibit Label shown to her by COLP bearing her signature, (AH/1) shows that SBJ/1 had been changed to DB/1 then DRB/1 subsequent to her signing it, (see HOLMES REF 67/320). This clearly contradicts the findings of the expert witness DR. BAXENDALE and impugns GLYNNIS HOWARD’s credibility.
47) Moreover, COLP were aware of his findings from his 23rd September 1991 Witness Statement, and that GLYNNIS HOWARD was not a credible witness due to what she stated on 3rd October 1991. Instead GLYNNIS HOWARD signed a new Exhibit Label for DRB/1, a sound moderator she had neither seen nor examined for case reference SC/786/85. To create a false Exhibit Label in order to mislead a Jury is to pervert the course of justice. JOHN HAYWARD was never interviewed by COLP in 1991. He has not explained how his signature came to be on the exhibit label marked DRB/1 when he examined SBJ/1.
48) It may be fact that Essex Police misled Huntingdon’s Forensic Scientists into creating a new set of examination documents and a new Exhibit Label for DRB/1, without them realising that they were facilitating SBJ/1 being swapped for DB/1 and then being merged evidentially to form a third fictional sound moderator, as being the one removed from WHF.
49) However, it is believed that Essex Police had at least one Forensic Scientist who conspired to help switch SBJ/1 to DB/1 prior to BRIAN ELLIOT’s 25th September 1985 examination. Unless an admission is made by the scientist in question their identity will remain concealed. Indeed it is not known how much of the information provided thus far the scientists in question were aware of in 1985 and 1991. Yet there are over one hundred additional documents that contain information corroborating and evidencing all the above facts.
50) In any event, the Defence request a full account as to how it was that Essex Police instructed Huntingdon Forensic Scientists to fabricate a set of false documents, purporting to follow a chain of evidence that bolstered the credibility of an exhibit item, for a sound moderator DRB/1, which it is fact was fictional. This ‘sound moderator’ DRB/1, was used to mislead the Jury in 1986 by merging the forensic evidence of two sound moderators SBJ/1 and DB/1, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
51) It is considered that complicity and lack of credibility by certain scientists as adduced by other expert witnesses not involved in the trial at first instance, i.e. DR. BAXENDALE, in addition to the documents now in the hands of the Defence, suggests the mens rea regarding the offence of perverting the course of justice.
Conclusion
It is only now twenty-six years later, that JEREMY BAMBER’s Defence team were eventually disclosed case photographs and documents previously withheld under Public Immunity Interest. This evidence clearly shows that the Jury were misled regarding the provenance of the sound moderator material to the facts of the prosecution’s case. In addition to it being corrupted and fabricated as to its identity in any event.
The Huntingdon Forensic Scientists had a duty and obligation to make accountable to the Court at the time of trial as to the re-writing and signing of numerous sets of documents, including the Exhibit Label for alternative sound moderators. The fact that they did not and indeed in two instances at least, committed perjury during the COLP enquiry allowed Essex Police to pervert the course of justice by fabricating it as fact that only one sound moderator featured in the case.
ACC SIMPSON himself was aware that two sound moderators featured in the evidence of the case and that the Jury were misled by the tainting of evidence as facilitated by the Forensic Scientists named in this document. None of the expert witnesses who were in a position of trust, or serving Police Officers tendered evidence that actually illustrated the truth of the facts as shown in this document. This resulted in the jury being misled in 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------
Reviewers point out that parts of this presentation are problematic, and misunderstood by its presenter, which need to be addressed (details to follow)...
-
http://poppymeze.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/jeremy-bamber-how-police-and-scientists.html
Contents reviewed by "Cyclops" reviewers:-
A) In 1991, the City of London Police (COLP) were requested by JEREMY BAMBER to investigate the following issues:
‘Allegation One’: that there was no Exhibit Label for the sound moderator SBJ/1 from the original Police investigation, case number SC/688/85, when it was tendered in Court.
‘Allegation Five’: that Essex Police failed to investigate whether the sound moderator tendered in evidence at trial was the moderator bought for the murder weapon.
B) On completion of the COLP enquiry two reports were produced. The published report concluded there was no case to answer to any of the complaints made by JEREMY BAMBER against Essex Police. While the undisclosed confidential report found as fact that fabricated evidence had been adduced to impugn the credibility of Jeremy Bamber thus resulting in a guilty verdict at his trial in 1986.
The Evidence
1) That an Essex Police Officer, probably DS 21 Stanley Brian Jones, seized a sound moderator SBJ/1 from the gun cupboard at White House Farm (WHF) on 7th August 1985
Not accurate - DS Jones returned to the scene after briefly attending Jeremys cottage to assist DC Clarke to take a witness statement from Jeremy. Upon returning to the scene DS Jones took a photograph of the downstairs toilet and photographed Anthony Pargeters bruno bolt action rifle with its silencer attached to the barrel. He also seized two exhibits from the region of the kitchen, and took possession of a silencer (SBJ/1)...
He did not seize the silencer he took possession of from the gun cupboard in the downstairs office, DS Jones never looked in the gun cupboard, on that visit, he only entered the downstairs toilet and the main kitchen where he took a photograph and siezed three items, compromising of exhibits, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
-
SBJ/1 was the first silencer seized by police at the scene on the first day of the investigation, this is the silencer which ended up on DCI 'Taff' JONES, desk in his office at Witham police station, where it remained until PC Whiddon took possession of it, and it got sent to the lab' for the first time on the 30th August 1985, under the identifying mark of DB/1, lab' item number 23. It was inside this particular silencer the the crucial loose flake of blood was found on 11th September 1985...
-
SBJ/1 was the first silencer seized by police at the scene on the first day of the investigation, this is the silencer which ended up on DCI 'Taff' JONES, desk in his office at Witham police station, where it remained until PC Whiddon took possession of it, and it got sent to the lab' for the first time on the 30th August 1985, under the identifying mark of DB/1, lab' item number 23. It was inside this particular silencer the the crucial loose flake of blood was found on 11th September 1985...
SBJ/1 and DB/1 silencer were one and the same, found on 7th August 1985, and sent to the Lab' at Huntingdon on 30th August 1985, inside which unique blood attributed as belonging to Sheila was discovered on 11th September 1985...
-
COLP Interview of DS Davidson - they asked him if he had any involvement with the second silencer, and he replied, "No", he said, "that was the domain of Ron Cook", You can choose to ignore what Davison said to COLP during his interview under caution, but Davidson stated he had nothing at all to do with a silencer, and that he did not even know a silencer was involved until a long time afterwards...
I'm not ignoring anything. You are grossly misrepresenting what Davidson was asked and his response. He said Cook had control of THE moderator. He said he never handled the moderator. He said it was the only moderator he was aware of. He also spoke about how Cook transported the moderator back and forth to the lab multiple times. He was also asked about how it became number 22 but later was referenced as 23 and if they were 2 different moderators which is where the quesiton of whether he was aware of another moderator came from. He responded no and that 22 and 23 were references to the same item and explained how this error came to happen.
Well, he had involvement with one of the silencers on the 13th September 1985, when in the company of DS Eastwood he fingerprinted one in the possession of the police, at a time when the other silencer had already been sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985. Why would Davidson and Eastwood be re-fingerprinting a silencer which (a) police did no longer have possession of because it had been sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and (b) which had already been fingerprinted twice previously, once by oblique light test on 15th August 1985, and secondly by superglue treatment on 23rd August 1985?
Additionally, the very same silencer which Davidson and Eastwood fingerprinted on 13th September 1985, was later submitted to the same lab' as the previous one, with a request attached to the submission of articles document, for the silencer to be checked for blood and fibres, dated, 20th September 1985, when blood had already been found in the other silencer (DB/1) sent to the lab' earluer on the 30th August 1985? Lets set the record straight, by the time this second silencer was being sent to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibers, blood had already been found in the other (first) silencer at the lab' from 30th August 1985, and more significantly, the blood from the submission of that first silencer had already been grouped at the lab' between 12th and 19th September 1985 by the blood experts associates, so the submission of the second silencer to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, had to be a direct reference to a second silencer. which the lab' was being requested to check for blood and fibers, after blood from the other silencer had already been found and to all intents and purposes, identified by due scientific process...
Clearly, two different silencers at the lab' at Huntingdon after 20th September 1985...
Obviously prior to that / this, only ever one silencer at the lab' on 13th August 1985, and 30th August 1985, (SJ/1 on the 13th, and DB/1 on the 30th August 1985) under lab' item numbers 22 and 23 respectively. Clearly different silencers, one (SJ/1) found by relatives at the scene on 10th August 1985, and the other (DB/1) recovered from the scene by DS Jones, on 7th August 1985...
This is all unsupported nonsense that was made up. You have no evidence at all to support any of this. He didn't fingerprint anything his role was filling out paperwork for the various things that were done to the moderator. He didn't fingerpint anything he submitted the results of the fingerprints to have the results checked against fingerprint records.
The moderator was sent back and forth to the lab at various time in August and September it didn't stay there continuously. He stated Cook was the one who was transporting it. The lie that it stayed there is coupled with the truth of it being transported and the fiction is presented of there already being a moderator in the lab when it was brought back which is false.
There is no evidence at all of two moderators being collected or tested. It is all contribed BS and hence there is no evidentiary support at all, just a bunch of bogus misrepresentations meant to confuse people and hoping such confusion will make them believe without any proof being presented.
Two different silencers defined by the fact that two different witnesses recovered them, Jones (SBJ/1) at the scene on 7th August 1985, and David Boutflour (SJ/1) at the scene on the 10th August 1985 - where SBJ/1 later became DB/1, and SJ/1 was altered into DRB/1...
More utter BS from you. SBJ didn't recover a moderator from the scene at any time let alone on the 7th. Had it been found on the 7th then it would have been found and transported by Hammersly and Davidson and would have been listed on the CID6 forms they were compiling at the location. Hammersly was retrieving and bagging all items to be taken and Davidson was labeling and recording them.
Stanley Jones did a quick walk through of the house very early on and then left the scene to go to Goldhanger. He spent the rest of the day there interviewing various people. He played no role at all in the collection of evidence. The evidence demonstrates Jones collected the suppressor from Boutflour days later. The exhibit reference SBJ/1 was assigned by Cook because Jones gave Cook the suppressor and he assumed Jones found it. Cook admitted he was wrong and indicated that upon
The only moderator found is the one from Boutflour. That moderator was assigned SBJ/1 because Jones gave it to Cook and Cook erroneously thought he was the one who found it. This was the first peice of evidence in the case being attributed to Jones hence the reason for the number "1" being used after his prefix. If there had actually been a moderator or any other piece of evidence found by him on 8/7/85 that would have been assigned SBJ/1 not SJ/1 and the moderator he gave Cook would have been assigned SBJ/2.
So there are 2 different reasons to know these claims are complete fabrications:
1) he never searched the house for evidence on the day of the murders he was busy conducting interviews as the house wa sbeing searched and evidence collected
2) SJ is not the prefix used for evidence he collected, SBJ was the prefix assigned to him (not just from this case but all cases SBJ is his individual tag) and the first piece of evidence collected in the case attributed to him was the moderator he gave to Cook.
3) SBJ was amended to DB when it was realized that Boutflour was the source of the suppressor handed by Jones to cook. It was further changed to DRB because DB was already being used by David Byrd so they had to use Boutflour's middle initial as well.
Not only do your claims fall apart completely upon scrutiny worse you can't even keep your story straight.
For days you mainted SJ1 became DB1. Now you suddenly claim SJ1 became DRB1. No matter because there is no SJ1 it is fictitious anyway but firther proof is when you can't even keep your claims straight.
Davidson and Eastwood fingerprinted the silencer SJ/1 / DRB/1, the one found at the scene by a relative bearing the lab' ID reference number of 22, they had no involvement with the other silencer, SBJ/1 / DB/1, which had a lab' ID reference number of 23, sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, inside which was discovered the crucial loose flake of blood which produced the damning blood group activity (A, EAP BA, HP 2-1, and the human / animal blood AK/1), through scientific process between 12th and 19th September 1985 - so the silencer Davidson and Eastwood had involvement with, which they fingerprinted after the crucial loose flake was discovered in the other silencer at the lab' (DB/1 - 23), was a different silencer, provable by reference to the dates of submission to the Lab' on official police and Lab' documents, the same silencer could not have been in two places at the same time, police could not possibly have still retained possession of the same silencer they had previously already sent to the lab' inside which the crucial loose flake had already been found on 11th September 1985, by Fletvcher the so called prosecutions ballistics expert...
Two different silencers, not one bearing all these different exhibit references and conflicting lab' reference item numbers...
Animal blood on one of the silencers (SJ/1 - 22), and human blood on the other (SBJ/1), red paint from the aga (SJ/1) on one, none on the other (SBJ/1 - 23), where SJ/1 is DRB/1, and SBJ/1 became DB/1...
Matter satisfactorily resolved...
The matter was resolved by COlP. There was only one moderator and it was assigned the number 22 and 23 because of error. Davidson didn't fingerprint anything he handled paperwork related to running the prints. There is no evidence of animal blood or any of the other BS you are spewing. There is no evidence of any moderator other than the one passed from Boutflour to Cook being collected at the scene or from anywhere else in 1985. No evidence of any moderator other than the one passed from Boutflour to Cook being inspected by police or tested by the lab in 1985.
The claims that there was a moderaor collected by Jones on the day of the murders that was assigned prefix SJ is completely made up as are all the other claims about such nonexistent moderator.
You have no evidence at all to back up any of your claims you have unsupported allegations that make no sense and fall apart completely upon scutiny.
-
Stop trying to be an idiot, you already are one...
Thick twat...
Silencer SJ/1 and DRB/1 are the same silencer, the other silencer was SBJ/1 - DB/1...
Get your facts right, I was merely reporting what someone else had posted elsewhere, it was that person who got it wrong, not me charlie boy...
-
Stop trying to be an idiot, you already are one...
Thick twat...
Silencer SJ/1 and DRB/1 are the same silencer, the other silencer was SBJ/1 - DB/1...
Get your facts right, I was merely reporting what someone else had posted elsewhere, it was that person who got it wrong, not me charlie boy...
I have my facts right.
The claim Jones collected a moderator on August 7, 1985 that was marked into evidence as SJ/1 is not credible at all and there is no evidence at all to support such a claim.
A) The prefix used by Stanley Jones is SBJ. So if he had collected a moderator or any other piece of evidence then it would have been classified SBJ/1.
B) Stanley Jones was not at WHF that long and while there he did not search for evidence or collect any. That task fell to others later in the day. That morning he went to Goldhanger and spent the rest of the day interviewing people.
So let's recap:
1) there is no documentary evidence or testimonial evidence of any moderator being collected on August 7, 1985 period
2) there is no documentary evidence or testimonial evidence of any moderator being marked into evidence as SJ/1 and no one connected with the case used the SJ prefix
3) there is no documentary or testimonial evidence that Stanley Jones found a moderator period let alone on August 7, 1985
4) there is testimonial and documentary evidence to establish Stanley Jones collected a moderator from Boutfour, that he transported such to Cook and that since he provided it to Cook that Cook erroneously thought Jones had found it and assigned it SBJ/1 because the SBJ prefix is the one associated with Stanley Jones and no exhibits had been attributed to Jones yet hence the "1". Had other evidence been collected by Jones prior to this then it would have had the SBJ/1 designation and the suppressor from Boutflour would have been designated SBJ/2.
5) testimonial and documentary evidence establishes that upon learning the evidence had been submitted by Boutflour it was changed to his initials DB.
6) testimonial and documentary evidence establishes that upon subsequently learning that DB was already being used by David Byrd the prefix was changed again to include Bourflour's middle initial hence to "DRB".
7) testimonial and documentary evidence establishes there was only 1 moderator that was collected and tested in all of 1985 and that it was observed with both blood and paint on it.
8) that there is an allegation that COLP investigators revealed to someone that they are hiding evidence that Stanley Jones collected a moderator from the scene on August 7, 1985 that was marked into evidence as SJ/1 but was later renamed DRB/1 and another suppressor from Boutflour a few days later marked SJ/1 that was renamed DB/1 and then both were merged into 1 record of DRB/1.
In light of: the fact that the claim that COLP admitted they concealed evidence makes no sense at all, that there so no evidence to prove that COLP concealed such evidence, and points 1-7 the claim is not credible at all.
-
Ok, Charlie.
You just continue to talk crap and believe what you want to believe. But the truth of the matter is that there were two ke sound moderators at the heart of this investigation. One seized by DS Jones at the scene on 7th August. Amongst a collection of four exhibits that he returned to collect after spending time at Jeremys house helping DC Clarke take a witness statement from Jeremy. Now, when DS Jones was interviewed under caution by COLP as part of thier investigations (1991 / 1992) it was put to him that he returned to the scene on 7th August 1985 from Jeremys house, and they asked him why he had gone back there, and what he did when he arived back there?
Well, would you believe it...
Jones told COLP...
-
Ok, Charlie.
You just continue to talk crap and believe what you want to believe. But the truth of the matter is that there were two ke sound moderators at the heart of this investigation. One seized by DS Jones at the scene on 7th August. Amongst a collection of four exhibits that he returned to collect after spending time at Jeremys house helping DC Clarke take a witness statement from Jeremy. Now, when DS Jones was interviewed under caution by COLP as part of thier investigations (1991 / 1992) it was put to him that he returned to the scene on 7th August 1985 from Jeremys house, and they asked him why he had gone back there, and what he did when he arived back there?
Well, would you believe it...
Jones told COLP...
Jones told COLP what? He told COLP that there was only 1 moderator he was ever aware of and that it was the one handed over by Boutflour.
He didn't say anything about returning to WHF on August 7, 1985 to search for evidence, he said that there was a meeting at the police station held that evening that he had to attend because Taff Jones wanted the statements and so forth that had been collected so the evidence could be discussed and gone over.
I believe what I do because there is a sound basis for it. I need to see evidence before I will start believing any revisionist accounts. So far there is a total lack of any evidence to support any of these revisionist accounts.
-
DS "Stan" Jones told COLP, that he could not remember why he returned to whf after going along to Jeremy's cottage that morning. COLP pointed out to him that he visited the scene twice on the morning of 7th August 1985, by reference to entries in his pocketbook, but DS Jones told COLP that he could not remember why he returned to the scene for a second time. Well, folks, he could not conveniently remember why he returned to the farmhouse because on that second visit, he took control of four key exhibits, yes sir, exhibits SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, as detailed in the original entries of the major incident property register when the investigation was being looked into on the basis that police were treating the shootings as four murders and a suicide, but guess what, Charlie boy, these four items (SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4) were missing altogether once the nature of the investigation changed at the beginning of September 1985, or in other words, items SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 were not recorded at all in the revised major incident property book, and these four missing items / photograph were replaced by the addition of four bullet cases into the main bedroom scenario...
Ooops...
I am letting the cat out of the bag sooner than I had planned...
-
At one time, the four exhibits seized by DS "Stan" Jones from the scene on 7th August 1985, were given exhibit references of DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, but DC Hammersley was unsure about getting involved if falsifying his account about which exhibits he had taken possession of at the scene that morning. In the end, the original exhibits bearing the identifying marks of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, that got changed into exhibits DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, were consigned to different exhibit references (DRH/48, DRH/49, DRH/50 and DRH/51), so that four loose bullet cases could be added to the total of bullet cases recovered from the region of the main bedroom, these four additional four bullet cases ended up becoming exhibits DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, for the purpose of covering up the shooting of Sheila CAffell by police after the police surgeon Dr Craig had already pronounced Sheila as being dead from as long ago as 8.44...
When DC Hammersley was being interviewed by the COLP investigators, the very first thing he yelled out, even before COLP got a chance to outline what they wanted to speak to him about, was "I DIDN'T FIND IT"...
He didn't find it (silencer SBJ/1 / DRH/1) and he didn't find bullet cases DRH/1 and DRH/2 on the bedroom floor next to Sheila's body either...
If COLP had wanted to they could have asked DC Hammersley, if he hadn't found it, who had?
If COLP had taken this approach DC Hammersley would almost certainly have told them that DS "Stan" Jones had found the silencer (SBJ/1) at the scene that first morning...
-
At one time, the four exhibits seized by DS "Stan" Jones from the scene on 7th August 1985, were given exhibit references of DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, but DC Hammersley was unsure about getting involved if falsifying his account about which exhibits he had taken possession of at the scene that morning. In the end, the original exhibits bearing the identifying marks of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, that got changed into exhibits DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, were consigned to different exhibit references (DRH/48, DRH/49, DRH/50 and DRH/51), so that four loose bullet cases could be added to the total of bullet cases recovered from the region of the main bedroom, these four additional four bullet cases ended up becoming exhibits DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, for the purpose of covering up the shooting of Sheila CAffell by police after the police surgeon Dr Craig had already pronounced Sheila as being dead from as long ago as 8.44...
When DC Hammersley was being interviewed by the COLP investigators, the very first thing he yelled out, even before COLP got a chance to outline what they wanted to speak to him about, was "I DIDN'T FIND IT"...
He didn't find it (silencer SBJ/1 / DRH/1) and he didn't find bullet cases DRH/1 and DRH/2 on the bedroom floor next to Sheila's body either...
If COLP had wanted to they could have asked DC Hammersley, if he hadn't found it, who had?
If COLP had taken this approach DC Hammersley would almost certainly have told them that DS "Stan" Jones had found the silencer (SBJ/1) at the scene that first morning...
Reviewers are satisfied that PI "Bob" Miller was at the heart of falsifying the exhibit references so that the fact DS Jones had seized the first silencer from the scene on 7th August 1985, could be hidden from public knowlege, which in turn would help to cover up the true circumstances of Sheila Caffells death upstairs in the bedroom, after 8.44...
-
In a recent meeting with two of the "CYCLOPS" reviewers, we had a revelation moment during our discussion about trying to establish that there were two different key silencers at the heart of Jeremys prosecution and convictions...
These being, silencer (1) SBJ/1 taken from the scene by DS Jones on 7th August 1985, and the second silencer (2) found at the scene by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985, which remained without an exhibit reference until Ron Cook got to the lab; on 13th August 1985, and he attached a brown label upon which he wrote the identifying mark of SJ/1...
Silencer SBJ/1 was not, is not the same SJ/1 silencer, because each was recovered from the scene on different dates, by two different people...
-
I remember as we strolled through "Potters Wood", near where I live in Barnsley how we had all three of us had eventually been sitting in the shade of the trees, on a wooden bench discussing these matters over a cup of coffee brought along for the occasion in a large flask and three plastic cups..
One of my friends said, "What puzzles me", he said, "is why did Ron believe that Stan had found the silencer, that Ron took along to the Lab' on the 13th August 1985", he asked us...
Says I, "What do you mean", I said, "What point are you trying to make"...
We supped our coffee, before he continued, "Ron", says he, "Goes along to the Lab' on 13th August, right"...
"Yeh", I says...
He continues, "and he has got the silencer from Stan", he said, "the one Stan says he got from Peter Eaton the day before", says he, "Yeh", says I, He goes on, "So why didn't Stan tell Ron that he got the silencer he is giving him, from the relatives who found it at the scene after police gave the family the keys to the farmhouse back on evening of 9th August", he inquires of us...
"Why did Ron assume that Stan had found that silencer", he says, "if the relatives gave it to him, and they found it, not Stan", he said...
-
I remember as we strolled through "Potters Wood", near where I live in Barnsley how we had all three of us had eventually been sitting in the shade of the trees, on a wooden bench discussing these matters over a cup of coffee brought along for the occasion in a large flask and three plastic cups..
One of my friends said, "What puzzles me", he said, "is why did Ron believe that Stan had found the silencer, that Ron took along to the Lab' on the 13th August 1985", he asked us...
Says I, "What do you mean", I said, "What point are you trying to make"...
We supped our coffee, before he continued, "Ron", says he, "Goes along to the Lab' on 13th August, right"...
"Yeh", I says...
He continues, "and he has got the silencer from Stan", he said, "the one Stan says he got from Peter Eaton the day before", says he, "Yeh", says I, He goes on, "So why didn't Stan tell Ron that he got the silencer he is giving him, from the relatives who found it at the scene after police gave the family the keys to the farmhouse back on evening of 9th August", he inquires of us...
"Why did Ron assume that Stan had found that silencer", he says, "if the relatives gave it to him, and they found it, not Stan", he said...
"And your point is", I asks him...
-
I remember as we strolled through "Potters Wood", near where I live in Barnsley how we had all three of us had eventually been sitting in the shade of the trees, on a wooden bench discussing these matters over a cup of coffee brought along for the occasion in a large flask and three plastic cups..
One of my friends said, "What puzzles me", he said, "is why did Ron believe that Stan had found the silencer, that Ron took along to the Lab' on the 13th August 1985", he asked us...
Says I, "What do you mean", I said, "What point are you trying to make"...
We supped our coffee, before he continued, "Ron", says he, "Goes along to the Lab' on 13th August, right"...
"Yeh", I says...
He continues, "and he has got the silencer from Stan", he said, "the one Stan says he got from Peter Eaton the day before", says he, "Yeh", says I, He goes on, "So why didn't Stan tell Ron that he got the silencer he is giving him, from the relatives who found it at the scene after police gave the family the keys to the farmhouse back on evening of 9th August", he inquires of us...
"Why did Ron assume that Stan had found that silencer", he says, "if the relatives gave it to him, and they found it, not Stan", he said...
It was the job of Stanley Jones to pass it off to Cook (so Cook could transfer them to the lab along with the other items) and he did so. He didn't have any need to provide a detailed explanation to Cook about how each was discovered and collected.
-
"And your point is", I asks him...
Says he, "Ron", he says, "told COLP during interview that he thought the silencer Stan had given him was the one Stan had taken from the scene on the morning of the shootings", he told us...
"You mean", I says, "one of the four exhibits Stan took at or from the scene on the first morning of the investigation", I prompts him...
"Exactly", he says, "that is why Ron told COLP the reason for attaching an exhibit label with the initials and corresponding number of SJ/1 to it", he said, "which both he and Howard signed in positions two and three", said he, "Ron told COLP under caution that he thought it was the silencer Stan had found at the scene on that first morning as part of a batch of four exhibits Stan had taken whilst Ron himself was in charge of the crime scene", he told us...
Says I, "The SBJ/1 silencer", I puts in...
"Yes", says he, "Ron told COLP that he thought that the silencer Stan had given him to take to the lab on 13th August was that silencer", he says, "and this was the reason why Ron put an exhibit label upon it at the lab, and marked it SJ/1", he says...
"Not SBJ/1", I said...
"No, not SBJ/1, but SJ/1", says he...
-
I asks him, "but why did Ron mark the exhibit label SJ/1, instead of SBJ/1", says I...
Responding he cuts in, "because Ron did not know that Stan had a middle Christian name of Brian", he told me, "He thought Stan was the only Christian name Stan had", he says, "so he marks the new label he attaches to that silencer", he told us, "the one Stan gave to him on 13th August, with the initials SJ, and the exhibit number 1, SJ/1", said he...
-
I asks him, "but why did Ron mark the exhibit label SJ/1, instead of SBJ/1", says I...
Responding he cuts in, "because Ron did not know that Stan had a middle Christian name of Brian", he told me, "He thought Stan was the only Christian name Stan had", he says, "so he marks the new label he attaches to that silencer", he told us, "the one Stan gave to him on 13th August, with the initials SJ, and the exhibit number 1, SJ/1", said he...
"As well as attaching a brown coloured exhibit label to that silencer", he goes on, "Ron later attached a piece of paper to the same silencer upon which he wrote the identifying mark of SJ/1", he told us...
-
"Why did he do that", I asks him, "and when"...
Says he, "he did this later on after returning with silencer SJ/1 back to the police station and discovering that police now had two different silencers from the scene in their possession", he told us...
"Two different silencers in police possession at that time", I mused...
"Yes", he said, "two completely different silencers in police possession from 12th August, onward", he told us, "the one Stan took from the scene as part of a batch of four collective exhibits on the first morning of the investigation" he told us "7th August", says he, "and the second one Stan was given by a relative on 12th August, which Ron took to show Glynis Howard on 13th August", said he...
"Two different silencers", I said...
"Yes", he said, "two completely different ones", says he, "and Ron stuck a piece of white paper with the initials SJ and the number 1 upon the barrel of the silencer to distinguish one of these silencers from the other"...
-
Says me, "I wonder if the stories we've been hearing over the years about one of the silencers being kept on Taff Jones desk and him using it as a paper weight has any truth in it"...
He chirps in, "Oh" he says, "almost certainly, not much doubt about about that, Mike", he says...
-
My apologies Mike. But this is beginning to sound like an episode of Last of the Summer Wine? ;D
-
Grahame that's just how EP performed. Like the two officers in the series. A joke !
-
Says me, "I wonder if the stories we've been hearing over the years about one of the silencers being kept on Taff Jones desk and him using it as a paper weight has any truth in it"...
He chirps in, "Oh" he says, "almost certainly, mot much doubt about about that, Mike", he says...
We sat there on the wooden bench, where some of our other meetings had taken place on other occasions, many such occasions being just me and another, but on at least three recent occasions five members of our forum who are all "CYCLOPS" reviewers met in this same wood, just off junction 36 of the M1 near Barnsley, Potters wood just off to the side of the A61 Barnsley to Sheffield road...
we sipped coffee from the flask and welcomed the shade afforded to us by the leaf filled branches which protected us from scorching sunlight. We listened to the occasional bird songs which often became drowned out by traffic passing nearby on the busy A61...
One of my colleagues then said, "Has anyone ever wondered", he said, "why Stan was able to take or seize up to four different exhibits from the scene on that first morning", says he, "when he was not an appointed or trained SOCO", he asks us...
"Thats odd", says the other, "why did Ron Cook allow him to return to the scene", says he, "enter the scene and take a photograph in the downstairs toilet", he goes on, "take possession of a silencer, and two other items from the main Kitchen", he says, "from right under the noses of Ron Cook and the other SOCO's", he puts it to us...
-
"I wonder", says I, "I wonder if"...
-
"Mike", says one of my companions, "are you thinking what I'm thinking", he says...
"Well", I says, "I was just about to mention the possibility that Stan Jones could have been sent back to the scene on instruction of a senior officer to take that photograph", I said, "and to seize the silencer and the other two exhibits", says I, "sent there to do these things on behalf of Special Branch", I says, " hence, why SOCO turned a blind eye to his presence there on that first morning, during his second visit to the scene", I volunteers...
-
Sorry to interrupt Mike but d'you know where Brett Collin's police interview notes are posted. I know you did post them up but I can't find them anywhere. With thanks :) :)
-
"Why did he do that", I asks him, "and when"...
Says he, "he did this later on after returning with silencer SJ/1 back to the police station and discovering that police now had two different silencers from the scene in their possession", he told us...
"Two different silencers in police possession at that time", I mused...
"Yes", he said, "two completely different silencers in police possession from 12th August, onward", he told us, "the one Stan took from the scene as part of a batch of four collective exhibits on the first morning of the investigation" he told us "7th August", says he, "and the second one Stan was given by a relative on 12th August, which Ron took to show Glynis Howard on 13th August", said he...
"Two different silencers", I said...
"Yes", he said, "two completely different ones", says he, "and Ron stuck a piece of white paper with the initials SJ and the number 1 upon the barrel of the silencer to distinguish one of these silencers from the other"...
But Mike that does not tie up with the document that say the relatives reported the silencer on 10th Sept ? Or explain why Anne Eaton did not mention the silencer in her August statement ( after they were supposed to have handed it in?
-
It just goes to show how irrelevant the silencer was, not to have had a mention in AE's statement !
After all,,wasn't it supposed to have been pivotal in having Jeremy convicted ? Seems strange to me,,and the MM debacle didn't work either. What a bloody farce !
-
But Mike that does not tie up with the document that say the relatives reported the silencer on 10th Sept ? Or explain why Anne Eaton did not mention the silencer in her August statement ( after they were supposed to have handed it in?
1) Do you mean August 10?
2) Her August statement relates SOLELY to interactions with Sheila and her mental condition. That was all Taff Jones wanted from her in a statement. She wasn't permitted to write about anything else.
-
I asks him, "but why did Ron mark the exhibit label SJ/1, instead of SBJ/1", says I...
Responding he cuts in, "because Ron did not know that Stan had a middle Christian name of Brian", he told me, "He thought Stan was the only Christian name Stan had", he says, "so he marks the new label he attaches to that silencer", he told us, "the one Stan gave to him on 13th August, with the initials SJ, and the exhibit number 1, SJ/1", said he...
I don't understand why you make things up. First of all Jones was interviewing witnesses most of the 7th not collecting evidence. Your claim he went back to WHF at night to collect evidenc eis falso and not supported at all by any evidence. He went back to the station for a meeting to discuss the interviews he did among other things. So your claim he collected anything other than interview notes and statements on the 7th is false.
Moreover, It was well known that SBJ is the prefix that was assigned to Jones, he used it in all his cases. The original documents filed reveal that SBJ/1 was assigned to the suppressor, SBJ/2 assigned to the scope and SBJ/3 assigned to the box.
If SJ had been accidentally used instead of SBJ there would have been no need to change since the initial SJ were not being used by anyone else. But if that had been the case then ALL items that came in would have had the SJ prefix. If there had actually been an exhibit marked SJ/1 that Jones had submitted on the 7th then the items from Boutflour woudl have been labeled SJ/2, SJ/3 and SJ/4.
They weren't, they were labeled 1, 2 and 3 because they were the first items to be attributed to Jones.
Upon learning the items had been found by Boutflour they were chanced to DB/1, 2 and 3 and subsequently DRB/1,2 and 3.
The bottom line is that:
1) there is no documentary evidence or testimonial evidence of any moderator being collected on August 7, 1985 period
2) there is no documentary evidence or testimonial evidence of any moderator being marked into evidence as SJ/1 and no one connected with the case used the SJ prefix
3) there is no documentary or testimonial evidence that Stanley Jones found a moderator period let alone on August 7, 1985
4) there is testimonial and documentary evidence to establish Stanley Jones collected a moderator and scope (among other things) from Boutfour, that he transported such to Cook and that since he provided it to Cook that Cook erroneously thought Jones had found them and assigned them SBJ/1 and 2 because the SBJ prefix is the one associated with Stanley Jones and no exhibits had been attributed to Jones yet hence the "1" for the suppressor. Had other evidence been collected by Jones prior to this then it would have had the SBJ/1 designation and the suppressor from Boutflour would have been designated SBJ/2.
5) testimonial and documentary evidence establishes that upon learning the evidence had been submitted by Boutflour the prefix was changed to his initials DB.
6) testimonial and documentary evidence establishes that upon subsequently learning that DB was already being used by David Byrd the prefix was changed again to include Bourflour's middle initial hence to "DRB".
7) testimonial and documentary evidence establishes there was only 1 moderator that was collected and tested in all of 1985 and that it was observed with both blood and paint on it.
There is an allegation that COLP investigators revealed to someone that they are hiding evidence that Stanley Jones collected a moderator from the scene on August 7, 1985 that was marked into evidence as SJ/1 but was later renamed DRB/1 and another suppressor from Boutflour a few days later marked SBJ/1 that was renamed DB/1 and then both were merged into 1 record of DRB/1.
In light of: the fact that the claim that COLP admitted they concealed evidence makes no sense at all, that there so no evidence to prove that COLP concealed such evidence, and points 1-7 the claim is not credible at all.
-
But Mike that does not tie up with the document that say the relatives reported the silencer on 10th Sept ? Or explain why Anne Eaton did not mention the silencer in her August statement ( after they were supposed to have handed it in?
Hi jansus,
It does, because police handed back silencer SJ/1 to relatives after 29th August 1985, and what happened was that once Jeremy was arrested on the first occasion at the beginning of September 1985, the relatives sought to re-introduce the silencer, partly out of a desire to havve it accepted as a valuable piecce of evidence that might help to keep Jeremy locked up, but also because police were enquiring as to its whereabouts after Julie Mugford came forward. The fatcs of the matter are that the relatives did find a silencer at the scene on 10th August, which was handed to police on the 12th August, and was taken to the Lab' at Huntingdon on 13th August, and retained thereafter by DI Cook until around the 29th August at which stage it was returned to the family because examination of it produced no useful evidence upon which to prosecute Jeremy as the killer..
This led to the relatives still having possession of that (SJ/1) silencer, whilst the other one (DB/1) Lab' item 23, which had been at the Lab' from 30th August 1985, produced the loose flake with the blood group activity, A, EAP BA, HP 2-1, and the animal / human AK1. Once this loose flake was discovered inside the other silencer (DB/1) at the lab' police took more of an interest in the silencer (SJ/1) given back to the relatives after 29th August. This led to DC Oaky collecting this other silencer (SJ/1) from Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985, and what caused David Boutflour to contact Essex police by telephone on the 12th September to report that he had found the gun silencer (SJ/1 - lab' item 22...
Hope this explanation helps...
-
Funny how Julie Mugford never makes any mention of the use of a silencer in the shootings, either in her hitman version, or when she changed her story to portray Jeremy as the killer...
Why, if Jeremy had been planning to kill his family as she alleged, did he not make any mention of using a silencer in the shootings?
-
Hi jansus,
It does, because police handed back silencer SJ/1 to relatives after 29th August 1985, and what happened was that once Jeremy was arrested on the first occasion at the beginning of September 1985, the relatives sought to re-introduce the silencer, partly out of a desire to havve it accepted as a valuable piecce of evidence that might help to keep Jeremy locked up, but also because police were enquiring as to its whereabouts after Julie Mugford came forward. The fatcs of the matter are that the relatives did find a silencer at the scene on 10th August, which was handed to police on the 12th August, and was taken to the Lab' at Huntingdon on 13th August, and retained thereafter by DI Cook until around the 29th August at which stage it was returned to the family because examination of it produced no useful evidence upon which to prosecute Jeremy as the killer..
This led to the relatives still having possession of that (SJ/1) silencer, whilst the other one (DB/1) Lab' item 23, which had been at the Lab' from 30th August 1985, produced the loose flake with the blood group activity, A, EAP BA, HP 2-1, and the animal / human AK1. Once this loose flake was discovered inside the other silencer (DB/1) at the lab' police took more of an interest in the silencer (SJ/1) given back to the relatives after 29th August. This led to DC Oaky collecting this other silencer (SJ/1) from Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985, and what caused David Boutflour to contact Essex police by telephone on the 12th September to report that he had found the gun silencer (SJ/1 - lab' item 22...
Hope this explanation helps...
You seem to pile on more claims each time you type and the extra claims always conflict with what you asserted previously.
Nothing about there being a suppressor marked SJ/1 is credible but you insisted SJ/1 was in police custody while SBJ/1 was being analyzed at the lab in September. Now you say SJ-1 wasn't in police custody it was given to the extended relatives in August. Jeremy is the one any property taken from WHF would have to be handed over to not relatives.
It is bad enough you have no evidence for your claims but your stories constantly change and are completely inconsistent with eachother not merely inconsistent with the available evidence.
People insist cyclops is a figment of your imagination and insist that in the past you talked about clandestine meetings with people who provided information that ended up being false which they insist you also simply made up. You are not doing a very good job of giving me a reason to doubt their assessment.
-
Funny how Julie Mugford never makes any mention of the use of a silencer in the shootings, either in her hitman version, or when she changed her story to portray Jeremy as the killer...
Why, if Jeremy had been planning to kill his family as she alleged, did he not make any mention of using a silencer in the shootings?
Why would he? Not only is it a detail he wanted no one to know about it is not adetail that he had any reason to share in discussing the murders to the extent he did with Julie. He clearly did not do a step by step true account of everything that happened. He even lied about the twins dying first, clearly they didn't the master bedroom was clearly the first place any shooting occurred.
While Julie was not the virtuous type neither was she the type impressed about the killings. There are women who like that and get off on their men telling them exactly what they did and the more diabolical the better. She was not the kind he could do that with so made up the hit man to try to pretend he wasn't as cold blooded as he actually was.
Brett Collins is more the type who he could brag to about every detail and how smart he was if he truly wanted someone to brag to though any such bragging would look pretty pathetic to Collins upon his conviction.
-
The relatives account appears out of sync' because although they did originally hand it over to police by evening of 12th August 1985, police gave it back to them after 29th August 1985, because nothing of evidential value was found upon it when examined at the lab' by Glynis Howard on 13th August 1985, or fingerprinted later on by DI Cook, on 15th and 23rd August 1985...
Police recollected the silencer (SJ/1) from Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985, and on the following day, her brother contacted police by phone telling them that he was the person who had found the gun silencer (SJ/1) returned by police to the family, and recently returned back into police possession the previous day...
Nothing of evidential value was ever found to be present upon the silencer (SJ/1) found by relatives, with the exception of some red paint from the aga, founnd in two locations upon its metal end cap. It is important to mention where this red paint was discovered to be present upon the end of this (SB/1) silencer found at the scene by relatives on 10th August 1985, and later by the time police re-seized it from Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985. Well, when this silencer (SJ/1) lab' item no. 22 arrived at the lab' on 13th August it had some red pain ingrained onto the flat surface of the silencers end cap, no mention of any red paint ingrained into the knurl patter of the end cap of the same. However, much later on, after police gave it back to relatives (after 29th August 1985) and its recollection by police from Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985, it mysteriously had crushed grains of red paint embedded into the aforementioned knurl. To be specific, The silencer (SJ/1) returned to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September, was retained by police until the 20th September 1985, at which stage police finally resubmitted it to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers...
We now know the full history of what happened to the silencer the relatives found at the scene on 10th August 1985, we know everything, and everything is checkable and can be verified. We know that when relatives found it, there was no proper protection adfforded to it by the relatives, we know David Boutflour did not wear gloves when he found it or handled it at the scene, or later at his sisters house when he tried unsuccessfully to unscrew the silencers end cap off so that he could get to the inside workings of the silencer in question. We know that it did not have an exhibit reference when he found it, or whilst it was being transported away from the scene in the boot of a car which also contained Sheila's heavily bloodstained knickers. We know that for over two days it remained in storage at Ann Eatons house without it having an exhibit reference. We know that when Peter Eaton handed it over to DS Jones on evening of 12th August 1985, it did not have an exhibit label attached to it and no exhibit reference had been attached to this silencer by that stage. We know that when DS Jones received that silencer from Peter Eaton that Jones did not attach an exhibit label to it, and he could not have given it the exhibit reference of SBJ/1 in any event because the other silencer he collected from the scene on his second visit of the day had already been given that identifying mark, so that puts paid to that explanation. We know that when Jones showed it to PI Bob Miller on the morning of 13th August 1985, that this silencer that Jones had collected from Peter Eaton did not have an exhibit label bearing the signatures of all those who handled it, or saw it, attached to it. We know that Jones handed this unexhibited silencer to Cook, and that at the time Cook took possession of it, it had no exhibit label attached to it, and no exhibit reference at all given to it...
We know a lot of things the police in Essex did not want anybody to know or find out about, but we know all there is to know now...
We know that when Cook took that silencer to the lab' on 13th August 1985, it did not have either an exhibit reference, and it had no exhibit label bearing any signatures attached to it, so to ensure that that Lab' would not reject this particular silencer because it was improperly packaged and had no verifiable exhibit label attached, and not even an exhibit reference, we know that Cook obtained a blank exhibit label and wrote the initials of SJ upon it followed by the number 1, because Cook believed it to be a silencer Jones had collected from the scene on 7th August 1985...
We now know the full history of the silencer (SJ/1) found at the scene by relatives on 10th August 1985, we know that the crucial loose flake of blood was not found inside it (SJ/1), because on the date the loose flake was found inside one silencer (DB/1), the other silencer (SJ/1) found by relatives was never at the lab' but rather it was still in the relatives possession at that precise moment of find, and police only collected the silencer back from Ann Eaton after the key loose flake was found inside the other silencer (DB/1) already at the lab'...
We now know everything the relatives and police did with both of the two key sound moderators, and how the evidence of the loose flake of blood found in one of the two key silencers (DB/1) and the red paint found initially on the flat surface of the others end cap, and yet later still the sudden materialisation of crushed red pant in the knurl of this second silencer, only noticeable once the silencer (SJ/1 was returned to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985, after its resubmission back to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers on 20th September, examination of which did not take place at the lab' until 25th September 1985, with the first mention of red paint crushed into the knurl on that date, and how crucial evidence of blood and paint were then ceremoniously merged as though found in the same silencer, the one they called, exhibit DRB/1, lab' item 22...
We now know everything...
-
We now know the full history of the other silencer SBJ/1, every single detail, who collected it from the scene, why it was collected by Jones, what he did with it, what DCI Jones did with it, and why he refused to hand it over to Special Branch, which was the main reason he got removed from his post at the head of the investigation later on...
No stone has been left unturned, and names will be named, all those involved in this wicked conspiracy to merge the blood evidence found in one silencer, and paint evidence found upon the other, merged into the same silencer have got a lot of soul searching to do, with risk of hefty terms of imprisonment being dished out and rightly so, loosing police pensions is nothing compared to what those who still survive are going to have to look forward to...
-
What becomes apparent is that the jiggery pokery involving the labelling of these two key silencers was done retrospectively so that evidence from both silencers could be presented as having been discovered inside and upon the same silencer...
They think its all over...
It is now...
-
In a recent meeting with two of the "CYCLOPS" reviewers, we had a revelation moment during our discussion about trying to establish that there were two different key silencers at the heart of Jeremys prosecution and convictions...
These being, silencer (1) SBJ/1 taken from the scene by DS Jones on 7th August 1985, and the second silencer (2) found at the scene by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985, which remained without an exhibit reference until Ron Cook got to the lab; on 13th August 1985, and he attached a brown label upon which he wrote the identifying mark of SJ/1...
Silencer SBJ/1 was not, is not the same SJ/1 silencer, because each was recovered from the scene on different dates, by two different people...
...
-
I remember as we strolled through "Potters Wood", near where I live in Barnsley how we had all three of us had eventually been sitting in the shade of the trees, on a wooden bench discussing these matters over a cup of coffee brought along for the occasion in a large flask and three plastic cups..
One of my friends said, "What puzzles me", he said, "is why did Ron believe that Stan had found the silencer, that Ron took along to the Lab' on the 13th August 1985", he asked us...
Says I, "What do you mean", I said, "What point are you trying to make"...
We supped our coffee, before he continued, "Ron", says he, "Goes along to the Lab' on 13th August, right"...
"Yeh", I says...
He continues, "and he has got the silencer from Stan", he said, "the one Stan says he got from Peter Eaton the day before", says he, "Yeh", says I, He goes on, "So why didn't Stan tell Ron that he got the silencer he is giving him, from the relatives who found it at the scene after police gave the family the keys to the farmhouse back on evening of 9th August", he inquires of us...
"Why did Ron assume that Stan had found that silencer", he says, "if the relatives gave it to him, and they found it, not Stan", he said...
...
-
Says he, "Ron", he says, "told COLP during interview that he thought the silencer Stan had given him was the one Stan had taken from the scene on the morning of the shootings", he told us...
"You mean", I says, "one of the four exhibits Stan took at or from the scene on the first morning of the investigation", I prompts him...
"Exactly", he says, "that is why Ron told COLP the reason for attaching an exhibit label with the initials and corresponding number of SJ/1 to it", he said, "which both he and Howard signed in positions two and three", said he, "Ron told COLP under caution that he thought it was the silencer Stan had found at the scene on that first morning as part of a batch of four exhibits Stan had taken whilst Ron himself was in charge of the crime scene", he told us...
Says I, "The SBJ/1 silencer", I puts in...
"Yes", says he, "Ron told COLP that he thought that the silencer Stan had given him to take to the lab on 13th August was that silencer", he says, "and this was the reason why Ron put an exhibit label upon it at the lab, and marked it SJ/1", he says...
"Not SBJ/1", I said...
"No, not SBJ/1, but SJ/1", says he...
...
-
"Why did he do that", I asks him, "and when"...
Says he, "he did this later on after returning with silencer SJ/1 back to the police station and discovering that police now had two different silencers from the scene in their possession", he told us...
"Two different silencers in police possession at that time", I mused...
"Yes", he said, "two completely different silencers in police possession from 12th August, onward", he told us, "the one Stan took from the scene as part of a batch of four collective exhibits on the first morning of the investigation" he told us "7th August", says he, "and the second one Stan was given by a relative on 12th August, which Ron took to show Glynis Howard on 13th August", said he...
"Two different silencers", I said...
"Yes", he said, "two completely different ones", says he, "and Ron stuck a piece of white paper with the initials SJ and the number 1 upon the barrel of the silencer to distinguish one of these silencers from the other"...
...
-
What becomes apparent is that the jiggery pokery involving the labelling of these two key silencers was done retrospectively so that evidence from both silencers could be presented as having been discovered inside and upon the same silencer...
They think its all over...
It is now...
The jiggery pokery seems to be on your part, you have drastically changed your claims yet again.
You originally claimed a suppressor was collected by Jones on August 7 that was originally labeled SJ/1 and a suppressor was collected by Jones from the family on August 12 that was originally labeled SBJ/1. You further said that on September 13 one was in police custody while the other was in the lab.
Next you claimed the suppressor found on August 7 was returned to the family in August thus contradicting your claim it was in police custody as the other was at the lab.
Now you reversed the labels and are claiming the suppressor collected on August 12 was SJ/1, that no evidence was found and that it was returned to the extended family in August and then returned to police with evidence planted inside in between the period it had been transferred back to the family.
Your reversing of the labels to try to make your claims more plausible doesn't work, it hurts. For one thing if SBJ/1 had already been used as an exhibit number then for sure Cook would know SBJ was attributed to Jones and would have used SBJ/2,3 and 4 for the items he submitted on August 12.
If for some reason he was completely clueless and unaware that SBJ was the prefix Jones always used (which makes no sense) and the moderator from Boutflour had been designated SJ/1 then the rifle scope would have been designated SJ/2 not SBJ/2. The original documents make clear that SBJ/1 was assiged to the moderator found by Boutflour and SBJ/2 for the scope found by Boutflour which is why they were subsequently changed to DB/1 and DB/2 and later to DRB/1 and DRB/2.
Each change you make seems to dig a deeper hole instead of helping. I think you should quit while you are ahead and wait to see it this cyclops group actually publicly releases anything claims that the can support with credible evidence.
-
The suggestion that there was only ever just one silencer, with all these different exhibit refences of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, is outrageous, preposterous and dishonest, and the morons who think this is the true explanation need thier heads seeing to. These morons have no sense of logic, they have no explanation for why DSJones took possession of one of the two key silencers (SBJ/1) from the scene on 7th August 1985, three full days before the relatives found the other key silencer at the farmhouse. They have no answer to account for how the same silencer could have been kept in two different places by different people, since the relatives silencer (SJ/1) remained in Ron Cooks personal possession for a total of 17 days, carried about in his pockets all the while between 13th and 30th August 1985, whilst the other key silencer (SBJ/1) was being used as a paper weight on DCI 'Taff' Jones desk at Witham police station until 30th August 1985, at which stage PC Whiddon took possession of it and arranged for it to be sent to the lab' that same date (30th August) inside which the critical loose flake was eventually found on 11th September 1985...
