Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: nugnug on June 13, 2014, 03:59:PM
-
if there was no sign of life in the house why dident the raid time go in there why did they wait outside.
-
if there was no sign of life in the house why dident the raid time go in there why did they wait outside.
It is very strange. They stood there for hour upon hour. Were they afraid? Wasn´t it the job of the raid team to, well, raid the house? Possibly saving the lives of the people inside, including two defenceless little children.
They didn´t even approach the house and peek through the windows - otherwise they would have seen Nevill slumped over in the kitchen, dead.
-
No idea,nugs,,but they wasted an awful lot of time. The biggest cocked-up case this country's ever seen.
-
Why was the raid team sent for if it was just " a trick of the light " ?
-
They spent two hours solid,farting around with a map of the layout of the farmhouse and how best to enter ? These were ARMED men !! Bullet-proof clothing,etc,,,supposedly trained for any eventuality.
-
the light being on could of confused them thats the only thing i can think of.
-
if there was no sign of life in the house why dident the raid time go in there why did they wait outside.
The police always do this in a hostage situation. The first thing they do is to try and talk to the assailant and try and negotiate with them.
Because of the length of time they took it makes me think that they were actually talking with someone in the house.
But having said that, they may have been waiting for daylight. Remember there were 5 persons in that house and they had no idea where the assailant was. They didn't want any innocent person hurt when they stormed the house.
-
but if everybody's dead inside they cant talk to anyone and surely when nobody replied the penny should of dropped eventually.
-
In my opinion it was a disgrace that they waited so long. How could they know if there were one or more people inside wounded who could have been saved?
The ambulances make good sense, but their delayed action does not.
-
it also makes no sense going to get there guns if there were no sighns of life in there.
-
it also makes no sense going to get there guns if there were no sighns of life in there.
Well, I think that makes sense - just to be on the safe side, sign of life or no sign of life.
-
you would think after a couple of hours talking and nobody replying and no sighn of any movement the penny would drop and someone would say hang on there all dead.
or maybe there all criticly injured lets go in.
-
Well,yes,nugs,,after 2 hours you would.
-
so were thy just really dim or did they have good reason to think there was someone alive in there who would shoot them if they tried to go in.
-
if there was no sign of life in the house why dident the raid time go in there why did they wait outside.
Because of Jeremy:
"Having walked to the house from the lane there was further conversation. The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year."
Jeremy intentionally scared them with lies about her weapon proficiency and how well armed she was.
Some armed police arrived at 5 but the majority did not arrive until 7AM
They used a megaphone around 5:20 to try to negotiate assuming it could be a hostage situation but received no response. They periodically continued with calls to the house from the megaphone but never got a response.
They didn't want to put officers or potentially hostages in danger so wanted to wait to enter until it was totally light so they could see inside the rooms as they went room to room. They also wanted enough officers to be able to cover all sides of the house so a potential gunman could not escape.
In the US all officers are armed so every cop on the scene could have protected the outside perimeter but not so with the UK police present.
-
This is why I wouldn't mind hearing those tapes,nugs. Until then,,we know nothing,and it's wrong for the PII/EP to hang on to them.
It proves to me that the case has been cobbled together if they've got something to hide.
-
he how could he scare a unit of heavly armed policeman with a tale thats ridiclus.
there own eyes and ears would tell them there was no threat. whatever he said.
-
Because of Jeremy:
"Having walked to the house from the lane there was further conversation. The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year."
Jeremy intentionally scared them with lies about her weapon proficiency and how well armed she was.
Some armed police arrived at 5 but the majority did not arrive until 7AM
They used a megaphone around 5:20 to try to negotiate assuming it could be a hostage situation but received no response. They periodically continued with calls to the house from the megaphone but never got a response.
They didn't want to put officers or potentially hostages in danger so wanted to wait to enter until it was totally light so they could see inside the rooms as they went room to room. They also wanted enough officers to be able to cover all sides of the house so a potential gunman could not escape.
In the US all officers are armed so every cop on the scene could have protected the outside perimeter but not so with the UK police present.
You have cloth ears haven't you dear boy. I SAID that it was and is police practice in all hostage situations. Jeremy was just repeating what his father had told him over the phone. Your theory is just bullshit. You can write anything you like to your own satisfaction. But apparently not everyone agrees with you. Why don't they agree with you, you might ask. "because in my own mind these things are quite logical and factual". Well surprise surprise only your own sheep follow you and agree with you. But most here just see through all your bullshit as just another fairy tale.