Whilst the loose flake was being found in silencer DB/1 at the lab' on 11th September, Ann Eaton still had possession of the other key silencer (SJ/1) in her possession at home and it only got recollected from her later on, on 11th September 1985. Even then, the silencer given to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September was retained by Essex police, fingerprinted by DS Davidson and DS Eastwood on 13th September 1985, and not sent to the lab' by police to be checked for blood and fibers until 20th September 1985, so how could police still have the silencer until 29th September and it already being at the lab' from as long ago as 30th August, inside which the critical loose flake had already been found and analysed whilst police still had possession of the silencer the blood was supposedly found inside it elsewhere...
Why send a silencer to the lab' on 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood, if blood had already been found inside it, and the silencer had been checked for blood...
-
Hi jansus,
It does, because police handed back silencer SJ/1 to relatives after 29th August 1985, and what happened was that once Jeremy was arrested on the first occasion at the beginning of September 1985, the relatives sought to re-introduce the silencer, partly out of a desire to havve it accepted as a valuable piecce of evidence that might help to keep Jeremy locked up, but also because police were enquiring as to its whereabouts after Julie Mugford came forward. The fatcs of the matter are that the relatives did find a silencer at the scene on 10th August, which was handed to police on the 12th August, and was taken to the Lab' at Huntingdon on 13th August, and retained thereafter by DI Cook until around the 29th August at which stage it was returned to the family because examination of it produced no useful evidence upon which to prosecute Jeremy as the killer..
This led to the relatives still having possession of that (SJ/1) silencer, whilst the other one (DB/1) Lab' item 23, which had been at the Lab' from 30th August 1985, produced the loose flake with the blood group activity, A, EAP BA, HP 2-1, and the animal / human AK1. Once this loose flake was discovered inside the other silencer (DB/1) at the lab' police took more of an interest in the silencer (SJ/1) given back to the relatives after 29th August. This led to DC Oaky collecting this other silencer (SJ/1) from Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985, and what caused David Boutflour to contact Essex police by telephone on the 12th September to report that he had found the gun silencer (SJ/1 - lab' item 22...
Hope this explanation helps...
it does because there is a statement from one of the family which mentioning "returning" the silencer to the police. Others have explained it by saying all the contents of the house were handed to them, so thats what it meant. But your explanation makes more sense.
-
I also think it is important to keep the fact that some of this "investigation" was actually done by the police and not an "independent" lab. Probably not something that would happen today .
-
Why would he? Not only is it a detail he wanted no one to know about it is not adetail that he had any reason to share in discussing the murders to the extent he did with Julie. He clearly did not do a step by step true account of everything that happened. He even lied about the twins dying first, clearly they didn't the master bedroom was clearly the first place any shooting occurred.
While Julie was not the virtuous type neither was she the type impressed about the killings. There are women who like that and get off on their men telling them exactly what they did and the more diabolical the better. She was not the kind he could do that with so made up the hit man to try to pretend he wasn't as cold blooded as he actually was.
Brett Collins is more the type who he could brag to about every detail and how smart he was if he truly wanted someone to brag to though any such bragging would look pretty pathetic to Collins upon his conviction.
Strange? Since apparently practically told her in so many words that he did it. You question would make more sense if you had asked, "Why wouldn't he?".
-
Jan,,it was mostly done by the relatives. It was they who took over the case after EP declared it a murder/suicide. How on earth they were allowed to interfere like they did,Lord only knows. Weren't they chased out of court as well as " Taff " Jones having shown them the door to his office ?
-
How did the red paint from the aga surround get onto the flat surface of the silencers (SJ/1) end cap near to the aperture?This paint stain can be clearly seen in the photographs taken by Ron Cook when he dismantled the silencer found by relatives - afterwards, Cook arranged for the silencer in question to be handed back to the family...
-
Strange? Since apparently practically told her in so many words that he did it. You question would make more sense if you had asked, "Why wouldn't he?".
As you readily admit he didn't tell her that he did it outright. Thus there owuld be no reaosn tot ell her about the moderator. My question of why would he tell her is fully appropriate. There is no reason to mention anything about the moderator unless one admits they did it and decides to recount every last detail about how it was carried out. He clearly did not do such.
-
it does because there is a statement from one of the family which mentioning "returning" the silencer to the police. Others have explained it by saying all the contents of the house were handed to them, so thats what it meant. But your explanation makes more sense.
It makes no sense at all to someone who looks in detail at his claims. His claims are contradictory, make no sense, keep changing and have no evidentiary supprt at all.
-
I also think it is important to keep the fact that some of this "investigation" was actually done by the police and not an "independent" lab. Probably not something that would happen today .
It depends on the size of the station. Independent labs are used when the station lacks the resources itself or are overwhelmed, there can be a backlog of evidence that needs processing. The TV shows which feature evidence being tested the same day as the crime are pure fantasy.
-
Laboratory tests are done the same day if requested.
-
The suggestion that there was only ever just one silencer, with all these different exhibit refences of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, is outrageous, preposterous and dishonest, and the morons who think this is the true explanation need thier heads seeing to.
If you want to get into namecalling that is exactly how people see you, dishonest and with a screw loose.
There is not one shred of evidence of a second moderator. Your claim that there was a moderator marked SJ/1 is likewise not supported by any evidence whatsoever, makes no sense at all from the standpoint of the SJ prefix being used and seems to be something made up because minute by minute you change when this designation was assiged and to which moderator it was assigned.
You said SJ/1 was assigned to a moderator collected by Stanley Jones on August 7, 1985 even though he left WHF before evidence was collected and spent the day at Goldhanger interviewing people. You further insisted that in September police had SJ/1 in their possession while SBJ/1 was in the lab.
Next you contradicted yourself claiming the police found nothing on SJ/1 and gave it to the extended family. I pointed out that since you alleged SJ/1 came from WHF they would have no basis to give it to the extended family it could only be returned to Jeremy. I also pointed out that this contradicted your claim police had it while the other was in the lab.
You promptly changed to claiming SJ/1 was the moderator collected from Boutflour and asserted SBJ/1 was a suppressor collected by police directly from WHF. You also came up with a new claim that the family gave the silencer back to police so that your original claim coudl seem true.
The way you keep changing claims demonstrates you are just making things up. This is corroborated by your inability to provide any satisfactory explanation for your claims and more significantly inability to produce any evidence to substantiate them.
You have zilch to establish how Stanley Jones would have been in a position to collect any evidence on 8/7/85. Zilch to establish tha the actually did collect anything. Zilch to establish the SJ/1 prefix was used at all in the case. Zilch as far as a reason SJ/1 would have been used.
On the flip side police have provided documentary and testimonial evidence to explain how items collected by Stanley Jones from the relatives were labeled with the SBJ prefix such as the moderator SBJ/1, the scope SBJ/2 and box SBJ/3. There is documentary and testimonial evidence establhsing the SBJ prefix for these items was changed to DB upon learning they were found by Boutflour and changed again to DRB because prefix DB was already being used by the photographer. This not only makes perfect sense it is supported by the documents.
Your claims make no sense, are not supported at all and keep changing with the wind.
These morons have no sense of logic, they have no explanation for why DSJones took possession of one of the two key silencers (SBJ/1) from the scene on 7th August 1985, three full days before the relatives found the other key silencer at the farmhouse.
You have produced no evidence at all that he did. You keep ignoring that he was tasked with interviewing people not collecting physical evidence on the day in question. Much like you invented the SJ/1 designation out of thin air so too have you apparently made up a moderator being collected on 8/7/85.
They have no answer to account for how the same silencer could have been kept in two different places by different people, since the relatives silencer (SJ/1) remained in Ron Cooks personal possession for a total of 17 days, carried about in his pockets all the while between 13th and 30th August 1985, whilst the other key silencer (SBJ/1) was being used as a paper weight on DCI 'Taff' Jones desk at Witham police station until 30th August 1985, at which stage PC Whiddon took possession of it and arranged for it to be sent to the lab' that same date (30th August) inside which the critical loose flake was eventually found on 11th September 1985...
There is no evidence at all it was in 2 different places at different times. The claim it was being used as a paper weight on Taff Jones desk for a month is not supported by any credible evidence. Nor do you have any credible evidence it was in possession of police in a different location when when it was tested at the lab. Cook brought it to the blab and was there as lab personnel tested it, it remained in his charge even as they tested it which is how it was in police custody at the same time it was at the blab. He was there at the lab with it. That doesn't make it in 2 different places it just means it was not relinquished from police custody to control of the lab.
Whilst the loose flake was being found in silencer DB/1 at the lab' on 11th September, Ann Eaton still had possession of the other key silencer (SJ/1) in her possession at home and it only got recollected from her later on, on 11th September 1985. Even then, the silencer given to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September was retained by Essex police, fingerprinted by DS Davidson and DS Eastwood on 13th September 1985, and not sent to the lab' by police to be checked for blood and fibers until 20th September 1985, so how could police still have the silencer until 29th September and it already being at the lab' from as long ago as 30th August, inside which the critical loose flake had already been found and analysed whilst police still had possession of the silencer the blood was supposedly found inside it elsewhere...
Why send a silencer to the lab' on 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood, if blood had already been found inside it, and the silencer had been checked for blood...
These claims about Eaton handing over a moderator in Spetember 1985 are likewise fairytale inventions from you without any support whatsoever that make no sense at all.
It is anyone who believes the tales you are peddling that have problems and need their head checked.
-
It makes no sense at all to someone who looks in detail at his claims. His claims are contradictory, make no sense, keep changing and have no evidentiary supprt at all.
that is not entirely accurate - the changes in the exhibit numbers is supported by documentary evidence as is the fact that the police made changes without consulting some of the technicians and they were not happy that they were not made aware of the changes in numbering .
-
scipio: "If you want to get into namecalling that is exactly how people see you, dishonest and with a screw loose."
Like you?
-
scipio: "If you want to get into namecalling that is exactly how people see you, dishonest and with a screw loose."
Like you?
Who sees me in that light? Not a sizable number and certainly not anyone who matters that is for sure. Someone trying to prove it would not get very far. Are you still mad that your completely idiotic suggestions always get smacked down? I'm not the only one who dismissed your absurd suggestions that Jeremy can't have done it because he would be too scared of barking dogs ruining it or your ridiculous claim Sheila sat on the bed leaning over and fell on the floor upon being shot(which would not result in blood dripping down her shoulder and arms but instead down to the floor).
-
Who sees me in that light? Not a sizable number and certainly not anyone who matters that is for sure. Someone trying to prove it would not get very far. Are you still mad that your completely idiotic suggestions always get smacked down? I'm not the only one who dismissed your absurd suggestions that Jeremy can't have done it because he would be too scared of barking dogs ruining it or your ridiculous claim Sheila sat on the bed leaning over and fell on the floor upon being shot(which would not result in blood dripping down her shoulder and arms but instead down to the floor).
Cool it ! you were the one who got personal first . A man (?) of your intelligence surely is capable of making an argument without personal digs , it is entirely unnecessary . We all love Alias so back off. >:(
If you don't like someone posts then just counter argue - at least Alias is posting questions and will listen to replies and consider . Unlike some who post their ideas and opinions as FACTS. There is a big difference.
-
jansus I agree Alias is one of the most balanced posters on this forum and should be shown some respect.
-
He's an absolute pig. A bloody know-all,thinks he knows everything and knows nothing !
Alias is streets ahead of his own abject ignorance in this case. What's more,she's more of a decent person than he'll ever be.
-
that is not entirely accurate - the changes in the exhibit numbers is supported by documentary evidence as is the fact that the police made changes without consulting some of the technicians and they were not happy that they were not made aware of the changes in numbering .
Howard was on leave when the change from DB to DRB occurred so was not informed. She was miffed that they revised the documents to DRB but didn't make her sign which she said she would have done.
Why did they include such in the written statement? Because saying she would have signed it basically takes away the argument that there was something amiss going on and renders the failure a harmless error.
-
Thanks peeps, but really, I don´t care much what this person says - his choice to make himself look this bad. Not my problem. 8)
-
Thanks peeps, but really, I don´t care much what this person says - his choice to make himself look this bad. Not my problem. 8)
You attacked me for no reaoson. I demonstrated things you said absurd whereas you have no such capacity to demonstrate I have done so let alone am dishonest.
The one who looks in a poor light is you not me and those who rose you your aid ar enot peopel with any credibility.
-
Who sees me in that light? Not a sizable number and certainly not anyone who matters that is for sure. Someone trying to prove it would not get very far. Are you still mad that your completely idiotic suggestions always get smacked down? I'm not the only one who dismissed your absurd suggestions that Jeremy can't have done it because he would be too scared of barking dogs ruining it or your ridiculous claim Sheila sat on the bed leaning over and fell on the floor upon being shot(which would not result in blood dripping down her shoulder and arms but instead down to the floor).
Scipio Mike and yourself have made this thread one of the best on this forum and it would be a shame to descend into personal invective when you were both doing so well in getting your points across. There is much still to be explained in this case and on some points I am still none the wiser. For example from Sheet 11 of Julie's statement we get:
"He said that before he had phoned me that morning Matthew had phoned from the house,which I took to be the Farm,and said that everything had been completed and proceeded to tell him about his father who he stated for his age he had been very strong and put up a fight. He said that Matthew had said he was sorry because during the fight with his father he had had a mental blank and had fired seven shots into him. I asked Jerry if the twins had felt anything and he told me the boys were still asleep and didn't wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Matthew who then put a bible on her chest."
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the silencer evidence was manufactured;neither is it incredible that Sheila was on the bed at some stage that morning.
-
In response to suggestions that I have no evidence to back up what I am saying, how about me having possession of 50,000 case documents under my direct control and in my possession, some of which are original material...
I have only looked at about 50% of it thus far, god knows what else I might stumble upon when I find time to get around to reading all of it...
In light of this, how can anyone say that I have no evidence to support what I am saying?
Seems to me that I have got more evidence than most at my disposal...
-
Howard was on leave when the change from DB to DRB occurred so was not informed. She was miffed that they revised the documents to DRB but didn't make her sign which she said she would have done.
Why did they include such in the written statement? Because saying she would have signed it basically takes away the argument that there was something amiss going on and renders the failure a harmless error.
I think that she meant that all changes should have been authorised . If she was on leave I am sure there would have been someone in place (authorised) who could have signed off the change.
I think it is pretty obvious why any change should have been authorised :) So yet again I am not believing your version.
-
On 9th August 1985, DCI Jones, and DS Jones, went along to Jeremys cottage at Goldhanger, to speak to Jeremy about bullets and the silencer. STAN was giving DCI Jones some grief about where five bullets had come from, and was pestering 'Taff' to question Jeremy as to whether or not the silencer was fitted to the rifle when he last had possession of it...
Clearly, the police were fully aware of a silencer before the relatives found the other one on 10th August.DS Davidson was even requested to fingerprint one of the silencers on the 9th August 1885, so make mistake about it, police had a silencer before the one the relatives handed in...
Two different key silencers the (SBJ/1 and SJ/1) not a solitary one with several different exhibit references (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1)...
There simply was no need for the original exhibit reference of SBJ/1 to be altered into any other exhibit reference because the silencer which Stan Jones took possession of from the scene on 7th August was a unique piece of evidence in that it was seized amongst four items taken from under the noses of SOCO, no questions asked...
Why would you have to change the original exhibit label of the silencer (SBJ/1), into SJ/1 on the pretense that Cook didn't know DS Jones had a middle Christian name of Brian, by the time Cook takes along one of the silencers to the lab' on 13th August, if the silencers original exhibit reference of SBJ/1, already had noted that DS Jones had got two forenames by 7th August, which makes s complete mockery of the official explanation for why the original exhibit reference of SBJ/1 needing to be changed into the other...
-
Scipio Mike and yourself have made this thread one of the best on this forum and it would be a shame to descend into personal invective when you were both doing so well in getting your points across. There is much still to be explained in this case and on some points I am still none the wiser. For example from Sheet 11 of Julie's statement we get:
"He said that before he had phoned me that morning Matthew had phoned from the house,which I took to be the Farm,and said that everything had been completed and proceeded to tell him about his father who he stated for his age he had been very strong and put up a fight. He said that Matthew had said he was sorry because during the fight with his father he had had a mental blank and had fired seven shots into him. I asked Jerry if the twins had felt anything and he told me the boys were still asleep and didn't wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Matthew who then put a bible on her chest."
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the silencer evidence was manufactured;neither is it incredible that Sheila was on the bed at some stage that morning.
I believe that Ralph was shot 8 times Steve? Also the prosecution said that it was impossible that Sheila shot herself. So why would the prosecution still believe the rest of her testimony?
-
In response to suggestions that I have no evidence to back up what I am saying, how about me having possession of 50,000 case documents under my direct control and in my possession, some of which are original material...
I have only looked at about 50% of it thus far, god knows what else I might stumble upon when I find time to get around to reading all of it...
In light of this, how can anyone say that I have no evidence to support what I am saying?
Seems to me that I have got more evidence than most at my disposal...
Mike if I lived closer to you I would gladly volunteer to come round and read some of them for you. Maybe I should take a holiday up in your end of the world?
-
I believe that Ralph was shot 8 times Steve? Also the prosecution said that it was impossible that Sheila shot herself. So why would the prosecution still believe the rest of her testimony?
But she's reporting what Jeremy told her,which is a mixture of truth and lies. If you believe Jeremy guilty after all he undertook that morning it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he didn't record exactly in his own mind how many shots each victim received.
-
Not only did Stan Jones deliberately return to the scene after attending Jeremys cottage to accompany DC Clark to take a witness statement from Jeremy, but he left Goldhanger in a hurry because he wss contacted at Jeremys cottage by way of mobile phone from "Taff" Jones, and requested to reattend the scene and take possession of various exhibits, one of which was a silencer...
-
Scipio Mike and yourself have made this thread one of the best on this forum and it would be a shame to descend into personal invective when you were both doing so well in getting your points across. There is much still to be explained in this case and on some points I am still none the wiser. For example from Sheet 11 of Julie's statement we get:
"He said that before he had phoned me that morning Matthew had phoned from the house,which I took to be the Farm,and said that everything had been completed and proceeded to tell him about his father who he stated for his age he had been very strong and put up a fight. He said that Matthew had said he was sorry because during the fight with his father he had had a mental blank and had fired seven shots into him. I asked Jerry if the twins had felt anything and he told me the boys were still asleep and didn't wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Matthew who then put a bible on her chest."
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the silencer evidence was manufactured;neither is it incredible that Sheila was on the bed at some stage that morning.
In the theoretical sense it is possible to plant evidence of any kind. Whether it realistically could be planted and more importantly there is a reasonable probability it was planted is a different matter entirely
The quotes above detail Jeremy telling Julie things only the killer would know and attributing Jeremy's knowledge as coming from the killer himself. The supposed killer didn't do it which would mean Jeremy did and made up the hitman claim to conceal that fact and not seem as coldblooded. If Julie is telling the truth then Jeremy clearly did it.
The thing to look at about whether the evidence in the moderator was planted is to look at what was found and figure out if there was a way for someone to have the know how, means, opportunity and motive to plant the evidence.
Naturally that involves looking at the testimony of those involved in processing the moderator as well as documentary evidence related to such.
Mike and everyone who suggests the moderator was tampered with ignore the complete details of what was found in the moderator as well as would would be entailed in planting what was found.
It wasn't just a flake of blood. There was a substantial amount of blood on the first several baffles and some of that blood was tested along with the flak both determined to be group A. After all visible blood was removed the defense had their own expert test it and he found microscopic drops on the 1st 8 baffles. Is this distribution found consistent with back spatter? If not that would be evidence of tmapering. Back spatter sprays blood inside. It will travel several inches. The blood was found several inches deep. So it was not too far inside which would be indicative of planting. If planting blood you hold it vertically with the hole at the top and drop blood in. Blood poured inside instead of sprayed would travel further than it should and hit an area in the middle of nowhere. A dropper would result in blood dripping far down or even not so far but just hitting isolated areas. What does a spray do? It gets blood over a wide area but that wide area will be confined to the first several inches. Since the blood distribution is consistent with a spray you need to establish a device/method to spray blood to plant it so it would be able to result in the distribution found. That requires testing to try to figure out if there is such a method that would be possible. In addition you need a blood supply and need to have a way to either access Sheila's blood or to know unique details about her blood so that you could find a source with the same characteristics. You would need to know she had a wound that would result in drawback which in turn means you know the rifle would have it and that such blood needed to be eliminated. Obviously the family could not accomplish this alone as many would like to pretend. Realistically only the lab could pull this off though they would need police and relatives to pitch in to help support their antics. When you look at that it all involved the planting is not very plausible at all.
But these details are ignored or attempts are made to pretending there was only a flake of blood in the moderator to avoid having to deal with this daunting challenge.
Instead Mike and others want to just jump to the the documents and testimony but sitll have no support there. The documents do not support Mike. There are no documents with a SJ/1 designation and despite all Mike's efforts he has yet to explain a valid reason why there would be. Mike says someone told him about the existence he cna't prove they exists by showing them because he has not seen them. The story about COLP admitting the existence of these documents and concealing them and thus lying in the final report issued makes no sense at all. Moreover, not asking anyone in any interview about a SJ/1 makes no sense.
Mike's claims keep shifting though as if everything he comes up with is simply ad hoc. We have no idea what he is arguing anymore because he keeps going back and forth between SJ/1 being collected by police on 8/7 or collected from the family on 8/12.
The only plausible planting would have to involve the lab being the mastermind and working from there explaining the mechanism that was likely used and to produce the evidence to back up the claims. No evidence is presented and there is not even any effort to truly test how to plant blood to be distributed in the manner found. In fact, the lab simply could simply take blood and pretend they found it in the moderator there would not even be a need to actually plant it at all. But the blood had been there because the defense found it on the first 8 baffles so they can't have simply made it up.
If I were hired by Jeremy I would consult experts to see precisely what would be entailed in spraying blood inside, asking if there is a known way it coudl be accomplished and see if they coudl do tests to figure out how it could be done.
Also to look through the various testimony and evidence to see if there is anything that supports the suggestion blood was planted or would provide a basis to interview someone to see if they would say anything of use.
There is none of that here though. Aside from the exhibit numbers being changed there is nothing to latch onto at all and the exhibit numbers changing was explained thoroughly. the SJ/1 whole line seems to be a bust and seems to be simply made up.
With respect to the notion Sheila was on the bed at one point, there is no credible evidence since there are no photos, no testimony from the multitude of peopel who saw her body in the house and finally no reaosn to move her to the bed. At any rate such a move woudl not matter. The allegation she was moved from the bed suffers from the same problems and indeed early photos and testimony place her on the floor. This is another worthless red herring anyway.
Her body was seated against something when shot then very shortly after this while she was still bleeding her body was moved flat. The bible was dipped in the pool of blood that formed after she was lying flat and opened and closed before the blood was dry.
Police moving her body after she was flat already doesn't help the defense at all. In order to claim that the killer did not do these things but rather police, it is necessary to show that very shortly after she was shot police found her seated and moved her body flat and then the bible was soaked in the blood pool and police moved the bible and opened it closed. That is what the defense needs to establish to be able to say these 2 movements do not prove Sheila could have killed herself.
Were any shots heard at any time while police were at the scene let alone shortly before police found her body? No and contrary to claims made here the sound made by shots travels through windows.
Did any police who initially saw her (there were 7 for sure who saw her close to the time of entry) say she was found seated against something? No they all agree she was flat like June.
Is there any indication that she died significantly later than the other victims? No
Any other evidence that could be used to challenge the witness testimony? No.
Any evidence the pool of blood was wet and they played with the bible as the blood was wet? No
The fact they moved her body a little well after she died means nothing at all that is expected. Yet that is all that can be established and what most raise though it doesn't deal with the issue that actually matters.
When I want to actually prove something I deal with the issue at hand. Dealing with red herrings is either: to divert, mislead or as a result of inability to recognize what is actually significant and thus wasting one's own time of a fools errand.
-
In the theoretical sense it is possible to plant evidence of any kind. Whether it realistically could be planted and more importantly there is a reasonable probability it was planted is a different matter entirely
The quotes above detail Jeremy telling Julie things only the killer would know and attributing Jeremy's knowledge as coming from the killer himself. The supposed killer didn't do it which would mean Jeremy did and made up the hitman claim to conceal that fact and not seem as coldblooded. If Julie is telling the truth then Jeremy clearly did it.
The thing to look at about whether the evidence in the moderator was planted is to look at what was found and figure out if there was a way for someone to have the know how, means, opportunity and motive to plant the evidence.
Naturally that involves looking at the testimony of those involved in processing the moderator as well as documentary evidence related to such.
Mike and everyone who suggests the moderator was tampered with ignore the complete details of what was found in the moderator as well as would would be entailed in planting what was found.
It wasn't just a flake of blood. There was a substantial amount of blood on the first several baffles and some of that blood was tested along with the flak both determined to be group A. After all visible blood was removed the defense had their own expert test it and he found microscopic drops on the 1st 8 baffles. Is this distribution found consistent with back spatter? If not that would be evidence of tmapering. Back spatter sprays blood inside. It will travel several inches. The blood was found several inches deep. So it was not too far inside which would be indicative of planting. If planting blood you hold it vertically with the hole at the top and drop blood in. Blood poured inside instead of sprayed would travel further than it should and hit an area in the middle of nowhere. A dropper would result in blood dripping far down or even not so far but just hitting isolated areas. What does a spray do? It gets blood over a wide area but that wide area will be confined to the first several inches. Since the blood distribution is consistent with a spray you need to establish a device/method to spray blood to plant it so it would be able to result in the distribution found. That requires testing to try to figure out if there is such a method that would be possible. In addition you need a blood supply and need to have a way to either access Sheila's blood or to know unique details about her blood so that you could find a source with the same characteristics. You would need to know she had a wound that would result in drawback which in turn means you know the rifle would have it and that such blood needed to be eliminated. Obviously the family could not accomplish this alone as many would like to pretend. Realistically only the lab could pull this off though they would need police and relatives to pitch in to help support their antics. When you look at that it all involved the planting is not very plausible at all.
But these details are ignored or attempts are made to pretending there was only a flake of blood in the moderator to avoid having to deal with this daunting challenge.
Instead Mike and others want to just jump to the the documents and testimony but sitll have no support there. The documents do not support Mike. There are no documents with a SJ/1 designation and despite all Mike's efforts he has yet to explain a valid reason why there would be. Mike says someone told him about the existence he cna't prove they exists by showing them because he has not seen them. The story about COLP admitting the existence of these documents and concealing them and thus lying in the final report issued makes no sense at all. Moreover, not asking anyone in any interview about a SJ/1 makes no sense.
Mike's claims keep shifting though as if everything he comes up with is simply ad hoc. We have no idea what he is arguing anymore because he keeps going back and forth between SJ/1 being collected by police on 8/7 or collected from the family on 8/12.
The only plausible planting would have to involve the lab being the mastermind and working from there explaining the mechanism that was likely used and to produce the evidence to back up the claims. No evidence is presented and there is not even any effort to truly test how to plant blood to be distributed in the manner found. In fact, the lab simply could simply take blood and pretend they found it in the moderator there would not even be a need to actually plant it at all. But the blood had been there because the defense found it on the first 8 baffles so they can't have simply made it up.
If I were hired by Jeremy I would consult experts to see precisely what would be entailed in spraying blood inside, asking if there is a known way it coudl be accomplished and see if they coudl do tests to figure out how it could be done.
Also to look through the various testimony and evidence to see if there is anything that supports the suggestion blood was planted or would provide a basis to interview someone to see if they would say anything of use.
There is none of that here though. Aside from the exhibit numbers being changed there is nothing to latch onto at all and the exhibit numbers changing was explained thoroughly. the SJ/1 whole line seems to be a bust and seems to be simply made up.
With respect to the notion Sheila was on the bed at one point, there is no credible evidence since there are no photos, no testimony from the multitude of peopel who saw her body in the house and finally no reaosn to move her to the bed. At any rate such a move woudl not matter. The allegation she was moved from the bed suffers from the same problems and indeed early photos and testimony place her on the floor. This is another worthless red herring anyway.
Her body was seated against something when shot then very shortly after this while she was still bleeding her body was moved flat. The bible was dipped in the pool of blood that formed after she was lying flat and opened and closed before the blood was dry.
Police moving her body after she was flat already doesn't help the defense at all. In order to claim that the killer did not do these things but rather police, it is necessary to show that very shortly after she was shot police found her seated and moved her body flat and then the bible was soaked in the blood pool and police moved the bible and opened it closed. That is what the defense needs to establish to be able to say these 2 movements do not prove Sheila could have killed herself.
Were any shots heard at any time while police were at the scene let alone shortly before police found her body? No and contrary to claims made here the sound made by shots travels through windows.
Did any police who initially saw her (there were 7 for sure who saw her close to the time of entry) say she was found seated against something? No they all agree she was flat like June.
Is there any indication that she died significantly later than the other victims? No
Any other evidence that could be used to challenge the witness testimony? No.
Any evidence the pool of blood was wet and they played with the bible as the blood was wet? No
The fact they moved her body a little well after she died means nothing at all that is expected. Yet that is all that can be established and what most raise though it doesn't deal with the issue that actually matters.
When I want to actually prove something I deal with the issue at hand. Dealing with red herrings is either: to divert, mislead or as a result of inability to recognize what is actually significant and thus wasting one's own time of a fools errand.
Scipio I do agree with most of this. But there's always the doubt,especially with the photograph of Sheila with the wet blood,which was not disclosed to the Defence until 2002.
-
In response to suggestions that I have no evidence to back up what I am saying, how about me having possession of 50,000 case documents under my direct control and in my possession, some of which are original material...
I have only looked at about 50% of it thus far, god knows what else I might stumble upon when I find time to get around to reading all of it...
In light of this, how can anyone say that I have no evidence to support what I am saying?
Seems to me that I have got more evidence than most at my disposal...
You have not posted any documents that support any of your claims and you yourself stated you were told about SJ/1 from someone else who alledge to you she saw documents.
Having original documents doens't make sense though because the government would not turn over originals.
-
Scipio I do agree with most of this. But there's always the doubt,especially with the photograph of Sheila with the wet blood,which was not disclosed to the Defence until 2002.
Which photo is this? I have been shown several that claim to dispaly wet blood but the blood could in fact be dry and looked dry on those I saw. I have not seen a thing to doubt the offiical story at all presented to date.
-
Not only did Stan Jones deliberately return to the scene after attending Jeremys cottage to accompany DC Clark to take a witness statement from Jeremy, but he left Goldhanger in a hurry because he wss contacted at Jeremys cottage by way of mobile phone from "Taff" Jones, and requested to reattend the scene and take possession of various exhibits, one of which wsd a silencer...
Where is your evidence to support these claims?
-
To begin with - DS 'Stanley Brian Jones was a criminal who falsified his pocketbook entries against force policy and the criminal justice system. IF YOU FALSIFY EVIDENCE OF THIS NATURE, nothing of evidential value can believed to be true by such a criminal...
DS Jones was a corrupted police officer, who falsified his pocketbook entries to prevent the truth coming out regarding the two key silencers he had involvement with (SBJ/1 and SJ/1) in the case brought against Jeremy Bamber...
-
To begin with - DS 'Stanley Brian Jones was a criminal who falsified his pocketbook entries against force policy and the criminal justice system. IF YOU FALSIFY EVIDENCE OF THIS NATURE, nothing of evidential value can believed to be true by such a criminal...
DS Jones was a corrupted police officer, who falsified his pocketbook entries to prevent the truth coming out regarding the two key silencers he had involvement with (SBJ/1 and SJ/1) in the case brought against Jeremy Bamber...
Can anyone trust a copper who deliberately falsifies his pocketbook entries?
-
Let's look at the 'EVIDENCE' confirming that DS Jones falsified his pocketbook entries, covering his direct involvement or otherwise, in the so called white house farm murder investigation...
Here, we see the front cover of DS Jones dodgy pocketbook entries, a pocketbook bearing the number 49, started on the 4th April 1985, oh no, forget that, it starts on the 5th November 1984, oops, wrong again, Jones started the first entries in this version of his pocketbook evidence on the 5th April 1985...
The last entries recorded in this handwritten pocketbook issued to DS Jones, was made on the 7th May 1986...
-
This is evidence, (the dates of commencement of entries within DS Jones pocketbook which he referred to whilst testifying during the October 1986 trial of Jeremy Bamber and Sheila Caffell) that the jury never heard anything at all about. ..
-
This dodgy pocketbook, was issued to DS Jones by a senior Essex police officer of no less a rank of POLICE INSPECTOR...
Suggestions:-
DI Ron Cook
PI Bob Miller
DCI Wright
DCS Ainsley
DI Soanes (Special Branch)
ACC Peter Simpson...
-
Records are kept of every pocketbook issued to every police officer against the signatures of the senior issuing police officer and the police officer receiving the pocketbook...
in this case, the receiving 0fficer, being DS Stanley Brian Jones...
Same police officer who returned to the scene for a second occasion on 7th August 1985, after attending along with DC Clarke at Jeremys cottage in Goldhanger, to take a witness statement from Jeremy...
-
Police officers, have to make daily entries into the pages of these official pocketbooks issued to them by senior officers...
-
It is my case, that the pages of this particular pocketbook with three different start dates, were written up later and presented at court as though written up immediately or contemporaneously. The entries contained in this dodgy pocketbook cover the involvement of DS Jones in the Bamber / Caffell investigation, between 7th August 1985, and May 1986...
-
It is my case, that the pages of this particular pocketbook with three different start dates, were written up later and presented at court as though written up immediately or contemporaneously. The entries contained in this dodgy pocketbook cover the involvement of DS Jones in the Bamber / Caffell investigation, between 7th August 1985, and May 1986...
These notes cannot be original contemporaneously recorded notes, but have to be treated as suspicious - where are his original notes, and what if anything different to what is recorded in this particular version, exists elsewhere, in another pocketbook used by DS Jones at all material times?
-
What has been written out of these notes contained in this version of his pocketbook (49) are details relating to the seizure of a collection of four exhibits from the scene at whf on 7th August 1985, bearing the identifying marks of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
Why has DS Jones omitted these important details from within the re-written pages of pocketbook 49?
-
In the context of this case, why on earth would DS Jones omit details of him taking exhibits at the scene of an official multiple murder suicide investigation, if one of these exhibits (SBJ/1) had been arguably the most striking piece of evidence being relied upon by the prosecution in prosecuting Bamber as the killer? Why would DS Jones not want anyone to know that he took possession of a silencer from the scene on 7th August 1985, if it was the very same silencer which relatives later found at the scene on the 10th August 1985?
Do you not agree that there is something significantly wrong here, and that this police officer has tried to conceal the fact that he found the first silencer, not the relatives?
Do you also not agree, that if DS Jones found a silencer first at the scene (7th August 1985), , which was somehow rediscovered by relatives three days later, that there would be nothing wrong with identifying the silencer in question by reference to DS Jones initials and a corresponding number of 1, and that there would be no need whatsoever to alter the exhibit reference to SJ/1, or DB/1 or even DRB/1, because DS Jones was the first witness to find it, if it were the same silencer as that found by the relatives three days later?
-
It gets worse...
Whilst at the scene on that first morning, he took a photograph of the downstairs toilet, showing a presence of Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle with silencer attached to its barrel...
The odd thing, however, is that this photograph vanished off the face of the earth, and never formed part and parcel of the official photographic records compiled by PC David Bird (SOC)...
Why get rid of the photograph of the downstairs toilet showing the Pargeter silencer fitted to a rifles barrel?
-
It gets worse...
Whilst at the scene on that first morning, he took a photograph of the downstairs toilet, showing a presence of Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle with silencer attached to its barrel...
The odd thing, however, is that this photograph vanished off the face of the earth, and never formed part and parcel of the official photographic records compiled by PC David Bird (SOC)...
Why get rid of the photograph of the downstairs toilet showing the Pargeter silencer fitted to a rifles barrel?
Was the silencer (SBJ/1) taken from the scene by DS Jones on morning of 7th August 1985, the one belonging to Anthony Pargeter and his .22 rifle, or was it some other silencer belonging to a police officer involved in the rad to enter the farmhouse?
-
If there was only one silencer involved in the handling of Bambers prosecution with all these different exhibit references, SBJ/1 (7th August), SJ/1 (13th August), DB/1 (30th August) and DRB/1 (20th September 1985) does this mean that Sheila's blood was found insifde the silencer (SBJ/1) fitted to Anthony Pargeters .22 bruno bolt action rifle, and if so how did Sheila's blood get inside it with the silencer in question being fitted to the barrel of Pargeters rifle?
Did DS Jones seize Anthony Pargeters silencer (SBJ/1) from the scene on 7th August 1985, or some other as yet unidentified silencer?
-
What has been written out of these notes contained in this version of his pocketbook (49) are details relating to the seizure of a collection of four exhibits from the scene at whf on 7th August 1985, bearing the identifying marks of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
Why has DS Jones omitted these important details from within the re-written pages of pocketbook 49?
-
What has been written out of these notes contained in this version of his pocketbook (49) are details relating to the seizure of a collection of four exhibits from the scene at whf on 7th August 1985, bearing the identifying marks of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
Why has DS Jones omitted these important details from within the re-written pages of pocketbook 49?
-
Why does DS Jones signature appear on several EXAMINATION OF ARTICLES forms retained at the Lab' at Huntingdon, but his signature is absent on other similar forms relating to other bullets and bullet cases subject of the shootings?
How dodgy can the evidence be, if DS Jones is there at the lab' having direct involvement in the examination of bullets which were linked or associated with having been fired from the Bamber rifle, not the Pargeter one?
-
It gets worse...
Whilst at the scene on that first morning, he took a photograph of the downstairs toilet, showing a presence of Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle with silencer attached to its barrel...
The odd thing, however, is that this photograph vanished off the face of the earth, and never formed part and parcel of the official photographic records compiled by PC David Bird (SOC)...
Why get rid of the photograph of the downstairs toilet showing the Pargeter silencer fitted to a rifles barrel?
How do you know he took a photo of it? No one claims it was there, no one claims the photo was taken. You simply invented this apparaently. In the meantime the crossing out of the start date on the cover doesn't prove in any way, shape or form the book was doctored. my checkbook register has the start date on the cover crossed off because I intended to use it, found my old one before I made any entries and ended up finishing the old one first. This doesn't prove anything about entires being doctored or changed. Indeed if recopying the book into a new one why would he have the dates crossed off? It makes no sense.
You still have not provided any evidence for your claims about SJ/1 and claiming it was collected on 8/12 is a waste of time because for sure the moderator was SBJ/1 and scope collected that day SBJ/2 both from Boutflour.
There is no evidence of anything collected on 8/7 anymore than a photo he took.
You keep making claims but have no evidence to support those claims. Saying you expect to find some in the large amount of documents you say you have doesn't cut it. You need to read the documents and follow the evidence where it leads not decide what you think they will show.
Claiming you believe evidence was destroyed like photos that were never even reported by anyone as existing doesn't accomplish anything. What you can prove is what matters.
-
Stan Jones took possession of four exhibits from the scene on 7th August 1985, he took them during his second visit to the scene as recorded in the original entries of the first Major incident property register at the same time he seized exhibits SBJ/2, SBJ/3, and SBJ/4...
The entry relating to the photograph which DS Jones took at the scene of the downstairs toilet on 7th August 1985, states that this photograph was destroyed, but Jeremy has a copy of it, and he says Anthony Pargeters .22 rifle and silencer are shown in the photograph in question...
Jeremy already has this evidence...
-
Let no-one be in any doubt that DS Jones, substituted the original contents of his pocketbook, which he made up between 5th November 1984 and the 7th May 1985. This represents a period of some 18 months worth of entries, which gives a strong indication that Jones had notes recorded in different pocketbooks covering this entire period, which were re-written into this version of his pocketbook dealing with his role in the Bamber / Caffell investigation...
A record exists detailing the name of the senior officer who issued Jones with this additional pocketbook into which key evidence regarding his role with the two different silencers, his relationship with Julie Mugford, and the bullets at the Lab', were omitted or edited out...
Nothing could be any clearer - Jones tampered with the contents of his pocketbook containing key evidence about the two different silencers he had involvement with, that were eventually merged into the same one...
-
In one fell swoop of the pen, DS Jones removed information pertaining to his duties carried out between 11th November 1984, and the 5th April 1985:-
-
This pocketbook was issued by a senior police officer on the 5th November 1984, but not used by DS Jones until he re-write his evidence in May 1986:-
-
Police officers are supposed to only have access to one working in progress pocketbook at a time, not two or more, but police officers regularly abuse the system and get issued with several blank pocket books into which evidence they intend to rely on in a particular court case is re-written to include key evidence needed to help convict a defendant. Officers use entries in these re-written versions of their note books whilst testifying, claiming that the notes being referred to were written up contemporaneously at the time of the offence or incident, when they were not written up in these replacement pocket books until months later by which stage police know what is important and required to try and get a conviction or not...
Obviously, any damaging information written up originally in the true current book will be omitted in the re-written version, which is precisely what DS Jones did in this case, he was encouraged to do this by senior police officers intent on covering up the existence of two key silencers involved in the investigation of the case - it was one of many criminal justice system conspiracies that happen all the time, where evidence is manipulated, edited or taken out of the equation all the time. In a nutshell, in most of these cases, it is just a game being played out by the police, judiciary and other government agencies, where they make up the rules as they go along, they decide what is evidence and what is not evidence, they dictate what you can see or have access to, you have to deal with things they make up, or present before you, and then you have to deal with the criminal justice systems adjudicators, many of whom are bias in favour of the prosecuting authorities tactics, unless those representing such a defendant are sharp enough to object to the introduction or reliance in court proceedings of dodgy evidence, like in this case, involving use of the two key silencers which were merged into the same one...
-
If the defence had known or been told of the existence of these two key silencers (SBJ/1 and the other SJ/1), I doubt very much that the blood and paint evidence used to suggest that Sheila could not have killed herself would ever have been permitted to be used during the trial. Additionally, it would have been open to the defence at trial in those circumstances to argue that the key blood group evidence had been found inside the silencer owned by Anthony Pargeter, the one DS Jones photographed fitted to the barrel of Anthony Pargeters .22 bruno bolt action rifle in the downstairs toilet on the morning of the shootings...
Couple this to the dodgy ballistics evidence, and you have got a powder keg waiting to explode, since according to the ballistics expert (FLETCHER) all the bullets were fired via the Bamber owned Anshuzt rifle, so if Sheila's unique blood was found inside Anthony Pargeters silencer that was fitted to the Pargeter rifle barrel, how did her blood and red paint from the aga get into his silencer?
On and on it would go, probing questions about this and that...
-
If the defence had known or been told of the existence of these two key silencers (SBJ/1 and the other SJ/1), I doubt very much that the blood and paint evidence used to suggest that Sheila could not have killed herself would ever have been permitted to be used during the trial. Additionally, it would have been open to the defence at trial in those circumstances to argue that the key blood group evidence had been found inside the silencer owned by Anthony Pargeter, the one DS Jones photographed fitted to the barrel of Anthony Pargeters .22 bruno bolt action rifle in the downstairs toilet on the morning of the shootings...
Couple this to the dodgy ballistics evidence, and you have got a powder keg waiting to explode, since according to the ballistics expert (FLETCHER) all the bullets were fired via the Bamber owned Anshuzt rifle, so if Sheila's unique blood was found inside Anthony Pargeters silencer that was fitted to the Pargeter rifle barrel, how did her blood and red paint from the aga get into his silencer?
On and on it would go, probing questions about this and that...
So, to prevent any of this occurring during the trial, they merged both of the two key silencers into one, and the patsy if anything were to go wrong, would be DS Jones himself, like he has now turned out to be, only now he has died and we will see in due course that Essex police will throw him to the wolves, just like they did with DCI "Taff" Jones...
-
Many of the senior police officers involved in this conspiracy are still alive, living off their fat police pensions, the public are paying these criminals for being criminals dressed in uniform at the height of these investigations, bent coppers, tampering with key evidence within a corrupted criminal justice system...
The guilty ones need arresting given a fair trial, being convicted and sentenced to 200 hours community service...
-
It's beyond high time that EP should come clean about this one way or the other. If they've got nothing to hide,then they'll produce the original logs/notes to halt all the speculation surrounding the silencer/s.
I can appreciate the mix-up if there were indeed 5 silencers,as has been stated,but for the sake of an innocent man,who,it is claimed,used A silencer ??! why not admit defeat and say you got it wrong ? If there was blood on the said silencer,then there'd have been prints too,as well as it having been buckled/damaged through misuse.
Because of this deliberate withholding of evidence,suspicions of malpractice on behalf of EP is highly evident among those officers who knew/know that Jeremy is innocent.They will be exposed at some point in time ( when they've ALL retired and collected their pensions !) Or dead.
-
It's beyond high time that EP should come clean about this one way or the other. If they've got nothing to hide,then they'll produce the original logs/notes to halt all the speculation surrounding the silencer/s.
I can appreciate the mix-up if there were indeed 5 silencers,as has been stated,but for the sake of an innocent man,who,it is claimed,used A silencer ??! why not admit defeat and say you got it wrong ? If there was blood on the said silencer,then there'd have been prints too,as well as it having been buckled/damaged through misuse.
Because of this deliberate withholding of evidence,suspicions of malpractice on behalf of EP is highly evident among those officers who knew/know that Jeremy is innocent.They will be exposed at some point in time ( when they've ALL retired and collected their pensions !) Or dead.
The only speculation about multiple moderators is coming form a handful of people who don't matter. These claims have already been refuted. Indeed, Mike's claims are not only completely unsupported but seem to be entirely made up which is evidence not only by his lack of evidence but the fact that he changes his claims ever second. There is zero evidence at all to suggest a moderator was collected on 8/7/85 by anyone let alone Stanley Jones. There is no evidence at all to suggest any piece of evidence was assigned a prefix of SJ let alone a moderator given that designation and there is no reason why any item would be assigned it.
Mike seems to have invented the SJ/1 designation out of whole cloth as evidenced by the fact he keeps changign his claims. One minute SJ/1 is a moderator collected on 8/7/85 while SBJ/1 is the moderator found by Boutflour and the next SJ/1 is the moderator found by Boutflour and SBJ/1 is a moderator collected on 8/7/85. The government has no need to address these claims since they are not being made by the lawyers in the case but rather in informal settings and have no legs at all because they are simply mad eup claims without any evidentiary support at all.
-
Which photo is this? I have been shown several that claim to dispaly wet blood but the blood could in fact be dry and looked dry on those I saw. I have not seen a thing to doubt the offiical story at all presented to date.
You must know to which photograph I am alluding,as it has now become infamous in the case. Whilst not conclusive proof in itself that Jeremy is innocent it does raise questions as to the Police account and what their role was in the bedroom that morning.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sheila_Caffell_injuries.jpg
-
You must know to which photograph I am alluding,as it has now become infamous in the case. Whilst not conclusive proof in itself that Jeremy is innocent it does raise questions as to the Police account and what their role was in the bedroom that morning.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sheila_Caffell_injuries.jpg
The blood looks dry there. It is very red before it dries but that blood has been exposed ot oxygen a long time. Also there are other characteristics I can't explain but can recognize when a wound is bleeding. They were actually a little tricky with this. Instead of trying to ask any police if the blood was wet knowing they would say it was dry they tried to pretend 1 cop said he saw her actively bleeding (though he didn't actually say that at best his comments were ambiguous) and tried to say his claim she was bleeding in combination witht he photo that they claim is wet blood demonstrates Jeremy can't have done it and they used this as a basis to request a pardon.
I have not seen any evidence they tried to pull this with the appeal courts though maybe they did. Supposedly the CCRC was investigating the matter for 6-7 years between 2004 and 2011. Maybe at some point it was broached to them but informally rejected.
-
The blood looks dry there. It is very red before it dries but that blood has been exposed ot oxygen a long time. Also there are other characteristics I can't explain but can recognize when a wound is bleeding. They were actually a little tricky with this. Instead of trying to ask any police if the blood was wet knowing they would say it was dry they tried to pretend 1 cop said he saw her actively bleeding (though he didn't actually say that at best his comments were ambiguous) and tried to say his claim she was bleeding in combination witht he photo that they claim is wet blood demonstrates Jeremy can't have done it and they used this as a basis to request a pardon.
I have not seen any evidence they tried to pull this with the appeal courts though maybe they did. Supposedly the CCRC was investigating the matter for 6-7 years between 2004 and 2011. Maybe at some point it was broached to them but informally rejected.
Personally I don't remember any cop saying that he saw her bleeding. I think the questions came from various people on the forum, including myself. All I can say it that to me it looks as if the blood is still flowing? But of course I may be wrong? Unfortunately the pictures that we have here are not the best of quality. It also appears to be a plug of blood that has come loose, possibly from someone moving the body? But again I could be wrong? But if I am honest the blood in the picture does look fresh for use of a better word?
-
Personally I don't remember any cop saying that he saw her bleeding.
You are correct in the sense that no cop would have testified she was bleeding when they saw her if asked that quesiton. However, one wrote in his statement blood was leaking down her mouth to the floor. Because he didn't use past tense in the statement the submission for a pardon argued this meant he saw her actively bleeding. The statement was relied upon instead of questioning him because if questioned he would clarify no he didn't mean she was bleeding presently. That is why courts want testimony from live witnesses so that you can cross examine and fully explore things.
I think they figured they had nothing to lose by trying to be cute with the pardon application. Unless we are given full access to the CCRC submissions we can't know if they tried the same with the CCRC or not.
I think the questions came from various people on the forum, including myself. All I can say it that to me it looks as if the blood is still flowing? But of course I may be wrong? Unfortunately the pictures that we have here are not the best of quality. It also appears to be a plug of blood that has come loose, possibly from someone moving the body? But again I could be wrong? But if I am honest the blood in the picture does look fresh for use of a better word?
To see if it is flowing you look directly outside the wound itself and if flowing still there will be a glob and it will be very red and shiny. The blood near the wounds are not only dark but look quite flat. Gravity took the blood away already.
Some say she had pockets of blood in her mouth that were disturbed by moving her body and while plausible it is hard ot know if that is the truth or not. One would need to question the police more thoroughly about that precise aspect. The only statement I am aware of mentioning the blood on the mouth suggests it was there all along not later from moving the body.
-
A blood expert from Europe looked at the photograph in question and concluded that because of the appearance of the blood in question, he estimated that Sheila had died between 1 and 2 hours before the photograph in question had been taken. Additionally, the same expert confirmed that once the heart stopped beating that oxygen remained in the blood for up to 15 minutes, but thereafter because there was no more oxygen in the blood, it would start to coagulate and blacken in appearance...
As a result of examining the said photograph, you can see the commencement of the blackening of the blood either side of the trail, distinguishing fresh flowing blood from drying blood coagulating...