-
You have cloth ears haven't you dear boy. I SAID that it was and is police practice in all hostage situations. Jeremy was just repeating what his father had told him over the phone. Your theory is just bullshit. You can write anything you like to your own satisfaction. But apparently not everyone agrees with you. Why don't they agree with you, you might ask. "because in my own mind these things are quite logical and factual". Well surprise surprise only your own sheep follow you and agree with you. But most here just see through all your bullshit as just another fairy tale.
You are becoming like a child again.
You should read your own claims, BS is all you spew because you irraitionaly want to pretend Jeremy is innocent.
My post is fully accurate not BS.
-
he how could he scare a unit of heavly armed policeman with a tale thats ridiclus.
I agree with you nugnug. All but Bewes that is, who pissed his pants when he saw the figure in the window. Went straight to the radio car and called for the armed response team. According to Jeremy he became the laughing stock of the station. ;D
-
Gawd,,you're one nasty piece of work !! There's no need whatsoever for the way you speak to us !
-
Gawd,,you're one nasty piece of work !! There's no need whatsoever for the way you speak to us !
He´s a real charmer, isn´t he! 8)
-
I agree with you nugnug. All but Bewes that is, who pissed his pants when he saw the figure in the window. Went straight to the radio car and called for the armed response team. According to Jeremy he became the laughing stock of the station. ;D
well they dident call armed response team straight away did they
and if they had belived a tale like that they would of done.
and if theres no sighn of life at all at anytime durring the siege if you can callit that.
then they wouldent of bothered calling one.
-
I agree with you nugnug. All but Bewes that is, who pissed his pants when he saw the figure in the window. Went straight to the radio car and called for the armed response team. According to Jeremy he became the laughing stock of the station. ;D
I wouldn't mind,,Bewes didn't linger long enogh to notice if it was a figure or not-----------he was gone,as if his arse was on fire.
-
You are becoming like a child again.
You should read your own claims, BS is all you spew because you irraitionaly want to pretend Jeremy is innocent.
My post is fully accurate not BS.
It's about cause and effect. YOU seem to be causing a certain effect in others which they are reacting to it. Whether or not your post is accurate as opposed to BS is down to how others see it.
-
It's about cause and effect. YOU seem to be causing a certain effect in others which they are reacting to it. Whether or not your post is accurate as opposed to BS is down to how others see it.
That is because Jeremy supporters hate to have it pointed out how Jeremy lied. Anytime his lies about Sheila having used all the guns in the house is brought up or other lies or evidence that proves his guilt is brought his supporters fall apart because they don't want to admit he is guilty.
There are no rational reasons ever put forth by his supporters for insisting he is innocent. It always boils down to wild tales about police framing him or the like- at the end of the day people want to believe he is innocent and will try any excuse in the world to try to pretend it.
They don't want me reminding them of all the evidence they are ignoring, they are trying to forget it and pretend that he is innocent. Ignorance is bliss.
-
or maybe we just dont treat the uncorroborated word of a policeman as fact.
im a big tough armed police officer but he told me some scary tales and i shit myself hardly credible really is it.
i mean its not like an armed unit would never of been in that situaion before
-
You are becoming like a child again.
You should read your own claims, BS is all you spew because you irraitionaly want to pretend Jeremy is innocent.
My post is fully accurate not BS.
Hello charlie here come the insults again. Now where have I heard that term before? ::) Indeed it is you who is spewing all the bullshit matey. You appear to have the affliction of writers Diarrhea
Incidentally all your stuff is not all facts. It is your own ideas as to what happened attached to a few facts. The rest is just shit.
-
That is because Jeremy supporters hate to have it pointed out how Jeremy lied. Anytime his lies about Sheila having used all the guns in the house is brought up or other lies or evidence that proves his guilt is brought his supporters fall apart because they don't want to admit he is guilty.
There are no rational reasons ever put forth by his supporters for insisting he is innocent. It always boils down to wild tales about police framing him or the like- at the end of the day people want to believe he is innocent and will try any excuse in the world to try to pretend it.
They don't want me reminding them of all the evidence they are ignoring, they are trying to forget it and pretend that he is innocent. Ignorance is bliss.
It was a covert psychological murder. NOTHING TO DO WITH JEREMY ! I KNOW I'M RIGHT !!
-
That is because Jeremy supporters hate to have it pointed out how Jeremy lied. Anytime his lies about Sheila having used all the guns in the house is brought up or other lies or evidence that proves his guilt is brought his supporters fall apart because they don't want to admit he is guilty.
There are no rational reasons ever put forth by his supporters for insisting he is innocent. It always boils down to wild tales about police framing him or the like- at the end of the day people want to believe he is innocent and will try any excuse in the world to try to pretend it.
They don't want me reminding them of all the evidence they are ignoring, they are trying to forget it and pretend that he is innocent. Ignorance is bliss.
Well now, Mr Prosecutor. what can I possibly say to that ? Oh yes! Thus far you've made a pretty good fist of embellishing everything you say to make it look as if you know what you're talking about. It didn't dawn on me until I'd walked around the village where he lived, took a long look at his cottage, and followed part of the route to the sea wall, that you hadn't got a clue what you were talking about, but BOY can you give a good impression that you know it all. As it has already been told you by others, the ONE thing you have going for you is that you shout loudly and cover yourself in glory but as yet it's only ever been your opinion. Is there a single point you've made which can be proved or ARE you doing a clever job of concealing BS in your lengthy posts.
-
Well now, Mr Prosecutor. what can I possibly say to that ? Oh yes! Thus far you've made a pretty good fist of embellishing everything you say to make it look as if you know what you're talking about. It didn't dawn on me until I'd walked around the village where he lived, took a long look at his cottage, and followed part of the route to the sea wall, that you hadn't got a clue what you were talking about, but BOY can you give a good impression that you know it all. As it has already been told you by others, the ONE thing you have going for you is that you shout loudly and cover yourself in glory but as yet it's only ever been your opinion. Is there a single point you've made which can be proved or ARE you doing a clever job of concealing BS in your lengthy posts.
My posts are lengthy because I post explanations and evidence.
That is something totally lacking from you and all Jeremy supporters.
At the end of the day I make rational arguments that are backed up with evidence.
No one here hads dented any of my arguments, it is the same only nonsense of my posts are too long to try to both or just outright dismissal as if that acocmplishes anything.
I can go into court and say the other's sides case is nonses an djust do a blanke t dismissal like that. That will not carry the day I have to prove them wrong.
Establishing that you have no rational bais or evidence for your beliefs is suffient for me to be victorious here.
-
What EVIDENCE is it that YOU'VE got ?
-
i cant belive they would listen to the word of jeremy over what they saw with there own ears i mean its not as if faceing mad women with guns is a new experience for an armed unit.
-
What EVIDENCE is it that YOU'VE got ?
i think its based on the farcical tale that the police told later.
-
i think its based on the farcical tale that the police told later.
It must be.
-
My posts are lengthy because I post explanations and evidence.
That is something totally lacking from you and all Jeremy supporters.
At the end of the day I make rational arguments that are backed up with evidence.
No one here hads dented any of my arguments, it is the same only nonsense of my posts are too long to try to both or just outright dismissal as if that acocmplishes anything.
I can go into court and say the other's sides case is nonses an djust do a blanke t dismissal like that. That will not carry the day I have to prove them wrong.
Establishing that you have no rational bais or evidence for your beliefs is suffient for me to be victorious here.
Well all I can say to that is that you must be bloody DESPERATE for victory -and it will be a very hollow one- if you need to gain it at the expense of diverse personalities on a public forum who DON'T regularly ply their profession in a court of law. I find it VERY revealing that you seem/need? to get pleasure out of arguing with those you seem to regard as your intellectual inferiors.
-
Well all I can say to that is that you must be bloody DESPERATE for victory -and it will be a very hollow one- if you need to gain it at the expense of diverse personalities on a public forum who DON'T regularly ply their profession in a court of law. I find it VERY revealing that you seem/need? to get pleasure out of arguing with those you seem to regard as your intellectual inferiors.
I would prefer if you put up a better fight but the evidence is not on your side so in some respects that is very limiting. I tried for a time elsewhere to play devil's advocate for Jeremy but could not get too far since I am not willing to misrepresent. You can only spin so far without becoming a liar.
I don't know if you could do better in a case where the facts were on your side like the Amanda Knox case. If you lose that debate with me being devil's advocate then you truly have intellectual problems.
Your biggest problems seem to be bias leading to blind faith and willingness of some to misrepresent.
-
theirs no such thing as victory on a forum.
most people dont see posting as a fight anyway.
-
theirs no such thing as victory on a forum.
most people dont see posting as a fight anyway.
very good point NugNug
As we have pointed out to Adam ( scipios son?) as well, we all know what we post is all opinion / assumptions and belief gained from reading documents ( in some cases books) and other peoples posts - so you are correct here is no victory .