-
Sheila had not been dead from as long ago as 3am, she did not die until after the police forced their way into the farmhouse, the introduction of the silencer, blood and paint evidence as relating to a solitary silencer allegedly found at the scene by relatives was designed to distract everyone into believing somebody other than herself and not the police must have been responsible for killing her, because of her blood in the silencer concealed in a cupboard in the downstairs office...
-
Sheila had not been dead from as long ago as 3am, she did not die until after the police forced their way into the farmhouse, the introduction of the silencer, blood and paint evidence as relating to a solitary silencer allegedly found at the scene by relatives was designed to distract everyone into believing somebody other than herself and not the police must have been responsible for killing her, because of her blood in the silencer concealed in a cupboard in the downstairs office...
I wonder what Jeremy heard that made him say, "Those men with the guns killed her"? Do you think he heard gunfire?
-
Sheila had not been dead from as long ago as 3am, she did not die until after the police forced their way into the farmhouse, the introduction of the silencer, blood and paint evidence as relating to a solitary silencer allegedly found at the scene by relatives was designed to distract everyone into believing somebody other than herself and not the police must have been responsible for killing her, because of her blood in the silencer concealed in a cupboard in the downstairs office...
According to the prosecutions version of events the person who shot and killed Sheila did so with the silencer (SJ/1 - DRB/1) fitted to its barrel, once Sheila was killed the killer removed the silencer from the gun, took it all the way downstairs to hide it in the gun cupboard, but I have got news for everybody, Sheila's blood was not found inside the silencer found at the scene by relatives on 10th August 1985, her blood was found in the other silencer (SBJ/1 - DB/1) recovered from the scene by the dodgy DS Stan Jones on 7th August 1985...
-
How did the killer remove the silencer with Sheila's blood inside it, managed to get beyond the internal main kitchen door behind or in front of which was sat perched upon a wooden chair, the body of the deceased Ralph Bamber, which caused members of the raid team so much trouble after they smashed thier way into the farmhouse...
Think about it...
-
Something else about this photo. There is a clear blood-free area under the lower shot where Sheila´s necklace pendance had been. Any suggestions as to how that could have happened? Scipio? I am genuinely interested in what you have to say about this, I know we are NOT best of friends, but push it aside for a minute.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/Sheila_Caffell_injuries.jpg)
This just to show the shape of the pendant.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4510;image)
I never noticed before that Sheila was wearing earrings (and a watch, had seen that). Would you go to bed to sleep with earrings on?
I know I don´t, would bother the hell out of me, but people are different.
-
If I am the alleged fool you say I am, and who almost everyone agrees to be true - then why do you keep reading my posts...
Whether or not I be the fool you claim I am, did you not know that 'Even a fool may have the audience of a king'...
-
A blood expert from Europe looked at the photograph in question and concluded that because of the appearance of the blood in question, he estimated that Sheila had died between 1 and 2 hours before the photograph in question had been taken. Additionally, the same expert confirmed that once the heart stopped beating that oxygen remained in the blood for up to 15 minutes, but thereafter because there was no more oxygen in the blood, it would start to coagulate and blacken in appearance...
As a result of examining the said photograph, you can see the commencement of the blackening of the blood either side of the trail, distinguishing fresh flowing blood from drying blood coagulating...
There is no scientifically accepted principle that one can tell how long someone is dead based on looking at a photo or trying to figure out how long blood took to dry let alone have courts ever considered such analysis valid. Before such can get before a jury the courts must first decide the principle is sound. There is no recognized anysis though in this regard.
Moreover the expert who actuall saw the bodies in person prior to 9AM and pronounced them dead saw no evidence Sheila died very recently he stated she died hours earlier.
-
Since, the pathologist did not carry out the autopsy on the body of Sheila Caffell until after 3pm on 7th August 1985, his specific reference to Sheila having died several hours previously fits in snugly with the ffact that she was not killed until after police entered the farmhouse using force at just after 7.30am...
Pathologists conclusion that Sheila had died several hours previously does not support the argument that she had been dead from as long ago as half a day previously...
-
Sheila wasn't even the " right colour " to have been dead for any length of time.
-
Scipio, I am really interested in your take on the bloodfree pendant-mark on Sheila´s neck, how it got to be there. You seem to have a very fixed idea of how she was positioned when she was shot - but I am sure you can explain this. I am not being snarky here, I am genuinely interested in your input about this.
My question is in post #370 above.
-
Something else about this photo. There is a clear blood-free area under the lower shot where Sheila´s necklace pendance had been. Any suggestions as to how that could have happened? Scipio? I am genuinely interested in what you have to say about this, I know we are NOT best of friends, but push it aside for a minute.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/Sheila_Caffell_injuries.jpg)
This just to show the shape of the pendant.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4510;image)
I never noticed before that Sheila was wearing earrings (and a watch, had seen that). Would you go to bed to sleep with earrings on?
I know I don´t, would bother the hell out of me, but people are different.
Someone who actually knows her would have to comment on if she usually wore jewelry to bed or not. I actually asked about such in the past but no one could find any evidence of any witnesses being asked about her habits with regard to such. I asked the same about Nevill since he had a watch on. Some women take off watches and jewerly as soon as they arrive home an donly wear them out of the house others wear them always. There is no way to know her normal habits when staying somewhere besides home without a witness who would actually be in a position to answer being asked.
I'm not sure what you are asking about the pendant exactly. If an item is flat against the skin and blood is flowing the item can divert blood to go around it, if there is a gap the blood can get behind it. It can also block back spatter from landing. So someone full of spatter can have voids on their skin if the items that caused the voids are removed.
Pendants can float around while the body is moving so can end up in different places at different times. These are general principles that can be applied but you need to have an expert look in great detail and to apply their trade to know very specific things. I know enough about spatter and so forth to be able to question experts and actually comprehend what they are saying but you need another expert to give a second opinion to see if they are fully correct about every detail.
I don't know if this offers you any use at all or not.
-
Scipio, I am really interested in your take on the bloodfree pendant-mark on Sheila´s neck, how it got to be there. You seem to have a very fixed idea of how she was positioned when she was shot - but I am sure you can explain this. I am not being snarky here, I am genuinely interested in your input about this.
My question is in post #370 above.
I answered it to the best extent I could. I am not ignoring you, I try to answer all posts I see but there are so many responses it takes time to get to them. I'm not a paid plant so have other stuff to do in between posting here. Plus I like to have some fun.
This movie has a great ending:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1297919/
People should watch some movies and have some fun.
-
Why does blood appear to run / flow / leak in two different directions from the lower of the two bukket wounds to Sheila's neck, yet only appear to run in one direction from the upper fatal wound>
-
In the following diagram, I have labelled the three directional flows of blood, A, B and C, respectively, to try and demonstrate that there was a lengthy delay between both shots (see flow A and B) being fired:-
-
Look here:-
-
Clearly, the blood flow at A, which has already dried and is fading, travels in a vertical direction as if Sheila was upright and maybe twisted or off balance at the time she received this shot. Whereas, the blood flow at B is more horizontal in appearance and appears to still have oxygen in the blood which was a shot inflicted when she was still very much alive, but laying down...
One (flow A) which is vertical in orientation and without oxygen, the other (flow B) horizontal in nature still with oxygen in the blood...
-
Point I am seeking to make, is that the same configured rifle could not possibly have inflicted both wounds in the same action, there had to be a lengthy delay between the first shot (flow A) and the second shot (flow B)...
-
The dried area of blood is a mixture of plasma ( lighter than blood ) so would flow like water. It appears before the actual blood starts to flow. The plasma would have flowed faster from the wound as it's 50 odd % part of the component of blood,with blood being the remaining 40 odd %.
I can see that Sheila would have been in a sitting position before she lolled sideways,because of the pattern of the flow.
-
Looking at this case from a medical point of view rather than a criminal one,,I'd say that the tragedy was caused by the two women !
-
I can see what you mean, Mike.
Scipio, thanks fo answer. That necklace really was "glued" to Sheila´s neck. Her neck must have been wet - either from a shower or from sweat.
I am convinced, as it seems there is agreement on, that she was in an upright position for the first shot, so it is a little puzzling that the necklace didn´t quite follow the law of gravity and hung freely down.
-
I can see what you mean, Mike.
Scipio, thanks fo answer. That necklace really was "glued" to Sheila´s neck. Her neck must have been wet - either from a shower or from sweat.
I am convinced, as it seems there is agreement on, that she was in an upright position for the first shot, so it is a little puzzling that the necklace didn´t quite follow the law of gravity and hung freely down.
Hi Alias,
Good points, and I am in agrrement with what you have brought to everyones attention...
Well done...
-
Alias good point about Sheila's necklace I think she had taken a shower have always thought that.
-
I can see what you mean, Mike.
Scipio, thanks fo answer. That necklace really was "glued" to Sheila´s neck. Her neck must have been wet - either from a shower or from sweat.
I am convinced, as it seems there is agreement on, that she was in an upright position for the first shot, so it is a little puzzling that the necklace didn´t quite follow the law of gravity and hung freely down.
Excellent,,Alias. Either way,sweat or wet,it allows us all to think deeply,the reasons for both.,Well done girl.
-
Thanks.
I just tried it with a necklace chain about the thickness of Sheila´s (I don´t have a pendant similar to hers - perhaps someone else does who can try this simple experiment?). Put water on my neck and on the necklace - it stuck, also when I leaned forward. My skin is only damp now (did this eight minutes ago,) it still sticks.
I think her hair was wet and water ran from it to her neck, perhaps also damp skin from recent shower, I always thought that her hair looks as if it was freshly washed and just left to dry without combing - this further bolsters that theory.
.....
-
Alias you and I discussed this before about her hair looking newly washed and left to dry naturally.
-
Alias you and I discussed this before about her hair looking newly washed and left to dry naturally.
We did. :)
-
Well done, girls...
-
Another thing worth mentioning I think, is the absence of any bloody marks around the original vertically inclined shot, and a presence of bloody fingerprints around the second horizontally inclined second shot, as if someone was trying to stop or prevent the second wound from bleeding after Sheila received the second shot:-
-
Another thing worth mentioning I think, is the absence of any bloody marks around the original vertically inclined shot, and a presence of bloody fingerprints around the second horizontally inclined second shot, as if someone was trying to stop or prevent the second wound from bleeding after Sheila received the second shot:-
This has always puzzled me....
About the upper, fatal wound - could it have been the muzzle of the rifle (or the silencer - if so, Sheila did not kill herself!) that made this when it fell out of her hands?
Here we have a problem - we all have different theories about who shot!! ;)
-
Why would the individual who shot Sheila beneath the chin when she was laid down flat want to stop the blood from flowing from the wound upon it being inflicted?
It just doesn't make any sense, for any would be killer, to shoot Sheila under the chin to kill her because she was not yet dead from the first shot across the throat, and then for that killer to thrust his fingers against the second bullet wound beneath the chin to try and stop her from bleeding, before removing his fingers and the blood continuing to pour from the fatal wound in question, over the top of the two bloodied fingermarks deposited there in the first instance...
Sorry, but any would be, my name is, Jeremy Bamber, the killer would have no inclination to prevent Sheila from bleeding to death, in those circumstances, neither would I suggest any other as yet unidentified killer have the same inclination...
But, if police shot Sheila accidentally (second shot beneath chin) whilst repositioning the loaded rifle on her body as part of a re-staging exercise where they were trying to gauge the length of the weapon, to establish whether or not her fingers could reach the trigger so that her apparent death (one shot) could be put down as a suicide, but the repositioning of her hand close to the trigger mechanism activated the firing of the second shot beneath the chin, I can well imagine the rush to try to keep Sheila alive including an attempt to stem the flow of blood by the positioning of fingers over the second entry wound, which proved a fruitless task, hence the removal of the fingers, and the continuation of blood flow on top of the bloodied finger marks upon Sheila's neck...
Blood flowed from the second shot beneath the chin, after the person who attempted to stem the flow of blood from it, removed his fingers...
That person, my friends, cannot have been Jeremy Bamber, from as long ago as 3am that same morning...
-
These images are not part of some trick photography designed to fool anyone into thinking the blood pouring from the upper fatal wound was fresh looking, these are real insitu images of how the blood was on Sheila's neck at around 10am on morning of 7th August 1985...
WET blood, nothing to do with trick photography, even an old fool like me can work that out, so why can't anyone else?
-
I am thoroughly convinced that one or other of the parents,maybe by accident,delivered that first shot to Sheila as they struggled to get the rifle from her.
Even both parents together struggling and grabbing the rifle would have caused it to fire.
Or " half-shot " Neville whilst in the kitchen,,which would have given Sheila enough time to fire the remaining shots at Neville before she collapsed in the kitchen,then later fleeing upstairs to the bedroom after hearing the raid team enter,,as she WAS seen upon entry,along with her father,before vanishing up the back stairs of the building.
If anyone held their hand/fingers beneath the second wound,it would be done until the blood stopped pumping out,after death,to save any further mess than there already was,,otherwise I don't know why anyone would wish to stem the flow when it was only a matter of time before the heart stopped pumping.
No wonder there was a 2 and a half hour wait !! Makes you wonder about that second shot,because I don't think either shots were self inflicted.
-
I am thoroughly convinced that one or other of the parents,maybe by accident,delivered that first shot to Sheila as they struggled to get the rifle from her.
Even both parents together struggling and grabbing the rifle would have caused it to fire.
Or " half-shot " Neville whilst in the kitchen,,which would have given Sheila enough time to fire the remaining shots at Neville before she collapsed in the kitchen,then later fleeing upstairs to the bedroom after hearing the raid team enter,,as she WAS seen upon entry,along with her father,before vanishing up the back stairs of the building.
If anyone held their hand/fingers beneath the second wound,it would be done until the blood stopped pumping out,after death,to save any further mess than there already was,,otherwise I don't know why anyone would wish to stem the flow when it was only a matter of time before the heart stopped pumping.
No wonder there was a 2 and a half hour wait !! Makes you wonder about that second shot,because I don't think either shots were self inflicted.
Hi Lookout,
the police surgeon, Dr Craig, was spot on when at 8.44am he saw what appeared to be a solitary wound on Sheila's neck. Her body at that stage was on the far side of the bed. We know those who think Jeremy is a killer will argue that what the police surgeon said was that her body was on the floor on the far side of the bed, but for some reason, Dr Craig never actually said that. Indeed, when he was visited by Ewen Smith (now a CCRC Commissioner) he told Ewen that Sheila's body was laid on the bed. He also told Ewen Smith that at that stage there was only one bullet wound present on Sheila's neck, definitely not two bullet wounds. The police surgeons wife (Mrs Craig) was present when Ewen Smith visited her husband and the previous evidence was provided to Ewen Smith by the police surgeon. I found out about this whilst visiting Ewen Smith at his solicitors office in Birmingham a day or so, after Dr Craig confessed to him the truth about the second shot to Sheila's neck being inflicted once the police surgeon had left the scene...
This is the truth, Ewen Smith knows its the truth, and so does Dr Craigs wife...
-
I can see what you mean, Mike.
Scipio, thanks fo answer. That necklace really was "glued" to Sheila´s neck. Her neck must have been wet - either from a shower or from sweat.
I am convinced, as it seems there is agreement on, that she was in an upright position for the first shot, so it is a little puzzling that the necklace didn´t quite follow the law of gravity and hung freely down.
You asked about the pendant which floats around. I gave you general principles about the effects of such types of articles when it comes to blood flow and spatter with respect to the causing of voids. Now you seem to be talking about the chain.
A chain can cause a little bit of a blood buildup but a substantial amount of blood will either flow over the chain or under depending on if there is a gap between the skin or not, how big and the pressure of the flow. The chain is not covered in blood which suggests the blood didn't flow over it in areas where there was a flow. The 2 major flows on her neck are from when she was lying down though and we can't see the chain where it meets those flows so whether the blood went under or over we can't tell.
I don't know what people hope to find from this.
She clearly was seated when shot with her back propped against something because otherwise she would have fallen back flat, in which case she would not have bled down her shoulder and to a lesser extent her arm. When she was seated and bleeding the blood didn't run straight down her neck to her chest. Her head was bent and the blood went down to her shoulder. You can see by looking at the blood on the collar of her clothing where it started to touch her nightgown. Because she is flat that part of her nightgown is further back than it would be if she were seated, it would line up with where the blood was flowing when seated.
After the second shot the flow down to her shoulder was initially even more substantial but her heart stopped pumping so that would not have been for an extended period. After the heart stops blood trickles out until the wounds seal themselves or no blood is remaining above the area of the wound. With the heart pumping it keeps moving blood from other areas of the body to the wound region but once the heart stops the blood will settle in other areas and not be brought up to wound area.
For our purposes all that matters is that she was shot and killed while she was seated with her back propped up against something but was found flat and was moved flat while she was still bleeding because flood flowed down the side of her neck onto the floor where it pooled.
-
Dr Craig did not wander around the crime scene unaccompanied, he was in the company of the shooter (of Sheila) PS Woodcock, and PI 'Bob' Miller, at the time he viewed Sheila's body on the far side of the bed. Miller in his statement also records for the fact that Sheila's body is on the far side of the bed, with what appears to be a solitary shot to the neck, so 'Bob' Miller saw what the police surgeon saw, he saw Sheila on the bed, he saw only a solitary bullet hole on her neck, the time was 8.44am, on the morning of 7th August 1985...
PS Woodcock (the shooter of Sheila) was also present at 8.44am, when the police surgeon and 'Bob' Miller viewed Sheila's body on the bed in the main bedroom at a time when they both only saw a solitary shot to Sheila's neck - now this is where it gets interesting because in Woodcocks witness statement he states that much earlier when he first entered the main bedroom (and this was long before the arrival of the police surgeon and 'Bob' Miller at the scene), Woodcock states he found Sheila on the bedroom floor with two bullet wounds on her neck...
Well, hang on a minute, if Woodcock saw Sheila's body on the floor with two bullet wounds on her neck prior to the police surgeon and 'Bob' Miller arriving at the scene, how come Sheila was on the bed with only a solitary bullet wound to her neck afterwards at 8.44am?
-
Another thing worth mentioning I think, is the absence of any bloody marks around the original vertically inclined shot, and a presence of bloody fingerprints around the second horizontally inclined second shot, as if someone was trying to stop or prevent the second wound from bleeding after Sheila received the second shot:-
What fingerprints? If there were fingerprints that would have been used by the prosecution to help establish she did not shoot herself because she was dead upon receiving that shot so could not have done it herself. Moreover, they would have tried to match the print to someone because there is very little more damning than to leave your prints in the blood of a victim.
-
These images are not part of some trick photography designed to fool anyone into thinking the blood pouring from the upper fatal wound was fresh looking, these are real insitu images of how the blood was on Sheila's neck at around 10am on morning of 7th August 1985...
WET blood, nothing to do with trick photography, even an old fool like me can work that out, so why can't anyone else?
It doesn't look wet to me nor did it apparently look wet in person to Dr Craig who declared she died hours earlier when he examined her prior to 9AM.
-
You asked about the pendant which floats around. I gave you general principles about the effects of such types of articles when it comes to blood flow and spatter with respect to the causing of voids. Now you seem to be talking about the chain.
A chain can cause a little bit of a blood buildup but a substantial amount of blood will either flow over the chain or under depending on if there is a gap between the skin or not, how big and the pressure of the flow. The chain is not covered in blood which suggests the blood didn't flow over it in areas where there was a flow. The 2 major flows on her neck are from when she was lying down though and we can't see the chain where it meets those flows so whether the blood went under or over we can't tell.
I don't know what people hope to find from this.
She clearly was seated when shot with her back propped against something because otherwise she would have fallen back flat, in which case she would not have bled down her shoulder and to a lesser extent her arm. When she was seated and bleeding the blood didn't run straight down her neck to her chest. Her head was bent and the blood went down to her shoulder. You can see by looking at the blood on the collar of her clothing where it started to touch her nightgown. Because she is flat that part of her nightgown is further back than it would be if she were seated, it would line up with where the blood was flowing when seated.
After the second shot the flow down to her shoulder was initially even more substantial but her heart stopped pumping so that would not have been for an extended period. After the heart stops blood trickles out until the wounds seal themselves or no blood is remaining above the area of the wound. With the heart pumping it keeps moving blood from other areas of the body to the wound region but once the heart stops the blood will settle in other areas and not be brought up to wound area.
For our purposes all that matters is that she was shot and killed while she was seated with her back propped up against something but was found flat and was moved flat while she was still bleeding because flood flowed down the side of her neck onto the floor where it pooled.
I am talking about both the pendant and the chain. It is clear from the photo that Sheila´s skin is blood-free under both the pendant and (part of) the chain.
If Sheila was sitting in an upright position for the first shot (which I agree with), the necklace must have stuck to her skin for some reason.
My conclusion was that her neck/necklace must have been wet for it to stick to the skin like that (sweat, water, perfume, shampoo, who knows?) So I conducted a simple experiment only with a similar chain, since I don´t have a pendant that looks like Sheila´s. Made it wet, made my skin wet - the chain stuck to the skin for quite a while, also while it was just damp and when I leaned forward and to each side. After it all dried, it didn´t stick, but folowed the rule of gravity.
That was why I was only talkig about the chain.
-
Why would the individual who shot Sheila beneath the chin when she was laid down flat want to stop the blood from flowing from the wound upon it being inflicted?
It just doesn't make any sense, for any would be killer, to shoot Sheila under the chin to kill her because she was not yet dead from the first shot across the throat, and then for that killer to thrust his fingers against the second bullet wound beneath the chin to try and stop her from bleeding, before removing his fingers and the blood continuing to pour from the fatal wound in question, over the top of the two bloodied fingermarks deposited there in the first instance...
No but I don't see any bloody prints nor did the coroner find any bloody prints on her nor has any expert cited any bloody prints on her neck not even the prosecution experts who would have loved such evidence because it would prove for sure Sheila didn't shoot herself because she could not have tried to stem the blood flow of a wound that instantly killed her.
Sorry, but any would be, my name is, Jeremy Bamber, the killer would have no inclination to prevent Sheila from bleeding to death, in those circumstances, neither would I suggest any other as yet unidentified killer have the same inclination...
But, if police shot Sheila accidentally (second shot beneath chin) whilst repositioning the loaded rifle on her body as part of a re-staging exercise where they were trying to gauge the length of the weapon, to establish whether or not her fingers could reach the trigger so that her apparent death (one shot) could be put down as a suicide, but the repositioning of her hand close to the trigger mechanism activated the firing of the second shot beneath the chin, I can well imagine the rush to try to keep Sheila alive including an attempt to stem the flow of blood by the positioning of fingers over the second entry wound, which proved a fruitless task, hence the removal of the fingers, and the continuation of blood flow on top of the bloodied finger marks upon Sheila's neck...
Blood flowed from the second shot beneath the chin, after the person who attempted to stem the flow of blood from it, removed his fingers...
That person, my friends, cannot have been Jeremy Bamber, from as long ago as 3am that same morning...
You keep ignoring that there is no evidence at all to suggest she died significantly later than any other victim. Neither Dr Craig nor the coroner found any evidence to suggest she died significantly later.
The coroner stated the second shot was delivered within seconds of the first shot. So your restaging notion is out the window completely. Moreover the police had someone check the rifle constantly to make sure it was unloaded. Even though it was checked right away police who inspected the body subsequently still had it checked again.
She was moved flat shortly after both shots were fired within seconds of one another. There is not a shred of evidence that police did not find her flat long after she was dead.
-
Lets take the matter a step further...
After the police surgeon, Dr Craig, and PI 'Bob' Miller arrived in time to pronounce Sheila as being on the far side of the bed, with what appears to be a solitary bullet wound to her neck, along comes DS 'Stan' Jones, and DC Clarke to the scene, and they both visit the main bedroom and view Sheila's body on the bed, with a bullet wound to her neck. DCI 'Taff' Jones, sends DS 'Stan' Jones, along with DC Clarke, to take a witness statement from Jeremy at his cottage in Goldhanger...
Well, well, well...
No sooner do Jones and Clarke arrive at Jeremys cottage, than one or other of them, or both of them, are telling Ann Eaton and the others that Sheila has shot and killed the others, and that she has taken her own life by way of a single shot to the neck...
Ann Eaton, states that she cannot remember which police officer told her that Sheila's body and the body of June Bamber were on the bed together, one at the side of the other, with the rifle on the bed between both bodies...
Hang on, Ann...
I can help you out there, since there were only two police officers at Jeremys cottage on the morning of the shootings, er, DS 'Stan' Jones, and er, DC Clarke...
Er, Ann, can you remember now?
-
Dr Craig did not wander around the crime scene unaccompanied, he was in the company of the shooter (of Sheila) PS Woodcock, and PI 'Bob' Miller, at the time he viewed Sheila's body on the far side of the bed. Miller in his statement also records for the fact that Sheila's body is on the far side of the bed, with what appears to be a solitary shot to the neck, so 'Bob' Miller saw what the police surgeon saw, he saw Sheila on the bed, he saw only a solitary bullet hole on her neck, the time was 8.44am, on the morning of 7th August 1985...
Craig noted only 1 bullet wound to each body. He didn't inspect the bodies carefully to count every wound. His job was to see if they were dead and give the apaprent cause of death to those on the scene so they woudl know what to look for. He determined they were all dead and noted 1 wound to each body to say the apparent cause of death was gun shot wound.
If she only received the first wound she wound have eventually died from bleeding out. But that didn't happen because the second shot was delivered within seconds of the first shot. The second shot fired well after the first would not have bled in the manner it did and there would have been substantially more blood from the first wound.
You are not following the evidence. You are desperately trying to come up with a way for Jeremy to be innocent simply.
PS Woodcock (the shooter of Sheila) was also present at 8.44am, when the police surgeon and 'Bob' Miller viewed Sheila's body on the bed in the main bedroom at a time when they both only saw a solitary shot to Sheila's neck - now this is where it gets interesting because in Woodcocks witness statement he states that much earlier when he first entered the main bedroom (and this was long before the arrival of the police surgeon and 'Bob' Miller at the scene), Woodcock states he found Sheila on the bedroom floor with two bullet wounds on her neck...
Well, hang on a minute, if Woodcock saw Sheila's body on the floor with two bullet wounds on her neck prior to the police surgeon and 'Bob' Miller arriving at the scene, how come Sheila was on the bed with only a solitary bullet wound to her neck afterwards at 8.44am?
There is no evidence she wa son the bed ever. Moreover, Miller said, "APPEARS to be" he did npt look at her well. Other officers took a closer look than he did. Dr Craig only noted 1 would on each victim fo rth ereason I cited he didn't say there was only 1 wound on each victim though. He noted a wound on each that could have been fatal to suggest their apparent cause of death was gun-shot wound.
-
The police surgeon, Dr Craig, has never said that Sheila had been dead several hours prior to him pronouncing her as being dead. It was the pathologist who said that and he performed the autopsy at around 3.30pm on the afternoon of 7th August 1985.The police surgeon states that he did not carry out a thorough examination of the condition of Sheila's body at the scene when he pronounced her as being dead, because he said there was no need to in the circumstances reported to him by the police and the presence of the solitary shot to the neck, minus any blood trail - it becomes apparent, therefore, that the bullet wound the police surgeon was talking about was the lower non fatal wound with hardly any blood at all running, pouring or leaking from it, which caused Craig to falsely assume that Sheila was dead at that time, when she was not...
-
The police surgeon, Dr Craig, has never said that Sheila had been dead several hours prior to him pronouncing her as being dead. It was the pathologist who said that and he performed the autopsy at around 3.30pm on the afternoon of 7th August 1985.The police surgeon states that he did not carry out a thorough examination of the condition of Sheila's body at the scene when he pronounced her as being dead, because he said there was no need to in the circumstances reported to him by the police and the presence of the solitary shot to the neck, minus any blood trail - it becomes apparent, therefore, that the bullet wound the police surgeon was talking about was the lower non fatal wound with hardly any blood at all running, pouring or leaking from it, which caused Craig to falsely assume that Sheila was dead at that time, when she was not...
A bullet hole in the neck, no obvious signs of breathing, very little blood exiting the wound, must have caused the police surgeon to wrongly assume that Sheila's heart had stopped beating...
As a result, he miscalculates Sheila as being dead at 8.44am, when in truth she was still barely alive, unconscious, so to speak...
Shot beneath chin with free flowing blood after 8.44am, inflicted whilst police and training officers had full control of the scene, the bodies at the scene, and the guns and ammunitions at the scene...
-
Lets take the matter a step further...
After the police surgeon, Dr Craig, and PI 'Bob' Miller arrived in time to pronounce Sheila as being on the far side of the bed, with what appears to be a solitary bullet wound to her neck, along comes DS 'Stan' Jones, and DC Clarke to the scene, and they both visit the main bedroom and view Sheila's body on the bed, with a bullet wound to her neck. DCI 'Taff' Jones, sends DS 'Stan' Jones, along with DC Clarke, to take a witness statement from Jeremy at his cottage in Goldhanger...
Well, well, well...
No sooner do Jones and Clarke arrive at Jeremys cottage, than one or other of them, or both of them, are telling Ann Eaton and the others that Sheila has shot and killed the others, and that she has taken her own life by way of a single shot to the neck...
Ann Eaton, states that she cannot remember which police officer told her that Sheila's body and the body of June Bamber were on the bed together, one at the side of the other, with the rifle on the bed between both bodies...
Hang on, Ann...
I can help you out there, since there were only two police officers at Jeremys cottage on the morning of the shootings, er, DS 'Stan' Jones, and er, DC Clarke...
Er, Ann, can you remember now?
I have seen ZERO evidence that DC Clarke saw the bodies at all. No one else records him being around when they looked at the bodies and no one has been able to produce his statements. DS Jones states he saw her body on the floor not bed.
During the Couple investigation Ann Eaton stated she was under the impression that June and Heila's bodies were found on the bed but doesn't remember who told her such she THOUGHT it MIGHT be Clarke but was not positive.
All accounts of the police who initially found the bodies are the same- 5 men of the raid team entered the bedroom and saw Sheila on the floor and 2 Inspectors went in right after and saw likewise. The pool of blood by her head shows she bled there until she stopped bleeding.
The claims are are not evidence based of any bodies being in bed when found aside from the twins and barely even would qualify as anecdotal.
-
The police surgeon, Dr Craig, has never said that Sheila had been dead several hours prior to him pronouncing her as being dead. It was the pathologist who said that and he performed the autopsy at around 3.30pm on the afternoon of 7th August 1985.The police surgeon states that he did not carry out a thorough examination of the condition of Sheila's body at the scene when he pronounced her as being dead, because he said there was no need to in the circumstances reported to him by the police and the presence of the solitary shot to the neck, minus any blood trail - it becomes apparent, therefore, that the bullet wound the police surgeon was talking about was the lower non fatal wound with hardly any blood at all running, pouring or leaking from it, which caused Craig to falsely assume that Sheila was dead at that time, when she was not...
One of Ian Craig's statments:
"On the other side of the bedroom and hidden from view from the door by the bed was the body of a young woman lying on her back, wearing a nightdress. There was what I took to be a .22 rifle lying across her body with the muzzle pointing upward towards her head and the right 1 hand lying loosely over the butt. There was a quantity of dried blood which had come apparently from her mouth and there was what appeared to be an entry wound in the throat. I certified death at 8:44am."
In others he stated he did not do an intensive search of the bodies for wounds because it was not necessary in order to declare them dead. So he never looked under her chin for a wound.
Bad enough you keep trying to pretend he did an exhaustive search of her body but you seem to be digging your hole even deeper. Without any evidence at all you are claiming a doctor declared her dead when she wasn't and that the coroner was wrong about both shots being fired within seconds suggesting instead that they were delivered a long time apart.
Not only do you have no evidence at all to support your claims you ignore things like if true she would have bled out from the first wound and there would have been substantially more blood because a blood vessel had been severed and she was hemmoraging.
When one thing is disproved you just make up something else, debating you has turned into whack a mole.
-
Is anyone still going with the theory that Sheila was in the kitchen and proceeded upstairs whilst the Police were in the building..
-
Is anyone still going with the theory that Sheila was in the kitchen and proceeded upstairs whilst the Police were in the building..
I have never been able to make that fit with the blood on her nightgown, so you can exclude me!
-
Is anyone still going with the theory that Sheila was in the kitchen and proceeded upstairs whilst the Police were in the building..
Not me.
-
Craig noted only 1 bullet wound to each body. He didn't inspect the bodies carefully to count every wound. His job was to see if they were dead and give the apaprent cause of death to those on the scene so they woudl know what to look for. He determined they were all dead and noted 1 wound to each body to say the apparent cause of death was gun shot wound.
If she only received the first wound she wound have eventually died from bleeding out. But that didn't happen because the second shot was delivered within seconds of the first shot. The second shot fired well after the first would not have bled in the manner it did and there would have been substantially more blood from the first wound.
You are not following the evidence. You are desperately trying to come up with a way for Jeremy to be innocent simply.
There is no evidence she wa son the bed ever. Moreover, Miller said, "APPEARS to be" he did npt look at her well. Other officers took a closer look than he did. Dr Craig only noted 1 would on each victim fo rth ereason I cited he didn't say there was only 1 wound on each victim though. He noted a wound on each that could have been fatal to suggest their apparent cause of death was gun-shot wound.
When you say " 1 bullet hole to each body" which bodies are you talking about?
-
One version of the police surgeon, Dr Craig's witness statement, "body on the far side of the bed, with what appeared to be a solitary wound to the neck"...
-
Is anyone still going with the theory that Sheila was in the kitchen and proceeded upstairs whilst the Police were in the building..
Find it almost impossible to believe Sheila could have made it upstairs after the first shot. I accept she may have regained consciousness and had the ability to move around but believe she would be far too traumatised to be able to do more than stagger a short way, cannot see her able to climb stairs or function in any organised way.
Alsi agree the blood trails do not show any sign she was ever standing after first shot.
-
One version of the police surgeon, Dr Craig's witness statement, "body on the far side of the bed, with what appeared to be a solitary wound to the neck"...
'Bob' Miller, who accompanied the police surgeon around the scene, and was present when Craig viewed Sheila's body, states, "body on far side of the bed, with what appears to be a solitary bullet wound to the neck"...
Where is PI 'Bob' Millers statement saying that he saw Sheila's body on the bedroom floor?
-
When you say " 1 bullet hole to each body" which bodies are you talking about?
All 5. In his initial statement made on 8/7/85 he noted that each victim was dead and noted what appeared to be an entry wound to each body. He didn't look over their bodies for more he noted the most obvious wound that looked like it could be a fatal entrance wound to be able to confirm they were probably killed by gun shot.
-
One version of the police surgeon, Dr Craig's witness statement, "body on the far side of the bed, with what appeared to be a solitary wound to the neck"...
"On the other side of the bedroom and hidden from view from the door by the bed was the body of a young woman lying on her back, wearing a nightdress. "
-
You cannot possibly misinterpret that there are two bullet wounds to Sheila's neck as only one bullet wound, and the police surgeon and 'Bob' Miller use the word, "SOLITARY", not one wound...
-
Is anyone still going with the theory that Sheila was in the kitchen and proceeded upstairs whilst the Police were in the building..
Steve,,Sheila would have been in the kitchen at some point because she got herself something to eat.
Plus,,there was a " substantial " pool of blood in the kitchen by the dresser ? This had been noted in Lomax's book,after having spoken to Jeremy in prison who'd been told by one of the officers attending the investigation.
-
The police surgeon, Craig was questioned by Ewen Smith on this point, and confirmed that when he, 'Bob' Miller, and PS Woodcock, viewed Sheila's body on the far side of the bed at 8.44am, and he pronounced her as being dead that there was only one bullet wound to Sheila's neck, and that he never saw two bullet holes...
There is more...
-
'Bob' Miller, who accompanied the police surgeon around the scene, and was present when Craig viewed Sheila's body, states, "body on far side of the bed, with what appears to be a solitary bullet wound to the neck"...
Where is PI 'Bob' Millers statement saying that he saw Sheila's body on the bedroom floor?
On the floor on the far side of the bed.
-
The police surgeon, Craig was questioned by Ewen Smith on this point, and confirmed that when he, 'Bob' Miller, and PS Woodcock, viewed Sheila's body on the far side of the bed at 8.44am, and he pronounced her as being dead that there was only one bullet wound to Sheila's neck, and that he never saw two bullet holes...
There is more...
When Ewen Smith went along to see the police surgeon, Dr Craig, in the presence of Mrs Craig, Ewen took along crime scene photographs of Sheila taken at the scene with her body still insitu. These photographs included the following image:-
-
Now, check with Ewen Smith by all means, because Ewen showed Dr Craig this particular photograph. He showed it to the police surgeon in the presence of his wife (Mrs Craig) and Ewen asked him a very simple and basic question...
-
Steve,,Sheila would have been in the kitchen at some point because she got herself something to eat.
Plus,,there was a " substantial " pool of blood in the kitchen by the dresser ? This had been noted in Lomax's book,after having spoken to Jeremy in prison who'd been told by one of the officers attending the investigation.
Lomax's book is chock full of lies and inaccuracies including the bogus claim she stopped tkaing her medication though she was getting it injected not in control of whether to take he rmedicaiton daily.
The police mention no such thing and it is not credible at all given the blood in th ebedroom.
Moreover, there is no evidence she ate later than anyone else. The food in her stomach was consumed 2-6 hours prior to her death which means it could have been dinner. 6 hours from 9:30PM is 3:30AM.
If she had been in the kitchen either dead or alive just prior to the police brekaing in then she would have been seen when spying through the window which is how Nevill's body was observed.
-
The police surgeon, Craig was questioned by Ewen Smith on this point, and confirmed that when he, 'Bob' Miller, and PS Woodcock, viewed Sheila's body on the far side of the bed at 8.44am, and he pronounced her as being dead that there was only one bullet wound to Sheila's neck, and that he never saw two bullet holes...
There is more...
I don't particularly believe that Craig stated anything about her being on the bed but rather more tricks trying to twist on the floor on the far side of the bed to pretend he said in the bed.
But Craig changing his claims when old and suffering from mental issues would not help at all to contradict his fresh testimony anyway because the fresh testimony is relaible while decades later memories fade and minds turn to much as one gets old.
Moreover, the testinomy of the 5 who found the body are most relevant to the state of the body at the time police found it.
-
Is anyone still going with the theory that Sheila was in the kitchen and proceeded upstairs whilst the Police were in the building..
I don't see how anyone can claim she was in there walking around when police were looking in the window.
Then again I don't see how anyone could rationally suggest Sheila died after police entered or even shortly before they entered.
-
The police surgeon, Dr Craig, who pronounced her as being dead at 8.44am, on 7th August 1985, told Ewen Smith in the presence of Dr Craigs wife, that Sheila only had one bullet wound in her neck when he, Miller and Woodcock viewed her body in the bedroom, and that is documented in Ewen Smiths case file...
-
The police surgeon, Dr Craig, who pronounced her as being dead at 8.44am, on 7th August 1985, told Ewen Smith in the presence of Dr Craigs wife, that Sheila only had one bullet wound in her neck when he, Miller and Woodcock viewed her body in the bedroom, and that is documented in Ewen Smiths case file...
Craig told Smith, Smith told me, nothing could be any clearer or simpler...
WHO SHOT SHEILA UNDER THE CHIN AFTER 8.44am?
-
The police surgeon, Dr Craig, who pronounced her as being dead at 8.44am, on 7th August 1985, told Ewen Smith in the presence of Dr Craigs wife, that Sheila only had one bullet wound in her neck when he, Miller and Woodcock viewed her body in the bedroom, and that is documented in Ewen Smiths case file...
Dr Craig stated he didn't inspect the bodies for all wounds. He said he did only a cursory look at the bodies and noted a single wound to each victim that coudl have been fatal.
I don't see you claiming that the boys also only had 1 wound each and that the police fired the remainder though he only noted seeing 1 on each of them.
I don't know or care if your games work on others but they won't work against me so you need to dig deeper in the well to try to come up with something viable.
-
Craig told Smith, Smith told me, nothing could be any clearer or simpler...
WHO SHOT SHEILA UNDER THE CHIN AFTER 8.44am?
Craig didn't look under her chin for a wound, he stated he made sure they were dead and did a cursory look at the bodies.
He would have found the wound had he bothered to do an intensive search because both shots were fired only seconds apart.
You claim he was so inept that he didn't relaize she was still alive but he definitely would have foudn a second shot had it been there. If he is too inept to tell if she was dead then he would certianly be inept enough to miss a second shot especially in light of missing the multiple shots all the others received which is the natural argument that must follow since he noticed only 1 wound on each.
But it is not credible that he was too inept to tell she was still alive and while you have no evidence to support your claims that police fired both shots into her period, since the shots were delivered only seconds apart your claims that the second was delivered hours after the first are especially ludicrous. You would be better off alleging police fired both shots into her seconds apart because at least the evidence that proves both were fired in close succession would not be contradicted by your allegation.
-
steve exclude me as well.
-
Lomax's book is chock full of lies and inaccuracies including the bogus claim she stopped tkaing her medication though she was getting it injected not in control of whether to take he rmedicaiton daily.
The police mention no such thing and it is not credible at all given the blood in th ebedroom.
Moreover, there is no evidence she ate later than anyone else. The food in her stomach was consumed 2-6 hours prior to her death which means it could have been dinner. 6 hours from 9:30PM is 3:30AM.
If she had been in the kitchen either dead or alive just prior to the police brekaing in then she would have been seen when spying through the window which is how Nevill's body was observed.
Excuse me scipio, but Scott Lomax is not a liar. I know him to be an honest man and a very good investigator. You cannot go bandying around such things without knowing the person and just because they have written something that you choose not to agree with.
As for you stating that there is no evidence that she ate something later than any of the others Iam afraid I must disagree with you on that as well. Why? Well because none of the others, that is 4 out of five of the victims had anything in their stomach. Sheila was the only one that had undigested food in her stomach. That to my mind is a fairly good indication that she ate something after the other 4.
-
Craig didn't look under her chin for a wound, he stated he made sure they were dead and did a cursory look at the bodies.
He would have found the wound had he bothered to do an intensive search because both shots were fired only seconds apart.
You claim he was so inept that he didn't relaize she was still alive but he definitely would have foudn a second shot had it been there. If he is too inept to tell if she was dead then he would certianly be inept enough to miss a second shot especially in light of missing the multiple shots all the others received which is the natural argument that must follow since he noticed only 1 wound on each.
But it is not credible that he was too inept to tell she was still alive and while you have no evidence to support your claims that police fired both shots into her period, since the shots were delivered only seconds apart your claims that the second was delivered hours after the first are especially ludicrous. You would be better off alleging police fired both shots into her seconds apart because at least the evidence that proves both were fired in close succession would not be contradicted by your allegation.
Dr. Craig was my doctor. He was an alcoholic and in my estimation was not a very good doctor. I could site several misdiagnosis's but I won't. Sufficient to say he could be inept sometimes.
-
Excuse me scipio, but Scott Lomax is not a liar. I know him to be an honest man and a very good investigator. You cannot go bandying around such things without knowing the person and just because they have written something that you choose not to agree with.
As for you stating that there is no evidence that she ate something later than any of the others Iam afraid I must disagree with you on that as well. Why? Well because none of the others, that is 4 out of five of the victims had anything in their stomach. Sheila was the only one that had undigested food in her stomach. That to my mind is a fairly good indication that she ate something after the other 4.
People digest food at different rates and medication liek she is taking has an impact on that it could slow down her digestion. She also could be like my mother and be a slow eater and end up finishing dinner 10-20 minutes later than everyone else.
The fact their stomachs fully cleared the food while her stomach did not is not sicentific proof she had to have eaten later than anyone else.
EVEN WORSE though, if she died at 3:30 AM it means she could have eaten her last meal anytime from 9:30PM-1:30AM. If she died 3AM it means she could have eaten anytime from 9PM-1AM. If she died 2:30AM then she could have eaten anytime from 9PM-1AM.
Theses times all put her at around the time they finished up with dinner suppoedly and she could have had a dessert while others might not have.
In no event does this support Lookout's claim that this proves she ate after the others were dead. It doesn't prove that at all. Nor does it support the claims of those who suggest she was eating in the kitchen and then Nevill went down at 3AM and found her there eating because she ate at least 2 hours before she died not right before she died.
Jeremy's claim is that she was still at the dinner table eating when he allegedly loaded the magazine while the twins seme to have already been in bed. That meal she supposedly was eating could easily account for the food found in her stomach. There is no need for her to have eaten at 11 or 12 though she could have. Whether she did or not there is no way to know because the food she supposedly was eating woud be able to account for it but she could have eaten more sometime later but at least 2 hours before she died.
The kitchen was in no state for food to be eaten after it was thrashed from the struggle Nevill had nor is there any evidence of food being eaten after that. There is no evidence Sheila died significantly later than anyone else and indeed evidence someone else killed her and that it occurred before police arrived on the scene. All indications are that Nevill and eveyrone else were dead by 3AM so in all probability she ate her last meal anywhere from 9PM-1AM.
As for Lomax, he presents a plarge number of distortions including the one I mentioned. He twisted to try to pretend Jeremy is innocent.
-
People digest food at different rates and medication liek she is taking has an impact on that it could slow down her digestion. She also could be like my mother and be a slow eater and end up finishing dinner 10-20 minutes later than everyone else.
The fact their stomachs fully cleared the food while her stomach did not is not sicentific proof she had to have eaten later than anyone else.
EVEN WORSE though, if she died at 3:30 AM it means she could have eaten her last meal anytime from 9:30PM-1:30AM. If she died 3AM it means she could have eaten anytime from 9PM-1AM. If she died 2:30AM then she could have eaten anytime from 9PM-1AM.
Theses times all put her at around the time they finished up with dinner suppoedly and she could have had a dessert while others might not have.
In no event does this support Lookout's claim that this proves she ate after the others were dead. It doesn't prove that at all. Nor does it support the claims of those who suggest she was eating in the kitchen and then Nevill went down at 3AM and found her there eating because she ate at least 2 hours before she died not right before she died.
Jeremy's claim is that she was still at the dinner table eating when he allegedly loaded the magazine while the twins seme to have already been in bed. That meal she supposedly was eating could easily account for the food found in her stomach. There is no need for her to have eaten at 11 or 12 though she could have. Whether she did or not there is no way to know because the food she supposedly was eating woud be able to account for it but she could have eaten more sometime later but at least 2 hours before she died.
The kitchen was in no state for food to be eaten after it was thrashed from the struggle Nevill had nor is there any evidence of food being eaten after that. There is no evidence Sheila died significantly later than anyone else and indeed evidence someone else killed her and that it occurred before police arrived on the scene. All indications are that Nevill and eveyrone else were dead by 3AM so in all probability she ate her last meal anywhere from 9PM-1AM.
As for Lomax, he presents a plarge number of distortions including the one I mentioned. He twisted to try to pretend Jeremy is innocent.
Scipio it is quite reasonable to suggest that she ate after the others. In fact it is a 4 to1 probability that she did. You may not agree with that. But to anyone with common sense that is how it looks to them including Scott Lomax. It is a logical deduction and is not "twisting" anything. In fact if you deny that fact it looks rather as if you are straining to make the facts agree with you. But it certainly is not the logical conclusion to come to.
-
Scipio it is quite reasonable to suggest that she ate after the others. In fact it is a 4 to1 probability that she did. You may not agree with that. But to anyone with common sense that is how it looks to them including Scott Lomax. It is a logical deduction and is not "twisting" anything. In fact if you deny that fact it looks rather as if you are straining to make the facts agree with you. But it certainly is not the logical conclusion to come to.
Jeremy's own claims are that she was still at the dinner table which suggests she was still eating when others were not.
That alone suggests she ate later than them but not in the sense people try to suggest of her eating right before or right after the murders which there is nothing at all to suggest occurred.
It is stretching to pretend the food evidence suggests she ate in the middle of the night let alone that it suggests she ate after the murders as lookout keeps trying to pretend.
Saying that food she ate between 9 and 9:30 could still likely be in her stomach if she died prior to 3:30 is not a stretch at all.
Saying the food merely proves she ate 2-6 hours before she died is not a strestch but rather accurate.
The people twisting are the ones trying to use this to prove she died later than anyone else or ate after the others were dead. This evidence doesn't prove such in the least.
The bottom line is that the last meal Jeremy depicted her having could account for the food found. She could have left the table and eaten a snack later as late as 2 hours before she died. There is no way to know which is the case.
-
You cannot be in any doubt whatsoever, whether you are an Essex police officer, a police surgeon or a deluded crank like many of the Bamber is guilty contingent are, that Sheila has two clearly marked bullet wounds on her neck with fresh blood in evidence streaming from them at 10 O'clock that morning, how could Craig and Miller not see these two bullet holes gaping at them at 8.44am:-
-
You cannot be in any doubt whatsoever, whether you are an Essex police officer, a police surgeon or a deluded crank like many of the Bamber is guilty contingent are, that Sheila has two clearly marked bullet wounds on her neck with fresh blood in evidence streaming from them at 10 O'clock that morning, how could Craig and Miller not see these two bullet holes gaping at them at 8.44am:-
It is easy to see how someone looking at her from the vantage point of standing up above her would instantly see the neck wound and how someone not bothering to document all wounds but wanting to confirm each had a likely fatal gunshot wound would mention only one. Again you are completely ignoring he recounted 1 to each victim yet are not insisting each victim was delivered the other shots after he left.
Worse you are ignoring it is impossible for the second shot to have been delivered hours after the first because she would have bled out.
-
She did bleed out of the first lower across the neck bullet wound, open them things in your head that are called eyes, surely even someone like you who professes to be blind can spot the vertical flow of blood from the first shot that is not replicated in the second shot:-
Blood from the lower across the neck shot not only ran down her body in a vertical fashion, but it also dried different upon the collar of her nightdress - you can clearly tell the difference between old dried blood on the victims collar, and fresh looking blood adjacent to it on the same collar, these differences in the state of blood on her face, neck and the collar of her nightdress indicate a significant delay between the timing of the first shot across the neck, and the second shot beneath the chin...
Stop acting daft, here look again, I'll even provide the yellow line markers to show you the direction the blood from both bullet wounds to the neck ran:-
-
She did bleed out of the first lower across the neck bullet wound, open them things in your head that are called eyes, surely even someone like you who professes to be blind can spot the vertical flow of blood from the first shot that is not replicated in the second shot:-
Blood from the lower across the neck shot not only ran down her body in a vertical fashion, but it also dried different upon the collar of her nightdress - you can clearly tell the difference between old dried blood on the victims collar, and fresh looking blood adjacent to it on the same collar, these differences in the state of blood on her face, neck and the collar of her nightdress indicate a significant delay between the timing of the first shot across the neck, and the second shot beneath the chin...
Stop acting daft, here look again, I'll even provide the yellow line markers to show you the direction the blood from both bullet wounds to the neck ran:-
"Bleed out" means to die from loss of blood. Her first wound would have resulted in most of her blood leaving her body which would have resulted in a far larger mess unless an intervening event occurred. The whole reason the coroner knows the second shot was fired within seconds of the first shot is because the substantial flood of blood flowing out stopped and it stopped because her heart stopped beating from the second shot. The second shot is the intervening event that prevented far more loss of blood and her bleeding out from that first wound.
This point was uncontested at trail and hasn't been contested to this day by Jeremy's lawyers because they have no ability to do so.
Therefore if you want to make up a claim about police shooting her you need to make up the claim they shot her 2 times seconds apart.
-
In any event, the police surgeon was shown this photograph by Ewen Smith and asked if Sheila's neck looked like this when he viewed her on the far side of the bed and pronounced her as being dead at 8.44am, and he told Ewen that there was only one bullet wound there at that time, and none of the fresh looking blood shown in the image produced on that day for him to comment upon. When Ewen Smith asked Craig how that second bullet wound had got to be there on Sheila's neck, with all that additional blood, the police surgeon said that the second bullet wound must have been inflicted after he viewed Sheila's body at 8.44am, and all the blood visible in the photograph taken at 10 O'clock that morning must have run out across her face and neck once the second shot under the chin was administered...
When Ewen asked Dr Craig who he thought could have been responsible for inflicting the second fatal shot under the chin, the police surgeon simply could not speak for several moments before shrugging his shoulders and his eyes filling up with tears. It was with some reluctance that Ewen then pressed Dr Craig as to the presence or otherwise of the bloodied fingermarks around the second fatal bullet entry wound under Sheila's chin, he asked the police surgeon, "Did you see those bloodied fingermarks on Sheila's neck at 8.44am when you pronounced her as being dead", and once again the police surgeon became upset, without being able to speak, but shaking his head from side to side...
Later in the week when I met Ewen Smith in his office at Birmingham he relayed these events to me, as I have published them here...
How can anyone doubt that at 8.44am on morning of 7th August 1985, that there was more than one bullet entry wound on Sheila's neck?
-
Sheila didn't die from the first shot inflicted upon her downstairs in the kitchen, expert opinion confirms what I am saying is true, she was only stunned into unconsciousness upon the shot being inflicted, so in the terms being described elsewhere, she did not bleed out as it has been put, because at that stage she did not die...
She did bleed from the original across the neck shot, fell to the kitchen floor into a temporary unconsciousness. Blood which had started to leak vertically as soon as she was shot in an upright position, changed direction once she fell onto the kitchen floor. this blood pooled on the kitchen floor beneath her body and stained the rear of her nightdress...
Much later, with a fully / partially conscious Sheila upstairs in the bedroom, and her body ending up restaged on the bedroom floor by police, with two bullet holes now in her neck, and fresh, wet looking blood running, pouring and leaking from the second shot under the chin, it is somewhat unfathomable to discover that none of the bloodstain present on the rear of her nightdress, was replicated anywhere at all on the rug / carpet beneath where police took that key photographed at around 10 O'clock that morning...
This begs the question, how did the blood get onto the reverse side of Sheila Caffells nightdress, yet not one spot of it get onto the rug / carpet upon which she was supposedly found, since according to the evidence, only a few spots of June Bambers blood was discovered to be present on the carpet under Sheila's body - please explain in as much gobbledegook nonsense as you can invent, exactly how this could be true and real...
-
What we find, when a deeper analysis is undertaken of the known facts, is that the blood staining on the reverse of Sheila Caffells nightdress, was either her own blood, or the blood of one of the other adult victims, such as blood from June Bamber, or blood from Ralph Bamber - whoever it belonged to, it did not replicate itself on the rug / carpet beneath where her body was photographed by police at around 10 O'clock that morning, this was because the bloodstaining on the reverse of Sheila's nightdress was dry by the time whoever restaged her body from the bed to the floor rucked up the rear of her nightdress to prevent transfer of the blood on the reverse of the nightdress in question becoming deposited on the rug / carpet beneath her body at that stage...
-
Sheila's body as photographed on the bedroom floor by police at around 10 O'clock, was not as a result of someone dragging her by the feet from an upright position of say sitting up with her back against the bedside cabinet, which caused the hem of her nightdress to ruck up, as it has been described, but rather her body was lifted from the bed to the floor by police, and her nightdress at the rear deliberately pulled upwards against her back to try and prevent transfer of what was potentially blood from one of the other victims elsewhere at the scene...
my bet is that the blood on the reverse of Sheila's nightdress is blood which originated from June Bamber at a time when both Sheila and June Bamber were found side by side on the bed around the time Sheila received the second shot that killed her...
-
Sheila didn't die from the first shot inflicted upon her downstairs in the kitchen, expert opinion confirms what I am saying is true, she was only stunned into unconsciousness upon the shot being inflicted, so in the terms being described elsewhere, she did not bleed out as it has been put, because at that stage she did not die...
There is no evidence at all that she was shot in the kitchen
She did bleed from the original across the neck shot, fell to the kitchen floor into a temporary unconsciousness. Blood which had started to leak vertically as soon as she was shot in an upright position, changed direction once she fell onto the kitchen floor. this blood pooled on the kitchen floor beneath her body and stained the rear of her nightdress...
The blood would have flowed down onto the floor. It didn't if flowed down her shoulder and neck (what you call trail A is from when she was seated) tha tpredated the blood that went down the side of her neck which was later. So you have things backwards. Moreover, there is no evidence at all of any blood pool from her period in the kitchen her blood pool is in the master bedroom.
The first shot would have been fatal and caused her to bleed out in the kitchen if the second was not delivered until a long time after.
Much later, with a fully / partially conscious Sheila upstairs in the bedroom, and her body ending up restaged on the bedroom floor by police, with two bullet holes now in her neck, and fresh, wet looking blood running, pouring and leaking from the second shot under the chin, it is somewhat unfathomable to discover that none of the bloodstain present on the rear of her nightdress, was replicated anywhere at all on the rug / carpet beneath where police took that key photographed at around 10 O'clock that morning...
Sheila would have died in the kitchen from bleeding out had the first shot been delivered there and the second one not been delivered until hours later.
This begs the question, how did the blood get onto the reverse side of Sheila Caffells nightdress, yet not one spot of it get onto the rug / carpet upon which she was supposedly found, since according to the evidence, only a few spots of June Bambers blood was discovered to be present on the carpet under Sheila's body - please explain in as much gobbledegook nonsense as you can invent, exactly how this could be true and real...
Jeremy had a rifle that was full of blood spatter that was dripping off and had such spatter on himself as well. If your claim is true that there were drips of June's blood found on that side of the bed it is explained in that manner Jeremy transferred it there as it dripped from him or the weapon. but you make so many other false claims I want to see evidence before I will start suggesting her blood was found there. Her blood was found on various pieces of carpet ripped out but no court or reputable source has explained in detial where each of the 5 came from.
Jeremy pulling her dress down with his bloody gloves proves an easy enough explanation as to how blood could get on her butt though the rug could have had it as she was dragged as well.
If you want to try to fool more people you really need to stop with the kitchen nonsense and claim police shot her 2 times several seconds apart then pulled her flat. That lie will get you further than this kitchen stuff and saying she was shot hours apart.
-
Exactly, how did the bloodstain which was present on the reverse of Sheila's nightdress, which could only have got there when she was laid out flat on the bed or the floor either in the kitchen, or the bedroom, not get replicated on the rug / carpet beneath where police photographed her body at around 10 O'clock that morning on the bedroom floor?
Only a few spots of June Bambers blood was found on the rug / carpet benath Sheila's body, so what is your explanation for this feature?
-
Who disturbed Sheila Caffells body so that bloodstains on the front of her nightdress changed shape and configuration:-
-
How did Sheila's face and neck become like this whilst her body was insitu at the crime scene?
In this image, yet more fresh looking blood has run out of the bullet wounds, mouth and nostrils, confirming that she could not have been long since dead at the time this image was captured...
-
There is clear documentary evidence that a female body was downstairs in the kitchen before police went into the premises, and afterwards once they got into the kitchen, supported by the additional documentary evidence that only three further bodies were found upstairs at the scene by 8.10am...
You can say what you want about this, but at the end of the day this information contained in these supposed contemporaneously recorded messages confirm that two bodies were found upon entry, one of which was a female, this is evidence which a jury never considered because police chose to deliberately withhold it...
-
There is clear documentary evidence that a female body was downstairs in the kitchen before police went into the premises, and afterwards once they got into the kitchen, supported by the additional documentary evidence that only three further bodies were found upstairs at the scene by 8.10am...
You can say what you want about this, but at the end of the day this information contained in these supposed contemporaneously recorded messages confirm that two bodies were found upon entry, one of which was a female, this is evidence which a jury never considered because police chose to deliberately withhold it...
police were talking in terms of two bodies found upon entry to the farmhouse, from as early as 7.37am on the morning of 7th August 1985, one dead male, one dead female by 7.38am, and by 7.45am, the control room was contacting DS Davidson at home to request him to come into the office, because police at whf were dealing with a murder / suicide by that stage (7.45am)...
lets get the documented facts right, within the space of 8 key minutes, police are describing the discovery of two dead bodies upon entry to the kitchen, one of these dead bodies is male, the other dead body is female, and one of these bodies is being described as a murder, the other as a suicide - now, which part doesn't anyone understand?
How can Ralphs body be described as the body of a dead female, once police enter the kitchen?
How can Ralph Bambers death be described as a murder, and or a suicide?
Which part of this documentary evidence causes any of you to doubt that two bodies, not one body, were found by police after entering the kitchen?
The jury should have decided what to attach to this documented evidence, but they could not do so, because Essex police sought to keep this evidence from them, scared that the jury might find in favour of Sheila's body having been discovered downstairs, wrongly presumed dead, that she made a dramatic recovery, found her way upstairs and collapsed on the bed beside the body of her mother June who she had shot and killed earlier...
-
The defence were unable to rely upon this evidence during trial, because police did not disclose it...
Nevertheless, it is all evidence which the jury ought to have been told about and considered, because it might impact on thier verdict regarding whether or not Jeremy Bamber was the killer of his sister, or if she killed herself? Now, you may read into this whichever way you choose, but at the end of the day, how is it possible by 7.45am for the control room to be talking about two bodies, one of which was a murder, and the other a suicide? you could not possibly describe Ralph Bambers death as a suicide, and neither could you describe June Bambers death also or alternatively as a suicide...
The only victims death which could be described as a suicide, involved the death of Sheila Caffell, nobody else...
So, with this in mind, police had already discovered Sheila's body at the scene by 7.45am, and by that stage only two of the five bodies had been discovered, not three, not four and not five bodies...
One of the two bodies found upon entry to the farmhouse was a suicide, a fact admitted by police as recorded officially...
Not to be overlooked, is that June Bambers body would have been stumbled upon before police find Sheila's body either on the bed in the main bedroom, or on the bedroom floor if we are talking in terms of the actual first two of the five bodies being found...
Lets look at the official explanation of the order of find in relation to the bodies of the five victims, this is how the official story went / goes - Ralph, June, Sheila, and then the two child victims, now how exactly is it possible to describe June Bambers death as a suicide>
This poor woman victim did not commit suicide, and in the official version of events, hers would have been the second body to have been found, not the third, fourth or fifth...
-
Now, I am somebody who has experienced at first hand tactics adopted by corrupt police officers who adopted illegal methods of falsifying evidence in order to lend support to trying to secure a conviction. Nobody knows more than me the lengths corrupt police officers will go to, to get a conviction...
The same is true in the case of Jeremy Bamber, he has been illegally framed as the killer by a reliance upon dodgy silencer, blood and paint evidence, and additionally by way of a stage managing of the scene and in particular the movement of the bodies, from the bed, to either side of the bed on the floor in the main bedroom, and from behind the internal kitchen door, to a final resting position of being on the kitchen floor by the corner of the kitchen aga, with Ralphs head in the coal hod......
-
Now, I am somebody who has experienced at first hand tactics adopted by corrupt police officers who adopted illegal methods of falsifying evidence in order to lend support to trying to secure a conviction. Nobody knows more than me the lengths corrupt police officers will go to, to get a conviction...
The same is true in the case of Jeremy Bamber, he has been illegally framed as the killer by a reliance upon dodgy silencer, blood and paint evidence, and additionally by way of a stage managing of the scene and in particular the movement of the bodies, from the bed, to either side of the bed on the floor in the main bedroom, and from behind the internal kitchen door, to a final resting position of being on the kitchen floor by the corner of the kitchen aga, with Ralphs head in the coal hod......
It is absurd to suggest that Jeremy Bamber went to all the trouble of moving and stage managing the bodies of the three adult victims, to fool police into accepting that his sister killed everyone and that she then took her own life on the bedroom floor - how can all of this be described as almost the perfect murders that Jeremy Bamber nearly got away with?
What a complete and utter load of codswallop...
-
Lack of blood transference from the rear of Sheila's nightdress onto the rug / carpet upon which Sheila's body was photographed from around 10 O'clock onward, tells its own story - Sheila was laid on her back somewhere else, before police moved her body to that position on the bedroom floor. As god is my witness, that is what occurred...
-
Lack of blood transference from the rear of Sheila's nightdress onto the rug / carpet upon which Sheila's body was photographed from around 10 O'clock onward, tells its own story - Sheila was laid on her back somewhere else, before police moved her body to that position on the bedroom floor. As god is my witness, that is what occurred...
This was never brought to the juries attention so they could not apply thier powers of reasoning to this vital part of the evidential chain...
Sheila was laid elsewhere at the scene, on her back in a pool of blood on that side of her body, blood of the pool reproduced upon the relevant part on the rear of her nightdress, before police moved her body from the bed to the floor...
FACT...
-
in a nutshell, and just to recap what I am saying on the matter, you have got two bullet wounds on Sheila Caffells neck, one with old fading blood which has at some stage run from the lower (first) non fatal wound, the state of the old dried out blood replicated upon part of the front collar of the nightdress, and also replicated on the rear of the nightdress...
There is the crux of the matter for all to see, and to consider...
-
No stone will be left unturned, until we get to the truth of the matter...
-
By 8.10am, a further three bodies were found upstairs (June, Daniel and Nicholas)...
-
Ask yourselves the most important question of all - why didn't the heavy bloodstaiin on the reverse of Sheila Caffells nightdress, replicate or transfer itself onto the rug / carpet upon which Sheila's body was photographed at around 10 O'clock on 7th August 1985?
If you are honest with yourself, surely you will realize that police had something to do with her death...
-
No stone will be left unturned, until we get to the truth of the matter...
That´s right! I am here Mike, you are there! YES! We will never give up
-
That´s right! I am here Mike, you are there! YES! We will never give up
Hi Alias,
not forgetting the manner with which the necklace and pendant remained motionless as if glued to Sheila's neck, as if the last resting place of Sheila had been horizontal in nature, well for what it is worth, I believe that the necklace / pendant retained that position because police carried Sheila's body from the bed onto the bedroom floor, if that makes any sense...
-
I have to sleep now, Mike, I know you have thought of EVERTyHING, Just thank you for being there!
-
There is clear documentary evidence that a female body was downstairs in the kitchen before police went into the premises, and afterwards once they got into the kitchen, supported by the additional documentary evidence that only three further bodies were found upstairs at the scene by 8.10am...
You can say what you want about this, but at the end of the day this information contained in these supposed contemporaneously recorded messages confirm that two bodies were found upon entry, one of which was a female, this is evidence which a jury never considered because police chose to deliberately withhold it...
The cop who stated he saw a female when looking through the window stated the body he looked at was the one propped over the chair and tha tit turned out to be Nevill not a female.
Your supposed clear evidence is indeed clear but clearly estbalishes only on ebody was seen in the kitchen before and after entry and it was Nevill.
-
"Bleed out" means to die from loss of blood. Her first wound would have resulted in most of her blood leaving her body which would have resulted in a far larger mess unless an intervening event occurred. The whole reason the coroner knows the second shot was fired within seconds of the first shot is because the substantial flood of blood flowing out stopped and it stopped because her heart stopped beating from the second shot. The second shot is the intervening event that prevented far more loss of blood and her bleeding out from that first wound.
This point was uncontested at trail and hasn't been contested to this day by Jeremy's lawyers
because they have no ability to do so.
Therefore if you want to make up a claim about police shooting her you need to make up the claim they shot her 2 times seconds apart.
Scipio, I am curious about your statement that Sheila would have lost most of the blood from her body via the first wound and that the bleeding only stopped because the second shot killed her and stopped her heart pumping.
I was under the impression at pm it was stated that the jugular VEIN in her neck was damaged and ruptured not her artery. It is an artery which spouts out blood pumped from the heart and
can cause a person to bleed to death, a vein bleeds to a greater or lesser extent depending on the damage, it's size and position, it carries deoxygenated blood back to the heart and is not pumped. I don't believe a wound to the soft tissue of the neck would kill you within seconds???
-
Didn't the person report seeing a lock of blond hair ? Which is Neville's colour. Sheila had dark hair.
-
Didn't the person report seeing a lock of blond hair ? Which is Neville's colour. Sheila had dark hair.
It was grey hair. The same colour as RWB's hair too !
-
There is no official time of death in the case of Sheila Caffell. The pronouncement of her death by the police surgeon, Dr Craig at 8.44am, was erroneous due to the lack of interest in examining her body adequately. His pronouncement of her death without the necessary basic technique of checking for a pulse, equates that decision on a par with earlier announcements of dead females as per contemporaneously recorded police messages timed at 7.37, 7.38, and 7.42am, where mention is made of two dead bodies. One of these two dead bodies was a female. A female pronounced by someone who had entered the kitchen and discovered two bodies, not one...
A dead female found inside the kitchen after the police entered. A message relayed to the occupants of CA07 who in turn relayed the same information to the control room...
In due course, that female body ended up in the main bedroom with a second bullet wound in her neck...
That female, was not June Bamber...
-
The occupants of CA07 relayed this vital information passed to them from officers who had entered the kitchen, which included, PC Collins, PC Delgado and PS Woodcock...
Most significantly, when these messages were relayed from within the kitchen, by the raid team officers, they distinctively mention the discovery of (a) two dead bodies, (b) the body of one dead male, (c) and, (d) the body of one dead female - dead male before mention of dead female...
In these circumstances, based upon the actual wording of the messages. It was impossible for any raid team member to misidentify the first body as a female before entry, corrected upon entry as the body of a dead male, because after the mention of the discovery of (a) one dead male, was accompanied by the linking word of (b) and, followed by the inclusion of (c) body of one dead female...
These messages were passed from within the kitchen of the farmhouse and in no way support any explanation about misidentification of Ralph Bambers body as being reported as the body of a female, unless that did happen but there were two bodies in the kitchen before police went in, one body of which could not be seen from outside the kitchen window - the sihjting of a female body through the window rectified once entry was msde, establishing the nody seen from outside, was in fact the body of Ralph Bamber, but then a second body, the body of a female, who could only have been Sheola Caffell...
This is the correct interpretation of the number of bodies seen in the kitchen through the window (1), and the number of bodies found once police got inside the kitchen (2), including the mix up regarding the sex of the body seen through the window before entry, which was rectified after entry...
Thismix up had no bearing at all on the number of dead bodies discovered in the kitchen after entry was gained (2), only the sex of one of those two bodies...
-
We are now in a position to argue that the prosecution have no explanation to account for the presence of two different bodies found to be present inside the kitvhen of the farmhouse after police entered. This is significant, since the misidentification of one nody viewed from outdide the kitchen window, was rectified upon entry, and only related to one of the two bodies discovered there after entry was made..
Two different bodies found downstairs, not one mistaken identified for a diferent sex, which was rectified once entry was made...
Discovery of the female body after entry was made, alsor came about after the mix up regarding the the sex of the body seen through the window had been resolved, hence why at 7.37 and 7.38am, discovery of one dead male, was reported before the discovery afterwards of one dead female...
-
Scipio, I am curious about your statement that Sheila would have lost most of the blood from her body via the first wound and that the bleeding only stopped because the second shot killed her and stopped her heart pumping.
I was under the impression at pm it was stated that the jugular VEIN in her neck was damaged and ruptured not her artery. It is an artery which spouts out blood pumped from the heart and
can cause a person to bleed to death, a vein bleeds to a greater or lesser extent depending on the damage, it's size and position, it carries deoxygenated blood back to the heart and is not pumped. I don't believe a wound to the soft tissue of the neck would kill you within seconds???
Mike is alleging the second shot was fired hours after the first.
The blood would have been circulating continuously in her body until death. That means it would have had to pass by the wound and continued to flood out until she died. She would have died from loss of blood before the time he claims the 2nd shot was finally fired to kill her.
If the second shot was fired substantially later then it would have been delivered when she was already dead and the 1st shot would have been the fatal shot. But the coroner said this didn't happen and that because of the amount of blood on her it is obvious that 2nd shot was delivered within seconds of the first, killed her and with her heart no longer bleeding the hemmoraging stopped.
With the heart stopped circulation stops and blood settles in regions of the body below a wound. Blood above a wound can still leak out through the effects of gravity etc. but blood will not be circulating from the lower regions anymore so that is why people can't bleed out from any and all wounds it takes specific circumstances for that to happen.
-
Mike is alleging the second shot was fired hours after the first.
The blood would have been circulating continuously in her body until death. That means it would have had to pass by the wound and continued to flood out until she died. She would have died from loss of blood before the time he claims the 2nd shot was finally fired to kill her.
If the second shot was fired substantially later then it would have been delivered when she was already dead and the 1st shot would have been the fatal shot. But the coroner said this didn't happen and that because of the amount of blood on her it is obvious that 2nd shot was delivered within seconds of the first, killed her and with her heart no longer bleeding the hemmoraging stopped.
With the heart stopped circulation stops and blood settles in regions of the body below a wound. Blood above a wound can still leak out through the effects of gravity etc. but blood will not be circulating from the lower regions anymore so that is why people can't bleed out from any and all wounds it takes specific circumstances for that to happen.
I do understand the circulatory system but I must have misunderstood your post which seemed to imply that the jugular vein would react like an artery. It was a soft tissue injury so if not treated it would have killed her eventually but not in a short space of time and I am not convinced there was a massive volume of blood from this wound, it depends how veinous the area was. I know the outer jugular vein was damaged but after an initial rush of blood it did seem to calm down. It's hard to know whether it was stopped by her being shot very quickly after or if the flow just eased off, which would not be unusual.imo
-
I do understand the circulatory system but I must have misunderstood your post which seemed to imply that the jugular vein would react like an artery. It was a soft tissue injury so if not treated it would have killed her eventually but not in a short space of time and I am not convinced there was a massive volume of blood from this wound, it depends how veinous the area was. I know the outer jugular vein was damaged but after an initial rush of blood it did seem to calm down. It's hard to know whether it was stopped by her being shot very quickly after or if the flow just eased off, which would not be unusual.imo
Even if it eased off some it would still keep bleeding in a rather substantial way until she was dead or bleeding stopped by some sort of treatment. Vanezis opined that the first wound would have bled significantly more if the interval between the first shot and fatal shot had more than several seconds apart.
Obviously that doesn't leave room to say they were fired a minute apart let alone hours apart. It takes much longer to die from a vein than an artery but more than an hour from a major one like in the neck will suffice and quite a while before death she would be unconscious. Plus there is no evidence to suggest she was ever upright at the time she was shot or after.
The wild stories of police shooting her are simply to suggest Jeremy is innocent, they are not evidence driven and not credible so a complete waste of time. I fail to see why someone would bother with claims liek that instead of trying to stick with the strongest arguments that can be made. It has resulted in Mike being branded a kook to those he aims to convince so seems totally counterproductive.
The only people who seem to give Mike credence is the choir that already shared his views and needs no convincing.
-
TWO victims present in the kitchen prior to entry by the police
(a) One of the two victims is spotted through the kitchen window and reported to others present that it is the body of a dead female. The officers who looked through the window did not see (b) the second victim by that stage...
POLICE SMASHED EXTERNAL FARMHOUSE DOOR DOWN AND ENTER PREMISES / KITCHEN
Upon entering the kitchen, police discover that (a) the body of the first victim seen through the window prior to entry was not in fact the body of a dead female, but the body of a dead male, (THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE - 7.37am)...
"AND"...
Then, they report the presence of (b) another body also present in the kitchen (THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE - 7.37am)
END....
-
TWO victims present in the kitchen prior to entry by the police
(a) One of the two victims is spotted through the kitchen window and reported to others present that it is the body of a dead female. The officers who looked through the window did not see (b) the second victim by that stage...
POLICE SMASHED EXTERNAL FARMHOUSE DOOR DOWN AND ENTER PREMISES / KITCHEN
Upon entering the kitchen, police discover that (a) the body of the first victim seen through the window prior to entry was not in fact the body of a dead female, but the body of a dead male, (THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE - 7.37am)...
"AND"...
Then, they report the presence of (b) another body also present in the kitchen (THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE - 7.37am)
END....
TWO BODIES IN THE KITCHEN, "One dead male, one dead female" - 7.38am...
-
That's the way it was logged,and NOT by looking through any window,but physically ENTERING.
-
That's the way it was logged,and NOT by looking through any window,but physically ENTERING.
Hi Lookout,
Yes, that is the way it was reported, including the view of the first victims body through the kitchen window, reported as the body of a female behind the door in the kitchen, which upon entry turns out to be the body of a male identified as Ralph Bamber - once police actually get into the kitchen, they report the discovery of the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female (7.37am), which is a separate matter altogether than whether the body seen through the window prior to entry was female, or male (once entry is gained) discovery that the body behind the door is male, not female, that issue becomes resolved, and has no bearing at all on the discovery or report of a second body in the kitchen, being an additional one dead female...
Two bodies, in fact, present in the kitchen, as confirmed by the message contents timed at 7.37, 7.38 and 7.42am, not one body mistakenly identified as two, a female prior to entry, and a male body once entry had been made. This matter is easily resolved by the order with which the two bodies are reported as being present in the kitchen upon entry by police, which on two consecutive occasions mention of the body of one dead male, that is followed by the mention of "and the body of one dead female"...
Analysis of all the available information and documentary evidence, confirms that by 7.38am there were two bodies being reported as dead in the kitchen with police in attendance,, one dead male, and the body of one dead female...
Nothing could be clearer...
-
Reference in the police message log, "the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female" timed at 7.37am, confirms a presence of two bodies present in the kitchen of the farmhouse, not one mistaken for two...
-
A stop needs to be made to other people changing the meaning of what I have been saying or posting, since the way these people are reporting these things they are trying to change the meaning and purpose of what I report. Sometimes, I am reporting what is posted elsewhere on other web sites, sometimes I am reporting what has been posted on our forum, or in newspaper reports or TV bulletins, or be reference to some evidential fact contained in the case files, yet there are some who are repeatedly altering these references as though I have said this, or I have said that...
A typical example, is where these other people have been saying that Sheila was shot on the second occasion two hours or more after the first shot across the neck was inflicted, which is not something I have been saying at all. Although there is evidence available to confirm that there was ample delay between the firing of the two shots, where blood that ran from the original bullet wound on Sheila's neck, and the rear of her nightdress, which had clearly already dried before the second shot was discharged in her neck under the chin, a feature everyone can see in the photograph posted previously. What I would like to do, is ask everyone how long do you think the blood trail from the lower non fatal wound on her neck was inflicted, as compared to the fresh looking blood that was photographed running, pouring and leaking from the upper fatal bullet wound?
There is clearly a significant delay, between the firing of both shots, not only in the angle of the rifle at the time each shot was discharged, but chiefly because the first shot was non fatal, and the second shot was fatal. The delay between both shots (bullet PV/20 and PV/19) can be seen in the photographs taken at around 10 O'clock by PC Bird (SOC), where the vertical blood trail is dried, whilst the horizontal blood trails are wet and fresh looking...
Linked to these discrepancies, is the presence of the heavy bloodstain present upon the rear of Sheila's nightdress which had clearly dried prior to her body being laid out on the bedroom floor adjacent to the parents bed. None of the blood on the rear of the nightdress was transferred onto the rug / carpet beneath Sheila's body where it was photographed from around 10 O'clock onwards, so it is safe to assume, safe to conclude, that the lower bullet wound on Sheila's neck, with its corresponding vertical dried blood stain running down her neck, is linked and associated to the dried bloodstain on the reverse of her nightdress, and that in fact Sheila must have been laid somewhere else at the scene beforehand, somewhere where the blood on the reverse of her nightdress was replicated or transferred onto the bed in the main bedroom, or the floor in the kitchen...
-
Based upon the available dry blood trail which has run vertically down Sheila's neck, and the dried bloodstain on the reverse of her nightdress which was not replicated on the carpet beneath Sheila's body, it does not appear to me to be a sufficient amount of blood loss to have killed her any time soon after the first lower non fatal shot was, or has been inflicted. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the rate with which blood ran out of the first lower bullet entry wound and stained her neck, and stained the rear of her nightdress, it might easily have been an hour or so before the second shot was received...
There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that Sheila bleed heavily either internally, or externally as a result of that first shot, unlike what happened once the second fatal shot was inflicted whilst the body was laid out flat...
Despite what others are saying about the delay between shots only being a minimal amount of time, or delay, I would disagree with what they are saying and have said, otherwise the blood-staining on the reverse of Sheila's nightdress would almost certainly have become transferred onto the carpet beneath her body, but since it did not, it has to be accepted that there must have been a considerable delay before the bloodstain on the rear of the nightdress dried sufficiently so as not to be capable of transferring onto the bedroom carpet once her body was positioned there on the bedroom floor...
Note, that there is an area of clotted blood on the rear of the nightdress where the blood pooled whilst she was laid in the supine position, somewhere else at the scene, other than on the bedroom floor...
-
After each of the two shots were discharged into Sheila's neck,the following occurred:-
SHOT 1
She was standing upright and slightly twisted at the time the first non fatal shot inflicted across her neck was received, she fell to the ground and her head ended up turned slightly to the right. There was not a great deal of external blood loss at this time, but sufficient to leave a horizontal trail on the neck, which changed direction once her body fell to the floor, evidence of which can be seen upon her neck in the form of dried blood trails...
-
After each of the two shots were discharged into Sheila's neck,the following occurred:-
SHOT 1
She was standing upright and slightly twisted at the time the first non fatal shot inflicted across her neck was received, she fell to the ground and her head ended up turned slightly to the right. There was not a great deal of external blood loss at this time, but sufficient to leave a horizontal trail on the neck, which changed direction once her body fell to the floor, evidence of which can be seen upon her neck in the form of dried blood trails...
This shot (1) is consistent with her having been involved in some sort of a struggle during which time she was shot across the neck...
-
After Sheila fell to the kitchen floor, blood continued to trickle out of the solitary bullet wound on her neck, and soaked the rear of her nightdress and the surface beneath her body...
-
After Sheila fell to the kitchen floor, blood continued to trickle out of the solitary bullet wound on her neck, and soaked the rear of her nightdress and the surface beneath her body...
Much later when she regained her consciousness, and she had got herself upstairs into the bedroom, she collapsed on the bed (possibly next to her mothers body), and at that stage some of the blood-staining on the rear of her nightdress may have become transferred onto the bed-clothing or linen / cotton bed sheet...
-
By the time police shifted Sheila's body from the bed, any blood on the rear of her nightdress as a direct result of being shot on the first occasion, had dried sufficiently so as not to allow it to be transferred onto the rug / carpet upon which her body was stage managed...
-
During the period when Sheila regained consciousness, and got herself upstairs to the main bedroom, blood had already ceased from running from the solitary wound on her neck, and to a lesser extent the blood on the rear of her nightdress had already dried sufficiently so as not to run or alter the blood staining there. These are the circumstances which permitted Sheila to move from one part of the farmhouse (kitchen) to the other (the bedroom) without any additional bloodstain evidence to support what had taken place...
-
During the period when Sheila regained consciousness, and got herself upstairs to the main bedroom, blood had already ceased from running from the solitary wound on her neck, and to a lesser extent the blood on the rear of her nightdress had already dried sufficiently so as not to run or alter the blood staining there. These are the circumstances which permitted Sheila to move from one part of the farmhouse (kitchen) to the other (the bedroom) without any additional bloodstain evidence to support what had taken place...
In order to travel from the kitchen downstairs, to the main bedroom upstairs, Sheila would have to walk around however briefly upon the bloodstained bedroom carpet. As a result there would have to be some evidence upon the soles of her feet, in support of this - during the trial and for many years since, the police. prosecution, and thier supporters have wrongly claimed that Sheila's hands and the soles of her feet were spotlessly clean...
But...
THEY HAVE BEEN LYING, and THE JURY WHICH TRIED THIS MATTER WERE DELIBERATELY DECEIVED REGARDING THIS...
Here is the evidence which exposes the police, prosecution case as nothing but a deliberate, despicable LIE...
-
Mike,how long after a first shot,would a second one be,in an automatic rifle. Is it a consecutive thing,or does the trigger have to be depressed in order to allow that second shot to occur ?
-
Mike,how long after a first shot,would a second one be,in an automatic rifle. Is it a consecutive thing,or does the trigger have to be depressed in order to allow that second shot to occur ?
Hi Lookout,
It would require the shooter to activate the trigger before the second bullet would be discharged from the same gun. The delay between discharge of one bullet and the next from the anshuzt rifle could range between a split second, and as long as an hour or so, or whatever it took between both shots...
-
Hi Lookout,
It would require the shooter to activate the trigger before the second bullet would be discharged from the same gun. The delay between discharge of one bullet and the next from the anshuzt rifle could range between a split second, and as long as an hour or so, or whatever it took between both shots...
Thanks Mike. So I'm right in thinking that it could accidentally be depressed also,given the sensitivity of the rifle being a semi-automatic.
-
Thanks Mike. So I'm right in thinking that it could accidentally be depressed also,given the sensitivity of the rifle being a semi-automatic.
Yes, trigger mechanism could be accidentally depressed discharging a round if the weapon was still loaded...
-
We now know that Sheila walked on the bloodstained carpet in the main bedroom, and that the blood on the sole of her foot belonged to June Bamber, so Sheila was mobile in the bedroom after June was shot and killed, and if she was and did, then she did nothing to come to her mothers aid, now that / this just doesn't equate with a totally innocent Sheila Caffell, now does it...
-
We now know that Sheila walked on the bloodstained carpet in the main bedroom, and that the blood on the sole of her foot belonged to June Bamber, so Sheila was mobile in the bedroom after June was shot and killed, and if she was and did, then she did nothing to come to her mothers aid, now that / this just doesn't equate with a totally innocent Sheila Caffell, now does it...
On the other hand the blood on Sheila's feet could have been from a trail left on the landing by a bleeding Nevill. I assume Sheila walked into the master bedroom though the main door and not through the interconnecting door from the twins' room,otherwise why was there no blood on the carpet in that area?
-
Trouble is,there were rugs on rugs,so we the public didn't get to see the extent of the carnage because police destroyed so much from within the farmhouse. This is why on all the pics,there doesn't appear to have been the bloodbath that there was.
-
On the other hand the blood on Sheila's feet could have been from a trail left on the landing by a bleeding Nevill. I assume Sheila walked into the master bedroom though the main door and not through the interconnecting door from the twins' room,otherwise why was there no blood on the carpet in that area?
She must have entered through the door from the landing - stepping over June´s dead body.
-
She must have entered through the door from the landing - stepping over June´s dead body.
Yes alias it is strange.
-
Now, the more you think about it (this), perhaps it could be tied in with the contents of the call Ralph made to Jeremy, when he told him that "She has got the gun, she has gone crazy" - is the presence of blood on the sole of Sheila's feet that she had already used the gun, and already shot one of the victims? Because, no matter which way you look at it, Sheila appears to have done nothing or very little at all to come to the aid of any of the other victims after her feet became contaminated with the blood from at least one of the victims...
-
A stop needs to be made to other people changing the meaning of what I have been saying or posting, since the way these people are reporting these things they are trying to change the meaning and purpose of what I report. Sometimes, I am reporting what is posted elsewhere on other web sites, sometimes I am reporting what has been posted on our forum, or in newspaper reports or TV bulletins, or be reference to some evidential fact contained in the case files, yet there are some who are repeatedly altering these references as though I have said this, or I have said that...
None of which is reliable at all and have already been debunked as lies, fantasy and pure nonsense.
A typical example, is where these other people have been saying that Sheila was shot on the second occasion two hours or more after the first shot across the neck was inflicted, which is not something I have been saying at all. Although there is evidence available to confirm that there was ample delay between the firing of the two shots, where blood that ran from the original bullet wound on Sheila's neck, and the rear of her nightdress, which had clearly already dried before the second shot was discharged in her neck under the chin, a feature everyone can see in the photograph posted previously.
You did indeed suggest that the second shot was delivered hours later. Moreover, there is no evidence at all that blood dried from the first wound before the second wound was delivered. Your claim the photo demonstrates such is false. The second shot was delivered within seconds of the first of there would have been far more blood that ran down her shoulder. That is the medical opinio of the coroner and niether you nor anyone else has provided any medical expert who can dispute this.
You have no evidentiary basis at all to question the coroner's findings. Your claims are all unsupported and fail to dent the claim of the coroner.
What I would like to do, is ask everyone how long do you think the blood trail from the lower non fatal wound on her neck was inflicted, as compared to the fresh looking blood that was photographed running, pouring and leaking from the upper fatal bullet wound?
The wound you claim is fresh looking is extremely dark. It obviously is not sending any blood out. It looks dry. Your claim it is wet blood is not supportable at all. indeed the blood trailing from both wounds down the side of her neck looks identical.
There is clearly a significant delay, between the firing of both shots, not only in the angle of the rifle at the time each shot was discharged, but chiefly because the first shot was non fatal, and the second shot was fatal. The delay between both shots (bullet PV/20 and PV/19) can be seen in the photographs taken at around 10 O'clock by PC Bird (SOC), where the vertical blood trail is dried, whilst the horizontal blood trails are wet and fresh looking...
The first shot would have been fatal had the second shot not been delivered. The second shot killed Sheila before the 1st shot could result in her bleeding out. She would have bled far more down her shoulder and arm if the second shot had been delivered more than mere seconds later. You lack the medical training necessary to say otherwise you need to find an expert to challenge the coroner but the defense hasn't found one who can challenge the coroner so you have none to rely on.
All the picture in question shows is that when she was seated gravity removed most blood from her neck and the blood went down her shoulder. The fact a trail didn't stay there to dry means she was shot again very soon after the first shot and moved flat not too long after that.
Your claims are not suppoerted by science or competent evidence. You claims are unsupported and clearly wrong and not credible. No matter how many times you claim the blood is wet that doesn't prove it is wet. The doctor who saw her said the blood was dry and it certianly looks dry to me and others who have actually seen wet blood in photos. The wounds are very dark which is indicative of the wounds being dry. The blood is also flat. Wet blood will have blobs that stand out and it will be very shiny with reflections. A bleeding wound has blood around the opening not dark scabs. Your claims are completely baseless from top to bottom.
Linked to these discrepancies, is the presence of the heavy bloodstain present upon the rear of Sheila's nightdress which had clearly dried prior to her body being laid out on the bedroom floor adjacent to the parents bed. None of the blood on the rear of the nightdress was transferred onto the rug / carpet beneath Sheila's body where it was photographed from around 10 O'clock onwards, so it is safe to assume, safe to conclude, that the lower bullet wound on Sheila's neck, with its corresponding vertical dried blood stain running down her neck, is linked and associated to the dried bloodstain on the reverse of her nightdress, and that in fact Sheila must have been laid somewhere else at the scene beforehand, somewhere where the blood on the reverse of her nightdress was replicated or transferred onto the bed in the main bedroom, or the floor in the kitchen...
Your reasoning is badly flawed, totally unsupported and at the end of the day wholely baseless and lacking in any evidentiary support whatsoever and not credible in light of the things I mentioned.
-
Now, the more you think about it (this), perhaps it could be tied in with the contents of the call Ralph made to Jeremy, when he told him that "She has got the gun, she has gone crazy" - is the presence of blood on the sole of Sheila's feet that she had already used the gun, and already shot one of the victims? Because, no matter which way you look at it, Sheila appears to have done nothing or very little at all to come to the aid of any of the other victims after her feet became contaminated with the blood from at least one of the victims...
There is no reliable evidence those are Sheila's feet. At any rate there is no evidence that it is not dirt on her feet as opposed to blood. The photo is extremely poor quality and not of any value at trying to dispute the findings of the coroner. If she did walk through a puddle of blood though she not only would have more blood than that on her feet, more significantly she would have left bloody footprints.
As for not coming to the aid of the victims- you and your brethren are the ones insisting Nevill was too scared to do anything and called Jeremy because he was too afraid to try to disarm his small daughter so expecting her to disarm Jeremy as he was killing them is hilarious. You also claim the walls were sothick that gunshots would not penetrate from one room to another.
At any rate, how fast would someone in her position be able to react? Pouring 11 rounds into the parents could be done in less than 20 seconds. By the time she got up and left her room she could have seen June on the floor and went to her while the men were already downstairs. She could have tried to help her mother but thewas nothing she could do since either headshot would have instantly killed June.
-
I'll let others be the judge of whether or not what I am saying is credible...
One of the blood trails on Sheila's neck is dry, the other fresh and wet looking, the photograph is evidence of these facts, similarly, some of the blood staining on the collar is dry, and next to this is regions of the same collar that is wet and fresh looking...
On the reverse of Sheila's nightdress is a very large blood stained area, with a particularly distinctive area of clotted blood which miraculously never got transferred onto the rug / carpet beneath where her body ended up on the bedroom floor...
Now, how could all that / this blood be present on the rear of Sheila's nightdress, yet be absent from the carpet...
-
I'll let others be the judge of whether or not what I am saying is credible...
One of the blood trails on Sheila's neck is dry, the other fresh and wet looking, the photograph is evidence of these facts, similarly, some of the blood staining on the collar is dry, and next to this is regions of the same collar that is wet and fresh looking...
On the reverse of Sheila's nightdress is a very large blood stained area, with a particularly distinctive area of clotted blood which miraculously never got transferred onto the rug / carpet beneath where her body ended up on the bedroom floor...
Now, how could all that / this blood be present on the rear of Sheila's nightdress, yet be absent from the carpet...
I cannot disagree with what you are describing Mike and have always believed all that blood collected under her arm looked suspiciously a if she had been turned on her right side in the recovery position. Haven't seen the clotted blood on the back of Sheila's nightie but have always wondered about that rug she is lying on which appears to be free of blood.
-
I'll let others be the judge of whether or not what I am saying is credible...
One of the blood trails on Sheila's neck is dry, the other fresh and wet looking, the photograph is evidence of these facts, similarly, some of the blood staining on the collar is dry, and next to this is regions of the same collar that is wet and fresh looking...
On the reverse of Sheila's nightdress is a very large blood stained area, with a particularly distinctive area of clotted blood which miraculously never got transferred onto the rug / carpet beneath where her body ended up on the bedroom floor...
Now, how could all that / this blood be present on the rear of Sheila's nightdress, yet be absent from the carpet...
The first shot which produced the dry blood stained area on the reverse of Sheila's nightdress must have happened in another part of the house, not whilst Sheila was laid out on the floor next to the bed...
-
The angle of the first shot, and the angle of the second shot, are inconsistent with any suggestion that both shots were discharged and inflicted one after the other, because blood from one wound had already dried on the neck in a vertical fashion, and the rear of the nightdress, yet blood from the second shot which is fresh and wet looking poured and ran freely horizontally from the second wound beneath the chin...
-
It is very easy for anybody to keep saying that there is no evidence of this, no evidence of that, without producing any evidence to prove there is no evidence. When people resort to saying this all of the time, it indicates that they are struggling to find any constructive argument to try and counter what is being argued - "there is no evidence of that" or "there is no evidence of this", or "That's not evidence", is a rather inadequate response...
-
I cannot disagree with what you are describing Mike and have always believed all that blood collected under her arm looked suspiciously a if she had been turned on her right side in the recovery position. Haven't seen the clotted blood on the back of Sheila's nightie but have always wondered about that rug she is lying on which appears to be free of blood.
Some drops of blood were visible on the white rug under her.
The claims he made about the blood in the photo being fresh and wounds still bleeding don't hold any water at all. The telltale signs of a bleeding wound are not present. Both wounds are very dark and no fresh flow can be seen coming from them.
Had 2 been delivered significantly later both flows down the side would not look the same.
-
Some drops of blood were visible on the white rug under her.
The claims he made about the blood in the photo being fresh and wounds still bleeding don't hold any water at all. The telltale signs of a bleeding wound are not present. Both wounds are very dark and no fresh flow can be seen coming from them.
Had 2 been delivered significantly later both flows down the side would not look the same.
I haven´t been able to spot any. Can you link to it?
-
Both of the horizontal type flows of fresh blood, might only be from the second wound which got transferred onto a different part of the neck because the victims head lolled forwards, then backwards, and slightly to the right at the time the fatal shot was received under the chin...
Alternatively, it is also possible that blood started to flow again from the first wound because of the impact of the second fatal shot, resulting in the second flow of blood from the first shot, running horizontally. There is evidence that blood ran vertically, and horizontally from the lower wound, but that blood from the upper wound only ran horizontally. This is interesting because with the vertical blood trail of the first lower wound being dry, and the associated horizontal blood trail from the same wound being fresh and wet looking...
You can clearly see that the vertical blood trail from the lower wound has dried significantly, as opposed to the other horizontal running blood trail leaving the same wound, one is dry looking in stark contrast to the other which is wet looking...
-
Some drops of blood were visible on the white rug under her.
The claims he made about the blood in the photo being fresh and wounds still bleeding don't hold any water at all. The telltale signs of a bleeding wound are not present. Both wounds are very dark and no fresh flow can be seen coming from them.
Had 2 been delivered significantly later both flows down the side would not look the same.
I am aware thee photos are very poor quality so it's very difficult to see the true picture, literally.
-
Horizontally orientated blood flow from second shot under the chin:-
-
Vertically orientated dried blood flow from first lower wound:-
-
Horizontally orientated flow of blood adjacent to first wound:-
-
Blood on face and neck at around 10 O'clock on 7th August 1985:-
-
More wet blood appears on Sheila's face and neck, after training exercise - how could this be, if there was no more wet fresh looking blood to produce this additional blood staining after 10 O'clock:-
-
The police investigation and the way the case was put together to prosecute Jeremy Bamber as the killer was farcicle...
-
Blood ran on top of bloodied fingermarks impressions used by a police officer to try and stem from the second shot inflicted under the chin:-
Fresh blood flowed from the second wound and partially covered bloodied finger marks present around the bullet entry wound...
-
Sheila's necklace and pendant glued to her neck, despite movement of head and parts of her upper torso:-
-
Blood on sole of Sheila's foot, and bare foot impressions in carpet near June Bambers body:-
-
It is very easy for anybody to keep saying that there is no evidence of this, no evidence of that, without producing any evidence to prove there is no evidence. When people resort to saying this all of the time, it indicates that they are struggling to find any constructive argument to try and counter what is being argued - "there is no evidence of that" or "there is no evidence of this", or "That's not evidence", is a rather inadequate response...
I don't have the prove a negative. The burden of proof rests with the proponent which is you.
Your supposed proof falls far short of establishing anything you claim.
1) Your claim of there being a pool of Sheila's blood in the kitchen has no evidentiary support at all
2) You have no evidence fo any kind to establish that Sheila was ever upright upon/after being shot. The evidence presented by the coroner and subsequent blood experts is that she was seated when shot and shortly thereafter moved flat. They say that lack of blood on her lower gown and legs she was never in an upright position. You have presented nothing at all to counter this.
3) There was a pool of blood in the bedroom that formed from the blood that leaked down the side of Sheila's neck establishing she was in that exact position very shortly after killed though she was killed while seated.
4) There is undisputed medical testimony that the shots were fired within seconds of one another because otherwise there would have been significantly more blood that flowed from the second wound. The lawyers did not contest this at the trial or during the appeals.
5) What you call bloodflow A did not result in a dry trail of blood because the blood was flowing fast, thanks to that and gravity the blood did not sit there and dry. It is indicative of not bleeding long down her neck while seated before the second shot was delivered. She was moved flat after being killed and at that point her blood stopped pumping and instead just leisurely came out dripping down the side of her neck. Both wounds sent blood down the side, the blood from both trails looks the same in the photos. Both wounds look the same- dark. Because only gravity was drawing the blood down her neck trails managed to dry there unlike the wound down her neck that was rapidly flowing in addition to gravity acting upon it.
6) a saw only one body in the kitchen when he looked in the window. It is the same body he saw when he went inside. Neither he nor anyone else saw any other bodies in the kitchen though there were more than 10 officers who went through the kitchen before any body in there could have been moved or left.
7) Craig noted she was dead as were all the other victims, that they died hours earlier and noted a gunshot wound to each victim that apparently coudl have been fatal so as to provide a basis to say they likely all died from being shot. There is no evidence to suggest he was wrong and that any of the victims were in fact still alive and it is a gross misrepresentation to say he carefully looked over the bodies and that any wounds he didn't note were not there when he looked at the bodies and had to have been delivered after.
You have no evidence for any of your claims they fall apart totally upon scrutiny.
If you want to claim there was a coverup and that police shot her then you have to claim that they fired both shots within seconds of one another while she was seated propped against something in the master bedroom and that they moved her body flat after that point.
You would have no evidence at all to support they did such but at least it would comport with the physical evidence of how she died and where.
She didn't walk around upright nor is there evidence someone carried her upright. She was seated then moved flat. She was shot seconds apart.
I realize you want to pretend Jeremy is innocent and are making up anything you can as you go along but if you are going to do that at least try to keep it in some realm of reaosn like making up your tale around the uncontroverted evidence.
This thread started off with your SJ/1 mumbo jumbo. I don't know if anyone else here knows where you came up with it but I do.
Cook's handwritten notes from August 12 described receiving the moderator etc and in his notes assigning the moderator and scope SJ/1 and SJ/2 respectively because they were the first peices of physical evidence being submitted by Stanley Jones he didn't know Stanely Jones middle name at that point when he wrote his notes.
By the time he filled out the CID6 and Holab3 though he had consulted with Jones, Jones told him the initials he would use are always SJB and that is how the official forms came to list the exhibits found by Boutflour as SBJ/1, SJB/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4.
A suppressor was made up as having been collected collected on 8/7/85 by Stanley Jones at WHF and the above gave the idea of naming this madeup suppressor SJ/1. But the evidence is that the SJ prefix was just a tentative designation written in Cook's pockebook for the Boutflour exhibits and it was rapidly changed to SBJ the same day with the official forms using SBJ.
The evidence that informed you of SJ/1 makes clear this was a preliminary pocketbook prefix rapidly replaced by SBJ on official documents and that both were references to the exhibits that came from Boutflour. So there is no SJ/1 at all in the official record just a pocketbook entry.
The lack of any official records discussing any J/1 presented the ability to lie and say there was a SJ/1 collected on 8/7/85 but the documents were hidden. There are no documents at all the claim was made up but this tries to put people who say Jeremy is guilty in the position of having to establish the hidden documents do not exist. The actual burden of proof though rests with you to estbalish these hidden documents actually exist but clearly they do not.