-
I would prefer if you put up a better fight but the evidence is not on your side so in some respects that is very limiting. I tried for a time elsewhere to play devil's advocate for Jeremy but could not get too far since I am not willing to misrepresent. You can only spin so far without becoming a liar.
I don't know if you could do better in a case where the facts were on your side like the Amanda Knox case. If you lose that debate with me being devil's advocate then you truly have intellectual problems.
Your biggest problems seem to be bias leading to blind faith and willingness of some to misrepresent.
I have a feeling that you come very close to being the most arrogant, self opinionated, egotistic, porcine like individual it has ever been my misfortune to converse with. I imagine that wherever it was that you played devil's advocate "elsewhere", they must have been more than relieved to see the back of you. Their gain would appear to be our loss.
-
I have a feeling that you come very close to being the most arrogant, self opinionated, egotistic, porcine like individual it has ever been my misfortune to converse with. I imagine that wherever it was that you played devil's advocate "elsewhere", they must have been more than relieved to see the back of you. Their gain would appear to be our loss.
The fact remains that I can actually explain my position in full and back up my positions because I already looked at all facets and decided to follow the evidence while you decided you will assert Jeremy ins innocent no matter what so have no evidentiary basis for your beliefs and thus can't rationally back up any of your claims.
The fact I point such out is why you can't stand me.
-
The fact remains that I can actually explain my position in full and back up my positions because I already looked at all facets and decided to follow the evidence while you decided you will assert Jeremy ins innocent no matter what so have no evidentiary basis for your beliefs and thus can't rationally back up any of your claims.
The fact I point such out is why you can't stand me.
I would say that the only reason you can out talk us is that you are privy to "tricks of the trade" which we are not -rather like a politician, you seem to have the art of evasion down to a tee- as for not standing you, as I don't know you, how can that be? Because of how you present yourself I experience you as being loud, conceited, self important, sanctimonious, condescending, determined to win at ANY cost and abominably rude, however, it isn't quite out of the question that, beneath what you present, there MAY be something likeable.
-
Question 1
If Jeremy mentioned in his call to the police that he thought gins were involved why were all the police that attended armed in the first place
question 2
Where is the OWS that attributes Jeremy saying SC had used all the guns in the house etc?it is not in the pocket book original notes of the PC who was actually speaking to him .So how do we know if that is true.
Question 3
I thought at one stage the officer in charge said they did not need the raid tem - and then they changed their minds? I believe that is in the actual original logs - so what happened to make them change their minds? Just a "trick of the light?
observation
If Jeremy was telling the truth about guns being in the house ( which they were apparently, not locked away, under beds , etc) then the police were in a dangerous position and they could have gone in and been shot by Sheila if she was still alive - so if he was innocent he did completely the right thing by telling them the things that he did - However I do think if they heard or saw nothing then they should have reacted quicker ( which Jeremy was asking them to do) . For all they knew the twins could have been alive. They had no idea of how many shots had been made or if people were bleeding to death in that house.
-
well if he thought they could be shot it would common decency to tell them.
-
I did not know the bit highlighted in red - posted on this forum by admin
PC Myall in his statement of 8th Aug 85 states that on arrival a short conversation occurred with Jeremy Bamber who stated what his father had said in a phone call to him, also what guns were in the house and that his sister had a history of psychological illness. He then states that himself, Sgt Bews and Jeremy Bamber went to investigate the house. Oddly PC Myalls makes no mention of the incident in this statement of his seeing someone in the master bedroom walking in front of the window. It was the only incident of note that occurred during the investigation of the house. PC Myall, Sgt Bews and Jeremy Bamber all ducked down behind a hedge. It is odd that this is not included in his statement nor that the light was on in the master bedroom yet PC Myall in the Major Incident Project document asks for that unidentified male to be looked for using finger print elimination. It could be that prior to this 8th August 1985 witness statement was given to the defence that this sighting of someone in the window was edited out. No prosecution could go ahead against Jeremy Bamber if the police in their very own statements were admitting someone was alive in the house when they arrived. Interestingly the pocket books of PC Myall, Sgt Bews and PC Saxby have never been made available to the defence for inspection of their entries on 8th Aug 85. It may be the case that no mention was made of the sighting of someone in the bedroom window, however when Sgt Bews was cross examined about this incident at trial he agreed that they all ducked down behind the hedge but claims that the movement was only a shadow or trick of light but it was significant enough for him to recall that it had happened. If this sighting had been included in the witness statements then the case against Jeremy Bamber would have collapsed.