You eventually reversed your claim which makes even less sense. You claim a moderator seized from WHF on 8/7/85 SBJ/1 and that the moderator from Boutflour was SJ/1. 4 items came from Boutflour and were SBJ/1-4 so trying to pretend SBJ/1 was a moderator from 8/7 is nonsense. Again there is no evidence at all of any moderator being seized from WHF on 8/7 by anyone the claim was made up. Jones was at Goldhanger doing interviews when the house was locked with 4 men inside collecting evidence. (Cook, Davidson, Bird and Hammersley) If Jones had collecting anything though then that item would have been SBJ/1 and the items from Boutflour would have been SBJ 2-5 instead of 1-4.
It is abundantly clear that what you are doing is growwly midrepresening and making things up and it is foolish to do because the information you are using to make things up completely demolishes the accusations you are making. Your hope is that most people won't be well informed about COLP to recognize what you are doing.
You are engaging in the same kind of dishonest nonsenss with respect to your claims about Sheila being shot again after she was inspected by Craig and the second shot being much later than the first shot.
There is not a shred of available evidence that suggests Sheila was still alive when policed arrived on the scene at roughly 3:50AM and none to suggest the fatal shot was delivered a minute after the first let alone an hour or more after the first.
You bear the burden of demonstrating the offical story as found by the jury and accepted by the court of appeal and the public at large is wrong. You have failed miserably at providing any evidence at all you just keep making allegations that the evidence you provide doesn't support at all and barely even qualifies as evidence in most cases it is just more allegations most of which are refuted by reliable evidence the prosecution relied upon.
-
If there was any dishonesty,it was on behalf of the prosecution. It's par for the course !
-
Blood on sole of Sheila's foot, and bare foot impressions in carpet near June Bambers body:-
There is no evidence the impressions are Sheila's. There is no proof that is Sheila's foot either or that it is blood on the foot. In any event she would have to have walked over the blood stained rug to get to the other side for Jeremy to kill her.
What would be significant would be if she had cuts on her feet from the broken crockery in the kitchen or left footprints in Nevill's blood from the kitchen but that didn't happen.
-
Sheila wasn't blind you know.She'd have avoided any objects which were in her path.Besides,the damage wasn't done until the raid team barged in.
-
Interesting that there is a clear footprint of a bare foot (no, we don´t know to whom it belongs), but none of shoes.
Did Jeremy wear shoes?
-
All they had to do was measure the print. It might even have been done,and if it had been Jeremys',we'd have heard about it before now.
-
There is no evidence the impressions are Sheila's. There is no proof that is Sheila's foot either or that it is blood on the foot. In any event she would have to have walked over the blood stained rug to get to the other side for Jeremy to kill her.
What would be significant would be if she had cuts on her feet from the broken crockery in the kitchen or left footprints in Nevill's blood from the kitchen but that didn't happen.
EXCUSE ME, can you say anything constructive other than, "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE", of course there is some fucking evidence, shut the fuck up...
-
We now know, that two bodies were found when police entered the kitchen, we know that one of the bodies was a male, which had previously been described as the body of a female by an officer looking in through the kitchen window, he saying that the female body was behind the door (prior to entry being achieved). We know now, that that body behind the door was a male body, the body of Ralph Bamber, a mistake over the sex of this body sorted upon entry being gained into the kitchen, so that is that sorted out...
Please don't anybody say, "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT / THIS", for fuck sake, because, in a nutshell, there is clear evidence that this is what did occur, this did happen, and the mix up was sorted once police entered the kitchen and found Ralph Bambers body behind the kitchen door, not the body of a female, but the body of one male (7.37am)...
"AND", the body of one dead female, found upon entry to kitchen"...
Two bodies in the kitchen then, by 7.37am, not one body, misidentified as a female when it was a male body...
SORTED...
-
We now know, that two bodies were found when police entered the kitchen, we know that one of the bodies was a male, which had previously been described as the body of a female by an officer looking in through the kitchen window, he saying that the female body was behind the door (prior to entry being achieved). We know now, that that body behind the door was a male body, the body of Ralph Bamber, mistake over the sex of this body sorted upon entry being gained into the kitchen, so that is that sorted out...
Please don't anybody say, "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT / THIS", for fuck sake, because, in a nutshell, there is clear evidence that this is what did occur, this did happen, and the mix up was sorted once police entered the kitchen and found Ralph Bambers body behind the kitchen door, not the body of a female, but the body of one male (7.37am)...
"AND", the body of one dead female, found upon entry to kitchen"...
Two bodies in the kitchen then, by 7.37am, not one body, misidentified as a female when it was a male body...
SORTED...
If true, then only three further bodies from the five occupants known to be inside the farmhouse could have been found elsewhere in the farm house...
Lo and behold, "a further three bodies found upstairs, making a total of five dead in total" (8.10am)...
-
Before we go any further, I would just like to say, "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE"...
Fuck off...
-
EXCUSE ME, can you say anything constructive other than, "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE", of course there is some fucking evidence, shut the fuck up...
I didn't write something constructive, I described evidence that would actually be useful in suggesting guilt but which was absent. To someone trying to figure out the truth such is constructive. To you it is not constructive because your agenda is to blame Sheila so you consider only things that implicate her constructive.
-
Before we go any further, I would just like to say, "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE"...
Fuck off...
Those of us on this side of the fence will decide what is evidence, and those on the other side, decide what they claim is evidence, it is not up to me or us to say there is no evidence to support what the other side is claiming, in the same way it is not for them to decide what is evidence that we seek to rely upon to support our case...
-
I didn't write something constructive, I described evidence that would actually be useful in suggesting guilt but which was absent. To someone trying to figure out the truth such is constructive. To you it is not constructive because your agenda is to blame Sheila so you consider only things that implicate her constructive.
Stop putting fucking words into my mouth, I am not blaming fucking Sheila for killing herself, I am not blaming Jeremy for killing her, I am not blaming some as yet unidentified killer for killing her, don't attribute things to me which I am not saying, don't keep misrepresenting what I am saying, don't keep twisting the things I have said when referring to matters others have talked about, keep to the established facts, I do not want to keep hearing you say, "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE", because that is simply not true, of course there is some evidence, there's plenty of evidence, only you don't have access to it, but for my part I have got access to more than I need to be able to say there is evidence to support the claims I have made on behalf of others, and myself...
"THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE", supporting much of what everybody has to say, no matter which side of the fence you might sit on...
We can debate sensibly, or otherwise, "FUCK OFF", and ignore me and what I am reporting, you will not bully me into silence regarding this case, not even Jeremy himself could do that...
-
Stop putting fucking words into my mouth, I am not blaming fucking Sheila for killing herself, I am not blaming Jeremy for killing her, I am not blaming some as yet unidentified killer for killing her, don't attribute things to me which I am not saying, don't keep misrepresenting what I am saying, don't keep twisting the things I have said when referring to matters others have talked about, keep to the established facts, I do not want to keep hearing you say, "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE", because that is simply not true, of course there is some evidence, there's plenty of evidence, only you don't have access to it, but for my part I have got access to more than I need to be able to say there is evidence to support the claims I have made on behalf of others, and myself...
"THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE", supporting much of what everybody has to say, no matter which side of the fence you might sit on...
We can debate sensibly, or otherwise, "FUCK OFF", and ignore me and what I am reporting, you will not bully me into silence regarding this case, not even Jeremy himself could do that...
It is my personal belief that police shot and killed Sheila after they got into the farmhouse, if you disagree with this / that then fine, you believe what you want to believe, I do not believe that the silencer found at the scene by relatives on 10th August 1985, was used in the shootings at all, I do not believe that any blood which could be attributed to Sheila was found inside that silencer. It could not have been found inside that silencer because that silencer (the one found by relatives on 10th August 1985), was not even at the lab' when the key flake of blood was found inside the other silencer sent to the lab' and retained by them from 30th August 1985...
How the fuck could the same silencer found by relatives be at the lab' from 30th August 1985, onwards, yet Ann Eaton still be in possession of the silencer found at the scene by her brother David Boutflour, on 10th August, still be in possession of this until 11th September 1985?
The silencer found by relatives was not used in the shootings, anyone who says otherwise does not know what they are talking about, it is just speculation on their part...
-
EXCUSE ME, can you say anything constructive other than, "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE", of course there is some fucking evidence, shut the fuck up...
It appears that there were no footprints of an alleged assailant either Mike? They had ultra violet lights themn to test for blood and apparently they found none on Jeremy, in his house, or on his shoes? If they did they didn't mention it in court. I wonder why they didn't mention that they found nothing incriminating in Jeremy's house? They did examine it the next day apparently.
-
It is my personal belief that police shot and killed Sheila after they got into the farmhouse, if you disagree with this / that then fine, you believe what you want to believe,
You suggest more than just that police killed her though. You suggest they did so hours after the first shot was delivered and moreover after Dr Craig confirmed her death. That runs against the medical available evidence. It is hard to believe any of it but particularly when the medical evidence says what you claim is not possible.
I do not believe that the silencer found at the scene by relatives on 10th August 1985, was used in the shootings at all, I do not believe that any blood which could be attributed to Sheila was found inside that silencer. It could not have been found inside that silencer because that silencer (the one found by relatives on 10th August 1985), was not even at the lab' when the key flake of blood was found inside the other silencer sent to the lab' and retained by them from 30th August 1985...
How the fuck could the same silencer found by relatives be at the lab' from 30th August 1985, onwards, yet Ann Eaton still be in possession of the silencer found at the scene by her brother David Boutflour, on 10th August, still be in possession of this until 11th September 1985?
There is no evidence of the moderator being in Ann's possession after 8/12/85 when it was transferred by her to the police.
The silencer found by relatives was not used in the shootings, anyone who says otherwise does not know what they are talking about, it is just speculation on their part...
There is reliable evidence that indicates Sheila's blood was found inside the moderator as well as paint on the outside from the kitchen which suggests it was used on all the victims including Sheila. It is not just speculation.
You are the one speculating that the blood and paint evidence were planted without having any evidence to prove your claims to be true. Likewise your speculation about 2 suppressors is not supported by the available evidence.
If you want to believe something you have the right to but when you provide a basis that is not accurate then it becomes an issue to debate.
-
There is no evidence of the moderator being in Ann's possession after 8/12/85 when it was transferred by her to the police.
Obviously this is the 12th of August rather than 8th of December. Before anybody gets carried away. ;)
-
Obviously this is the 12th of August rather than 8th of December. Before anybody gets carried away. ;)
Oddly enough no one has mistaken how I date things though I use the American system of month first.
I actually expected an issue with it due to situations in the past but the others here seem to be as perceptive as you in this regard.
I could have used the European system, which actually if often used in military parlance ie 1 September 1939 Germany commenced operating Canned Goods, but decided to see how it went using American terms much like I typically use the American term suppressor to moderator. On the red forum someone had a fit about that issue but not here so far. Our battles have pretty much been about the case.
-
There is ample evidence available that relatives did not hand over a silencer to police (albeit on the second occasion) on the 11th September 1985, and that this silencer was fingerprinted by DS Davidson and DS Eastwood on 13th September 1985, and that on the 20th September police sent it to the lab' at Huntingdon, to be checked for BLOOD and FIBRES, and that this particular silencer was examined at the lab' on the 26th September 1985, when red paint from the aga surround in the kitchen at the scene was discovered engrained in its knurled end. There is clear documentary evidence that around the time Ann Eaton handed that silencer over to police in September 1985, that her brother David Boutflour contacted police by telephone on 12th September 1985 to inform police that he had found the gun silencer...
Now which part don't you understand?
How can Ann Eaton and the relatives have the silencer in their possession until 11th September 1985, if Ron Cook kept it in his possession for 17 days from 13th August 1985, and which he supposedly sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, inside which was found Sheila's blood? Surely, the silencer the relatives found, and which they did not hand over to police until 11th September 1985, cannot be the same silencer inside which Sheila's blood was present - nothing could be any clearer that what we are talking about are two different silencers, not the same silencer. One silencer found by relatives, which they still had in their possession until 11th September 1985. One silencer found by relatives which was not fingerprinted by Eastwood and Davidson until 13th September 1985. One silencer found by relatives which was not sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres until 20th September 1985. One silencer that did not get examined at the lab' until 26th September 1985 at which point red paint was found upon it - get the facts right, the silencer handed to police by relatives on 11th September 1985, did not have Sheila's blood inside it, it only had red paint ingrained into the knurl of the silencers end cap...
Sheila's blood was found in the other silencer, the one police had sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985...
How is it possible for the relatives to have possession of the same silencer until 11th September 1985, which police had already sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985?
It couldn't have happened, the same silencer could not have been sent to the lab'on 30th August 1985, and still be in the possession of the relatives until 11th September 1985, and not itself sent to the lab' until the 20th September 1985...
IMPOSSIBLE, both silencers can't be the same one, Sheila's blood in one silencer, red paint from the aga in the kitchen on the other silencer...
FACT!!!
-
THE EVIDENCE, disproving the suggestion that there is no evidence:-
Ammunition box
Cardboard box containing silencer and Ammunition
Silencer
Check above items for blood, fibres and fingerprints:-
Above items forwarded to Lab' on 20th September 1985, SC/786/85 Refers...
-
As can be seen, Essex police still had possession of a silencer until the 20th September 1985, and this silencer could not have been the same silencer already at the lab' from 30th August 1985 (DB/1) inside of which was found Sheila Caffells blood...
-
Further EVIDENCE that the silencer found at the scene was not brought to the attention of Essex police until 11th September 1985:-
Note, that it clearly states that SOC - "Examine the following for Blood, firbres and fingerprints"...
(1) -
(2) -
(3) - SILENCER
Above items forwarded to Lab on 20th September 1985, SC/786/85 refers
Silencer taken to Lab' on 13th August 1985, and sent to Lab' on 30th August 1985, were submitted or taken there under SC/688/85, not SC/786/85 which only applied to the submission of the silencer to the lab' on 20th September 1985...
-
The top image refers to the date of the message and does not refer to the date of it's discovery.
The second image is clearly dated in the bottom right corner as being the 13th August 1985.
Third document refers to Oakley collecting the telescopic sight and not the sound moderator.
-
Police photograph of silencer DB/1 inside which key blood evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) was discovered at the lab' at Huntingdon on 11th September 1985:-
-
LETS ENLARGE THE IMAGE:-
-
Now, compare the enlarged images of the silencer (DB/1) to the diagram of the silencer taken to the lab' by Ron Cook on 13th August 1985:-
IT AIN'T THE SAME SILENCER:-
-
Silencer sent to Lab' on 20th September was not checked until 26th September 1985:-
-
Look at this:-
Ann Eaton hands exhibits over to police on the 11th September 1985, all of which are originally given exhibit references bearing the initials of AE, but why is it that these items were labelled AE/2, AE/3 and AE/4, which later got changed into exhibit references bearing the initials of CAE, but yet again, why is there only disclosure of what items CAE/2, CAE/3 and CAE/4, were?
What item was AE/1, aka CAE/1...
ANSWER - Silencer...
-
Where did Essex police obtain the other silencer from in time for SOC DS Davidson and DS Eastwood to be able to fingerprint it on 13th September 1985, and to be able to submit it along to the lab' by 20th September 1985?
It couldn't have been the same silencer already at the lab' from as long ago as 30th August 1985...
-
Look at the two diagrams drawn up on the Lab' records - they are not the same silencer at all:-
-
Neither of these two silencers, are the one police photographed as "THE SILENCER":-
So, we have THREE DIFFERENT SILENCERS, but only two signed exhibit LABELS:-
-
Where is the SBJ/1 signed exhibit label?
-
Three different silencers, (a) one found at the scene on 7th August 1985, by DS Jones, another (b) which belonged to a member of the raid team, and yet another (c) found by relatives at the scene on 10th August 1985...
-
The tamperings with these different silencers! Where police sought to merge all three into the same one provides a big clue to suggest there wasn't a silencer fitted to the rifle barrel when the fatal shot was inflicted, and that when a thorough cleaning of the end of the gun barrel is carried out, Sheila Caffells blood and dna will be detected there confirming this...
-
Police photograph of silencer DB/1 inside which key blood evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) was discovered at the lab' at Huntingdon on 11th September 1985:-
That's not a photo of DB/1. You seem to just grab photos not care what they are of and pretend they are something that suits your claims.
Worse you play games with dates to pretend that when documents were filled out it means that is when things were found or handed over.
You have not been able to demonstrate that a moderator was collected by anyone on 8/7/95 let alone by Stanley Jones. You have provided no evidentiary basis at all for such statement. All you provided is an allegation that Stanley Jones snuck back to WHF at night to collect the moderator and that this moderator was labeled either SJ/1 or SBJ/1 (you made the claim it was SJ/1 initially but now seem to be maintaining SBJ/1). The moderator found by Boutflour you currently suggest was SJ/1 though you previously admitted it was SBJ/1 which is what all testimony and available documentary evidence suggest.
So on top of possessing no evidence at all of another moderator being collected from WHF on the day of the murders or at any other time, worse you currently call it SBJ/1 though there is considerable evident that proves the moderator found by Boutflour was SBJ/1. You are not following the evidence but rather making up what you feel like in spite of the evidence.
If you are intent on making things up you should at least do so in a manner that doesn't open it up to attack by being totally contradicted by evidence that COLP went through thoroughly. Make up that someone found it who actually could have been in a position to find it and make up a prefix that was never used. You still won't have any evidence to back your claims but at least it won't be contradicted by known evidence.
You showed you are capable of such because you did it with June. You decided to use the opportunity created by June not being tested for GSR, elevated lead levels and foreign blood to argue she is the one loaded the gun, beat Nevill and shot Nevill and the boys. You recognized that while you lacked proof she did these things peopel could not disprove them.
Instead of looking for the same kinds of opportunities to exploit you seem intent on making claims about the moderator that are at odds with the evidence just like your claim Sheila's second shot was fired hours later is at odds with the evidence.
These actions result in you totally losing credibility and by implication seem to hurt Jeremy as well. You made a very interesting comment about not even Jeremy being able to stop you which suggests you have been making some claims against his wishes. I can't help but wonder what he disagreed with so far as claims and posts you have made.
-
There is no evidence to support any claim that there is no evidence...
What a load of bollocks you keep talking about...
Here is silencer, DB/1:-
-
Then again, it could be silencer, DRB/1...
Or is it, SJ/1...
Or is it SBJ/1...
Or is it AE/1...
Or is it CAE/1...
I thought there was only one silencer with all these different exhibit references...
Trouble is, these different silencers don't look like the same one to me:-
-
David Boutflour made a witness statement to COLP investigators, saying that police handed back two silencers to the family after the trial and the one handed back to his father which belonged to him still had a yellow sticky label attached to it:-
-
Then again, it could be silencer, DRB/1...
Or is it, SJ/1...
Or is it SBJ/1...
These are all different designations for a single moderator- a moderator with a different shape so the photo can't be such moderator.
SJ/1 was a tentative designation Cook wrote in his pocketbook for the moderator but after talking to Jones and leanring Jones used SBJ as a prefix he used SBJ/1 on all official documents so it never had the SJ/1 exhibit number. He was planning to assign it that number but exded up assigning it SBJ/1 instead. SBJ/1 was changed to DB/1 and finally DRB/1. They are different deginations for a single moderator. You have no evidence to refute any of this only speculation with doesn't hold up.
Or is it AE/1...
Or is it CAE/1...
There is no evidence at all of any moderator being assigned AE/1 or CAE/1 you just speculate there was without a shred of evidence to actually establish such.
I thought there was only one silencer with all these different exhibit references...
Trouble is, these different silencers don't look like the same one to me:-
The photo could be one of the moderators seized during the 1986 trial. It could be a moderator that has no connection to the case at all. Your uncertaintly of what it is doesn't call into question the moderator with a different shape that was tested by police at all- you have to establish a way for it to do such but you can't.
Wild speculation doesn't cut it.
-
David Boutflour made a witness statement to COLP investigators, saying that police handed back two silencers to the family after the trial and the one handed back to his father which belonged to him still had a yellow sticky label attached to it:-
A sticky label tha thad 675 or soemthing to that effect on it. In the menatime he said they were also seized during the trial.
-
DS Jones took a photograph in the kitchen at whf on 7th August 1985, bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/2:-
-
Photograph bearing identifying mark of SBJ/2 was taken at the scene on the same day Jeremy Bamber made his first witness statement to police on the 7th August 1985 - it must follow that DS Jones took possession of exhibit SBJ/1 on that same date...
-
Photograph bearing identifying mark of SBJ/2 was taken at the scene on the same day Jeremy Bamber made his first witness statement to police on the 7th August 1985 - it must follow that DS Jones took possession of exhibit SBJ/1 on that same date...
Exhibit SBJ/2 was the second piece of evidence that DS Jones seized or took possession of at the scene on 7th August 1985...
-
DS Jones took other exhibits from the scene that6 same morning, namely exhibits SBJ/4 and SBJ/3:-
Photograph of downstairs toilet (SBJ/3) shows Pargeters .22 rifle and his silencer present at the scene on the morning of the shootings (according to Jeremy)...
-
Photograph bearing identifying mark of SBJ/2 was taken at the scene on the same day Jeremy Bamber made his first witness statement to police on the 7th August 1985 - it must follow that DS Jones took possession of exhibit SBJ/1 on that same date...
What stands to reason is that SBJ/1 taken on 7 August was also a photo and that these phtoos were given a different prefix on the official forms because someone else actually took them not Jones.
SbJ/1 was the moderator found by Bouthflour, SBJ/2 the scope found by Boutflour, the box the moderator was in was SBJ/3. All of these items transitioned to DB 1-3 and then DRB 1-3.
-
What stands to reason is that SBJ/1 taken on 7 August was also a photo and that these phtoos were given a different prefix on the official forms because someone else actually took them not Jones.
SbJ/1 was the moderator found by Bouthflour, SBJ/2 the scope found by Boutflour, the box the moderator was in was SBJ/3. All of these items transitioned to DB 1-3 and then DRB 1-3.
You are losing it...
-
He's already lost it,Mike.
-
Clearly, DS Jones took possession of one of the silencers SBJ/1 from the scene on 7th August 1985...
Followed by the taking of the other exhibits, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
-
Clearly, DS Jones took possession of one of the silencers SBJ/1 from the scene on 7th August 1985...
Followed by the taking of the other exhibits, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
By the time DCI Taff Jones, and DS Stan Jones went along to speak to Jeremy at his cottage on the 9th August 1985, police already had a silencer in their possession (SBJ/1), which they duly questioned Jeremy about on that (9th August) date. For example, they asked him, if the silencer was fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle on evening 6th August 1985, prior to the shootings, and Jeremy told them it was not...
Surely, this demonstrates to all and sundry that police had one of the silencers in their possession prior to speaking to Jeremy about it on 9th August 1985?
-
By the time DCI Taff Jones, and DS Stan Jones went along to speak to Jeremy at his cottage on the 9th August 1985, police already had a silencer in their possession (SBJ/1), which they duly questioned Jeremy about on that (9th August) date. For example, they asked him, if the silencer was fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle on evening 6th August 1985, prior to the shootings, and Jeremy told them it was not...
Surely, this demonstrates to all and sundry that police had one of the silencers in their possession prior to speaking to Jeremy about it on 9th August 1985?
Lets get the facts right, why would police be speaking to Jeremy about the silencer on 9th August 1985, unless the police knew about such a silencer by that stage? If police knew about a silencer on 9th August, why would they not have seized it beforehand?
FACT IS, police not only knew about a silencer by 9th August 1985, but they clearly already had possession of one of them by that time, in the form of exhibit SBJ/1, along with three other exhibits taken at the scene on that first morning (7th August 1985)...
FACT, FACT, FACT, FACT....
-
You are losing it...
Unfortunately not, the accuracy of his post is common knowledge. As you well know Mr T!!!!!
-
DS Jones took possession of one of the silencers (SBJ/1) from the scene on 7th August 1985, this silencer was in police possession when Jones and Jones went to speak to Jeremy at his cottage on 9th August 1985 - When interviewed by COLP in 1991, DS Jones confirmed in his answers to COLP questioning that DCI Taff Jones spoke to Jeremy about the silencer when they went along to see him on afternoon of 9th August 1985. Police therefore not only knew about the silencer from 7th August 1985, but they had possession of one of them, the one bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1...
The relatives did not find the SBJ/1 silencer on 10th August 1985, because that (SBJ/1) silencer was already in police possession by that stage, and had been from the first morning of the investigation (7th August 1985)...
Silencer found by relatives was SJ/1...
Silencers SBJ/1 and SJ/1 are not the same silencers...
-
Unfortunately not, the accuracy of his post common knowledge. As you well know Mr T!!!!!
Read this, and then tell me that police did not know about the existence of a silencer until relatives handed one of them (SJ/1) over to DS Jones on evening of 12th August 1985:-
Notes taken by COLP of interview of DS Jones
-
Oh dear, you're scraping the barrel a bit here Mr T!!!! 10 out of 10 for the effort though. :-[
-
On 9th August 1985, DCI Jones questioned Jeremy Bamber about the silencer:-
-
So, on 9th August 1985, not only do police know about one of the silencers, they already have possession of one (SBJ/1), and what is more, the police let Jeremy know that they know about the existence of the silencer before they hand the keys to the farmhouse back to the family, later that same evening...
So, if Jeremy was the killer, why did Jeremy allow the police to give the keys to the farmhouse over to the relatives, who despised Jeremy?
-
Why are the dates 1986?
-
Why are the dates 1986?
Epic fail Mr T :-[
-
Total skullduggery in fact, shame on you. :'( :'( :'(
-
Total skullduggery in fact, shame on you. :'( :'( :'(
The worst part is that when one constantly does such it will make people doubt actual evidence of wrongdoing if such ever were found.
I wondered why people kept saying Jeremy wants the site closed but I now think I get it.
-
Total skullduggery in fact, shame on you. :'( :'( :'(
Shame on you too, because did relatives re enact the events with the police as described prior to the trial (October 1986)?
-
The worst part is that when one constantly does such it will make people doubt actual evidence of wrongdoing if such ever were found.
I wondered why people kept saying Jeremy wants the site closed but I now think I get it.
The sad thing is that people are oblivious to it, or even fall for it. :-\
-
Relatives conspired with police in 1985 / 1986 to introduce false silencer, blood and paint evidence, as confirmed by the posts provided, Silencer SBJ/1 was in police possession from 7th August 1985, and the chief conspirator who is now dead, falsified his pocketbook entries to hide what police and relatives got up too:-
One of the key conspirators was the relatives best friend, non other than the despicable crook known as DS Stan Jones, who quite literally cooked his pocketbook because he had been so deeply involved in helping relatives to frame Jeremy with the dodgy silencer, blood and paint evidence, there was insufficient room in two opr more pocketbooks issued to him to record it all down in - so he made false entries in several different pocketbooks...
-
DS Stan Jones was a criminal - he lied about silencers SBJ/1 and SJ/1...
-
Why are the dates 1986?
There was a review in 1986 of the investigation, the notes of which COLP investigators took possession of as part of their 1991 / 1992 investigation, so your point is?
-
What stands to reason is that SBJ/1 taken on 7 August was also a photo and that these phtoos were given a different prefix on the official forms because someone else actually took them not Jones.
SbJ/1 was the moderator found by Bouthflour, SBJ/2 the scope found by Boutflour, the box the moderator was in was SBJ/3. All of these items transitioned to DB 1-3 and then DRB 1-3.
You need to buck your ideas up mate, your losing the plot...
If you can read English, try and decipher the following:-
-
You need to get your head seen too mate, if you can read how come the above don't match up with the following:-
All items mentioned are DRB exhibits, including the silencer (DRB/1) that did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, too late I am afraid for Sheila's blood to have been found inside it 9 days earlier...
How the fuck can David Boutflour be handing over exhibits to police on 14th September 1985, when according to police documents police already had possession of them days before? Seems to me like relatives and police have sought to pull the wool over everybodies eyes regarding these matters...
Oh, Dear...
-
Worse still, David Boutflour can't even remember whereabouts inside the gun cupboard he supposedly found the silencer (SJ/1) a month previously - he gives two different versions, and hopes at least one of them is correct...
-
Suddenly, those from the dark side are not making any more snide remarks any more, I wonder why?
-
What we are dealing with here, are prosecution witness liars...
-
Suddenly, those from the dark side are not making any more snide remarks any more, I wonder why?
Unfortunately, these days, you have about as much interest as an air conditioning unit in the middle of the Antarctic.
-
So, raving Dave hands over the DRB exhibits to police on 14th September 1985, after arranging to meet with them at whf, and Dave is asking for the same SOCO who attended the original investigation to meet him at the farmhouse on 14th September, where Dave has other items of evidential value he wants to give to police. How on earth did items that raving Dave handed over to police on the 14th September at the scene, which all were given DRB exhibit references, manage to become AE exhibit references, which were handed to police three days earlier by Ann Eaton, or vice versa?
Tut, Tut, Tut...
-
Since all the DRB exhibits were not handed over to police by David Boutflour until 14th September 1985, and a silencer was amongst this collection of DRB exhibits that got sent to the Lab' on the 20th September 1985, it must follow, surely that the silencer still in police possession until 20th September was the one labelled, DRB/1, does it not, because all the other DRB exhibits did not fall into police hands until 14th September by which stage the key piece of blood evidence had already been found inside the other silencer (DB/1) on 11th September 1985...
-
Suddenly, those from the dark side are not making any more snide remarks any more, I wonder why?
All you have done is post a bunch of documents, none of which prove the assertions you have made so far as the existence of a second moderator collected from WHF prior to the only known moderator which was collected and tested.
You told me to stop posting that you have not provided any evidence so why should I repeat the obvious which you have already stated annoys you?
-
Information contained in witness statements, documents and photographs, is evidence, no matter what you or anybody else from the dark side has to say. You obviously do not know what evidence is, unless of course you want it to be evidence. What we have in this case, is one police officer at the centre of the silencer debackle who was clearly dishonest. He tampered with his own pocketbook so as to try and conceal for the fact that Sheila's blood was found inside a silencer (SBJ/1 - DB/1) he took from the scene on the first morning of the investigation, that being 7th August 1985. He took possession of three other exhibits from the scene that morning, namely, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, of which two of these exhibits included a photograph Jones took in the downstairs toilet, and a second photograph in the main kitchen...
These two photographs which DS Jones took at the scene on that first morning of the investigation are key pieces of evidence which help to reconstruct how Essex police introduce four additional bullet cases into the main bedroom scenario later on...
Bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, were not originally part of the main bedroom crime scene. This can be proven by reference to documentary evidence in the form of hand written instructions written by PI Bob Miller, who requested DC Hammersley to vacate four exhibit references so that four bullet cases could be introduced into the bedroom scenario...
We now know what the police did in this matter, clear evidence exists to prove that exhibits were interfered with so that four dodgy bullet cases could be introduced into the bedroom area, to lend support to the claim that Ralph Bamber had already been shot upstairs four times in the bedroom before he went downstairs to the kitchen. Nothing could be clearer, DS Jones was a crook, a dishonest police officer, who will now become the patsy for all the wrong doing the police got up to in this case, in the same way, DCI Jones took the brunt of the criticism after his death...
And before anybody says, there is no evidence to support this, well there is, and its evidence which supports our side of the argument...
-
Facts have now fallen into place which establish once and for all that police fabricated evidence to help secure the convictions for murder against Jeremy Bamber, involving DS Jones, DC Hammersley, and PI Miller...
-
Relatives did find one of the silencers (SJ/1 - DRB/1) at the scene, but Sheila's blood was not found inside it...
-
Silencer (DRB/1)was not sent along to Huntingdon Lab'until the 20th September 1985, so obviously blood belonging to Sheila which was found in a silencer (DB/1) could not possibly have been found inside silencer DRB/1, sent there on 20th September 1985...
-
I can now reveal that the withheld contents of DC Hammersleys 2nd witness statement is the key piece of evidence at the heart of the conspiracy to frame Jeremy for the murders...
-
I can now reveal that the withheld contents of DC Hammersleys 2nd witness statement is the key piece of evidence at the heart of the conspiracy to frame Jeremy for the murders...
'CYCLOPS' reviewers have very recently contacted me with new information regarding the original four exhibits, marked, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, which got vacated to create room for inclusion of four additional bullet cases into the main bedroom scenario, altering the total of bullet cases found there, from 9 to 13...
-
If you are the police, and you have a set number of exhibits, which you swap around to allow you to introduce four additional bullet cases into the crime scene scenario of the main bedroom, so that they can then pursue a line of enquiry, it has to be treated as "fabricating evidence, perverting the course of justice, and conspiracy"...
And before anybody says anything, there is evidence to support these accusations...
-
But...
It gets worse...
Dc Hammersley did not find the silencer, at the scene on 7th august 1985. Ds Jones did...
-
Seizure of the first silencer (SBJ/1) by DS Stan Jones from the scene on 7th August 1985, proved problematic to the ' OPERATIONS MANAGER' (OM)..
-
I can now report that DC Hammersley refused to agree to tampering with the original exhibit references belonging to items, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, and wanted nothing whatsoever to do with the silencer recovered by DS Jones from the scene on morning of 7th August 1985...
-
I can now report that DC Hammersley refused to agree to tampering with the original exhibit references belonging to items, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, and wanted nothing whatsoever to do with the silencer recovered by DS Jones from the scene on morning of 7th August 1985...
When he was seen by the COLP investigators at the beginning of the 1990's, he yelled out, without being prompted, "I didn't find it"...
He was referring to the silencer (SBJ/1) RECOVERED BY DS JONES from the scene on 7th August 1985...
-
When he was seen by the COLP investigators at the beginning of the 1990's, he yelled out, without being prompted, "I didn't find it"...
He was referring to the silencer (SBJ/1) RECOVERED BY DS JONES from the scene on 7th August 1985...
I thought he was in tears and said, "It wasn't me"? But no one on the forum knew what he was talking about?
-
But...
It gets worse...
Dc Hammersley did not find the silencer, at the scene on 7th august 1985. Ds Jones did...
There is no evidence anyone found one that day. You just keep repating the same nonsense liek a broken record. You are lying about a moderator being found you made it up! What evidence do you base your claims on? None you made it up.
Hammersley broke down because of his marriage was destroyed:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3503.0
I gave you the rope to hang yourself na dyou did, yo ujus tkeep lying your arse off and contradicting yourself. You have ruined any chance of having any credibility which is apparanetly why Jeremy wants you to stop. Your lies ruin any chance of rational people believing any allegations he makes.
Instead of helping him you harm him.
-
And your Sermons are going to help Jeremy,are they ?? Like Hell they are !
This is why you've come on this forum,to purposely overturn any argument in his favour,and add your poison here like you've done elsewhere.
What's in it for you,then,and all the rest of the maggots ??
-
There is no evidence anyone found one that day. You just keep repating the same nonsense liek a broken record. You are lying about a moderator being found you made it up! What evidence do you base your claims on? None you made it up.
Hammersley broke down because of his marriage was destroyed:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3503.0
I gave you the rope to hang yourself na dyou did, yo ujus tkeep lying your arse off and contradicting yourself. You have ruined any chance of having any credibility which is apparanetly why Jeremy wants you to stop. Your lies ruin any chance of rational people believing any allegations he makes.
Instead of helping him you harm him.
Shut your lousy mouth you idiot, you do not know what you are talking about, there is ample evidence to prove a silencer was taken by the police on 7th August 1985...
-
Shut your lousy mouth you idiot, you do not know what you are talking about, there is ample evidence to prove a silencer was taken by the police on 7th August 1985...
Well where is this evidence and when are you going to present it?
So far you have been presenting documents ceoncerning events in September-December of 1985 and even 1986 but nothing to establish any moderator was taken from WHF on 8/7/85 let alone one taken by Stanley Jones.
-
Police documents, and police records prove that police had a silencer in their possession from 7th August 1985, onwards. DS Davidson even fingerprinted it on the 9th August 1985, so put that in your pipe and smoke it...
Everybody now knows that the key police officer at the centre of the silencer debackle (DS Jones) falsified entries in a re- written pocketbook, so that the truth about his involvement with at least two different key silencers could be suppressed. Any way, I am not remotely interested in what you have to say because all you keep harping on about is to say, "there is no evidence", when all along there is...
You obviously haven't got a clue as to what constitutes evidence in English law, and you talk shit...
I am putting you on ignore from now on, because you are clearly out just to try and cause trouble...
GOOD LUCK, loser...
-
Police documents, and police records prove that police had a silencer in their possession from 7th August 1985, onwards. DS Davidson even fingerprinted it on the 9th August 1985, so put that in your pipe and smoke it...
Everybody now knows that the key police officer at the centre of the silencer debackle (DS Jones) falsified entries in a re- written pocketbook, so that the truth about his involvement with at least two different key silencers could be suppressed. Any way, I am not remotely interested in what you have to say because all you keep harping on about is to say, "there is no evidence", when all along there is...
You obviously haven't got a clue as to what constitutes evidence in English law, and you talk shit...
I am putting you on ignore from now on, because you are clearly out just to try and cause trouble...
GOOD LUCK, loser...
You have yet to present these documents that establish they had a moderator in their possession on August 7 and fingerprinted in on August 9. You keep saying you have documents to prove it but have failed to produce any that actually confirm such things.
-
I have previously demonstrated that DS Stan Jones took four exhibits from the scene on 7th August 1985, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4. Sheila Caffells blood was found inside a silencer bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1. DS Davidson (SOC) fingerprinted this SBJ/1) silencer on the 9th August 1985. DCI Jones and DS Jones spoke to Jeremy at his cottage at Head Street, Goldhanger, that same date, about the silencer in question, this was before relatives found the other silencer (SJ/1) in the gun cupboard at the scene on 10th August 1985, which Peter Eaton handed over to DS Jones on evening of 12th August 1985...
Any way, there is an abundance of evidence available to prove the existence of at least two key silencers, and everyone would do well to remember that...
None of Sheila's blood was found inside the silencer found by relatives and given to police...
We can now prove that the relatives handed over the same (SJ/1) silencer (DRB/1) twice. This was done once on the evening of 12th August 1985, and secondly by Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985. This very same silencer was examined at the lab' on two separate occasions, firstly on the 13th August 1985, and secondly on the 26th September 1985. This silencer was never present at all at the Lab' at any stage between 13th August and the 20th September 1985, therefore it could not have been the same silencer (SBJ/1 - DB/1) inside which was found Sheila's blood, or the blood of the other victims...
DS Stan Jones was a dishonest police officer who thought nothing of fabricating a bit of evidence here or there, as evidenced by reference to his dodgy pocketbook (49) which has three separate start dates on its front cover:-
-
I have previously mentioned that four key exhibits which originally occupied exhibit References DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, were vacated and had their exhibit references changed so that police could add four additional bullet cases into the main bedroom scenario, which enabled the prosecution to argue in the presence of the jury that Ralph Bamber had been shot at least four times in the bedroom upstairs before going downstairs, and that he would not have been able to use the telephone to make the call to Jeremy that Jeremy says he received from him, because he had been shot in the mouth, etc...
That argument was a lie, since if police had not vacated the first four exhibit references of DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, by reallocating these four original items the alternative exhibit reference numbers of DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/53, they would not have been able to introduce the four additional bullet cases to enable them to make out such a case, regarding Ralphs injuries preventing him from making the call in question...
-
I have previously demonstrated that DS Stan Jones took four exhibits from the scene on 7th August 1985, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4.
You demonstrated no such thing. You suggested a photo was marked exhibit SBJ/2 but failed to establish it was officially classified by this exhibit number and if true all it would do is suggest multiple photos were initially attributed to him but officially designated by a different prefix.
In the meantime the items found by Boutflour that were hande dover to poline on August 12th are the items that were officially designated SBJ/1-4.
Sheila Caffells blood was found inside a silencer bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1. DS Davidson (SOC) fingerprinted this SBJ/1) silencer on the 9th August 1985. DCI Jones and DS Jones spoke to Jeremy at his cottage at Head Street, Goldhanger, that same date, about the silencer in question, this was before relatives found the other silencer (SJ/1) in the gun cupboard at the scene on 10th August 1985, which Peter Eaton handed over to DS Jones on evening of 12th August 1985...
Once again you are making allegations without posting any evidence. There is evidence that proves the moderator found by Boutflour was designated SBJ/1, the scope SBJ/2 , the ... There is no evidence at all converning a moderator that was found and fingerprinted let alone that had Sheila's fingerprints.
Any way, there is an abundance of evidence available to prove the existence of at least two key silencers, and everyone would do well to remember that...
You have yet to produce any evidence of this there is nothing to remember.
None of Sheila's blood was found inside the silencer found by relatives and given to police...
While you allege such the police have produeced evidence that says otherwise and your barebones allegations are unable to refute their evidence.
We can now prove that the relatives handed over the same (SJ/1) silencer (DRB/1) twice. This was done once on the evening of 12th August 1985, and secondly by Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985. This very same silencer was examined at the lab' on two separate occasions, firstly on the 13th August 1985, and secondly on the 26th September 1985. This silencer was never present at all at the Lab' at any stage between 13th August and the 20th September 1985, therefore it could not have been the same silencer (SBJ/1 - DB/1) inside which was found Sheila's blood, or the blood of the other victims...
Yet again all naked allegations that you have produced not a shred of evidence to establish to actually be true.
DS Stan Jones was a dishonest police officer who thought nothing of fabricating a bit of evidence here or there, as evidenced by reference to his dodgy pocketbook (49) which has three separate start dates on its front cover:-
The fact the start dates were crossed off merely means it wasn't used for the dates in question but eventually was used and for the date not crossed out. This doesn't prove anything at all nefarious.
-
It is now possible to identify the date when these alterations came into force, and exactly when the police first decided to introduce four bullet cases to the main bedroom scenario so that they could say that 13 bullets had been fired in that bedroom, when all along there had only been 9 shots fired there...
-
I have previously mentioned that four key exhibits which originally occupied exhibit References DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, were vacated and had their exhibit references changed so that police could add four additional bullet cases into the main bedroom scenario, which enabled the prosecution to argue in the presence of the jury that Ralph Bamber had been shot at least four times in the bedroom upstairs before going downstairs, and that he would not have been able to use the telephone to make the call to Jeremy that Jeremy says he received from him, because he had been shot in the mouth, etc...
That argument was a lie, since if police had not vacated the first four exhibit references of DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, by reallocating these four original items the alternative exhibit reference numbers of DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/53, they would not have been able to introduce the four additional bullet cases to enable them to make out such a case, regarding Ralphs injuries preventing him from making the call in question...
Your claims make no sense at all let alone have any evidentiary basis to support them. If police wanted to relocate where the casings were found they could have easily done so simply by editing the locations on the various forms. Your convoluted tale of changing exhibit numbers is absurd.
Moreover, Ralph had bene shot 8 times in the kitchen then he would not have been invovled in the struggle that occurred he would not have been able to struggle he would have been busy bieng shot and killed. Furthermore, the bullet that grazed Ralph ended up in the bed. He clearly was shot upstairs. That shot was to his left like all the shots fired upstairs.
-
It is now possible to identify the date when these alterations came into force, and exactly when the police first decided to introduce four bullet cases to the main bedroom scenario so that they could say that 13 bullets had been fired in that bedroom, when all along there had only been 9 shots fired there...
These alteration Changes (DRH/1 to DRH/50, DRH/2 to DRH/51, DRH/3 to DRH/52 and DRH/4 to DRH/53) were ordered to be made, after the 11th November 1985...
-
It is now possible to identify the date when these alterations came into force, and exactly when the police first decided to introduce four bullet cases to the main bedroom scenario so that they could say that 13 bullets had been fired in that bedroom, when all along there had only been 9 shots fired there...
Your allegations have no evidentiary basis and make no sense.
Furthermore there is a bullet that grazed Nevill as well as blood that he transferred to various locations on his way to the kitchen so he was definitely shot in the bedroom as well as the kitchen.
If the killer still had ammo in the gun after firing a single shot in the bedroom at him then how could Nevill have managed to exit the room and reach the kitchen in the first place? The killer would have blocked his exit and continued shooting at him as he tried to get away. Nevill was shot 4 times on his left side and they were profile shots which means his left shoulder was facing the killer. What are the chances that his left shoulder was facing the killer in the bedroom for the graze shot and also in the kitchen and that police we lucky enough to manage to realize they could blame 3 extra shots in the bedroom? Moroever if they were staging where they found the shell casings why would they admit 1 casing was found on the landing at the top of the stairs which is an indication it got accidentally moved there because there is no rational way it could have gotten there naturally during the course of the shooting? If they were stagign them 4 would be in the kitchen and 4 in the bedroom.
-
So, lets set the record straight, so we can show these scumbag police officers and their loyal supporters exactly what they got up to, in order to frame an innocent man for killing three generations of his own family, by introducing four additional bullets into the bedroom scenario, increasing the total of bullet cases found from 9 to 13, just so the prosecution could formulate the argument that Ralph Bamber could not have made any call by use of the downstairs telephone because he had been shot as many as four times in the bedroom beforehand, one of these four shots was a shot in the mouth, so he would hardly have been able to speak...
Well, this argument could not be presented until police messed around with the exhibits, and this did not take place until on or after 11th November 1985, because up until this point there had only been 9 bullet cases recovered from inside the same bedroom...
-
I can now reveal exactly what items of evidential value, had the original exhibit references of DRH/1 (Letters), DRH/2 (paper), DRH/3 (two photographs), and DRH/4 (black trousers), which on or after the 11th November 1985, were reallocated the exhibit references of DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/52 respectively...
-
Here are all the exhibits seized by DC Hammersley from the scene (WHF) after the alterations had been made on 11th November 1985:-
-
These four items were originally exhibits DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3, DRH/4, all the way until on or after 11th November 1985...
FACT, FACT, FACT, FACT...
-
I can now reveal exactly what items of evidential value, had the original exhibit references of DRH/1 (Letters), DRH/2 (paper), DRH/3 (two photographs), and DRH/4 (black trousers), which on or after the 11th November 1985, were reallocated the exhibit references of DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/52 respectively...
The testimony is that the collection of evidence started with the casings, to collect photos, torusers and letters before starting on the casings makes no sense at all. Worse yet, DRH/1 and DRH/2 are the shell casings that were by Sheila. So you are claiming that 2 of the casings that they swapped in related to Sheila and 2 others to Nevill not 4 related to Nevill.
It is bad enough you never have any evidence to back up your claims but you make up things that make no sense at all.
-
These four items were originally exhibits DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3, DRH/4, all the way until on or after 11th November 1985...
FACT, FACT, FACT, FACT...
Where is your evidence? If you want to convice anyone epsecially me you need to produce proof not just making claims.
-
So, now that we know there were only 9 bullet cases in the vicinity of the main bedroom, and lets say Ralph Bamber was shot at least once whilst present in that bedroom, this only leaves 8 bullet cases, and seven of these must relate to the shooting and disposal of Mrs June Bamber...
Leaves a single bullet case, to be accounted for in the bedroom, despite Sheila having been shot twice in the neck...
-
If there is only a single bullet case to be accounted for in the main bedroom, and Sheila is shot twice in the neck, she could not have been shot twice in the neck whilst she was in the bedroom, she could only have been shot once in that bedroom...
So, under what circumstances could Sheila have only been shot once in the bedroom, yet she have two bullet wounds in her neck?
-
The only reliable information that we have got to go on, are the contents of the police radio message logs passed from the scene to the control room and vice versa - one such message reads, "THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE, AND THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE, FOUND IN KITCHEN UPON ENTRY" (7.37am)...
So, this information provides an answer to the question, regarding how Sheila was shot twice, despite only one bullet case being available in the main bedroom to link one shot inflicted to her in that bedroom, the other shot had to be inflicted elsewhere at the scene...
She was shot once downstairs in the region of the kitchen...
-
Now, how could Jeremy have been responsible for shooting his sister dead with two bullet wounds to her neck whilst she was in the main bedroom at the farm house, if she was only shot once there?
-
If there is only a single bullet case to be accounted for in the main bedroom, and Sheila is shot twice in the neck, she could not have been shot twice in the neck whilst she was in the bedroom, she could only have been shot once in that bedroom...
So, under what circumstances could Sheila have only been shot once in the bedroom, yet she have two bullet wounds in her neck?
Davidson/Hammersley testimony-
They started out in the master bedroom by having Hammersley collect the bullets and bullet casings in the master bedroom and bringing them to Davison so he could record them on the CID6 and bag and tag them. They started with the casings that were by Sheila and then went to the other side of the room.
Documents- Initial entries are all for the bullet casings and bullets found int he bedroom starting with the casings near Sheila. These were all sent to the lab together along with the other bullets and casings at the end of August 1985.
Mike's evidence to refute the above-
He has none just the unlikely claim that the first four things collected were meaningless things of no value and then all of a sudden they switched to collecting the shell casings and bullets and that the casings marked DRH 1-4 were found months later though 2 of these were found by Sheila. By defintiion this suggests they also played aroudn with the descriptions of where they were found since he is claiming 1 was recovered by Sheila right away and designating it a number int he 50s makes no sense.
Sorry but your claims make no sense and have no evidentiary basis at all so I have no reason to doubt the official story which makes sense and has documentary corroboration.
-
Lets approach this little mystery from a different angle...
We have only 9 bullet cases present in the main bedroom right up until 11th November 1985, when the Operations Manager (OM), decides to vacate four exhibit references relating to four items of evidential value, namely by altering items DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH,3, and DRH/4, into DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/53, so that the Operations manager can introduce four additional bullet cases into slots left vacated by the switch aforementioned...
How was it possible for Ralph Bamber to have been shot four times whist he was present in the bedroom, if June Bamber had been shot seven times there, and there were only 9 bullet cases originally found in that vicinity?
-
Now, how could Jeremy have been responsible for shooting his sister dead with two bullet wounds to her neck whilst she was in the main bedroom at the farm house, if she was only shot once there?
You took a whole lot of leaps to get to this conclusion. You heaped unsupported claim upon unsupported claim to arrive at it.
I woudl have to ignore a large quantity of evidence that proves she was shot 2 times in the bedroom seconds apart to agree with your claims and I am not willing to ignore evidence just because you would liek me to do so. You need evidence to refute that evidence in order to get me to discount it.
-
Here, we have the hand written instruction from the OM, requesting DS Hammersley to change exhibits DRH/1 to DRH/50, change DRH/2 to DRH/51, change DRH/3 to DRH/52, and for him to change exhibit DRH/4 to DRH/53, in his second witness statement, page 2:-
-
So, here are the original DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3, and DRH/4 items, alongside their altered exhibit refrences of DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/53:-
-
Lets approach this little mystery from a different angle...
We have only 9 bullet cases present in the main bedroom right up until 11th November 1985, when the Operations Manager (OM), decides to vacate four exhibit references relating to four items of evidential value, namely by altering items DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH,3, and DRH/4, into DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/53, so that the Operations manager can introduce four additional bullet cases into slots left vacated by the switch aforementioned...