-
The fact remains that I can actually explain my position in full and back up my positions because I already looked at all facets and decided to follow the evidence while you decided you will assert Jeremy ins innocent no matter what so have no evidentiary basis for your beliefs and thus can't rationally back up any of your claims.
The fact I point such out is why you can't stand me.
You haven´t explained how Shiela was shot in a believable way. What you claim happened is impossible. You claim "victory" on a very flimsy ground. Makes you look stupid, really.
-
I did not know the bit highlighted in red - posted on this forum by admin
PC Myall in his statement of 8th Aug 85 states that on arrival a short conversation occurred with Jeremy Bamber who stated what his father had said in a phone call to him, also what guns were in the house and that his sister had a history of psychological illness. He then states that himself, Sgt Bews and Jeremy Bamber went to investigate the house. Oddly PC Myalls makes no mention of the incident in this statement of his seeing someone in the master bedroom walking in front of the window. It was the only incident of note that occurred during the investigation of the house. PC Myall, Sgt Bews and Jeremy Bamber all ducked down behind a hedge. It is odd that this is not included in his statement nor that the light was on in the master bedroom yet PC Myall in the Major Incident Project document asks for that unidentified male to be looked for using finger print elimination. It could be that prior to this 8th August 1985 witness statement was given to the defence that this sighting of someone in the window was edited out. No prosecution could go ahead against Jeremy Bamber if the police in their very own statements were admitting someone was alive in the house when they arrived. Interestingly the pocket books of PC Myall, Sgt Bews and PC Saxby have never been made available to the defence for inspection of their entries on 8th Aug 85. It may be the case that no mention was made of the sighting of someone in the bedroom window, however when Sgt Bews was cross examined about this incident at trial he agreed that they all ducked down behind the hedge but claims that the movement was only a shadow or trick of light but it was significant enough for him to recall that it had happened. If this sighting had been included in the witness statements then the case against Jeremy Bamber would have collapsed.
The " shadow " was also significant enough to have called in the raid team too ! Or else why bother ?
-
The " shadow " was also significant enough to have called in the raid team too ! Or else why bother ?
You also remember the "trick of the light" also had gender. It was apparently a male figure. Just how an idendified male figure could turn into a "trick of the light" I am personally at a loss.
Nah! I think Bamber was well and truly set up by certain people?
-
well im allways thinking im seeing figures and then finding out its a trick of the light.
-
You also remember the "trick of the light" also had gender. It was apparently a male figure. Just how an idendified male figure could turn into a "trick of the light" I am personally at a loss.
Nah! I think Bamber was well and truly set up by certain people?
Of course he was set up,Grahame. I'll say it for the umpteenth time,,that it WAS a domestic. I can feel it in my water. There was GREAT cause for it to have been a domestic situation. The atmosphere would have been electric in that farmhouse.
To have described it as a male figure,,it was probably Neville trying to get the attention of the police. Blood on the sills may have been Neville again wanting to shout out of the window.That blood was never tested,,but quickly wiped by Mrs Fusspot. Any bloody prints would have come from Neville as he struggled to try and get help away from the situation he was in. All while Jeremy was outside. Poor Neville was a fighter to the finish.
Bews didn't give himself chance to stand and stare at the figure in the window,,he was away for slates to the safety of his car. This " trick of the light " left his fingerprints too by the way !
-
You haven´t explained how Shiela was shot in a believable way. What you claim happened is impossible. You claim "victory" on a very flimsy ground. Makes you look stupid, really.
You didn't prove it impossible. I proved your claim impossible and you don't like that I did so you created a the false claim that I said she was sitting against the bedthen showed a photo of how little space there is ad claimed such was not possible.
I noted the FACT that was shot while seated against something then pulled flat. I never claimed she was seated against the bed. The evidence doesn't say if she was against the chair, against the wall, in the corner or against the nightstand. She could have been against any. The chair could even have been moved so she could lean against it then put back against the wall. All the evidence tells us is she was seated leaning against something not exactly where she was seated leaning against something.
Your claim she was hanging off the bed leaning forward as she shot herself is not possible. She would have fallen face down onto the floor so would not have blend on her arm and gown in the manner she did. Moreover, then the rifle would have had blood inside of it.
She was seated for both shots in the same position with the bullets fired only a few seconds apart according to the ME. During the few seconds in between shots she beld on her arm and gown. She was then dragged flat so that the blood went down the side of her neck and pooled on the floor.