It's not a different angle. You want us to just assume that these claims are true wihtout requiring you ro provide any proof and to just jump to the question below pretending that these claims are definitely true. In the meantime you ignore that if your claims were true then there would have been more casings found in the kitchen and they would be near the kitchen exhibits.
How was it possible for Ralph Bamber to have been shot four times whist he was present in the bedroom, if June Bamber had been shot seven times there, and there were only 9 bullet cases originally found in that vicinity?
-
I am interested in the original four items bearing the identifying marks of DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, from the beginning of the police investigation which commenced on 7th August 1985, and remained so until on or after the 11th November 1985, when these became altered and changed into DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/53, respectively, so as to allow introduction of four additional bullet cases into the main bedroom scenario, altering the original total of bullet cases found in the main bedroom from 9 to 13...
-
Why would police be seeking to add four bullet cases to the main bedroom scenario, on or after 11th November 1985, so that instead of 9 bullet cases found there, there were now 13?
-
Why would police be seeking to add four bullet cases to the main bedroom scenario, on or after 11th November 1985, so that instead of 9 bullet cases found there, there were now 13?
A part from trying to show Jeremy in a poor light by introducing the argument that Ralph had been shot four times in the bedroom before going downstairs and that in such a state he could not possibly have been in any fit state to speak to anyone on the phone?
-
Here, we have the hand written instruction from the OM, requesting DS Hammersley to change exhibits DRH/1 to DRH/50, change DRH/2 to DRH/51, change DRH/3 to DRH/52, and for him to change exhibit DRH/4 to DRH/53, in his second witness statement, page 2:-
The exhibit numbers were not changed. His statement incorrectly recorded DRH 1-4 twice in it. It listed DRH-1-4 for the bullets and then again for the four items taken from Colchester. The note was to correct the error.
How could the first items that were collected from WHF on 8/7 have been items that were actually taken from Cochester?
Not only does this not make sense you are intentionally twisting again. You have to be aware that this was correcting a typo because I have only studied this case for months not years and even I am aware of that. You are lucky Harters is asleep or he would say shame on you again.
-
Four additional bullet cases added into the main bedroom scenario, as DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3, and DRH/4, yet for what reason?
To help disprove Jeremys claim that he received a call from his father in the middle of the night?
Or:-
-
A part from trying to show Jeremy in a poor light by introducing the argument that Ralph had been shot four times in the bedroom before going downstairs and that in such a state he could not possibly have been in any fit state to speak to anyone on the phone?
Clearly he was shot in the bedroom before he went downstairs. The bullet that grazed him was found in the bed. You do not deny this bullet was not found on 8/7/85. He also left blood in various places on his way to the kitchen. Nevill being shot period ends the chance he made the alleged call after that point. There was no need to pretend he had been shot more times than one in the bedroom. With June shot and himself also shot he would have called 999 requesting medical help not have asked Jeremy to come over. If he did decide to call Jeremy in that situation he certainly would have noted he and June had been shot and needed medical help so send an ambulance. But Jeremy makes no mention at all of him saying anyone had been shot yet.
Worse yet, Sheila would still have had bullets in the gun and upon seeing him on the phone waiting for Jeremy to answer she would have opened fire some more not let him make the call and shoot and beat him.
-
According to the photographic records, DC Hammersley never took any photographs at the scene on either 7th, 8th or 9th August 1985, so to whom and what are the references of two photographs (DRH/52) after 11th November 1985, which had originally been exhibit DRH/3 from 7th August 1985?
-
According to the photographic records, DC Hammersley never took any photographs at the scene on either 7th, 8th or 9th August 1985, so to whom and what are the references of two photographs (DRH/52) after 11th November 1985, which had originally been exhibit DRH/3 from 7th August 1985?
The photographs were taken from Colchester. The 4 exhibits in question were not from WHF they were from Colchester. Your claim these exhibits were originally from WHF on the day of the murders and marked DRH 1-4 is impossible these items were all from Colchester.
-
Imagine the following scenario<-
Ralph Bamber is sat still barely alive on a large wooden chair behind the internal door which leads from main kitchen to back door area. Police are prevented from making a swift entry into that part of the house because there is something heavy behind the door. Police push hard to try and force the door open and eventually in order to speed things up a police officer pops his weapon around the corner of the door and pumps four bullets into the persons head, which are two bursts of two shots, first couple to the right hand side of the head, second couple of shots to the top / back part of the head - police enter kitchen thereafter...
-
According to the photographic records, DC Hammersley never took any photographs at the scene on either 7th, 8th or 9th August 1985, so to whom and what are the references of two photographs (DRH/52) after 11th November 1985, which had originally been exhibit DRH/3 from 7th August 1985?
But DS Jones did, one of which was this...
-
Evidence
General principles relating to evidence
The first rule of evidence is that it must be relevant to be admissible. For the evidence to be relevant, those facts which are subject to being proved or disproved must amount to:
Facts in issue, i.e. those which need to be proved by one party;
Relevant facts, i.e. those which tend to prove the facts in issue;
Collateral facts which may for example affect the credibility and/or competence of a witness.
Types of evidence
There are a number of different types of evidence:
Testimony - the oral statement of a witness made on oath in open court and put forward as evidence of the truth of what he or she says.
Real evidence - this is usually a material object of some kind, which is produced for inspection, either to prove that it exists, or so that the court can make an inference as to its condition or value, for example ripped clothing, a knife or burnt document.
Hearsay evidence - when a witness, or someone else, makes a statement other than in the course of their testimony, this is referred to as an ‘out of court statement.’ Hearsay evidence is an out of court statement which is being relied upon to prove the truth of its contents.
Original evidence - this is an out of court statement offered for a relevant purpose other than proving the truth of its contents, for example to prove something was said at all.
Documentary evidence - this consists of documents which have been produced for inspection by the court. These may be items of real evidence, original evidence or hearsay.
Real evidence
Real evidence usually takes the form of some kind of material object produced before the court. it is normally produced to show that it exists or so that an inference can be drawn from its physical properties or its condition, or from the fact that it was found at a particular place or in someone’s possession. An example of real evidence would be a knife alleged to have been used in the commission of a murder or faulty goods produced to show evidence of the particular fault in question.
Real evidence includes: material objects; the appearance of people/animals; demeanour of witnesses; views and documents.
Original evidence
Original evidence is defined as an out of court statement tendered for some purpose other than to establish the truth of the facts it contains. The making of the statement will wither itself be a fact in issue, or relevant to a fact in issue.
The statement as a fact in issue:
Where the making of a statement is, itself, a fact in issue, the statement will be admissible to show that it was made, but it will remain inadmissible as to the truth of its contents.
Statements relevant to a fact in issue:
Making of statement relevant to a fact in issue; Statement admitted to show the state of mind of the maker; Statement admitted to show state of mind of person who heard it; Statement admitted to allow tribunal of fact to draw inferences from falsity of statement.
Hearsay evidence
To prove the truth of its content. This includes an out of court statement made by the witness him or herself as well as an out of court statement made to the witness by someone else. The admissibility of hearsay evidence is set out under s 114 of The Criminal Justice Act 2003. S 115 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 further tightens up the definition by making it clear that you need to consider the purpose of the person making the statement (as well as the purpose of the party relying upon it in court) when deciding whether a piece of evidence is hearsay evidence or not.
-
This is evidence:-
-
This is evidence:-
-
This is evidence:-
-
This is evidence:-
-
This is evidence:-
-
"1 dead female found upon entry to the premises" - you would all do well to remember this, because the reference to the dead female being found, is made upon entering the premises, not beforehand when a police officer looks through the kitchen window (before police even started to smash their way into the premises...
The dead female was found after the dead male was discovered, as confirmed by the contents of this (evidential) report...
-
These details were confirmed to Inspector Norman (a witness to these facts) by police radio, and the land line being eavesdropped at the scene. Lets get the facts right. The raid team was inside the premises when they reported two dead bodies, one dead male, and one dead female, which was overheard back in the control rock via the eavesdrop, and confirmed by information being relayed to the control room by the occupants of CA07 at the scene who passed the relevant radio messages...
All parties witnesses to the events as reported...
-
This cannot just be explained away by calling it a "mistake" Mike. This is one of those anomalies that keeps making me doubt the official line?
In the previous documents what do the words "not sent" mean Mike?
-
Just regurgitating the same old line. ::)
A more realistic scenario for the 1 dead male 1 dead female record:
There are two logs which have been produced and are available on this forum. In addition to that there are various other notes and statements.
The chain of communication is as follows:
1. Somebody informed CA07 of 1 dead male and one dead female. I do not know who informed them but I am suggesting that it was Adams who got it from the firearms team.
2. CA07 contacted the information room and informed them about "1 dead male, 1 dead female". The information room (Igor Norman) noted on the information rooms log "1 dead male, 1 dead female", he noted this on the front page of the log and in the table together with the corresponding time.
3. The information room contacted PC West and informed him of "1 dead male, 1 dead female", PC West noted this in his log.
4. Somebody contacted CA07 and told them that all 5 people were found dead. Again I don't know who contacted them but I am suggesting it was Adams.
5. CA07 contacted the information room and informed them that five bodies had been found, the information room noted on their log "all 5 persons found - DEAD".
6. The information room contacted PC West to inform him that five bodies had been found dead.
7. PC West noted on his log "now confirmed a further 3 bodies found - five dead in total".
... ..........................................................
The logs can be found in this thread which corroborates what I have written above: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.msg19630.html#msg19630
... ............................................................
Now my first observation that the "1 dead male, 1 dead female" came from a single source. If I am right about Adams informing CA07 then it came from the firearms unit, to Adams, to CA07, to the information room and then to PC West.
My second observation is that the "3 further bodies" is only recorded once by PC West and nobody else. The information regarding the rest of the bodies came from the firearms team, to Adams (if I am correct as previously mentioned), to CA07, to the information room and then to PC West.
... .......................................................
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? :
In my opinion Collins saw Ralph through the kitchen window and mistook him for a female, he radioed in to Adams. The firearms unit entered the house and found Ralph's body, the firearms unit radioed it in to Adams.
Adams then, thinking that 1 dead male and one dead female had been found, radioed in to CA07 (1 dead male was first because that was fresher in his mind, being the last communication), CA07 radioed it in to the information room who in turn radioed it in to PC West. Now at this stage in actual fact only one body had been found.
The firearms team then eventually went upstairs and discovered the other four bodies, they radioed this in to Adams, Adams informed CA07 and CA07 informed the information room. The information room noted that five bodies were found.
The information room radioed PC West and told him about the five bodies, PC West mistakenly noted that a further three bodies were found rather than there were five as he thought that two had previously been found when they had not.
-
This cannot just be explained away by calling it a "mistake" Mike. This is one of those anomalies that keeps making me doubt the official line?
In the previous documents what do the words "not sent" mean Mike?
Hi Grahame,
Well to be perfectly honest, the details contained in these schedules (pertaining to DC Hammersley) are what Jeremy compiled whilst researching all the exhibit items of the case. In this instance, it lists all of the exibits in sequential order supposedly seized by DC Hammersley at the scene. I presume that when Jeremy carried out this painstaking research, that he found no evidence that certain items had ever been sent, taken or submitted to the lab' for examination or consideration at all - so Jeremy;s mention in his log where he refers to "NOT SENT", must be with regard to that...
Hope this helps...
On the other matter, there were clearly witnesses to the discovery of two bodies by police upon entering the premises, namely, (1) each member of the raid team which first entered the farmhouse (and there were apparently six of them), (2) the senior officers to whom the details were being relaid to in the forward control point between 7.30am, and 8.10am, (3) the occupants of CA07 who relayed information they were being told or receiving from the raid team (1), or the senior officers in the forward control point at (2) who requested them to relay the information to the personnel at the control room, and (4) the personnel at the control room who were listening in via the telephone eavesdrop which had been patched through to them by the operator, as well as receiving confirmation over the police radio that two bodies had been found upon entry, not one. To be specific, two different bodies, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found upon entry to the premises, overheard via the live eavesdrop, and confirmed by radio messages passed by the occupants of CA07 at the scene...
All of these people were involved in reporting the circumstances of what met police once they got into the farmhouse, not what they thought they would find once they got in there...
Definitely two bodies downstairs, one dead male, one dead female (7.38am), no doubt whatsoever about it, too many independant sources of evidential material to confirm that what I am saying is true, was true, and will always be true...
And I have a lot more to say about this in due course...
Thanks...
-
The control room, had two sources of information being received by them at the material time, they had live access to developments inside the kitchen as things were unfolding, they could hear noises, heard bangs which could be the sledge hammer smashing the door in, or the door being smashed in and shots, or a shot. In addition, the control was receiving radio messages from the occupants of CA07, at the scene, who would either have been able to listen in to live commentary of messages being relayed by the firearms officers to PS Adams, DCI Wright and the others at the forward control point in a nearby outbuilding, or someone at the forward control point was relaying information to the occupants of CA07, who in turn relayed this information verbatim to the control room, who were also monitoring the situation live as it unfolded inside the kitchen - they heard voices, what did these voices speak about, they received the corresponding information from the occupants of CA07, and the control room relayed the eavesdrop back to the senior officers at the forward control point, so that everybody, at every location, position and venue was in no doubt whatsoever about what the raid team did, what they were met with upon entry (not before hand), so there it is, the truth spelled out for all to see...
Nothing to do with what police saw through the kitchen window (body of a female behind door), because once police got into the kitchen they found two bodies, not one that was mistaken for two bodies...
Nothing could be clearer...
-
This cannot just be explained away by calling it a "mistake" Mike. This is one of those anomalies that keeps making me doubt the official line?
In the previous documents what do the words "not sent" mean Mike?
If you are talking about DRH/50-54 then you are right that what Mike is saying is not a mistake they are outright lies from him.
The claim that the items marked DRH/50-54 had originally been DRH/1-4 is a blatant lie and completely impossible.
The 4 items in question were from Colchester not WHF. Police did not go to Colchester at all in August let alone on the day of the murders. Since they were not taken from WHF the claim they originally were DRH/1-4 is impossible and an outright lie.
To support his lie he takes a form that directed the typist to correct an error in Hammersley's written statement. That note resulted in this page being fixed:
(http://s1.postimg.org/961eptrv3/hammersleyerror.jpg)
This page originally recorded the 4 items as DRH/1-4 by mistake.
-
Just regurgitating the same old line. ::)
A more realistic scenario for the 1 dead male 1 dead female record:
There are two logs which have been produced and are available on this forum. In addition to that there are various other notes and statements.
The chain of communication is as follows:
1. Somebody informed CA07 of 1 dead male and one dead female. I do not know who informed them but I am suggesting that it was Adams who got it from the firearms team.
2. CA07 contacted the information room and informed them about "1 dead male, 1 dead female". The information room (Igor Norman) noted on the information rooms log "1 dead male, 1 dead female", he noted this on the front page of the log and in the table together with the corresponding time.
3. The information room contacted PC West and informed him of "1 dead male, 1 dead female", PC West noted this in his log.
4. Somebody contacted CA07 and told them that all 5 people were found dead. Again I don't know who contacted them but I am suggesting it was Adams.
5. CA07 contacted the information room and informed them that five bodies had been found, the information room noted on their log "all 5 persons found - DEAD".
6. The information room contacted PC West to inform him that five bodies had been found dead.
7. PC West noted on his log "now confirmed a further 3 bodies found - five dead in total".
... ..........................................................
The logs can be found in this thread which corroborates what I have written above: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.msg19630.html#msg19630
... ............................................................
Now my first observation that the "1 dead male, 1 dead female" came from a single source. If I am right about Adams informing CA07 then it came from the firearms unit, to Adams, to CA07, to the information room and then to PC West.
My second observation is that the "3 further bodies" is only recorded once by PC West and nobody else. The information regarding the rest of the bodies came from the firearms team, to Adams (if I am correct as previously mentioned), to CA07, to the information room and then to PC West.
... .......................................................
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? :
In my opinion Collins saw Ralph through the kitchen window and mistook him for a female, he radioed in to Adams. The firearms unit entered the house and found Ralph's body, the firearms unit radioed it in to Adams.
Adams then, thinking that 1 dead male and one dead female had been found, radioed in to CA07 (1 dead male was first because that was fresher in his mind, being the last communication), CA07 radioed it in to the information room who in turn radioed it in to PC West. Now at this stage in actual fact only one body had been found.
The firearms team then eventually went upstairs and discovered the other four bodies, they radioed this in to Adams, Adams informed CA07 and CA07 informed the information room. The information room noted that five bodies were found.
The information room radioed PC West and told him about the five bodies, PC West mistakenly noted that a further three bodies were found rather than there were five as he thought that two had previously been found when they had not.
This is the most thorough and well supported rendition of the logs that I have ever read.
-
This is the most thorough and well supported rendition of the logs that I have ever read.
Please note the words, "In my opinion" Like most things on this forum it is only well supported if you yourself agree with it.
-
Please note the words, "In my opinion" Like most things on this forum it is only well supported if you yourself agree with it.
The breakdown of the transmissions are all fact based on the transmissions documents.
These documents do not say who conveyed the messages to CA7 and to the dispatcher though. Harters gave his opinion as to who likely did so and readily admitted that such was his opinion because the documents do not list it.
This is the complete opposite of how most Jeremy supporters approach things, they misrepresent opinion as fact and even worse grossly lie about what the documents actually state to try to deceive.
The lies about these logs are legion and looking at them reveals no support at all for most allegations. In the meantime these allegations are misrpresented as fact and the logs are cited as evidence though they fail to support the claims at all.
The same can be said for the phone log from Bonnet. It doesn't support the claims made either. The notion that Bonnett received a call form Nevill is impossible his station could not be reached by someone dialing999 or the main police station line. But worse, his form states quite clearly he received the message from PC West. There is nothing at all on the form which suggests he received a direct call from Nevill. So when Bamber supporters claim the form suggests Nevill phoned they are lying.
Another perfect example is the correction form that Mike just posted with respect to DRH/50-53. It was a form noting errors to a particualr page in Hammersley's statement that incorrectly recorded DRH/50-53 as DRH/1-4. Mike misrepresented that this proves items 50-53 had originally been catalogged as
DRH/1-4. It proves no such thing. There are dozens of documents proving that DRH/1-4 were listed as shell casings from day 1.
At some point one is forced to take a stand and either admit those lies being bandied about by supporters are in fact lies or to become one of the liars by trying to pretend their lies could be correct.
-
Just regurgitating the same old line. ::)
A more realistic scenario for the 1 dead male 1 dead female record:
There are two logs which have been produced and are available on this forum. In addition to that there are various other notes and statements.
The chain of communication is as follows:
1. Somebody informed CA07 of 1 dead male and one dead female. I do not know who informed them but I am suggesting that it was Adams who got it from the firearms team.
2. CA07 contacted the information room and informed them about "1 dead male, 1 dead female". The information room (Igor Norman) noted on the information rooms log "1 dead male, 1 dead female", he noted this on the front page of the log and in the table together with the corresponding time.
3. The information room contacted PC West and informed him of "1 dead male, 1 dead female", PC West noted this in his log.
4. Somebody contacted CA07 and told them that all 5 people were found dead. Again I don't know who contacted them but I am suggesting it was Adams.
5. CA07 contacted the information room and informed them that five bodies had been found, the information room noted on their log "all 5 persons found - DEAD".
6. The information room contacted PC West to inform him that five bodies had been found dead.
7. PC West noted on his log "now confirmed a further 3 bodies found - five dead in total".
... ..........................................................
The logs can be found in this thread which corroborates what I have written above: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.msg19630.html#msg19630
... ............................................................
Now my first observation that the "1 dead male, 1 dead female" came from a single source. If I am right about Adams informing CA07 then it came from the firearms unit, to Adams, to CA07, to the information room and then to PC West.
My second observation is that the "3 further bodies" is only recorded once by PC West and nobody else. The information regarding the rest of the bodies came from the firearms team, to Adams (if I am correct as previously mentioned), to CA07, to the information room and then to PC West.
... .......................................................
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? :
In my opinion Collins saw Ralph through the kitchen window and mistook him for a female, he radioed in to Adams. The firearms unit entered the house and found Ralph's body, the firearms unit radioed it in to Adams.
Adams then, thinking that 1 dead male and one dead female had been found, radioed in to CA07 (1 dead male was first because that was fresher in his mind, being the last communication), CA07 radioed it in to the information room who in turn radioed it in to PC West. Now at this stage in actual fact only one body had been found.
The firearms team then eventually went upstairs and discovered the other four bodies, they radioed this in to Adams, Adams informed CA07 and CA07 informed the information room. The information room noted that five bodies were found.
The information room radioed PC West and told him about the five bodies, PC West mistakenly noted that a further three bodies were found rather than there were five as he thought that two had previously been found when they had not.
I have to say that I think this is how it could have happened.
Judging from the blood pattern on Sheila´s nightgown, there is no way she could have moved from the kitchen, up the stairs and into the bedroom.
So in my mind, there must have been misunderstandings in the reporting and in the logs.
-
The breakdown of the transmissions are all fact based on the transmissions documents.
These documents do not say who conveyed the messages to CA7 and to the dispatcher though. Harters gave his opinion as to who likely did so and readily admitted that such was his opinion because the documents do not list it.
This is the complete opposite of how most Jeremy supporters approach things, they misrepresent opinion as fact and even worse grossly lie about what the documents actually state to try to deceive.
The lies about these logs are legion and looking at them reveals no support at all for most allegations. In the meantime these allegations are misrpresented as fact and the logs are cited as evidence though they fail to support the claims at all.
The same can be said for the phone log from Bonnet. It doesn't support the claims made either. The notion that Bonnett received a call form Nevill is impossible his station could not be reached by someone dialing999 or the main police station line. But worse, his form states quite clearly he received the message from PC West. There is nothing at all on the form which suggests he received a direct call from Nevill. So when Bamber supporters claim the form suggests Nevill phoned they are lying.
Another perfect example is the correction form that Mike just posted with respect to DRH/50-53. It was a form noting errors to a particualr page in Hammersley's statement that incorrectly recorded DRH/50-53 as DRH/1-4. Mike misrepresented that this proves items 50-53 had originally been catalogged as
DRH/1-4. It proves no such thing. There are dozens of documents proving that DRH/1-4 were listed as shell casings from day 1.
At some point one is forced to take a stand and either admit those lies being bandied about by supporters are in fact lies or to become one of the liars by trying to pretend their lies could be correct.
The is scipio these are logs of events as they happened. The "ironing out" and "harmonizing" of everything was made during the debriefing. They debrief in order to get everone saying the same thing. These logs are what they are and are plainly written for all to see. Unfortunately we were not privy to the debriefing of the raid team which of course came afterwards.
If these logs were not accurate then no one would know what to do. If they did not obey these logs then I doubt whether two ambulances would have been sent or a doctor, which they were at the response of "One murder one suicide". Folk may speculate all they like and lets face it what Hartley said was only his speculation of what might have happened. He was carefulto say "In my opinion". Which is of course correct.
-
There was a considerable delay between both shots, blood from the first had stopped running from the first wound before Sheila got up and made her way upstairs - in those circumstances there would be no blood evidence from the first wound down the nightdress, how could there be if the blood from the first wound had already dried because of the time which had passed from the first shot being inflixted and her movement upstairs...
Dry blood does not run from a wound, so the key point has to be the delay between both shots...
-
The is scipio these are logs of events as they happened. The "ironing out" and "harmonizing" of everything was made during the debriefing. They debrief in order to get everone saying the same thing. These logs are what they are and are plainly written for all to see. Unfortunately we were not privy to the debriefing of the raid team which of course came afterwards.
If these logs were not accurate then no one would know what to do. If they did not obey these logs then I doubt whether two ambulances would have been sent or a doctor, which they were at the response of "One murder one suicide". Folk may speculate all they like and lets face it what Hartley said was only his speculation of what might have happened. He was carefulto say "In my opinion". Which is of course correct.
The following is fact of what the logs detail:
"The chain of communication is as follows:
1. Somebody informed CA07 of 1 dead male and one dead female. I do not know who informed them but I am suggesting that it was Adams who got it from the firearms team.
2. CA07 contacted the information room and informed them about "1 dead male, 1 dead female". The information room (Igor Norman) noted on the information rooms log "1 dead male, 1 dead female", he noted this on the front page of the log and in the table together with the corresponding time.
3. The information room contacted PC West and informed him of "1 dead male, 1 dead female", PC West noted this in his log.
4. Somebody contacted CA07 and told them that all 5 people were found dead. Again I don't know who contacted them but I am suggesting it was Adams.
5. CA07 contacted the information room and informed them that five bodies had been found, the information room noted on their log "all 5 persons found - DEAD".
6. The information room contacted PC West to inform him that five bodies had been found dead.
7. PC West noted on his log "now confirmed a further 3 bodies found - five dead in total".
-------------------
The above is not an opinion of what the say it is fact of what the documents assert.
Those speculating that this is asserting 2 bodies were found in the kitchen are speculating. It doesn't actually state such and June's boy was found not long after Nevill's. Despite your submarine comments the firearm team did use a tool to look upstairs and rapdily found june's body so relatively early on they had found 2 bodies. Thus it is entirely possible that the bodies being referred to in the communicaitons were June and Nevill.
It is also possible that someone somewhere along the line at any stage of the transmissions made the erroneous assumption that there was a female in the kitchen and male upon hearing that th ebody was in fact a man.
What is not possible is the notion that there actually were 2 bodies in the kitchen that opinion is clearly baseless and asserted in bad faith after looking at all the available physical evidence and testimony.
But at this point it is readily apparent that most of Mike's claims are lies made in bad faith because even after the truth is pointed out to him he returns to the same bogus claims. So no longer can one excuse his claims as possible honest mistakes resulting from simply misreading documents. He is intentionally distorting what the documents demonstrate.
The claims Mike and others make are way more wild than any coming from Bamber's lawyers and are documented lies in many instances. Because this is the Jeremy Bamber forum and is using his name and likeness and arguing on his behalf people think all the claims are coming from Jeremy and his defense staff. Once they recognize they ar ebing lied to they assume the defense is simply abunch of liars and that Jeremy must be guilty or there would not be the need to resort to such lies.
So the objective of generating popular support through lies backfires. I don't understnad why Mike and others continue to lie knowing that it hurts Jeremy if anything, it doesn't help.
-
The following is fact of what the logs detail:
"The chain of communication is as follows:
1. Somebody informed CA07 of 1 dead male and one dead female. I do not know who informed them but I am suggesting that it was Adams who got it from the firearms team.
2. CA07 contacted the information room and informed them about "1 dead male, 1 dead female". The information room (Igor Norman) noted on the information rooms log "1 dead male, 1 dead female", he noted this on the front page of the log and in the table together with the corresponding time.
3. The information room contacted PC West and informed him of "1 dead male, 1 dead female", PC West noted this in his log.
4. Somebody contacted CA07 and told them that all 5 people were found dead. Again I don't know who contacted them but I am suggesting it was Adams.
5. CA07 contacted the information room and informed them that five bodies had been found, the information room noted on their log "all 5 persons found - DEAD".
6. The information room contacted PC West to inform him that five bodies had been found dead.
7. PC West noted on his log "now confirmed a further 3 bodies found - five dead in total".
-------------------
The above is not an opinion of what the say it is fact of what the documents assert.
Those speculating that this is asserting 2 bodies were found in the kitchen are speculating. It doesn't actually state such and June's boy was found not long after Nevill's. Despite your submarine comments the firearm team did use a tool to look upstairs and rapdily found june's body so relatively early on they had found 2 bodies. Thus it is entirely possible that the bodies being referred to in the communicaitons were June and Nevill.
It is also possible that someone somewhere along the line at any stage of the transmissions made the erroneous assumption that there was a female in the kitchen and male upon hearing that th ebody was in fact a man.
What is not possible is the notion that there actually were 2 bodies in the kitchen that opinion is clearly baseless and asserted in bad faith after looking at all the available physical evidence and testimony.
But at this point it is readily apparent that most of Mike's claims are lies made in bad faith because even after the truth is pointed out to him he returns to the same bogus claims. So no longer can one excuse his claims as possible honest mistakes resulting from simply misreading documents. He is intentionally distorting what the documents demonstrate.
The claims Mike and others make are way more wild than any coming from Bamber's lawyers and are documented lies in many instances. Because this is the Jeremy Bamber forum and is using his name and likeness and arguing on his behalf people think all the claims are coming from Jeremy and his defense staff. Once they recognize they ar ebing lied to they assume the defense is simply abunch of liars and that Jeremy must be guilty or there would not be the need to resort to such lies.
So the objective of generating popular support through lies backfires. I don't understnad why Mike and others continue to lie knowing that it hurts Jeremy if anything, it doesn't help.
Sorry mate but I think my interpretation is more logical than your interpretation. The documents are quite plain. I do not feel the necessity to lie either. I can't think that you feel the need to emphasise that I am?
-
The prosecution case and its witnesses are the liars - you only have to look at the 15 page witness statement of the first firearms officer who sets foot into the kitchen, the original contents are missing and have been replaced by use of a completely different typewriter from the very point of his account where two bodies were discovered in the kitchen. Two bodies which are completely different to one another, one dead male, and one dead female, discovered after police entered the premises, there is no room for any mistaken identity, not once police have entered the farmhouse. These are the cold facts, not speculation at all. Those who are relying on what police saw through the window before police got into the house are speculating about what the police actually found once they got inside - the FACTS are clear and undeniable, after police entered the premises the discovered two bodies, one dead male, and one dead female, two bodies not one. Nobody at the scene, or in the control room deal with the discovery of only one body once the police get into the farmhouse (7.30am), it was two bodies (7.37 and 7.38am), one dead male and one dead female. By 7.45am, the control room was contacting DS Davidson (SOC) at home, requesting him to come into the office because police at whf are dealing with a murder, and a suicide...
Where did the control room get this additional evidence from, regarding one of the deaths being a murder, whilst the other one was a suicide?
You cannot build the suicide scenario into Ralph Bambers death, so clearly there were two bodies, one male which must have been a reference to the murder of Ralph Bamber, and the body of a female, which could only have been a reference to Sheila, because June Bambers death upstairs, could never be described or looked upon, as being a suicide...
The contents of the various police logs are absolutely correct, it records the scene upon entry as it was discovered once the police set foot inside the premises, two different bodies, a male, a female, a murder, a suicide...
-
I have to say that I think this is how it could have happened.
Judging from the blood pattern on Sheila´s nightgown, there is no way she could have moved from the kitchen, up the stairs and into the bedroom.
So in my mind, there must have been misunderstandings in the reporting and in the logs.
Thanks Alias. Others can come to their own conclusions, but as you say, the blood staining of Sheila appears to me to dispel any possibility of her moving around the house.
Plus if Sheila moved around, the sheer number of people who will be needed to lie, from Bonnett, West, the entire HQ team following along whilst the raid took place, the raid team themselves, Adams, the Doctor certifying death, the entire investigating team that followed, etc, etc; in order to maintain the conspiracy, and for what reason, what do they have to gain?
In my tiny mind, such a notion is utterly preposterous, but it would be boring if we all thought the same.
-
Police do not engage additional officers in a training exercise at the scene, because there was some mistake about the sex of a body seen from outside the kitchen window behind the door seen before police entered the premises , but cleared up once police actually got into the premises, these additional police were summoned to the scene in the first instance as back up because the female who was originally found in the kitchen was no longer there by 8:15am, and six or more police officers were trapped in different parts of the farmhouse temporarily, all not knowing the precise whereabouts of the missing female. By the time these additional officers arrived at the scene, the missing female had been relocated upstairs in the bedroom on the bed with a solitary bullet wound to her neck. The training exercise which followed and took two hours to complete, was designed to create a blue print of the raid details to be adopted by the original raid party, as though Sheila's body had never been found downstairs at all...
Once the training exercise had been completed, and after a debrief held later that same evening at Witham police station, the original members of the raid team were told to make up their notes as though the bodies of the victims had been found, where they had eventually ended up as a result of stage managing by the training officers...
This is what did happen, it is not speculation...
-
Thanks Alias. Others can come to their own conclusions, but as you say, the blood staining of Sheila appears to me to dispel any possibility of her moving around the house.
Plus if Sheila moved around, the sheer number of people who will be needed to lie, from Bonnett, West, the entire HQ team following along whilst the raid took place, the raid team themselves, Adams, the Doctor certifying death, the entire investigating team that followed, etc, etc; in order to maintain the conspiracy, and for what reason, what do they have to gain?
In my tiny mind, such a notion is utterly preposterous, but it would be boring if we all thought the same.
Oh and I also think that any claims that a training exercise took place at the scene of multiple murders, to be be quite fantastical. Although others are quite welcome to think otherwise.
-
Once the blood from the first wound to the neck has dried, it will not run or leak down the body or upon the nightdress, so unless anyone can say with a degree of certainty how long a delay transpired between both shots, I am afraid it is mere speculation to say that a lack of additional blood on the nightdress proves or establishes that Sheila could not walk about, or make her way from downstairs to upstairs without such blood evidence to show up on the nightdress. Well, I have got my facts right, I do not need to speculate, I know that the first shot into Sheila's neck occurred at about 7.30am, and that she must have been laying there dripping blood onto the kitchen floor beneath herself, and that after 40 - 45 minutes afterwards she got up and made her way upstairs to the bedroom and collapsed on the bed next to where the body of her mother had ended up...
The blood relating to that first wound would almost certainly have dried after 40 - 45 minutes, so no chance of any additional bloodstain evidence appearing on the body or the nightdress to associate with her moving about from one part of the farmhouse, to another part...
My explanation cannot be dented by scientific analysis, because the way I am telling it, was how it happened...
-
Blood would have dried after 40 - 45 minutes, and movement of Sheila Caffell to another part of the farmhouse would produce no evidence that such a displacement of her body had taken place as described- the police and the prosecution have produced no evidence to confirm the delay between both shots being inflicted...
-
Once Sheila was shot on the second occasion, blood started to run again from the original bullet wound in the same general direction as the blood flow of the second inflicted shot...
This can be scientifically confirmed by reference to the dry state of the vertically inclined bloodstain which originally ran from infliction of the first bullet wound, as compared to the fresh looking wet blood flow which runs horizontally across the neck, alongside - one vertical blood trail dry in physical appearance, the other blood trail fresh and wet looking flowing in a contradictory direction, a feature not duplicated around the second bullet wound on the same neck...
-
There is no evidence to prove that Jeremy Bamber killed anyone, he got convicted by a reliance upon speculation...
-
The police and prosecution experts could not come up with a time of death for any of the five victims - they dared not, becase Sheila died after 8.44am that morning...
-
None of the independant witnesses to the passing and receiving of these various messages have ever made a witness statement confirming that they passed, or received, or were privy to the fact that two bodies were reported as found upon entry to the premises, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, one of the deaths described as a murder, the other death described as a suicide...
How odd, that nobody seems keen to take issue regarding these very serious and disturbing contradictions...
-
Somebody peering in through the kitchen window before police got into the farmhouse, does not entitle anyone to describe one of the bodies as a murder, and the other body as a suicide, by 7.45am...
-
Who in their right mind could describe Ralph Bambers death in the kitchen as a suicide?
-
Sorry mate but I think my interpretation is more logical than your interpretation. The documents are quite plain. I do not feel the necessity to lie either. I can't think that you feel the need to emphasise that I am?
I posted facts and then some different ways people to try to spin them.
What do you disagree with and what are you claiming so far as your interpretation that is so logical and correct?
-
The claim that one of the officers peered into the kitchen window and reported that he could see a dead female behind the door, does not equate with that mistake being rectified once police got into the farmhouse, followed by the discover of a female body as well as the male body, and that one of the deaths was a murder, whilst the other was a suicide...
It just simply does not stack up, what police and their supporters are saying is codswallop, utter bullshit, Ralphs body could not be described as a female body after police find his body, and his death could not have been a suicide in a month of sundays...
-
The claim that one of the officers peered into the kitchen window and reported that he could see a dead female behind the door, does not equate with that mistake being rectified once police got into the farmhouse, followed by the discover of a female body as well as the male body, and that one of the deaths was a murder, whilst the other was a suicide...
It just simply does not stack up, what police and their supporters are saying is codswallop, utter bullshit, Ralphs body could not be described as a female body after police find his body, and his death could not have been a suicide in a month of sundays...
The people who entered the kitchen all say the same thing as does the person who saw the body befor enetering- tha tth eonly body was the one stopped ove rthe chair which Collins though t was a female but ende dup being aman.
None of those who entered the kitchen say there were 2 bodies. It was people who were not inside who assumed there were 2 bodies after hearing there was a man inside.
You have no leg to stand on.
-
At the conclusion of every firearms operation there is always a debriefing, and a report on what happened during the operation. These reports are a collection of notes provided by each member of the firearms officer attending and taking part in such an operation. The contents of these reports have never yet been disclosed, but instead witness statements were introduced, dated, later on, giving a false account about what police found upon entering the farmhouse...
-
At the conclusion of every firearms operation there is always a debriefing, and a report on what happened during the operation. These reports are a collection of notes provided by each member of the firearms officer attending and taking part in such an operation. The contents of these reports have never yet been disclosed, but instead witness statements were introduced, dated, later on, giving a false account about what police found upon entering the farmhouse...
The contents of witness statements were prepared by the Operations Manager (OM), or by someone else acting under his authority, providing details of what senior officers wanted the individual firearms officers to say in these dodgy witness statements. Many of the firearms officers whose statements were prepared for them by someone else not in their presence, refused to attend the trial and testify, because the contents of their witness statements were untrue, inaccurate, and illegal, this group of firearms officers refused point blank to tell lies about where the bodies had been found. I can supply a full list of all such firearms officers, whose witness statements were falsified in keeping with the tactics that were adopted in the Hillsborough conspiracy:-
PC COLLINS Refused to sign the witness statement prepared for him by someone who did not attend the scene on the day of the incident at whf, 7th August 1985...
"I refuse to attend court and give this evidence because I will be prosecuted for perjury, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"...
-
Next Officer who refused to sign the witness statement made on his behalf by the Operations manager (OM) or someone designated to prepare it:-
PC DELGADO
"I refuse to attend court and give this evidence because I will be prosecuted for perjury, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"...
-
The contents of witness statements were prepared by the Operations Manager (OM), or by someone else acting under his authority, providing details of what senior officers wanted the individual firearms officers to say in these dodgy witness statements. Many of the firearms officers whose statements were prepared for them by someone else not in their presence, refused to attend the trial and testify, because the contents of their witness statements were untrue, inaccurate, and illegal, this group of firearms officers refused point blank to tell lies about where the bodies had been found. I can supply a full list of all such firearms officers, whose witness statements were falsified in keeping with the tactics that were adopted in the Hillsborough conspiracy:-
PC COLLINS Refused to sign the witness statement prepared for him by someone who did not attend the scene on the day of the incident at whf, 7th August 1985...
"I refuse to attend court and give this evidence because I will be prosecuted for perjury, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"...
I'd be surprised if a single person of any consequence actually believed you. ::)
-
I'd be surprised if a single person of any consequence actually believed you. ::)
Please allow me to finish, before you make any comments like the ones you are making. When I have finished please feel welcome to contact all those I am naming to see if what I am saying is true - good luck with trying to make all these police officers tell lies that senior officers wanted them to tell...
GOODLUCK...
-
And the next firearms officer, who refused to sign the contents of the false witness statement prepared for him by an unknown another:-
PC ROZGA
"I refuse to attend court and give this evidence because I will be prosecuted for perjury, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"...
-
I'd be surprised if a single person of any consequence actually believed you. ::)
I can name several shils who will but won't names names because I get warnings.
-
I'd be surprised if a single person of any consequence actually believed you. ::)
You'd better hope there is not another "Hillsborough type" investigation...
-
You'd better hope there is not another "Hillsborough type" investigation...
I just think that you're a bit sick, but hey, you already know that. ::)
-
I just think that you're a bit sick, but hey, you already know that. ::)
For some reason the image that comes to my mind for Mike is Benny Hill.
-
I just think that you're a bit sick, but hey, you already know that. ::)
Are you prepared for the inevitable quashing of these convictions?
Get ready turnip, this is going to turn into the biggest corruption probe the UK has ever had to deal with, everybody who took part is in for it, you cannot falsify evidence on the scale that has been done in this case, and expect to get away with it, scot free...
You are all FUCKED, bang to rights, shit your pants as fast as you can, sadly, there won't be anybody to wipe your arse, because they will be getting prosecuted too...
Good luck, it's great being right even if I am regarded as being sick in the head, I'd rather be me, than someone like you, who chooses to shove his head up his own arse, no matter what, and trust in wicked, evil, despicable, lying false evidence...
At least I know the truth in this matter, and you are going to get to hear it, whether you like it, or not...
-
Are you prepared for the inevitable quashing of these convictions?
Get ready turnip, this is going to turn into the biggest corruption probe the UK has ever had to deal with, everybody who took part is in for it, you cannot falsify evidence on the scale that has been done in this case, and expect to get away with it scot free...
You are all FUCKED, bang to rights, shit your pants as fast as you can, sadly, there won't be anybody to wipe yopur arse because they will be getting prosecuted too...
Good luck, it's great being right even if I am regarded as being sick in the head, I'd rather be me that someone like you who chooses to shove his head up his own arse no matter what, and trust in wicked, evil, despicable, lying false evidence...
At least I know the truth in this matter, and you are going to get to hear it whether you like it or not...
Oh, and delusional. ::)
-
Oh, and delusional. ::)
Yep, that's me, pal...
-
For some reason the image that comes to my mind for Mike is Benny Hill.
Wasn't Benny Hill, funny?
-
And the next firearms officer, who refused to sign the contents of the false witness statement prepared for him by an unknown another:-
PC Webb
"I refuse to attend court and give this evidence because I will be prosecuted for perjury, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"...
-
And the next firearms officer, who refused to sign the contents of the false witness statement prepared for him by an unknown another:-
PS Adams
"I refuse to attend court and give this evidence because I will be prosecuted for perjury, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"...
-
"Oh, Dear",...
How many more of these firearms officers who refused to put their signatures against witness statement contents made up for them, by another?
-
"Oh, Dear",...
How many more of these firearms officers who refused to put their signatures against witness statement contents made up for them, by another?
Exactly how many of them were prepared to risk their honor and liberty, to sign something which was not true? How many of them thought long and hard about the possibility that if and when the truth finally comes out, that they might (would) be going to prison for a lengthy spell, and lose pension rights, and worse still, marriage breakups, and in general family tie disintegration, and isolation?
None of them, were prepared to take that risk, they all refused to sign, all of them to a man and woman, let their senior officers know that they would not be prepared to attend the trial and give false evidence under oath, about what met them when they first entered the premises....
-
And the next firearms officer, who refused to sign the contents of the false witness statement prepared for him by an unknown another:-
PC HALL
"I refuse to attend court and give this evidence because I will be prosecuted for perjury, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"...
-
Mike, maybe I have overlooked something, but where does it say this:
"I refuse to attend court and give this evidence because I will be prosecuted for perjury, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"...
-
And the next firearms officer, who refused to sign the contents of the false witness statement prepared for him by an unknown another:-
APS/Manners1
"I refuse to attend court and give this evidence because I will be prosecuted for perjury, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"...
-
Mike, maybe I have overlooked something, but where does it say this:
"I refuse to attend court and give this evidence because I will be prosecuted for perjury, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"...
Hi Alias,
Jeremy told me that he has been provided with extracts from the COLP investigation (1991 / 1992) which deals with the conditions and terms these firearms officers were forced to agree with, but that the named officers refused to attend the trial in October 1986, to testify through fear of being prosecuted and sent to prison for lengthy terms, and to losing their pension rights...
He has also told me, that the aforementioned firearms officers all refused to sign the contents of the various witness statements that someone else prepared for them, without access to their own notes...
You are welcome to contact any of the aforementioned firearms officers to verify what I am saying as being true or not...
It's all true...
-
Hi Alias,
Jeremy told me that he has been provided with extracts from the COLP investigation (1991 / 1992) which deals with the conditions and terms these firearms officers were forced to agree with, but that the named officers refused to attend the trial in October 1986, to testify through fear of being prosecuted and sent to prison for lengthy terms, and to losing their pension rights...
He has also told me, that the aforementioned firearms officers all refused to sign the contents of the various witness statements that someone else prepared for them, without access to their own notes...
You are welcome to contact any of the aforementioned firearms officers to verify what I am saying as being true or not...
It's all true...
OK
And glad you have a sense of humour! ;D
-
OK
And glad you have a sense of humour! ;D
Hi Alias,
it's OK luv', please feel free to write directly to Jeremy, who will confirm what I am saying to be true...
-
Why would all these firearms officers, refuse to sign the contents of witness statements prepared for them by another, also refuse to attend the trial to testify under oath as per the contents of the witness statements prepared on their behalf by another, who simply "were not present at the scene" that morning?
-
Why would all these firearms officers, refuse to sign the contents of witness statements prepared for them by another, also refuse to attend the trial to testify under oath as per the contents of the witness statements prepared on their behalf by another, who simply "were not present at the scene" that morning?
PC Collins
PC Delgado
PC Rozga
PC Webb
PS Adams
PC Hall
APS Manners
-
For some reason the image that comes to my mind for Mike is Benny Hill.
Well one does question the reason why those statements are not signed?
-
Benny Hill was hot. 8)
-
Wasn't Benny Hill, funny?
Don't take any notice of them Mike. The are just acting like two silly little boys in a playground.
-
Benny Hill was hot. 8)
In the Italian Job he was the dork.
-
Mike, maybe I have overlooked something, but where does it say this:
"I refuse to attend court and give this evidence because I will be prosecuted for perjury, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"...
Maybe Mike will enlighten us? But note that none of the statements of the firearms officers are signed Alias.
-
Maybe Mike will enlighten us? But note that none of the statements of the firearms officers are signed Alias.
We only see part of the first page of the statements. It says they are from 3 to 6 pages long.
-
We only see part of the first page of the statements. It says they are from 3 to 6 pages long.
They are just composite statements for circulation during the trial, there are of course signed original statements.
Feel free to check with NGB.
-
We only see part of the first page of the statements. It says they are from 3 to 6 pages long.
The statements are all located in the archives under Raid Team Statements.
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/board,11.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/board,11.0.html)
Note that these are typed copies, so a statement may indicate that it is 5 pages long, but that refers to the original hand written statement, the typed statement may only be 3 or 4 pages long.
-
They are just composite statements for circulation during the trial, there are of course signed original statements.
Feel free to check with NGB.
Source please? ;D Oops sorry Adam's habit is catching. But it would of course be helpful if we saw a signed statement by each of them.
-
The statements are all located in the archives under Raid Team Statements.
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/board,11.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/board,11.0.html)
Note that these are typed copies, so a statement may indicate that it is 5 pages long, but that refers to the original hand written statement, the typed statement may only be 3 or 4 pages long.
Thank you Hartley. Did any of them testify in court?
-
Thank you Hartley. Did any of them testify in court?
I expect it was sufficient for only one or two raid team members to give evidence in court, it certainly wouldn't have been necessary for them all to attend.
-
Source please? ;D Oops sorry Adam's habit is catching. But it would of course be helpful if we saw a signed statement by each of them.
Mike doesn't have the signed statements, which is why they are not on the forum.
-
Mike doesn't have the signed statements, which is why they are not on the forum.
Well you did an excellent job in collating all those statements in the archive. I just thought you may have access to more info? Another thing I must ask ngb.
-
Source please? ;D Oops sorry Adam's habit is catching. But it would of course be helpful if we saw a signed statement by each of them.
You should be demanding a source from Mike. He alleged the COLP investigation revealed the officers refused to sign because they asserted they didn't want to face perjury charges.
Of course he made that up just like the claim that DRH/50-53 were originally classified DRH 1-4.
His claims are all at this point simply laughable.
-
Well you did an excellent job in collating all those statements in the archive. I just thought you may have access to more info? Another thing I must ask ngb.
Not a single statement or document made its way in to the public domain by me. It's just a collation of what was/is already out there.
-
You should be demanding a source from Mike. He alleged the COLP investigation revealed the officers refused to sign because they asserted they didn't want to face perjury charges.
Of course he made that up just like the claim that DRH/50-53 were originally classified DRH 1-4.
His claims are all at this point simply laughable.
I must admit I don't understand a lot of what Mike writes? I'm not that clever. I rather leave it all to the smart guys. ;D
-
I must admit I don't understand a lot of what Mike writes? I'm not that clever. I rather leave it all to the smart guys. ;D
That's the con, to try and make it sound so complicated that you can't follow it and you end up just wanting to believe what he claims it all means.
To give the forum members their due, there are very few who take his word as gospel anymore, not even yourself it would appear. :-\
-
That's the con, to try and make it sound so complicated that you can't follow it and you end up just wanting to believe what he claims it all means.
To give the forum members their due, there are very few who take his word as gospel anymore, not even yourself it would appear. :-\
I am led to believe that turnips can't think, and with this in mind I am giving every turnip the opportunity to produce a signed version of all the firearms team witness statements I have posted, or any trial transcript, or appeal hearing testimony, to try and disprove what I am telling you...
Nothing too complicated in that proposal, not even for a turnip...
So, go on then, "make my day"...
-
Funny how no-one believes what I say, but everyone keeps coming back for more...
I wonder why?
-
Cimon then turnip, produce the signed versions of the posted firearms officers witness statements (made by someone else), or shut thee gob'''
-
You should be demanding a source from Mike. He alleged the COLP investigation revealed the officers refused to sign because they asserted they didn't want to face perjury charges.
Of course he made that up just like the claim that DRH/50-53 were originally classified DRH 1-4.
His claims are all at this point simply laughable.
Yeah, everyone's laughing at you...
"YOUR SO FUNNY"...
-
I'm still waiting for those signed witness statements from all the aforementioned firearm officers, any luck in finding them yet?
-
I'm still waiting for those signed witness statements from all the aforementioned firearm officers, any luck in finding them yet?
You'll be looking for another lifetime, because as I told you, none of them agreed to sign the contents of witness statements made in their name by another who was not even at the scene when the raid team first set foot into the premises on that first morning...
Keep looking, there's always the off chance of me being proved wrong...
-
You'll be looking for another lifetime, because as I told you, none of them agreed to sign the contents of witness statements made in their name by another who was not even at the scene when the raid team first set foot into the premises on that first morning...
Keep looking, there's always the off chance of me being proved wrong...
It's another scandal all over again, just like Hillsborough....
-
In the Italian Job he was the dork.
Yeah, and currently, ain't that you...
-
Have you found those signed witness statements that someone other than the witnesses themselves made up for them all, yet?
Hurry up, my horlicks is going cold...
-
They are just composite statements for circulation during the trial, there are of course signed original statements.
Feel free to check with NGB.
They did not attend trial, and refused to testify, check with Jeremy...
-
Oh, so now the shit starts to hit the fan - it's that man again, Dodgy Bob the knob Miller, giving instructions out to all and sundry telling them what to change and alter in their own witness statements:-
-
Oh, Dear...
It ain't looking too good for old Bob...
-
"Bob, Bob, are you there, Bob"?
-
"Bob, Bob, are you there, Bob"?
He's gone, he must have retired from the forgery career, he had....
-
Right, I'll leave you to try and do your worst tonight, Dork / turnip, I will put things right next time I visit the forum, a bit of advice, you should be careful what you say on here, because things have a habit of coming back to bite your arse...
-
PC Collins
PC Delgado
PC Rozga
PC Webb
PS Adams
PC Hall
APS Manners
There's a few knocking about:
Delgado
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1623.0;attach=20025;image)
Adams
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=188.0;attach=21394;image)
The rest either haven't made their way into the public domain, or I simply haven't bumped into with the last 2 minutes of searching.
Why you are the way are, do the things you do and say the things you say, I will never know or understand. It's very sad, embarrassing even. :-\
-
Mike: These people refused to sign statements.
Hartley: Hey everyone, look at these signed statements.
Oh dear. ::)
-
There's a few knocking about:
Delgado
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1623.0;attach=20025;image)
Adams
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=188.0;attach=21394;image)
The rest either haven't made their way into the public domain, or I simply haven't bumped into with the last 2 minutes of searching.
Why you are the way are, do the things you do and say the things you say, I will never know or understand. It's very sad, embarrassing even. :-\
People have pleaded with me to stop being so rough on him saying he is unwell. Some say he is absolutely bonkers. I have to admit the more he posts the less I have a reason to doubt their claims. He seems to drift between dishonest claims and insanity.
I think he wants attention people who are his friend should try to pay more attention to him and try to get him involved in something else.
-
People have pleaded with me to stop being so rough on him saying he is unwell. Some say he is absolutely bonkers. I have to admit the more he posts the less I have a reason to doubt their claims. He seems to drift between dishonest claims and insanity.
I think he wants attention people who are his friend should try to pay more attention to him and try to get him involved in something else.
Like a day care centre or something you mean? :-\
-
Mike: These people refused to sign statements.
Hartley: Hey everyone, look at these signed statements.
Oh dear. ::)
The funniest part is he won't bat an eye. He either will move on to some other bogus claim ressurrecting this one later or simply will stay on course and pretend you didn't post anything to refute his claims.
-
The funniest part is he won't bat an eye. He either will move on to some other bogus claim ressurrecting this one later or simply will stay on course and pretend you didn't post anything to refute his claims.
Yeah I know, that's why I usually ignore him, I've just had a moment of weakness. :-[
I think there's an oil rig calling. :-\
-
Mike: These people refused to sign statements.
Hartley: Hey everyone, look at these signed statements.
Oh dear. ::)
I am still waiting for signed copies of all the witness statements I posted, looks like you can't find them so you post other statements that some officers did sign but which do not contain the content of the versions produced for officers by another - keep looking, and good luck...
I will remind you which witness statements and contents I referred to, because the ones you posted contain information that is different:-
KEEP LOOKING, oh, and GOOD LUCK...
-
Yeah I know, that's why I usually ignore him, I've just had a moment of weakness. :-[
I think there's an oil rig calling. :-\
More like, "There's an allorment to plant yourself in":-
-
The funniest part is he won't bat an eye. He either will move on to some other bogus claim ressurrecting this one later or simply will stay on course and pretend you didn't post anything to refute his claims.
You still haven't found any of the witness statements bearing signatures that I posted information about, which was because some other person prepared the contents for them which the individual officers refused to sign, or to attend court to give that false testimony, at peril of committing criminal offences, being convicted, and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment...
-
People have pleaded with me to stop being so rough on him saying he is unwell. Some say he is absolutely bonkers. I have to admit the more he posts the less I have a reason to doubt their claims. He seems to drift between dishonest claims and insanity.
I think he wants attention people who are his friend should try to pay more attention to him and try to get him involved in something else.
Find the witness statements I posted, DORK, with individual officers signatures upon them - GOOD LUCK, I am still waiting for you to post the evidence which you say disproves what I have said about them...
-
The DORK, and the TURNIP, have both done a runner, and can be found nowhere to answer for the deception they have both attempted to pull. A deception I have responded to in this thread, basically put that there does not exist any of the unsigned witness statements prepared for the officers by another, bearing the signatures of individually named officers. I said that these officers refused to sign the contents of these / those witness statements, and that none of them wanted to attend the trial to give the testimony contained in them that was presented by another...
-
I was eventually going to be commenting upon some witness statements that a few individual firearms officers agreed to sign, but they only did so on the understanding that they would not attend the trial to testify through fear of being cross examined about how many bodies were found upon entry to the premises...
You will all note, that in the examples given by the DORK and TURNIP posters, that the signed contents are heavily scoured to signify that individual officers had signed the contents but would not be attending trial to give that evidence and place themselves at peril of committing perjury about things they might be asked in cross examination associated with the number of bodies found upon entry to the premises, and that the photographed bodies of the three adult victims had not been in those locations and positions when they entered and left the scene...
-
That's the con, to try and make it sound so complicated that you can't follow it and you end up just wanting to believe what he claims it all means.
To give the forum members their due, there are very few who take his word as gospel anymore, not even yourself it would appear. :-\
I usually take an independent line. My basic thinking is this. If there is the remote possibility that someone is innocent of a crime I will look at everything afresh. The answer to the way I think lies in my past. I have always stood up to bullies of other people and have always fought for the underdog. I was bullied at school and therefore I will not let anyone get away with bullying others. Not really worried for myself these days as I know myself and it's like water off a ducks back.
-
None of the firearms team testified during Jeremy Bambers trial - if any of them had done, the truth about where Sheila Caffells body was originally found and left would have come to light through cross examination by defence counsel, and the case would have collapsed because it would then have been obvious to everyone that Jeremy could not possibly have killed his sister, stage managed her body on the bedroom floor to pin the blame for what had taken place upon her because when police entered the farmhouse at 7.30am she was still very much alive and did not actually die until after 8.44am that morning. Jeremy had been in company of the police at all times from around 4am that morning so he could not possibly be responsible for killing his sister and trying to frame her as the killer who also committed suicide...
-
When spoken to be COLP during their investigation, they refused to co-operate unless they were geabted immunity from prosecution. THIS WAS AGREED TO, AT THAT TIME...
-
When spoken to be COLP during their investigation, they refused to co-operate unless they were granted immunity from prosecution. THIS WAS AGREED TO, AT THAT TIME...
Mike, I have never seen a source for this claim. Is there a named source available to back up the claim?
I understand that if you take the line that the raid team's (actual) version of events differs from the other officers, it would make sense for them to refuse to testify out of prinicple and insist upon immunity from prosecution for their later cooperation.
But there is no source.
-
Mike, I have never seen a source for this claim. Is there a named source available to back up the claim?
I understand that if you take the line that the raid team's (actual) version of events differs from the other officers, it would make sense for them to refuse to testify out of prinicple and insist upon immunity from prosecution for their later cooperation.
But there is no source.
Hi Roch,
Jeremy has the documents which deals with the issue of immunity from prosecution. Albeit, Jeremy told me that I also have copies of this material amongst the stacks and stacks of case files under my control. I am not doubting that for one moment, because there is tons of stuff I haven't got around to looking at yet. I also have letters from Jeremy in which he confirms what I have just said, and Jeremy is dealing with that part of the investigation into the investigation. Jeremy has the documents to prove that a deal was struck so that firearms officers would not be prosecuted, if they co-operated with the COLP investigators...
Hope tjos helps...
-
Hi Roch,
Jeremy has the documents which deals with the issue of immunity from prosecution. Albeit, Jeremy told me that I also havcopies if this material amongst the stacks and stacks of case files under my control. I am not doubting that for one moment, because there id tons of stuff I haven't got around to looking at yet. I also have letters from Jeremy in which he confirms what I have just said, and Jeremy is dealing with that part of the investigation into the investigation. Jeremy has the documents to prove that a deal was struck so that firearms officers wiuld not be prosecuted if they co-operated with the COLP investigators...
Hope tjos helps...
Why would they be prosecuted anyway?
-
Hi Roch,
Jeremy has the documents which deals with the issue of immunity from prosecution. Albeit, Jeremy told me that I also havcopies if this material amongst the stacks and stacks of case files under my control. I am not doubting that for one moment, because there id tons of stuff I haven't got around to looking at yet. I also have letters from Jeremy in which he confirms what I have just said, and Jeremy is dealing with that part of the investigation into the investigation. Jeremy has the documents to prove that a deal was struck so that firearms officers wiuld not be prosecuted if they co-operated with the COLP investigators...
Hope this helps...
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your reply. The only issue I personally have with this is that if TFG officers were offered some knin of 'immunity' - then the publication of such documents by Jeremy Bamber / his campaign team or legal team (for example via twitter or blog etc) would immediately bring pressure on to authorities to reveal why such officers were offered 'immunity' in the first place?
Therfore I do not understand why such documents have not been published.
-
Why would they be prosecuted anyway?
The implication appears to be that they would have potentially been at risk of exposure - for anything that occurred prior to, during and immediately after the raid, that is in contradiction to the official version of events. For example, Sheila still alive prior to / during raid etc. Or, activities that contravened their normal duties when preserving a crime scene.
-
The funniest part is he won't bat an eye. He either will move on to some other bogus claim ressurrecting this one later or simply will stay on course and pretend you didn't post anything to refute his claims.
So it would seem. :-\
-
None of the firearms team testified during Jeremy Bambers trial - if any of them had done, the truth about where Sheila Caffells body was originally found and left would have come to light through cross examination by defence counsel, and the case would have collapsed because it would then have been obvious to everyone that Jeremy could not possibly have killed his sister, stage managed her body on the bedroom floor to pin the blame for what had taken place upon her because when police entered the farmhouse at 7.30am she was still very much alive and did not actually die until after 8.44am that morning. Jeremy had been in company of the police at all times from around 4am that morning so he could not possibly be responsible for killing his sister and trying to frame her as the killer who also committed suicide...
First it was the firearms team refused to sign their statements. Now that this has been proven a lie you say they refused to testify or alternatively were not called to testify because they would have contradicted their SIGNED statements that were submitted to the court.
In the meantime you kept suggesting she was killed around 10AM not you suggest she died when Dr. Craig looked at her did he kill her?
As I said in the past your claims are just whackamole. You rattle off claim after claim after claim and the only time you post evidence it turns out that you are grossly distorting such as the bogus claim that there were no signed statements or that DRH/1-4 were renumbered 50-53 when in fact the document in question simply was to correct a typo in Hammersley's statement where DRH/1-4 was erroneously printed up for items taken from Colchester.
-
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your reply. The only issue I personally have with this is that if TFG officers were offered some knin of 'immunity' - then the publication of such documents by Jeremy Bamber / his campaign team or legal team (for example via twitter or blog etc) would immediately bring pressure on to authorities to reveal why such officers were offered 'immunity' in the first place?
Therfore I do not understand why such documents have not been published.
Hi Roch,
Perhaps this has not been addressed, because it is likely to form some part of Jeremy's next submission to try and get his case referred back to the court of appeal with a view to gettong his convictions quashed...
Sorry I can't be more helpfull at the moment...l
-
First it was the firearms team refused to sign their statements. Now that this has been proven a lie you say they refused to testify or alternatively were not called to testify because they would have contradicted their SIGNED statements that were submitted to the court.
In the meantime you kept suggesting she was killed around 10AM not you suggest she died when Dr. Craig looked at her did he kill her?
As I said in the past your claims are just whackamole. You rattle off claim after claim after claim and the only time you post evidence it turns out that you are grossly distorting such as the bogus claim that there were no signed statements or that DRH/1-4 were renumbered 50-53 when in fact the document in question simply was to correct a typo in Hammersley's statement where DRH/1-4 was erroneously printed up for items taken from Colchester.
Hold on hold on. I'm way behind you here. When was it proved to be a lie?
-
Hold on hold on. I'm way behind you here. When was it proved to be a lie?
1) Some of the statements Harters pointed to were signed so his claim those particular statements had not been signed was a lie.
2) there is no documents he could point to from COLP that stated what he claimed regarding anyone telling COLP they refused to sign because the statements were lies.
This is not new. Mike has a history of on one hand claimimg documents are secret so he can't produce a copy yet claims on the other hand to know for a fact they exist and what they state. You do the math.
Mike has graduated to the club of, I have to check outside myself to see if the sky is blue because he might lie so that I get caught out in the rain without an umbrella...
-
I am still waiting for the DORK, and the TURNIP, to produce signed versions of the dated witness statements I posted...
What the DORK and the TURNIP are alleging is misleading and totally inaccurate, similar to the evidence relied upon to prosecute and convict Jeremy for the murders - they LIE...
-
1) Some of the statements Harters pointed to were signed so his claim those particular statements had not been signed was a lie.
2) there is no documents he could point to from COLP that stated what he claimed regarding anyone telling COLP they refused to sign because the statements were lies.
This is not new. Mike has a history of on one hand claimimg documents are secret so he can't produce a copy yet claims on the other hand to know for a fact they exist and what they state. You do the math.
Mike has graduated to the club of, I have to check outside myself to see if the sky is blue because he might lie so that I get caught out in the rain without an umbrella...
So speaketh the DORK...
-
Unsigned versions of witness statements, usually are produced from hand written versions signed by the witness in question. Unsigned witness statements, which are often referred to as 'COMPOSITE STATMENTS', can only legally be made by the witnesses themselves, otherwise they have been illegally produced, since the citation at the beginning of these statements clearly states, and specifies that the witness statement has made of the witnesses own free will, but in reality this does not happen, since sometimes witnesses refuse to sign such statements...
-
Signrd witness statements, udually mean thay the contents of such eitness statements are the original version of the contents...
-
1) Some of the statements Harters pointed to were signed so his claim those particular statements had not been signed was a lie.
2) there is no documents he could point to from COLP that stated what he claimed regarding anyone telling COLP they refused to sign because the statements were lies.
This is not new. Mike has a history of on one hand claimimg documents are secret so he can't produce a copy yet claims on the other hand to know for a fact they exist and what they state. You do the math.
Mike has graduated to the club of, I have to check outside myself to see if the sky is blue because he might lie so that I get caught out in the rain without an umbrella...
I must have missed these statements? I can't seem to find them? Could you point them to me please? Thanks.
-
I must have missed these statements? I can't seem to find them? Could you point them to me please? Thanks.
Look at reply 738 for starters where Harters posted 2 statements. Mike is intentionally lying on this point just like others. Given the number of lies I have seen from Mike just in the past 2 weeks I fail to see how you or anyone who posts on this site can consider anything he says to be worthy of consideration.
-
Look at reply 738 for starters where Harters posted 2 statements. Mike is intentionally lying on this point just like others. Given the number of lies I have seen from Mike just in the past 2 weeks I fail to see how you or anyone who posts on this site can consider anything he says to be worthy of consideration.
Curious to know why you think it's down to you to spell it out. I feel perfectly certain that we can form our own opinions and. work things out for ourselves
-
Curious to know why you think it's down to you to spell it out. I feel perfectly certain that we can form our own opinions and. work things out for ourselves
1) Graham asked
2) your opinions are based on lies, and ignorance (some of it intentional)
I realize you don't like having it exposed that your opinions are baseless but too bad. A forum is for debating and when you form opinions based on bogus information then it is free to expose to prove you are wrong.
You try to do so to those who argue against you but can't do so competently while we cna prove it against you and that eats you up.
-
Curious to know why you think it's down to you to spell it out. I feel perfectly certain that we can form our own opinions and. work things out for ourselves
Grahame asked him where they were - so he told him. :-\
Thanks for posting them Hartley.
-
1) Graham asked
2) your opinions are based on lies, and ignorance (some of it intentional)
I realize you don't like having it exposed that your opinions are baseless but too bad. A forum is for debating and when you form opinions based on bogus information then it is free to expose to prove you are wrong.
You try to do so to those who argue against you but can't do so competently while we cna prove it against you and that eats you up.
A psychologist too!!!!!!! My God, is there NO end to the skills you think you have?
-
No signed statements bearing dates and different contents which I posted have been produced by anyone, where the fuck are they?
DORK and TURNIP and their supporters are nothing but devious liars...
-
Grahame asked him where they were - so he told him. :-\
Thanks for posting them Hartley.
Thanks for that Mat.
-
Police killed Sheila, if a silencer was used, they would have known about it, long before relatives found the one they found...
-
A psychologist too!!!!!!! My God, is there NO end to the skills you think you have?
One need not be a psychologist to see how it eats you up anytime you have it stressed how baseless your opinions truly are.
It is plainly obvious when you make posts like the above attacking me for answering Graham.
-
Blood could not have got into the silencer by process of backspatter because only blood and nothing else was discovered in it. Where is the fleshy tissue and bone fragments that should also be present in the silencer, but none is...
This suggests that the silencer was tampered with deliberately...
You simply cannot just have blood drawn back into a silencer minus fleshy tissue and bone fragmentation, this proves there was no backspatter linked to the presence of the blood in the silencer...
-
One need not be a psychologist to see how it eats you up anytime you have it stressed how baseless your opinions truly are.
It is plainly obvious when you make posts like the above attacking me for answering Graham.
Please forgive me for being human, but I'd failed to see that Grahame was asking the question of you. I mistakenly thought he'd asked it of Harters and you'd responded in a way which sounded to me as if you were attacking Grahame.
-
Mike: These people refused to sign statements.
Hartley: Hey everyone, look at these signed statements.
Oh dear. ::)
But Hartley those statements mention only the bare bones of statements and contain nothing of what Mike has mentioned. No one is going to prosecute anybody with statement like that.
Also how do you explain the "unsigned" statements that Mike posted up? Did any of those you listed testify in court?
-
Look at reply 738 for starters where Harters posted 2 statements. Mike is intentionally lying on this point just like others. Given the number of lies I have seen from Mike just in the past 2 weeks I fail to see how you or anyone who posts on this site can consider anything he says to be worthy of consideration.
On the contrary: Mike has done sterling work on the issue of the silencer,which was a crucial part of the trial at the time. Though I don't accept that Police shot Sheila with a silencer he has cast doubt on its role in the killings which could well affect any subsequent appeal or call for retrial.
-
On the contrary: Mike has done sterling work on the issue of the silencer,which was a crucial part of the trial at the time. Though I don't accept that Police shot Sheila with a silencer he has cast doubt on its role in the killings which could well affect any subsequent appeal or call for retrial.
No I don't go along with the notion that police shot her either. If she was still a threat then they would have shot her from a distance.
The only feasible way would be if the gun went off as they were moving it? Not sure?
-
On the contrary: Mike has done sterling work on the issue of the silencer,which was a crucial part of the trial at the time. Though I don't accept that Police shot Sheila with a silencer he has cast doubt on its role in the killings which could well affect any subsequent appeal or call for retrial.
I must have missed it, what sterling work did he do?
Things started out with him asserting a group many think is a fiction of his mind CYCLOPS (an alleged cold case group though this is a closed case not cold case so makes no sense) would be able to test the gun and prove it had Sheila's blood in it because a pullthrough would have missed blood trapped in the rifling. The reality though is that a pull through can thoroughly clean out a barrel and there is no evidence at all of a cold case squad being assigned to review the Bamber case.
Next he jumped to the moderator. In the past he alleged there were 3 different moderators. This time he reduced it to 2 moderators.
One moderator was of course the one provided by the family to police on 8/12/85 which did in fact occur. The second moderator was one he initially claimed was provided by Ann Eaton in September. After a while that changed to claiming it was collected from WHF on the day of the murders by Stanley Jones but never offered a shred of proof to establish one was collected period that date let alone by Jones.
He initially alleged 1 moderator had the paint evidence while the other had the blood evidence and they were merged together.
He subsequently abandoned that claim and alleged neither moderator had any evidence when initially in police custody.
He initally claimed 1 moderator was in police custody while another was in the lab though he offered no evidence at all to prove such.
Subsequently he alleged the moderator found at WHF on 8/7/85 was given to the family at the end of August after nothign was found on it or in it and was in the custody of the family while the other was in the lab being tested.
Upon be challenged as to why the police would give the family a moderator that had been collected from WHF thus would have to be returned to Jeremy and if true they had done so then his claim 1 was in police custody while the other was at the lab could not be true, he changed his claims again.
He changed to claiming that the one collected from the family was returned to them at the end of August but it was doctored by the family then returned to police on 9/11/85 and then sent to the lab on 9/13/85.
He initially alleged the moderator collected from WHF on the day of the murders by Stanley Jones was taken into evidence as SJ/1 while the one from the fmaily was SBJ/1 but later changed swapped the designations claiming the one by police was SBJ/1 and the one from the family SJ/1.
Then he changed course and started alleging that items taken from Colchester were in fact taken from WHF by Hammersley and had been classified DRH/1-4 but were later changed to DRH 50-53 and police then used DRH/1-4 for casings they pretended were found in the master bedroom. The document he used to try to pvrove this was correcting errors in Hammersley's typed statement where the typist messed up and marked DRH 1-4 for items taken from Colchester. How coudl items taken from Colchester have been found at WHF on the day of the murders? His claims were a complete sham.
At the end of the day what did he prove?
All he proved is that he was making up things as he went along and will distort to the bitter end. He kept changing his claims over and over again. It is in black and white to see how his claims were being formuated and molded until he finally was happy with the final tale.
What evidence did he provide to establish his final tale? None.
What evidence was provided to establish a moderator was collected on the day of the murders from WHF? None
What evidence was provided to establish SBJ/1 was designated to a moderator other than the one collected from Ann Eaton on 8/12/85? None.
What evidence was provided to establish SJ/1 was designated to the moderator collected from Ann Eaton on 8/12/85? None other than evidence provided by me which established that SJ/1 was the tentiatve classification Cook assigned in his notebook but after consulting with Jones was changed to SBJ/1 so the number used on all the official documents was SBJ/1 and that includes documents conveying it to the lab. So the lab documents referring to analyzing SBJ/1 are clearly referring to the moderator from the family.
What evidence was provided to establish that police returned the moderator to the family at the end of August? None
What evidence was provided to establish Ann Eaton gave a moderator to police in September? None
The only thing that came from this thread is that Mike is a liar and can't be trusted.
-
I must have missed it, what sterling work did he do?
Things started out with him asserting a group many think is a fiction of his mind CYCLOPS (an alleged cold case group though this is a closed case not cold case so makes no sense) would be able to test the gun and prove it had Sheila's blood in it because a pullthrough would have missed blood trapped in the rifling. The reality though is that a pull through can thoroughly clean out a barrel and there is no evidence at all of a cold case squad being assigned to review the Bamber case.
Next he jumped to the moderator. In the past he alleged there were 3 different moderators. This time he reduced it to 2 moderators.
One moderator was of course the one provided by the family to police on 8/12/85 which did in fact occur. The second moderator was one he initially claimed was provided by Ann Eaton in September. After a while that changed to claiming it was collected from WHF on the day of the murders by Stanley Jones but never offered a shred of proof to establish one was collected period that date let alone by Jones.
He initially alleged 1 moderator had the paint evidence while the other had the blood evidence and they were merged together.
He subsequently abandoned that claim and alleged neither moderator had any evidence when initially in police custody.
He initally claimed 1 moderator was in police custody while another was in the lab though he offered no evidence at all to prove such.
Subsequently he alleged the moderator found at WHF on 8/7/85 was given to the family at the end of August after nothign was found on it or in it and was in the custody of the family while the other was in the lab being tested.
Upon be challenged as to why the police would give the family a moderator that had been collected from WHF thus would have to be returned to Jeremy and if true they had done so then his claim 1 was in police custody while the other was at the lab could not be true, he changed his claims again.
He changed to claiming that the one collected from the family was returned to them at the end of August but it was doctored by the family then returned to police on 9/11/85 and then sent to the lab on 9/13/85.
He initially alleged the moderator collected from WHF on the day of the murders by Stanley Jones was taken into evidence as SJ/1 while the one from the fmaily was SBJ/1 but later changed swapped the designations claiming the one by police was SBJ/1 and the one from the family SJ/1.
Then he changed course and started alleging that items taken from Colchester were in fact taken from WHF by Hammersley and had been classified DRH/1-4 but were later changed to DRH 50-53 and police then used DRH/1-4 for casings they pretended were found in the master bedroom. The document he used to try to pvrove this was correcting errors in Hammersley's typed statement where the typist messed up and marked DRH 1-4 for items taken from Colchester. How coudl items taken from Colchester have been found at WHF on the day of the murders? His claims were a complete sham.
At the end of the day what did he prove?
All he proved is that he was making up things as he went along and will distort to the bitter end. He kept changing his claims over and over again. It is in black and white to see how his claims were being formuated and molded until he finally was happy with the final tale.
What evidence did he provide to establish his final tale? None.
What evidence was provided to establish a moderator was collected on the day of the murders from WHF? None
What evidence was provided to establish SBJ/1 was designated to a moderator other than the one collected from Ann Eaton on 8/12/85? None.
What evidence was provided to establish SJ/1 was designated to the moderator collected from Ann Eaton on 8/12/85? None other than evidence provided by me which established that SJ/1 was the tentiatve classification Cook assigned in his notebook but after consulting with Jones was changed to SBJ/1 so the number used on all the official documents was SBJ/1 and that includes documents conveying it to the lab. So the lab documents referring to analyzing SBJ/1 are clearly referring to the moderator from the family.
What evidence was provided to establish that police returned the moderator to the family at the end of August? None
What evidence was provided to establish Ann Eaton gave a moderator to police in September? None
The only thing that came from this thread is that Mike is a liar and can't be trusted.
Well was Taff Jones playing with a silencer on his work desk or not..did a silencer scratch the mantlepiece or not..http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/feb/21/jeremy-bamber-murder-conviction-doubt
-
I must have missed it, what sterling work did he do?
Things started out with him asserting a group many think is a fiction of his mind CYCLOPS (an alleged cold case group though this is a closed case not cold case so makes no sense) would be able to test the gun and prove it had Sheila's blood in it because a pullthrough would have missed blood trapped in the rifling. The reality though is that a pull through can thoroughly clean out a barrel and there is no evidence at all of a cold case squad being assigned to review the Bamber case.
Next he jumped to the moderator. In the past he alleged there were 3 different moderators. This time he reduced it to 2 moderators.
One moderator was of course the one provided by the family to police on 8/12/85 which did in fact occur. The second moderator was one he initially claimed was provided by Ann Eaton in September. After a while that changed to claiming it was collected from WHF on the day of the murders by Stanley Jones but never offered a shred of proof to establish one was collected period that date let alone by Jones.
He initially alleged 1 moderator had the paint evidence while the other had the blood evidence and they were merged together.
He subsequently abandoned that claim and alleged neither moderator had any evidence when initially in police custody.
He initally claimed 1 moderator was in police custody while another was in the lab though he offered no evidence at all to prove such.
Subsequently he alleged the moderator found at WHF on 8/7/85 was given to the family at the end of August after nothign was found on it or in it and was in the custody of the family while the other was in the lab being tested.
Upon be challenged as to why the police would give the family a moderator that had been collected from WHF thus would have to be returned to Jeremy and if true they had done so then his claim 1 was in police custody while the other was at the lab could not be true, he changed his claims again.
He changed to claiming that the one collected from the family was returned to them at the end of August but it was doctored by the family then returned to police on 9/11/85 and then sent to the lab on 9/13/85.
He initially alleged the moderator collected from WHF on the day of the murders by Stanley Jones was taken into evidence as SJ/1 while the one from the fmaily was SBJ/1 but later changed swapped the designations claiming the one by police was SBJ/1 and the one from the family SJ/1.
Then he changed course and started alleging that items taken from Colchester were in fact taken from WHF by Hammersley and had been classified DRH/1-4 but were later changed to DRH 50-53 and police then used DRH/1-4 for casings they pretended were found in the master bedroom. The document he used to try to pvrove this was correcting errors in Hammersley's typed statement where the typist messed up and marked DRH 1-4 for items taken from Colchester. How coudl items taken from Colchester have been found at WHF on the day of the murders? His claims were a complete sham.
At the end of the day what did he prove?
All he proved is that he was making up things as he went along and will distort to the bitter end. He kept changing his claims over and over again. It is in black and white to see how his claims were being formuated and molded until he finally was happy with the final tale.
What evidence did he provide to establish his final tale? None.
What evidence was provided to establish a moderator was collected on the day of the murders from WHF? None
What evidence was provided to establish SBJ/1 was designated to a moderator other than the one collected from Ann Eaton on 8/12/85? None.
What evidence was provided to establish SJ/1 was designated to the moderator collected from Ann Eaton on 8/12/85? None other than evidence provided by me which established that SJ/1 was the tentiatve classification Cook assigned in his notebook but after consulting with Jones was changed to SBJ/1 so the number used on all the official documents was SBJ/1 and that includes documents conveying it to the lab. So the lab documents referring to analyzing SBJ/1 are clearly referring to the moderator from the family.
What evidence was provided to establish that police returned the moderator to the family at the end of August? None
What evidence was provided to establish Ann Eaton gave a moderator to police in September? None
The only thing that came from this thread is that Mike is a liar and can't be trusted.
Like he created this forum so that numpties like us can post our views about Bamber.
-
Like he created this forum so that numpties like us can post our views about Bamber.
I might be having false memories, but I think I remember the site was registered to a certain Italian advocate.
Then about three years ago Mike had the whole thing transferred over to a new domain.
-
Well was Taff Jones playing with a silencer on his work desk or not..did a silencer scratch the mantlepiece or not..http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/feb/21/jeremy-bamber-murder-conviction-doubt
No evidence was put forth to establish Taff Jones had the moderator at his desk at any time it supposedly was elsewhere. Bare bones allegations were made that it was used as a paperweight at his desk but no evidence was offered.
The video you posted makes no mention of this nor did the lawyers alleged such during the appeal so far as I can find.
The photographic claims were thoroughly discredited by experts hired by the government and rejected by the CCRC because the mothodology used was flawed and not scientifically sound.
The photos were taken too far away and not at the right angle to be able to assess whether there were scratches or not. It would be like me taking a photo of my briefcase from the distance and claiming there is no damage though there is in fact a scratch in the leather that can be captured by the camera if a photo is taken close up but not at a distance. Evne though angle is not an issue distance alone will prevent a photo capturing it.
If one has an extraordinary camera there can be ways of enhancing photos taken to very minute degrees. The quality of the camera/film used by the police though doesn't allow for blowing up a portion of the photo enough to capture such details. So the fix was in there would be no way to detect the marks no matter how advanced one enlarges the photos.
His credibility was also seriously in quesiton based on his claims he was able to blow up a speck in the photo and to blow up Sheila's toes enough to say the speck was nail varnish, that Sheila was missing a tiny bit of nail varnish and that the shape matched perfectly. His supposed efforts were not considered realistically possible.
-
I might be having false memories, but I think I remember the site was registered to a certain Italian advocate.
Then about three years ago Mike had the whole thing transferred over to a new domain.
No Hartley I don't think so. I believe there was another forum that was in existence before this one. Can't remember the name, but it sounded Italian. I know! We can look it up. :)
Domain name:
jeremybamberforum.co.uk
Registrant:
Ian Manley
Registrant type:
UK Individual
Registrant's address:
The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service.
Data validation:
Registrant contact details validated by Nominet on 10-Dec-2012
Registrar:
Webfusion Ltd t/a 123-reg [Tag = 123-REG]
URL: http://www.123-reg.co.uk
Relevant dates:
Registered on: 09-Feb-2011
Expiry date: 09-Feb-2018
Last updated: 11-Feb-2013
Registration status:
Registered until expiry date.
Name servers:
ns1.jomsh3.co.uk37.220.9.107
ns2.jomsh3.co.uk37.220.9.108
WHOIS lookup made at 22:22:27 04-Jul-2014
--
This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:
Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2014.
-
No Hartley I don't think so. I believe there was another forum that was in existence before this one. Can't remember the name, but it sounded Italian. I know! We can look it up. :)
This says NGB is paying for it:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5395.0.html
-
No Hartley I don't think so. I believe there was another forum that was in existence before this one. Can't remember the name, but it sounded Italian. I know! We can look it up. :)
Yeah it was, it used to just be www.jeremybamber.co.uk and was registered to Stefano.
-
I am still waiting to see the signed versions of the witness statements made for members of the raid team by another, which has yet to be produced for everyone's attention...
-
Also, why does key police officer (DS JONES) involved in SILENCER evidence have to make false entries in a dodgy pocketbook which had three start dates upon its front cover - remember that this police officer as well as being the key police officer at the heart of the silencer debackle, was also heavily involved in Julie Mugford testifying after police coached her about what they required her to say during over 30 coaching sessions...
-
What happened to the original pocketbook entries referring to when he took possession of a silencer (SBJ/1) from the scene on 7th August 1985?
-
We now know that there was only one silencer (SBJ/1 - DB/1) which mattered in the case, this being the only silencer inside which Sheila's blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, HP 2-1 and the human / animal AK1)...
It is my case, that this silencer was not the one found at the scene by relatives...
If true, convictions have to be quashed...
-
We now know that there was only one silencer (SBJ/1 - DB/1) which mattered in the case, this being the only silencer inside which Sheila's blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, HP 2-1 and the human / animal AK1)...
It is my case, that this silencer was not the one found at the scene by relatives...
If true, convictions have to be quashed...
Key issue, involves which silencer was at the Lab' at Huntingdon on 11th September 1985, inside which the key flake of blood was found?
-
Everyone has to accept that there was a silencer at the lab' on the 11th September 1985, and that it was inside this silencer that the key blood evidence was discovered...
-
The silencer at the lab' on this occasion (DB/1), was not the one found at the scene by relatives...
-
DCI "Taff" Jones had kept a silencer on his desk and had been using it as a paper weight - a former police officer with the Christian name of "David" arranged to meet up with Ewen Smith (NOW A CCRC COMMISSIONER) and confided in him about the existence of this second silencer in the police investigation...
-
I am still waiting for the liars who are amongst us to produce the signed versions of the witness statements provided for them by another...
-
I am still waiting for the liars who are amongst us to produce the signed versions of the witness statements provided for them by another...
Until these liars produce the versions bearing the signatures of individual firearms officers statements, they have to be regarded as liars and trouble causers...
-
If these liars cannot produce the signed versions of the witness statements I have drawn attention to, why should anyone believe anything they have said?
-
Delgado
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1623.0;attach=20025;image)
Adams
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=188.0;attach=21394;image)
I would like pose a question.
Mike has alleged that Delgado and Adams (amongst others) refused to sign witness statements dated 7th August 1985.
If that were the case, then how likely would it be that these two officers would sign a witness statement at a later date which starts with the words: "Further to my statement dated 7th August 1985". ?
-
I would like pose a question.
Mike has alleged that Delgado and Adams (amongst others) refused to sign witness statements dated 7th August 1985.
If that were the case, then how likely would it be that these two officers would sign a witness statement at a later date which starts with the words: "Further to my statement dated 7th August 1985". ?
He also alleged that they told COLP they refused to sign statements that had been prepared by others because they contained lies. He has not proeduced any such evidence depsite being challenged multiple times to do so.
Neither of us has the original file to scan onto the net to post the file. We are limited to posting documents already available on the net. So challenging us to provide signed copies or they don't exist is disingenuine.
He made a very specific claim. Posting unsigned copies doesn't prove the originals were not signed. His purported evidence of the originals not being signed is that they told COLP such but he has provided no COLP documents at all that suggest this. He is the proponent the burden is on him.
-
The raid team officers refused to sign witness statements dated 7th August 1985, which makes mention of the finding of only one body upon entry. The statements they did sign related to the discovery of two bodies, one of which was the body of Sheila...
Any reference in later statesments to them having made previous statements dated 7th August 1985, are reference to their versions making mention of two bodies downstairs, not one...
-
The raid team officers refused to sign witness statements dated 7th August 1985, which makes mention of the finding of only one body upon entry. The statements they did sign related to the discovery of two bodies, one of which was the body of Sheila...
Any reference in later statesments to them having made previous statements dated 7th August 1985, are reference to their versions making mention of two bodies downstairs, not one...
I challenge you to produce copies of these statements you claim were signed by them that state there were 2 bodies downstairs.
They are not on this site or anywhere else on the net. Not a SOUL has ever mentioned or referenced any such statements until you right now. The COLP report doe snot mention any such thing.
Turnabout if fair play time for you to produce evidence.
How coudl you know about documents that you don't have in your posession, have never seen and that no one has ever referenced as existing?
The only logical conclusion is they are a fiction of your mind.
The only way for you to prove otherwise is to provide reliable evidence of their existence.
-
None of the raid team signed any witness statements made for them by another, dated, the 7th August 1985, where it mentions that they only found one body upon entry into the premises. There is no signed witness statements in existence to confirm that the versions I have posted about, were signed by any of the raid team officers I have individually named...
Anyone who suggests otherwise is a liar, and rather than attack me by saying that I must produce evidence of this and that, needs to look at their own position, because what these morons have been saying about me, reflects upon themselves, and these very same tactics were used by the police and prosecuting authorities to wrongly convict Jeremy Bamber of these murders...
When I posted my claims, it was designed to highlight the missing original versions of the witness statements I posted. In response other material was introduced by morons to try and make out that what I was saying was not true, but sadly "IT IS STILL TRUE"...
Rather than suggest that I should produce the signed original versions of those witness statements, or be condemned as a liar, these morons should ask themselves why no signed original versions of these witness statements which I speak about, are not available to anybody?
How the hell can I produce the original signed versions of these witness statements if they don't exist?
Why don't the signed versions of the raid team officers witness statements exist, why haven't they been disclosed, why would the police and the prosecuting authorities want to conceal the original signed versions of these particular witness statements?
They have not been disclosed, they do not exist, because such signed versions of those witness statements do not exist, this was because the raid team members refused to sign something which was not true...
If anybody can prove me wrong, then get on with it - oh, and "GOOD LUCK"...
-
What we are looking at here, is a massive conspiracy to convict an innocent man (Jeremy Bamber) for these murders, which involved police mishandling of the raid and police investigation. Witness statements made by another (Operations Manager) on behalf of the raid team members remain unsigned, despite 29 years having elapsed between when another falsified the witness statement contents, designed to suggest there was only one body found upon entry to the premises rather than two, but the raid team members (to a man) refused to sign such witness statements. Anybody who thinks I am wrong, or a liar, its simple, just produce copies of the signed versions of these witness statements - nobody can, because they do not exist...
-
Don't try and pin the blame on me for the non existence of such signed witness statements, and say that because I cannot produce them that I am a liar, how the fuck do you or anybody work that out?
No signed versions of the witness statements I posted exist, how can anyone produce something which does not exist? How can anyone then suggest that because I cannot produce evidence that does not exist, I must be a liar...
I AM NOT A LIAR, only a truth seeker...
-
The truth of the matter, is that TWO BODIES were found upon entry to the premises...
Fucking TWO BODIES, not one that was mistakenly identified as a dead female, when it had been a dead male...
Stop trying to take the piss, who the fuck do you think you are, trying to pull the wool over ordinary peoples minds, you are full of shit...
The contents of police witness statements were produced by another, on behalf of the individual raid team officers, edited, altered by another, in the very same way that the contents of witness statement contents were altered in my own case, and in the Hillsboro' disaster...
I stand by everything I have said...
-
"THIS STATEMENT CONSISTING OF - PAGES, EACH SIGNED BY ME, IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND I MAKE IT KNOWING THAT IF IT IS TENDED INTO EVIDENCE I SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION IF I HAVE WILFULLY STATED IN IT ANYTHING WHICH I KNOW TO BE FALSE, OR DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE"...
-
"THIS STATEMENT CONSISTING OF - PAGES, EACH SIGNED BY ME, IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND I MAKE IT KNOWING THAT IF IT IS TENDED INTO EVIDENCE I SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION IF I HAVE WILFULLY STATED IN IT ANYTHING WHICH I KNOW TO BE FALSE, OR DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE"...
These versions of police witness statements made by another, do not always get tended into evidence because the contents are false, and the witnesses in whose name the contents have been made by another, are not true to that particular witnesses knowledge and belief, and these witnesses refuse to sign these witness statements because of the strong possibility that they may face prosecution should they sign the contents which are false, on the basis that the same contents are true...
-
This is why you can never believe or trust what is said in all witness statements, because in almost every instance the contents are not what the witness said, or says, but the wording and phrases that another would wish them to say at court...
-
This is why you can never believe or trust what is said in all witness statements, because in almost every instance the contents are not what the witness said, or says, but the wording and phrases that another would wish them to say at court...
This is why the Criminal justice system is unreliable, the police and prosecuting authorities get up to all sorts of tricks to try and fool the jury into convicting a defendant...
-
Don't try and pin the blame on me for the non existence of such signed witness statements, and say that because I cannot produce them that I am a liar, how the fuck do you or anybody work that out?
No signed versions of the witness statements I posted exist, how can anyone produce something which does not exist? How can anyone then suggest that because I cannot produce evidence that does not exist, I must be a liar...
I AM NOT A LIAR, only a truth seeker...
If you are not a liar then produce evidence to prove your claim that each of the raid cops in question signed a statement which asserted that there were 2 bodies in the kitchen when they entered.
If you can't produce the statements, can't produce an official COLP document stating very clearly that the police signed statements asserting such or at the very least can't provide an independent source for the charge then it means you made up the claim out of thin air.
You made a charge that the statements posted on this site are not the real statements signed by various raid officer and that in fact they signed statements asserting they found 2 bodies upon entering the kitchen.
Either you came up with this claim yourself or you are repating a claim made by someone else. WHich is it?
1) did you come up with it yourself
or
2) are you repeating a claim made up by someone else and if so who and where did such person publish such charges and what if any evidence did they provide to estbalish such to be true
If you came up with it yourself then post the evidence that provides you with a basis to make this claim. If you don't have any then you made up a baseless claim.
-
"THIS STATEMENT / AND I MAKE IT KNOWING THAT / IF I HAVE WILFULLY STATED IN IT ANYTHING WHICH I KNOW TO BE FALSE, OR DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE"...
If another prepares the witness statement, how the hell can anyone say that the person in who's name the contents are being drafted, made the statement of their own free will?
-
If you are not a liar then produce evidence to prove your claim that each of the raid cops in question signed a statement which asserted that there were 2 bodies in the kitchen when they entered.
I am not a liar...
Contents of police radio logs is the evidence which is now in the public domain, which confirms police discovered two bodies upon entry, not one. This came about as a result of evidence relayed to senior officers situated at the forward control point by the very same officers in whose name another prepared witness statements claiming that only one body was found...
Contents of police logs were not disclosed in time for the trial, so the jury never considered that evidence...
-
Why did Essex police and the prosecuting authorities deliberately withhold the contents of the police radio message logs from the jury?
What they did was / is despicable...
-
OK, let's approach the matter from a different approach - why was there two different operation Commanders in charge of the firearms operation at the scene that morning?
(1) - PS ADAMS (Commander between 5 and 8.15am)
(2) - PI MONTGOMERY (Commander between 8.15 and 11 15am)
-
OK, let's approach the matter from a different approach - why was there two different operation Commanders in charge of the firearms operation at the scene that morning?
(1) - PS ADAMS (Commander between 5 and 8.15am)
(2) - PI MONTGOMERY (Commander between 8.15 and 11 15am)
The change in "Commander ship" at a crucial stage of the firearms operation (8.15am) needs to be looked into, and needed to be explained to the jury, if they were to look at the prosecution claim that Jeremy killed everyone including his sister (Sheila), then stage managed her body to fool police into thinking that Sheila had taken her own life, after killing the others...
If Sheila was one of the two bodies reportedly found upon entry to the premises (as per the contents of the police radio logs) how could Jeremy have killed her, and stage managed her body in order to fool police into thinking that she was the killer, and that she had taken her own life?
This was information that should have been disclosed and argued in the presence of the jury,it was arguably the most significant feature of evidence in the entire case that was brought against Jeremy, but which was deliberately kept from the knowledge of the defence team, and the jury...
WHY?
-
It is unheard of for "COMMANDER SHIP" of a police firearms operation to change hands in the middle of the same operation, so why was leadership changed just after three further bodies had been reportedly found upstairs (8.10am), where two bodies (7.37 - 7.41am) had previously been reportedly discovered upon entry to the premises?
Something went dramatically wrong soon after 8.10am, which led to a separate type of operation being mounted inside the premises, which PS Adams could not command from his position outside the premises, and explains why PI MONTGOMERY took Command from 8.15am, because he was inside the premises once the operation went pear-shaped...
The original scenario of two bodies downstairs / three bodies upstairs (by (8.10 am), altered into a different scenario of "0ne body downstairs / four bodies upstairs", from that point onwards, which is why MONTGOMERY became the Commander, from 8.15an, onwards...
-
I am not a liar...
Contents of police radio logs is the evidence which is now in the public domain, which confirms police discovered two bodies upon entry, not one. This came about as a result of evidence relayed to senior officers situated at the forward control point by the very same officers in whose name another prepared witness statements claiming that only one body was found...
Contents of police logs were not disclosed in time for the trial, so the jury never considered that evidence...
If you can't produce evidence of the documents then you made them up and ergo are a liar.
In the meantime the log was recorded by someone off scene not the raid team. That logs not only fail to establish there were 2 bodies in the kitchen, they provide zero basis for you to have asserted that the raid team signed statements stating 2 bodies were found in the kitchen but these were replaced by unsigned ones that mention only 1.
You are trying to change the subject because you have no evidence to back up your claims about the raid team signing statements indicating 2 bodies were found in the kitchen.
Sheila's body left a pool of blood where she died the claim she was moved is not supported by any physical evidence not merely the police.
If you did not lie then provide evidence to back up your claims about the raid team statements being replaced. If you have no source for the claim then you invented it yourself. If you invented yourself unless you can produce evidence to establish your claim to be true then it is obvious you simply made it up and lied.
-
Also, just a passing observation. Are the undisclosed logs the one by Bonnett with the Crown Court stamp on it? ???
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=517.0;attach=1729;image)
Or the one made by West which was handed to him in court? :-\
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1103.0;attach=19436;image)
Or are you just making it all up? :P
-
Also, just a passing observation. Are the undisclosed logs the one by Bonnett with the Crown Court stamp on it? ???
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=517.0;attach=1729;image)
Or the one made by West which was handed to him in court? :-\
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1103.0;attach=19436;image)
Or are you just making it all up? :P
Hi Hartley I had a long conversation with Vic about this. I shall ask you the same question I asked him.
Do all documents by the CPS or defence have to stamped? I would say they do. The other question is.
Are all stamped documents shown to the court and discussed in the court room? :-\ :-\ :D
-
That's it then the documents were shown in court....Next! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Hartley I had a long conversation with Vic about this. I shall ask you the same question I asked him.
Do all documents by the CPS or defence have to stamped? I would say they do. The other question is.
Are all stamped documents shown to the court and discussed in the court room? :-\ :-\ :D
All documents entered as exhibits, in this case exhibit No. 29 are logged and provided to all, they can be put forward as exhibits by either defence or prosecution.
Clearly as the log was put forward as an exhibit, the claims of it being withheld are entirely fictitious. There is no argument to be had.
-
All documents entered as exhibits, in this case exhibit No. 29 are logged and provided to all, they can be put forward as exhibits by either defence or prosecution.
Clearly as the log was put forward as an exhibit, the claims of it being withheld are entirely fictitious. There is no argument to be had.
See previous post from me Hartley...
Why has one not got a sticker on it? Is it different or has it been removed? Just asking... :) :) :)
-
See previous post from me Hartley...
Why has one not got a sticker on it? Is it different or has it been removed? Just asking... :) :) :)
They are both copies of the same thing, one is before it was made an exhibit and one is after. I have a feeling you know that though. :-\
-
They are both copies of the same thing, one is before it was made an exhibit and one is after. I have a feeling you know that though. :-\
I don't remember everything Hartley....but I'd like to see both documents side by side to see if there is any difference in them. I shall look another day eh! Chin up petal ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't remember everything Hartley....but I'd like to see both documents side by side to see if there is any difference in them. I shall look another day eh! Chin up petal ;D ;D ;D ;D
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=19540;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=517.0;attach=1729;image)
-
Thank you....Mr Grumpy. :P
-
Thank you....Mr Grumpy. :P
Reading too much in to things Patti, I am not in any way grumpy, just a bit drunk. :P
-
Reading too much in to things Patti, I am not in any way grumpy, just a bit drunk. :P
On a Sunday night in this heat wave? Mind you I can drink any night of the week now as I don't have to travel to work anymore...So feet on milk tops we must lol ;)
-
Also, just a passing observation. Are the undisclosed logs the one by Bonnett with the Crown Court stamp on it? ???
Or the one made by West which was handed to him in court? :-\
Or are you just making it all up? :P
While at other times he refers to that log as kept from police and evidence of Nevill making a call, at this exact moment he is referencing the radio call logs I believe.
The ones that you summarized very nicely before we were permanantly temporarily banned.
-
While at other times he refers to that log as kept from police and evidence of Nevill making a call, at this exact moment he is referencing the radio call logs I believe.
The ones that you summarized very nicely before we were permanantly temporarily banned.
It's one and the same Scip:
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1192.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1192.0.html)
-
It's one and the same Scip:
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1192.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1192.0.html)
It is one of the documents to be sure but he is talking about the whole lot:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.msg19630.html#msg19630
Of course he changed the subject after I challenged him to prove his claims and post the signed statements from the raid team that he stated are the real ones and which assert there were 2 bodies in the kitchen.
It is obvious there are no other statements from the raid team with the same date that have alternative acocunts but rather the statements posted here are the real ones.
-
Lol, yes. Exhibit 29 (or item MJB/1) isn't just the first page of the log, regardless of what is being claimed. :P
The clue is in Bonnetts statement where he states that he maintained a log until the end of his shift at 5:42, when a relief officer took over his station.
-
There are no signed witness statements made by any raid team members dated 7th August 1985, which make nention of only one body downstairs, and the other four bodies of victims, upstairs...
-
There are no signed witness statements made by any raid team members dated 7th August 1985, which make nention of only one body downstairs, and the other four bodies of victims, upstairs...
Just to be clear, no signed versions of the unsigned statenents I posted have yet to be posted by anyone...
By posting other examples of signed witness statements bearing different dates and contents to the ones I posted up for cinsideration, is not proof that I have lied about the matter - but the methods adopted by those from the dark side is evidence that they are the true liars in this matter...
Raid team officers refused to put their signatures to the claim that they only came upon one body when they got into the prenises downstairs. They knew that what they were being asked to do was wrong, and that evidence in the form of the police radio message logs which confirm a presence of two bodies upon entry, and live audio recordings obtained via the eavesdrop of the phone in the kitchen at the scene, contradicted what they were being requested to sign in the form of the witness statement contents prepared for them all by the operations manager, who sought to eliminate any reference to the finding of two bodies downstairs by 7.45am...
The log contents are true, the contents of the unsigned witness statememts prepared for all and sundey by the operations manager were false...i
-
There are no signed witness statements made by any raid team members dated 7th August 1985, which make nention of only one body downstairs, and the other four bodies of victims, upstairs...
(Edited by owner, typed in blue):-
You claimed there are signed raid statements from 7 August asserting (Confirmed there were two bodies found in kitchen upon entry by contents of contemporaneously recorded police radio message logs) there were 2 bodies in the kitchen and that those statement on this site mentioning only 1 body were written by administators (Correct) and lies so the raid team rejected them (Correct - well repeated)
You have not even produced unsigned statements from 7 August stating there were 2 bodies in the kitchen let alone signed statements. (because there are not even any signed witness statements dated 7th August 1985, making mention of only one body being found upon entry)
You have failed to produce anything at all to indicate there are statements dated 7 August beyond those published on this site. (all of which are unsigned, and to which no signed original contents exist, either, good, good, good)...
I called you out and challenged you to provide these documents, documents from COLP stating these documents exist, documents where the raid team state they refused to sign the statements on this site because they (Edited by owner) were doctored, or a source of some kind for you to establish that this claim comes from someone else
You have been unable to do so. (Clap, Clap, Clap)
You can't produce any documentary source that evidences someone else making the accusations you are making which means you must have come up with it all by yourself.
What basis did you have to make the charge? What evidence provides you with a basis to make the claim? None you just made it up by looking at the prior cases and trying to make up things you think Your unsupported claim that police signed statements saying 2 bodies wer ein the kitchen (Please see the contents of police radio message logs recorded as things were unfolding) doesn't suffice you need to produce reliable evidence such statements exist. Your unsupported claim that the raid team says the statements on this site were edited by supervisers so they refused to sign them doesn't suffice you need to produce evidence.
(parts have been edited out by the owner)...
-
Just to be clear, no signed versions of the unsigned statenents I posted have yet to be posted by anyone...
By posting other examples of signed witness statements bearing different dates and contents to the ones I posted up for cinsideration, is not proof that I have lied about the matter - but the methods adopted by those from the dark side is evidence that they are the true liars in this matter...
Raid team officers refused to put their signatures to the claim that they only came upon one body when they got into the prenises downstairs. They knew that what they were being asked to do was wrong, and that evidence in the form of the police radio message logs which confirm a presence of two bodies upon entry, and live audio recordings obtained via the eavesdrop of the phone in the kitchen at the scene, contradicted what they were being requested to sign in the form of the witness statement contents prepared for them all by the operations manager, who sought to eliminate any reference to the finding of two bodies downstairs by 7.45am...
The log contents are true, the contents of the unsigned witness statememts prepared for all and sundey by the operations manager were false...i
Boring. ::)
People can see all of the statements compiled in this thread http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1119.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1119.0.html), about 1 in 20 are signed. It would appear that everybody jumped on the band wagon and started refusing to sign statements. :o
OR,(edited by owner) , and the statements are simply typed versions of hand written statements prepared for the court.
As mentioned umpteen times, where a typed statement indicates that it is a number of pages long, but appears to consist of fewer pages, it is because the hand written statements usually take up more room on a piece of paper than typed text.
Very strange indeed. ::)
-
The witness statements altered in other cases, including my own, and the Hillsboro' matter, were unsigned versions of police officers witness statements, and there were no corresponding signed hand written notes which contradicts what those from the dark side are saying. By all means examine all the versions of unsigned, and the occasional signed versions but at the end of the day, these editing practices are illegal, and are used to make witnesses say a particular thing if called to testify, which might ordinarily not be true. Those from the dark side, can't even get their explanation right about unsigned typed versions of the witness statements which are usually prepared for police officers by the so called officer in the case, the office manager, or a senior officer, and denote that there are original hand written notes in existence, hence why the typed versions are unsigned. However, these hand written notes are made by another and not signed by the witness at all, but are usually signed by the other person responsible for making them. The signed versions of witness statements are the original versions of such witness statements...
We have observed this practice in the instant case on so many occasions involving witness statements which have been prepared for the relatives, unsigned and undated, which were produced as part of the case with a view to influence the CPS into referring the case to the crown court for trial...
The contents of witness statements which are compiled in this way, is not evidence until the witness in who's name the witness statement has been made in, testifies under oath in proceedings, and unless these witnesses reproduce the evidence in testimony which has been produced for them to give, such witnesses are not liable to prosecution no matter what lies and untruths are included in these fabricated witness statement contents - what counts is whether the contents of any false witness statement is given under oath in court proceedings, so once you understand the principles behind statements such as these, it becomes clear that evidence is being manipulated by the police, by witnesses themselves, by the CPS and the courts which allow these criminal practices to continue...
Before the contents of any witness statements can be relied upon in testimony at court, the original witness statement has to be produced and lodged with the crown court, and subsequently stamped with the crown court seal...
None of the firearms team witness statements which make mention of there being only one body found upon entry into the premises ever found there way into Chelmsford Crown court archives, none exist with the crown court seal of approval upon any of its pages. This was because the contents are false and did not match the contents of the police message logs and audio records covering the very same part of the operation...
Those from the dark side of life do not know what they are talking about, whereas I have been at the centre of two massive internal police investigations where the contents of witness statements have been edited and falsified, including versions of some statements lodged with the crown courts where such evidence was relied upon in those proceedings, these versions all had the official Sheffield crown court stamps on their pages...
I know what I am talking about, and what happened to me, and in Hillsboro', happened in Bamber...
Those from the dark side cannot even produce one solitary signed police witness statement where it makes mention of the police only discovering one body upon entry to the premises in this case, so whatever they say falls by the wayside. They know nothing, but pretend they do...
THEY CAN'T EVEN PRODUCE ONE OF THESE WITNESS STATEMENTS WITH THE CHELMSFORD CROWN COURT STAMP PRINTED ON ITS PAGES....
That's how utterly pathetic and dishonest these people are, despicable individuals who are hell bent on trying to keep a lid on the corruption an dishonesty relied upon in this case...
-
They are LIARS, they support corruption and dishonesty, you cannot believe or trust anything that they say, but that is up to the individual...
Those from the dark side, act as though it is alright to fabricate evidence, and to be dishonest - these individuals are the real criminals...
-
YOU are boring me, you have nothing constructive to say or add, you can't even produce a signed copy of one of the dated, 7th August 1985, witness statements I posted about - worse still, not even a solitary witness statement bearing the official Chelmsford Crown court file....
As I say, you are boring and know nothing...
-
I am in edit mode, I will be revising all posts from time to time and deleting anything which resembles a personal attack on me, and reserve the right to add additional comments of my own where this occurs...
GOOD LUCK...
-
THEY LIED...
Page number in file, as designated by circles top right corner, are completely different to the page number of the file in the other example (259)...
-
(Edited by owner, typed in blue):-
You claimed there are signed raid statements from 7 August asserting (Confirmed there were two bodies found in kitchen upon entry by contents of contemporaneously recorded police radio message logs) there were 2 bodies in the kitchen and that those statement on this site mentioning only 1 body were written by administators (Correct) and lies so the raid team rejected them (Correct - well repeated)
You have not even produced unsigned statements from 7 August stating there were 2 bodies in the kitchen let alone signed statements. (because there are not even any signed witness statements dated 7th August 1985, making mention of only one body being found upon entry)
You have failed to produce anything at all to indicate there are statements dated 7 August beyond those published on this site. (all of which are unsigned, and to which no signed original contents exist, either, good, good, good)...
I called you out and challenged you to provide these documents, documents from COLP stating these documents exist, documents where the raid team state they refused to sign the statements on this site because they (Edited by owner) were doctored, or a source of some kind for you to establish that this claim comes from someone else
You have been unable to do so. (Clap, Clap, Clap)
You can't produce any documentary source that evidences someone else making the accusations you are making which means you must have come up with it all by yourself.
What basis did you have to make the charge? What evidence provides you with a basis to make the claim? None you just made it up by looking at the prior cases and trying to make up things you think Your unsupported claim that police signed statements saying 2 bodies wer ein the kitchen (Please see the contents of police radio message logs recorded as things were unfolding) doesn't suffice you need to produce reliable evidence such statements exist. Your unsupported claim that the raid team says the statements on this site were edited by supervisers so they refused to sign them doesn't suffice you need to produce evidence.
(parts have been edited out by the owner)...
The radio log was not written by anyone on the scene thus not written by anyone in a position to know how many bodies were anywhere.
The parts you draw attention to at any rate feel to establish there were 2 bodies in the kitchen saying a further body was found dones't specify it was found in the kitchen. In th emeantime the person keeping the log presumed there was a man and woman found in the kitchen because he heard a call that a female body was there but then heard a call a male body was foud and simply added them together.
A call log can't trump the statements of the actual witnesses let alone the physical evidence which proves Sheila died in the position she was found and in the location where her body was found.
By saying you are relying on the logs for your claims that means your argument is as follows:
1) Based on how you CHOOSE to twist the log you have decided that the raid personnel insisted there were 2 bodies in the kitchen
2) You then make the giant leap from there that they must have written reports up o 8/7/85 that indicate 2 bodies were found in the kitchen but that these reports have never seen the light of day so you can't prove they exist you just insist that they do because you believe they would have done this.
3) You make another giant leap that because you believe their original statements indicated 2 bodies in the kitchen that means the statements that discuss 1 were faked by high up administrative personnel
4) You ignore that this site doens't have the originals of any of the police statements and insist that there are no signed copies of the statements referencing 1 body in the kitchen because the copies posted on this site are not signed.
5) You make the leap that COLP discovered tow sets of statements date 8/7/85 fom each officer and confronted the officers and the officers told COLP that they refused to sign the statements published on thsi site because they were lies and they would have been committing perjury and that their statements discussing 2 bodies in the kitchen were accurate.
So in other words your claims are not established by any reliable evidence but rather a fiction of your mind that you came up with by heaping 1 giant leap upon another giant leap upon another giant leap...
-
(Edited by owner)
Even resorting to editing people's posts.
Thoroughly amusing, but a bit silly. ::)
-
Two silencers criminally turned into the same one, a bullet used in the shooting of Sheila (PV/20) swapped over as part of the massive cover up, relatives conspiring with the police to get their hands on the Bamber estates, contents of witness statements edited and falsified, police pocketbook entries forged, police restaging of crime scene, photographic evidence misused...
-
Two bodies found upon entry, was information relayed by members of the raid team inside the farmhouse, to senior officers in a nearby outbuilding and the occupants of CA07 who relayed it to the control room - the information originated from those who found two bodies downstairs after they entered the premises, the so called mix up of bodies is a red herring, easily proved by the find of only a further three bodies upstairs by 8.10am...
BOOM...
Argument over...
-
Two bodies found upon entry, was information relayed by members of the raid team inside the farmhouse, to senior officers in a nearby outbuilding and the occupants of CA07 who relayed it to the control room - the information originated from those who found two bodies downstairs after they entered the premises, the so called mix up of bodies is a red herring, easily proved by the find of only a further three bodies upstairs by 8.10am...
BOOM...
Argument over...
You have no evidence at all of only 3 bodies being found upstairs the physical evidence and acocunts are all against you which is why you made up your bogus tale about the raid team signing statements indicating 2 bodies were foudn upon entry. But since you mad eit up you have no way to establish such statements exist.
-
You have no evidence at all of only 3 bodies being found upstairs the physical evidence and acocunts are all against you which is why you made up your bogus tale about the raid team signing statements indicating 2 bodies were foudn upon entry. But since you mad eit up you have no way to establish such statements exist.
Actually, none of the original statements stated that Spiderman was not sitting in the lounge, therefore he must have been!!! I haven't read it on here, but does anybody know if Spiderman was questioned? ???
-
You have no evidence at all of only 3 bodies being found upstairs the physical evidence and acocunts are all against you which is why you made up your bogus tale about the raid team signing statements indicating 2 bodies were foudn upon entry. But since you mad eit up you have no way to establish such statements exist.
? ????that's the one thing there is evidence of - its in the logs. If they made a mistake on their messages ( as you claim) there was ample time for them to correct the mistake.
Surely the most accurate picture is the one from the day as it is relayed even if it is just verbal , they were recording what they heard.
When you have ambiguous logs you can argue until the cows come home but they still can be interpreted either way.
-
? ????that's the one thing there is evidence of - its in the logs. If they made a mistake on their messages ( as you claim) there was ample time for them to correct the mistake.
Surely the most accurate picture is the one from the day as it is relayed even if it is just verbal , they were recording what they heard.
When you have ambiguous logs you can argue until the cows come home but they still can be interpreted either way.
How is a log from someone far at a scene the most perfect record? Courts, historians and all rational peopel consisder the accounts of those actually on the scene to be the most perfect source of information not people far away who can misconstrue things.
At any rate some of the logs are grossly misrepresented anyway. The most commonly cited log states
one male and one female found dead in the kitchen. Others are misrepresented as saying the same thing, however all they says is things like, "police entered premises 1 male found 1 female found." It does NOT say WHERE they were found. It does not state both were immediately found in the kitchen. That is what Jeremy supporters pretend it says because they want to pretend Sheila was moved.
It doesn't say who the female is or where she was found.
June Bamber was found early on by the raid team when they used a periscope to look around the second level. Her body was seen from the bottom of the stairs. So for all you know the female body mentioned was June.
It is also possible that like the most commonly cited log that it was referring to Nevill 2 times counting Nevill as the male and the female that had been seen in the window. We don't know that this is what the other logs were claiming at all though because the log is not specific about locations and the person who wrote it was not consulted. The last 3 bodies found by the raid team were Sheila (because she was hidden by the bed), and the twins. These are the further 3 bodies that were found per the raid team.
So we have some nonsepecific logs and one that clearly is in error based on the assumption that Nevill was a second body in the kitchen and counting him twice as a female and male.
The fact they are not clear as you say is why the logs are worthless and why you go with the claims of the actual witnesses who went in and what they say is that there was only 1 body in the kitchen and the physical evidence corroborates their statements.
Mike's claims about another body being in the kitchen are not supportable at all and little more than intentional lies.
-
PLEASE CONTINUE TO IGNORE MY POSTS OR EVERYTHING ON MY THREADS...
STOP...
-
How is a log from someone far at a scene the most perfect record? Courts, historians and all rational peopel consisder the accounts of those actually on the scene to be the most perfect source of information not people far away who can misconstrue things.
At any rate some of the logs are grossly misrepresented anyway. The most commonly cited log states
one male and one female found dead in the kitchen. Others are misrepresented as saying the same thing, however all they says is things like, "police entered premises 1 male found 1 female found." It does NOT say WHERE they were found. It does not state both were immediately found in the kitchen. That is what Jeremy supporters pretend it says because they want to pretend Sheila was moved.
It doesn't say who the female is or where she was found.
June Bamber was found early on by the raid team when they used a periscope to look around the second level. Her body was seen from the bottom of the stairs. So for all you know the female body mentioned was June.
It is also possible that like the most commonly cited log that it was referring to Nevill 2 times counting Nevill as the male and the female that had been seen in the window. We don't know that this is what the other logs were claiming at all though because the log is not specific about locations and the person who wrote it was not consulted. The last 3 bodies found by the raid team were Sheila (because she was hidden by the bed), and the twins. These are the further 3 bodies that were found per the raid team.
So we have some nonsepecific logs and one that clearly is in error based on the assumption that Nevill was a second body in the kitchen and counting him twice as a female and male.
The fact they are not clear as you say is why the logs are worthless and why you go with the claims of the actual witnesses who went in and what they say is that there was only 1 body in the kitchen and the physical evidence corroborates their statements. SO NOW WE CANT RELY ON LOGS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CLEAR? WELL THATS A GOOD EXCUSE. SO IF WE CANT BELIEVE LOGS AND CAN ONLY RELY ONLY STATEMENTS AT THE SCENE OF A CRIME THE POLICE CAN SAY ANYTHING AND CHANGE THEIR MINDS LATER -PRICELESS
Mike's claims about another body being in the kitchen are not supportable at all and little more than intentional lies.
-
SO NOW WE CANT RELY ON LOGS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CLEAR? WELL THATS A GOOD EXCUSE. SO IF WE CANT BELIEVE LOGS AND CAN ONLY RELY ONLY STATEMENTS AT THE SCENE OF A CRIME THE POLICE CAN SAY ANYTHING AND CHANGE THEIR MINDS LATER -PRICELESS
Logs written by someone not a witness are naturally unreliable.
The best evidence is from a witness on a second hand account.
The logs cannot trump what ever single witness states they saw or worse what the physical evidence documents.
In the meantime you evne are so ridicilous as to insist not only that the were 2 bodies in the kitchen but 1 of the bodies had to be Sheila evne though that is never asserted in any of the logs.
The log confirms that one body was seen in the window of the kitchen before they went in not 2 bodies.
That body was slumped over a chair and was believed to be a woman so undeniably was Nevill.
So it is a known fact that they thought there was a dead woman then reported a dead man hence a reason for confusion.
It is an undenaible fact there was a dry pool of blood by Sheila's body in the bedroom and that she had to have died there.
It is an undeniable fact that June was shot in bed and wounded too severely to have made it downstairs.
It is an undeniable fact that the raid team and those who went in right after all say there was only 1 body in the kitchen and that Sheila was on the floor in the master bedroom.
It is an undeniable fact that there would have been no reason for police to have immediately moved her body formt he kitchen to the bedroom/
It is an undenaible fact that DR Craig looked at her body in the bedroom with the pool of dried blood near it and assessed she died there.
You have no leg to stand on at all you have no vlaid reaosn to beleive Sheila's body was anywhere other than in the master bedroom. The belief her body was in the kitchen is irraitonal and contradicted by all the avilable evidence.
-
Logs written by someone not a witness are naturally unreliable.
The best evidence is from a witness on a second hand account.
The logs cannot trump what ever single witness states they saw or worse what the physical evidence documents.
In the meantime you evne are so ridicilous as to insist not only that the were 2 bodies in the kitchen but 1 of the bodies had to be Sheila evne though that is never asserted in any of the logs.
The log confirms that one body was seen in the window of the kitchen before they went in not 2 bodies.
That body was slumped over a chair and was believed to be a woman so undeniably was Nevill.
So it is a known fact that they thought there was a dead woman then reported a dead man hence a reason for confusion.
It is an undenaible fact there was a dry pool of blood by Sheila's body in the bedroom and that she had to have died there.
It is an undeniable fact that June was shot in bed and wounded too severely to have made it downstairs.
It is an undeniable fact that the raid team and those who went in right after all say there was only 1 body in the kitchen and that Sheila was on the floor in the master bedroom.
It is an undeniable fact that there would have been no reason for police to have immediately moved her body formt he kitchen to the bedroom/
It is an undenaible fact that DR Craig looked at her body in the bedroom with the pool of dried blood near it and assessed she died there.
You have no leg to stand on at all you have no vlaid reaosn to beleive Sheila's body was anywhere other than in the master bedroom. The belief her body was in the kitchen is irraitonal and contradicted by all the avilable evidence.
If what you say is true then there is no use in keeping logs if they are characteristically unreliable? Wke up and smell the coffee man. You have no idea how rediculous you are. ::)
-
If what you say is true then there is no use in keeping logs if they are characteristically unreliable? Wke up and smell the coffee man. You have no idea how rediculous you are. ::)
They should not keep logs because the logs can contain errors? Logs serve their purpose. Their function is not to use later on to determine what the fire team witnessed. The logs do not contain all details let alone most details. That is why they have people testify as to what happened instea dof using the logs.
I am not the one sleeping you are.
-
They should not keep logs because the logs can contain errors? Logs serve their purpose. Their function is not to use later on to determine what the fire team witnessed. The logs do not contain all details let alone most details. That is why they have people testify as to what happened instea dof using the logs.
I am not the one sleeping you are.
Unfortunately you still haven't answered my question that if they are so unreliable then why keep them at all? I also disagree with you. The logs are an indication as to what actually happened and should be and usually are produced in court for that specific purpose. That is also why the audio tapes were used that day as well. They were concrete evidence to what actually happened. But they have gone missing for some reason possibly held under PII? No Witness statements are not proof that actually happened as such things can be altered to suit anyone who wants to alter them. That is why I find it strange that these tapes were not produced in court? But you know what I find really strange, is the fact that for someone who states that he is a stickler for the "TRUTH" you do not even appear to be curious about these things and just simply believe the police just because they are the police.
-
Unfortunately you still haven't answered my question that if they are so unreliable then why keep them at all? I also disagree with you. The logs are an indication as to what actually happened and should be and usually are produced in court for that specific purpose. That is also why the audio tapes were used that day as well. They were concrete evidence to what actually happened. But they have gone missing for some reason possibly held under PII? No Witness statements are not proof that actually happened as such things can be altered to suit anyone who wants to alter them. That is why I find it strange that these tapes were not produced in court? But you know what I find really strange, is the fact that for someone who states that he is a stickler for the "TRUTH" you do not even appear to be curious about these things and just simply believe the police just because they are the police.
The whole reason audio tapes are kept is in case there is some problem or dispute and they need their ass covered. The main purpose is so that there is a record of a call by the public but to some extent police as well if there is some issue.
The log is simply to have a genral idea of an incident. An incident doesn't always end in an investigation. Incidents often end in nothing and being closed rapidly.
Jeremy supporters have lied up and down and trhough their teeth about every aspect of the investigation and case. Jeremy supporters insisted that the fire team was using walking talkies throughout the entire exercise and ever single thing they said was being taped. Phone calls to HQ were taped. The fire team fed information to people outside who then used their police radios to contact HQ and such was not being taped. Phone calls are taped not walkie talkie messages.
So parts of the log that you harp on were radio calls from police cars at the scene back to HQ. DO those logs indicate where the weapon was found? Do they name the victims and say where each victim was found? What level of detail do they provide? Very limited. The log is not by any stretch a complete acocunt and record of every detail encountered by police it is the general details necessary for the incident log.
Participants write in their notes, statements, affidavits and also verbally testify about what they observed. That is how things always work an incident log is not used for such.
Historians and especially courts like first person accounts and want to actually be able to question peopel to be able to get them to explain exactly what historians and courts need to know. Not only do written statements often fail to address issues of concenr they are often ambiguous. In order to understand exactly what is being claimed yo uneed to be able to question them and ask them point blank and have them clarify further if they answer an an ambiguous manner.
That is why lawyers depose witnesses and then question them on the stand.
When people don't want the truth that is when they want to avoid questions being answered and instead rely exclusively on writings as they try to spin what thos ewritings mean in an attempt to fool people.
That's exaclty what is going on with the log trying to fool peopel into thinking there really was 2 peopel in the kitchen and a body moved though it is patently clear that was not the case and even insisting the log says Sheila was in the kitchen though it never names her or mentions a gun in the kithcen or gunman in the kitchen.
WOrse even Jeremy would have heard a shot fired at her in the kitchen by police not jsut the other police outside who were making the radio calls. You are the one who needs to wake up and smell the coffee not me.
In some cases it also burns them such as when their response is slow
-
The whole reason audio tapes are kept is in case there is some problem or dispute and they need their ass covered. The main purpose is so that there is a record of a call by the public but to some extent police as well if there is some issue.
The log is simply to have a genral idea of an incident. An incident doesn't always end in an investigation. Incidents often end in nothing and being closed rapidly.
Jeremy supporters have lied up and down and trhough their teeth about every aspect of the investigation and case. Jeremy supporters insisted that the fire team was using walking talkies throughout the entire exercise and ever single thing they said was being taped. Phone calls to HQ were taped. The fire team fed information to people outside who then used their police radios to contact HQ and such was not being taped. Phone calls are taped not walkie talkie messages.
So parts of the log that you harp on were radio calls from police cars at the scene back to HQ. DO those logs indicate where the weapon was found? Do they name the victims and say where each victim was found? What level of detail do they provide? Very limited. The log is not by any stretch a complete acocunt and record of every detail encountered by police it is the general details necessary for the incident log.
Participants write in their notes, statements, affidavits and also verbally testify about what they observed. That is how things always work an incident log is not used for such.
Historians and especially courts like first person accounts and want to actually be able to question peopel to be able to get them to explain exactly what historians and courts need to know. Not only do written statements often fail to address issues of concenr they are often ambiguous. In order to understand exactly what is being claimed yo uneed to be able to question them and ask them point blank and have them clarify further if they answer an an ambiguous manner.
That is why lawyers depose witnesses and then question them on the stand.
When people don't want the truth that is when they want to avoid questions being answered and instead rely exclusively on writings as they try to spin what thos ewritings mean in an attempt to fool people.
That's exaclty what is going on with the log trying to fool peopel into thinking there really was 2 peopel in the kitchen and a body moved though it is patently clear that was not the case and even insisting the log says Sheila was in the kitchen though it never names her or mentions a gun in the kithcen or gunman in the kitchen.
WOrse even Jeremy would have heard a shot fired at her in the kitchen by police not jsut the other police outside who were making the radio calls. You are the one who needs to wake up and smell the coffee not me.
In some cases it also burns them such as when their response is slow
Well the very reason that I and many others have questioned the statements of the raid team means that there is an issue. Now I believe that these logs were not released until 20 years later whilst being held under PII? Now that they are released and have been for some time now we can question the statements in the light of what the logs said. Unfortunately instead of being used as you say they are supposed to be used for, they themselves are questioned in the light of the statements that were made some time after the event.
-
Its a bit like what the police say when they make an arrest is it not .
"but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court".
perhaps that should apply when the police make statements a month later that do not tie up with radio messages and logs?
They should abide by their own rules ;D
-
Do as I say and not as I do---------------police motto !
-
Its a bit like what the police say when they make an arrest is it not .
"but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court".
perhaps that should apply when the police make statements a month later that do not tie up with radio messages and logs?
They should abide by their own rules ;D
Oh I've seen plenty of those. The police said the accused said and did so and so. But of course the accused can do nothing because there are always two coppers against his word.
I remember seeing my mate all beaten up when he came out of the police station. I asked, "What happened to you". He said the police beat him up in the back of their van. Trouble is if he had argued about it in court all they would say is that he was resisting arrest.
Plenty of it still goes on today.
-
Well the very reason that I and many others have questioned the statements of the raid team means that there is an issue. Now I believe that these logs were not released until 20 later whilst being held under PII? Now that they are released and have been for some time now we can question the statements in the light of what the logs said. Unfortunately instead of being used as you say they are suposed to be used for, they themselves are questioned in the light of the statements that were made some time after the event.
You are questiong them because of the logs only and the questions are frankly stupid.
Even among Jeremy supporters only the most dishonest and gullible allege Sheila was killed by police in in the kitchen and moved. If that actually happened Jeremy would have heard the shot and the allegation would have been researched by the trial attorneys. The suggestion makes no sense at all and the tapes of the calls from people not involved is no more useful than the logs themselves.
CA7 calling on their radio to say that two bodies were found in the kitchen is worthless because the police from that car were not actual witnesses to such. They can't contradict the statements of people who actually were there. Worse the blood on the floor of the bedroom disputes the allegations even more. At best the logs warrant questioning the participants but they were already questioned and stated what they saw.
You seem to not comprehend the concept of best evidence. The best evidence as to what the raid team saw and encountered is from the raid team. the only thing that could refute their claims are claims from other witnesses also there who were in a position to see or hear what happened otherwise physical evidence that proves their claims to be untrue.
A tape showing that CA 7 did in fact tell the dispatcher 2 bodies were found in the kitchen would not prove that the claim is accurate. So all the crap about a tape is worthless.
There is a log that says 2 bodies found in the kitchen no twhich bodies and this error was used to create a tale that is preposterous and is not in the least bit supported by the log itself.
-
You are questiong them because of the logs only and the questions are frankly stupid.
Even among Jeremy supporters only the most dishonest and gullible allege Sheila was killed by police in in the kitchen and moved. If that actually happened Jeremy would have heard the shot and the allegation would have been researched by the trial attorneys. The suggestion makes no sense at all and the tapes of the calls from people not involved is no more useful than the logs themselves.
CA7 calling on their radio to say that two bodies were found in the kitchen is worthless because the police from that car were not actual witnesses to such. They can't contradict the statements of people who actually were there. Worse the blood on the floor of the bedroom disputes the allegations even more. At best the logs warrant questioning the participants but they were already questioned and stated what they saw.
You seem to not comprehend the concept of best evidence. The best evidence as to what the raid team saw and encountered is from the raid team. the only thing that could refute their claims are claims from other witnesses also there who were in a position to see or hear what happened otherwise physical evidence that proves their claims to be untrue.
A tape showing that CA 7 did in fact tell the dispatcher 2 bodies were found in the kitchen would not prove that the claim is accurate. So all the crap about a tape is worthless.
There is a log that says 2 bodies found in the kitchen no twhich bodies and this error was used to create a tale that is preposterous and is not in the least bit supported by the log itself.
Scipio you make some good points,but credit people with a little respect in your posts whichever side of the argument they are on. To cast some people as deliberate liars,their only purpose to come on here to deceive is disingenuous on your part- I'm sure people have many other things to busy themselves with throughout the day than to engage in such activity. As the title of a thread started by Patti some months ago sums up: we are all "seeking the truth for Jeremy Bamber" wherever this may take us.
By the way-whilst the Police were storming the farmhouse Jeremy was taken into the village to make a telephone call,so it's quite conceivable that were a shot fired he would not have heard it.
-
Scipio you make some good points,but credit people with a little respect in your posts whichever side of the argument they are on. To cast some people as deliberate liars,their only purpose to come on here to deceive is disingenuous on your part- I'm sure people have many other things to busy themselves with throughout the day than to engage in such activity. As the title of a thread started by Patti some months ago sums up: we are all "seeking the truth for Jeremy Bamber" wherever this may take us.
By the way-whilst the Police were storming the farmhouse Jeremy was taken into the village to make a telephone call,so it's quite conceivable that were a shot fired he would not have heard it.
Jeremy made his call between 5:45 and 6 not at 7:30. He was at the scene when they raided th ehouse and after the bodies were reported he was moved because he was within earshot of the announcement about the bodies and they didn't want him hearing people nonchalantly talking about stiffs and so forth which would upset a normal person in his place.
I respect posts when theymake sense and/or have some reaosnable basis.
When they are absolute fairytales not supported by any evidence whatsoever and makes no sense then there is nothing to respect. The fact of the matter is that people are taking a log that merely asserts 1 male and 1 female found in the kitchen not who the alleged female was hence part of the confucsion because if it had said old lady like Collins claims to see and then Nevill it would be plain as day they could not have bene talking about Sheila, then unscrupulous people would not be making up wild stories. It doesn't even support that Sheila was in the kitchen let alone shot there by police then moved upstairs and shot again by them.
To entertain a story like that on the basis of a log that merely says 2 bodies in the kitchen is crazy let alone a log that all the witnesses and the physical evidence contradicts.
It would be like reading a log saying I found a body and then aking up all sorts of crazy details that the acocunt in the log doesn't suggest at all.
-
Scipio you make some good points,but credit people with a little respect in your posts whichever side of the argument they are on. To cast some people as deliberate liars,their only purpose to come on here to deceive is disingenuous on your part- I'm sure people have many other things to busy themselves with throughout the day than to engage in such activity. As the title of a thread started by Patti some months ago sums up: we are all "seeking the truth for Jeremy Bamber" wherever this may take us.
By the way-whilst the Police were storming the farmhouse Jeremy was taken into the village to make a telephone call,so it's quite conceivable that were a shot fired he would not have heard it.
Well said Steve - but it's simply a tactic intended to make people question themselves. However, it would only work on people who aren't confident in their opinions.
-
Jeremy made his call between 5:45 and 6 not at 7:30. He was at the scene when they raided th ehouse and after the bodies were reported he was moved because he was within earshot of the announcement about the bodies and they didn't want him hearing people nonchalantly talking about stiffs and so forth which would upset a normal person in his place.
I respect posts when theymake sense and/or have some reaosnable basis.
When they are absolute fairytales not supported by any evidence whatsoever and makes no sense then there is nothing to respect. The fact of the matter is that people are taking a log that merely asserts 1 male and 1 female found in the kitchen not who the alleged female was hence part of the confucsion because if it had said old lady like Collins claims to see and then Nevill it would be plain as day they could not have bene talking about Sheila, then unscrupulous people would not be making up wild stories. It doesn't even support that Sheila was in the kitchen let alone shot there by police then moved upstairs and shot again by them.
To entertain a story like that on the basis of a log that merely says 2 bodies in the kitchen is crazy let alone a log that all the witnesses and the physical evidence contradicts.
It would be like reading a log saying I found a body and then aking up all sorts of crazy details that the acocunt in the log doesn't suggest at all.
I am not making up fairytales. All I am doing is quoting the radio logs and giving my opinion and explanation of them, nothing more. I will accept the radio logs as correct until there is concrete proof that they are not.
That does not include stories made up by any of the raid team after the act. To me each of their testimonies appear to be "harmonized" if you like, too good to be true, as if they had sat in a debriefing room (which they did of course) and made to fit so as to avoid a police investigation from the Commissioners.
-
Well said Steve - but it's simply a tactic intended to make people question themselves. However, it would only work on people who aren't confident in their opinions.
It is a tactic to antagonize others in order to try and cause them to snap and lose their tempers. Then he can claim things like "according to others your family has a history of mental illness" and the like. Such people are unscrupulous. Just wait til my brother gets out of Broadmore. ;D Sorry sorry I have a sick sense of humour I know. ::)
-
It is a tactic to antagonize others in order to try and cause them to snap and lose their tempers. Then he can claim things like "according to others your family has a history of mental illness" and the like. Such people are unscrupulous. Just wait til my brother gets out of Broadmore. ;D Sorry sorry I have a sick sense of humour I know. ::)
Grahame, somewhere down the line, he's probably picked up on the advantages of psychologically undermining ones opponent to cut them down to the size he feels safe with them being, so perhaps you could take it as a compliment, it's the only one you'll be likely to receive from him :D It's a tactic used, I suspect, by many prosecutors.
-
April,,have you read the harrowing story about Victoria Evans and her " evil " adoptive mother ?
I wasn't going to read it,but became intrigued by the fact that the " mother " told the young woman that she was in league with the" devil".
The tyrant was imprisoned for 12 years,but will be out any time, after 7 years. It upset me to say the least.
-
April,,have you read the harrowing story about Victoria Evans and her " evil " adoptive mother ?
I wasn't going to read it,but became intrigued by the fact that the " mother " told the young woman that she was in league with the" devil".
The tyrant was imprisoned for 12 years,but will be out any time, after 7 years. It upset me to say the least.
Personally think there are 'evil' mothers adoptive or not, also mentally sick mothers, disabled mothers and many others. The term Mother is just that, the relationship with your child is earned not a right.
-
Personally think there are 'evil' mothers adoptive or not, also mentally sick mothers, disabled mothers and many others. The term Mother is just that, the relationship with your child is earned not a right.
I quite agree,Maggie. This particular case has a ring to it in that this woman obviously wasn't a suitable " candidate " to begin with,so how do these people slip through the net ? I'm including June too,given her medical background.
-
I quite agree,Maggie. This particular case has a ring to it in that this woman obviously wasn't a suitable " candidate " to begin with,so how do these people slip through the net ? I'm including June too,given her medical background.
It was all very different back in the 50s and 60s, attitudes to children's needs were very different for a start, it was recognised they needed feeding and warmth but not a great deal of attention was given to their psychological needs. You know yourself that priorities were different. There were thousands of babies available for adoption and often matching hair and eye colour with adoptive parents was high on the list of priorities. These days it's hard to believe parents could slip through the net as vetting is very intensive but even now I guess there is human error from a social worker or another professional.
I know you include June but I have always argued that we have no real proof about June's mothering. I have never read Colin's book but found Alias' s extracts she posted very interesting however am not convinced Colin was the best judge of June as he seemed to blame all Sheila's problems on her. My arguement is that Sheila was a paranoid schizophrenic which is a highly destructive illness, there is every possibility this was a genetic illness Sheila inherited when I first applied to adopt we were warned we had to be aware any baby may develop PS later in life.
We don't know enough about June's illness, I can see it's quite a phenomena that both women had mental illness but they may have been unrelated? Back 50s/60s there was huge amount of ignorance about such illnesses, June had a 'breakdown' as many women did, it was obviously not taken seriously by the powers that be around at the time. They were a wealthy, white, god fearing family that ticked all the boxes I suppose. I know June seems to have shown a total lack of ability to emote with or understand her child, would guess she had a similarly difficult relationship with her Mother and was totally out of her depth with Sheila's illness etc. I don't believe she was in any way evil, or that she deserved such a dreadful end.
The only person who knows the truth about June as mother is Jeremy, he speaks of a loving mother as a child, a difficult mother in adolescence with her illness and his lack of understanding and their later mutual understanding. We hear the guilters claim a different story. It's also naturally accepted Nevill was super man, he may have been but probably wasn't
being human!!! I feel June is an easy target to blame, if she was cruel and hateful to Sheila I would be first to condemn her but without that proof I prefer to keep my options open and not judge her, I refuse to judge on random, out of context quotes any more than I judge Jeremy on similar.
-
I am not making up fairytales. All I am doing is quoting the radio logs and giving my opinion and explanation of them, nothing more. I will accept the radio logs as correct until there is concrete proof that they are not.
That does not include stories made up by any of the raid team after the act. To me each of their testimonies appear to be "harmonized" if you like, too good to be true, as if they had sat in a debriefing room (which they did of course) and made to fit so as to avoid a police investigation from the Commissioners.
All the radio logs indicate is that police not inside radioed at some point to say it was relayed to them two bodies found so far.
One log says one male and 1 female in the kitchen but the other says simply one male and 1 female not where either was found. Neither identifies the male or female by name. So claims the logs say Sheila was found second is not what the logs say at all let alone that Sheila was found in the kitchen.
So right off the bat there is a conflict in the log. one claims the bodies were found in the kitchen the other does not. So that means the person who wrote they were found in the kitchen could have been assuming and wrong.
It also could mean there was a correction and the account not mentioning the kitchen could have lacked the part about the kitchen because it was retracted.
Since there is ambiguity and conflict in the log you go to the source. That is where you go anyway since the logs are utterly lacking in any detail about names let alone where each and every body was found.
Going to the source means going to witnesses. The witnesses are those who actually entered the house and found the bodies.
People ar eindeed making thing sup by ignoring the physical evidence, ignoring all the testimony of everyone on site and suggesting the logs assert Sheila was killed by police in the kitchen. The logs don't even assert Sheila was ever in the kitchen. 1 log asserts a dead female body was found in the kitchen not that she was shot by police there or who she was. The account was radioed in from nonwitnesses and clearly was wrong. Whether the police radioing it in was wrong or the person keeping the log misunderstood matters not at all. Only dishonest people assert the log was right and those same dishonest people have no evidence at all to suggest it was right and that there was a female body in the kitchen. But worse these dishonest people misrepresent that the log says Sheila was in the kitchen and then make up wild tales about her being shot by police which are not supported by the log or anything else.
-
All the radio logs indicate is that police not inside radioed at some point to say it was relayed to them two bodies found so far.
One log says one male and 1 female in the kitchen but the other says simply one male and 1 female not where either was found. Neither identifies the male or female by name. So claims the logs say Sheila was found second is not what the logs say at all let alone that Sheila was found in the kitchen.
So right off the bat there is a conflict in the log. one claims the bodies were found in the kitchen the other does not. So that means the person who wrote they were found in the kitchen could have been assuming and wrong.
It also could mean there was a correction and the account not mentioning the kitchen could have lacked the part about the kitchen because it was retracted.
Since there is ambiguity and conflict in the log you go to the source. That is where you go anyway since the logs are utterly lacking in any detail about names let alone where each and every body was found.
Going to the source means going to witnesses. The witnesses are those who actually entered the house and found the bodies.
People ar eindeed making thing sup by ignoring the physical evidence, ignoring all the testimony of everyone on site and suggesting the logs assert Sheila was killed by police in the kitchen. The logs don't even assert Sheila was ever in the kitchen. 1 log asserts a dead female body was found in the kitchen not that she was shot by police there or who she was. The account was radioed in from nonwitnesses and clearly was wrong. Whether the police radioing it in was wrong or the person keeping the log misunderstood matters not at all. Only dishonest people assert the log was right and those same dishonest people have no evidence at all to suggest it was right and that there was a female body in the kitchen. But worse these dishonest people misrepresent that the log says Sheila was in the kitchen and then make up wild tales about her being shot by police which are not supported by the log or anything else.
No there are no conflict in the logs, but rather as they both agree on one female and one male found together (otherwise they wouldn't have reported it that way) that in fact one verifies the sighting of the other. Not only that you get the report that 3 more bodies discovered upstairs. Who were they?
Then you get the call for two ambulances. Why two? Because one ambulance can only carry one body at a time. Again there is another indication that there were two bodies found on entry.
You know what that tells me? That with these very clear logs that the documents that should be re-examined should be the raid team statements that were harmonized after the events, not those logs that were contemporary to the events.
-
No there are no conflict in the logs, but rather as they both agree on one female and one male found together (otherwise they wouldn't have reported it that way) that in fact one verifies the sighting of the other. Not only that you get the report that 3 more bodies discovered upstairs. Who were they?
Then you get the call for two ambulances. Why two? Because one ambulance can only carry one body at a time. Again there is another indication that there were two bodies found on entry.
You know what that tells me? That with these very clear logs that the documents that should be re-examined should be the raid team statements that were harmonized after the events, not those logs that were contemporary to the events.
You are playing games to pretend there is no ambiguity and conflict between the logs but that is not the case at all. Only one entry mentions a location for the bodies and that is the one that says 2 bodies in the kitchen.
The rest do not specify any were found upstairs versus downstairs. Your claim it stated 3 bodies found upstairs is false. "Now confirmed a further 3 bodies found 5 bodies total"
The logs don't state any bodies were found upstairs. They do not specify where the other bodies were found nor do any that specify a male and female found state who the male and female were.
The claim that the logs estbalish Sheila was found in the kitchen is false, if there really were a female body it could be June just as easily as Sheila if we go only by gender and if we include the visual account before of an old lady that means more likely June.
Dishonest peopel say we should trust the log over the police who were actually there and worse lie and pretend the log stated Sheila was in the kitchen though it doesn't say that at all let alone provide any support for wild claims of police finding her alive and shooting her then taking her upstairs while still alive and killing her up there.
It is all fantasy and growssly distorting the log.
-
7.40 two bodies found one male one female
8.10 further three bodies found
so if one of those bodies at 7.40 was Sheila it took them 30 minutes to find June who was on the bed which was next to her as she lay on the floor. ::)
That is quite a feat really.
-
7.40 two bodies found one male one female
8.10 further three bodies found
so if one of those bodies at 7.40 was Sheila it took them 30 minutes to find June who was on the bed next to her .
That is quite a feat really.
This is a perfect example of how you are making things up not following the log.
Where does it claim the female found was Sheila?
Where does it say June and Sheila were found in June's bed?
WHere does it say all 3 further bodies were found at 8:10?
The log gives updates of calls. At 8:10 is when someone radioed to say 3 bodies further found 5 total found not the time they were found by those inside. A radio call was not made each time a body was found there were updates at intervals.
The update at 7:40 could includ Nevill and June who was seen on the floor pretty soon after entry. The raid team used a periscope to look around upstairs before going up there and saw June's body.
The update also could have simply been Nevill and the person making the call added the female seen through the window. The only way to clarify what was meant by the person making the call is to ask the person who made the call.
What the person making the call thought to be the case doens't matter though, the person making the calls was not a witness and thus is in no position to be able to say what actually was the actual case. For that you go to the actual witnesses and the physical evidence.
-
Sheila was the only female who could have been shot downstairs and survived...
-
You are playing games to pretend there is no ambiguity and conflict between the logs but that is not the case at all. Only one entry mentions a location for the bodies and that is the one that says 2 bodies in the kitchen.
The rest do not specify any were found upstairs versus downstairs. Your claim it stated 3 bodies found upstairs is false. "Now confirmed a further 3 bodies found 5 bodies total"
The logs don't state any bodies were found upstairs. They do not specify where the other bodies were found nor do any that specify a male and female found state who the male and female were.
The claim that the logs estbalish Sheila was found in the kitchen is false, if there really were a female body it could be June just as easily as Sheila if we go only by gender and if we include the visual account before of an old lady that means more likely June.
Dishonest peopel say we should trust the log over the police who were actually there and worse lie and pretend the log stated Sheila was in the kitchen though it doesn't say that at all let alone provide any support for wild claims of police finding her alive and shooting her then taking her upstairs while still alive and killing her up there.
It is all fantasy and growssly distorting the log.
Quite frankly I think that you are ignoring the fact that two different people said virtually the same thing. They both could not make the same mistake. The fact that one omits the word "kitchen" in fact far from weakening my argument rather strengthens it because it means that there were two separate people who witnessed it. Add to that the fact that these logs were not presented at court, but rather were released under pressure by Essex police 20 years later is further indication that they didn't want them to be seen. Now what people really need to be concerned with is the fact that, instead of rejecting these logs as a simple mistake, they should be asking the very pertinent question, "why do the raid team statements contradict their own logs?" I simply cannot even entertain the possibility that they made mistakes as vital as these. If they had make the same kind of mistakes if a group of gunmen were waiting for them, then that would have been a complete disaster for the raid team.
Nope! I just do not believe it and will not accept the raid team statements that were all "harmonized" in a debriefing room after the event.
-
Lets examine the pocketbook entries of the six man raid team responsible for forcing an entry into the premises...
Lets start with the claim that they all made original notes in A58 format...
-
Quite frankly I think that you are ignoring the fact that two different people said virtually the same thing. They both could not make the same mistake. The fact that one omits the word "kitchen" in fact far from weakening my argument rather strengthens it because it means that there were two separate people who witnessed it. Add to that the fact that these logs were not presented at court, but rather were released under pressure by Essex police 20 years later is further indication that they didn't want them to be seen. Now what people really need to be concerned with is the fact that, instead of rejecting these logs as a simple mistake, they should be asking the very pertinent question, "why do the raid team statements contradict their own logs?" I simply cannot even entertain the possibility that they made mistakes as vital as these. If they had make the same kind of mistakes if a group of gunmen were waiting for them, then that would have been a complete disaster for the raid team.
Nope! I just do not believe it and will not accept the raid team statements that were all "harmonized" in a debriefing room after the event.
Since you always believe the opposite of the truth the fact you disagree simply means I am correct. You have demonstrated you are completely irraitonal and incapable of coherent thought.
These logs are not the raid team logs. This was explained to you countless times and you admitted it hence asking what the logs are even good for. Why are you lying about the being raid team logs when you know it is not true? All that does is further ruin your credibility.
The raid team was not making any calls to HQ they were inside the building. Someone outside was listening to the raid team talking and passes a message to other police. Other police passed it to other police and eventually it reached police who contacted the people keeping the logs. The people passing the message to the people keeping the logs witnessed NOTHING they were not raid team members.
How can the raid team wintesses be contradicted by documents written by someone who was not a witness and thus is not in a position to contradict the raid team?
Anyone who claims such is irrational. It is an invalid argument.
Further evidence you are irrational is that Sheila's body had a dry blood pool near it. If she died downstairs then her blood pool would have bene in the kitchen instead.
The logs do not even claim the supposed femal found is Sheila. You insist you want to follow the logs not police but the log doesn't say squat about Sheila.
Nor do the logs match. One log has 2 updates. 1 update is after 2 bodies were found. The second update is after 3 more bodies are found. The police did not call each time a room was cleared.
There was no reaosn to use to log in court that is why it wa snot used. Courts take live testimony. The raid team statements and testimony mattered not alog which provides very little detail because those keeping the incident log were far from the scene and not in contact with the raid team. They had to wait for updates from the police on the scene and were not fed much by way of detail.
Your, "I don't trust cops so I will neve rbeliev anything they say" is simply evidence of your irrationality and why no opinions you have are worth anything because they are all not thought out rationally but simply irrationally conceived based on the irrational notions you have.
-
No there are no conflict in the logs, but rather as they both agree on one female and one male found together (otherwise they wouldn't have reported it that way) that in fact one verifies the sighting of the other. Not only that you get the report that 3 more bodies discovered upstairs. Who were they?
Then you get the call for two ambulances. Why two? Because one ambulance can only carry one body at a time. Again there is another indication that there were two bodies found on entry.
You know what that tells me? That with these very clear logs that the documents that should be re-examined should be the raid team statements that were harmonized after the events, not those logs that were contemporary to the events.
The ambulances were there before the raid team ever went in.
The logs hold no hope at all for establishing Sheila was in the kitchen. Not one log says Sheila's body was found in the kitchen. Nor is their any physical support for here body being found in the kitchen let alone any testimonial support of any kind. Every cop that actually entered say only Nevill was in the kitchen.
Only deranged people or the dishonest assert otherwise.
-
This is a perfect example of how you are making things up not following the log.
Where does it claim the female found was Sheila?
Where does it say June and Sheila were found in June's bed?
WHere does it say all 3 further bodies were found at 8:10?
The log gives updates of calls. At 8:10 is when someone radioed to say 3 bodies further found 5 total found not the time they were found by those inside. A radio call was not made each time a body was found there were updates at intervals.
The update at 7:40 could includ Nevill and June who was seen on the floor pretty soon after entry. The raid team used a periscope to look around upstairs before going up there and saw June's body.
The update also could have simply been Nevill and the person making the call added the female seen through the window. The only way to clarify what was meant by the person making the call is to ask the person who made the call.
What the person making the call thought to be the case doens't matter though, the person making the calls was not a witness and thus is in no position to be able to say what actually was the actual case. For that you go to the actual witnesses and the physical evidence.
I made one of those when I was a kid. Had great fun.
First of all it was a mirror I believe. Secondly the log says, "In the kitchen". ;)
-
I made one of those when I was a kid. Had great fun.
First of all it was a mirror I believe. Secondly the log says, "In the kitchen". ;)
1) A periscope is made from mirrors.
2) one log says in the kitchen the other does not.
3) the log was not written by a witness nor was the person updated the dispatcher keeping the log a witness. Police outside relayed messages to other police who then relayed them to the dispatchers. They thus could have been misinterpreted at any stage.
It obviously was a misinterpretation and it is from one of these 2 things either:
1) counting Nevill twice as a male and female because he was originally thought to be female
or
2) it was fed outside that Nevill and June had been found and someone somewhere along the way assumed they were both in the kitchen.
Whichever is the case makes no difference at all.
A log kept by someone who was not a witness of a message conveyed by someone not a witness can't trump witness testimony or physical evidence.
-
1) A periscope is made from mirrors.
2) one log says in the kitchen the other does not.
3) the log was not written by a witness nor was the person updated the dispatcher keeping the log a witness. Police outside relayed messages to other police who then relayed them to the dispatchers. They thus could have been misinterpreted at any stage.
It obviously was a misinterpretation and it is from one of these 2 things either:
1) counting Nevill twice as a male and female because he was originally thought to be female
or
2) it was fed outside that Nevill and June had been found and someone somewhere along the way assumed they were both in the kitchen.
Whichever is the case makes no difference at all.
A log kept by someone who was not a witness of a message conveyed by someone not a witness can't trump witness testimony or physical evidence.
Really? I wondered why mine didn't work? ::)