-
perhaps you could draw a little sketch of where jb was with the gun - his position and the angle of the gun ?
-
perhaps you could draw a little sketch of where jb was with the gun - his position and the angle of the gun ?
It would maybe clarify jansus :) I struggle to form ANY image in my head as to how anyone was able to shoot a concious Sheila at that angle. There is no feasible explanation which is why guilters claim she was sedated but her pm found no evidence of sedation and her hiperidol was at a low ebb after being halved and also close to her needing another dose.
-
it would also have to be to scale as far as possible to show the correct length of the gun.
I agree he would not have to restrain her because she would be terrified - but I bet your first instincts would be to put your hands up to protect yourself - or at the last moment when you know it is inevitable at least try and turn away or run even .
-
it would also have to be to scale as far as possible to show the correct length of the gun.
I agree he would not have to restrain her because she would be terrified - but I bet your first instincts would be to put your hands up to protect yourself - or at the last moment when you know it is inevitable at least try and turn away or run even .
I do believe you could be frozen with fear but not for too long anyone would have needed to have placed themselves in an awkward position with some manouvering? , surely adreneline would have kicked in .... fight of flight?
-
Never having had the experience of a gun in my face, I can only imagine that if I wasn't frozen with fear I'd either shield my face OR attempt to push the barrel aside to deflect the shot. However I'm fully aware that reason and emotion are polarized.
-
perhaps you could draw a little sketch of where jb was with the gun - his position and the angle of the gun ?
Jeremy´s position while shooting Sheila is problematic. Hasn´t been explained.
-
Jeremy´s position while shooting Sheila is problematic. Hasn´t been explained.
Alias!!!! Of course you know :o Scipio TOLD you ::) He'd have been sitting, crouching or laying.
-
Alias!!!! Of course you know :o Scipio TOLD you ::) He'd have been sitting, crouching or laying.
Silly me!! ;)
-
I've just got a picture of both women fighting to the finish,,both on the floor,one just about sitting half-propped up by the door,just feet away from her opponent who's lying down after the first shot ( delivered ) ,then the second fatal one. Which would see both women dying almost simultaneously.
Of the rifle-------I don't know,,because it looked as though it had been placed there,and if EP did that,then they got it wrong,,because I'd like to bet that the photographed " scene " WASN'T how it actually was.
-
The broken rifle butt had to be done by a woman,using all her strength behind the bashing. A man being the stronger sex would have no need to use such force.
-
I've just got a picture of both women fighting to the finish,,both on the floor,one just about sitting half-propped up by the door,just feet away from her opponent who's lying down after the first shot ( delivered ) ,then the second fatal one. Which would see both women dying almost simultaneously.
Of the rifle-------I don't know,,because it looked as though it had been placed there,and if EP did that,then they got it wrong,,because I'd like to bet that the photographed " scene " WASN'T how it actually was.
I have a hard time seeing this having happened. The blood on their gowns contradict it, first of all. Why did you suddenly think that June was involved, there must have been something in particular that made you think that - just curious.
-
I've thought long and hard about this since I came onto the forum,,first thinking it could be Sheila being so ill,,but she wasn't the only one who was ill in that household.
It wasn't all about Sheilas' illness,,but the way in which the girl was driven into her illness by her stern and overly strict mother whose behaviour had overshadowed any hope of normality as far as Sheila was concerned. Junes' screaming fits when she caught Sheila in the field,,then another " do " when the divorce was looming. The woman was hysterical.
There are so many facets to consider regarding the mental fragility of June and her lack of reasoning.
Sheila was craving love and nobody understood her. Junes high expectations of Sheila hit rock bottom and June must have been mortified at the way things turned out,,but she only had herself to blame.
No wonder her and the twins dreaded going to WHF. Sheilas' loves of her life being forced to pray at every opportunity.This was NOT normal behaviour.
I would say that what clinched it for me was when I'd read something in Claire Powells book,,a very " anti-Bamber " author,,and because I actually saw in black and white,my thoughts that had been mulling around in my mind,I then decided to stick with it and set up a picture in my mind of what had happened.
-
I've thought long and hard about this since I came onto the forum,,first thinking it could be Sheila being so ill,,but she wasn't the only one who was ill in that household.
It wasn't all about Sheilas' illness,,but the way in which the girl was driven into her illness by her stern and overly strict mother whose behaviour had overshadowed any hope of normality as far as Sheila was concerned. Junes' screaming fits when she caught Sheila in the field,,then another " do " when the divorce was looming. The woman was hysterical.
There are so many facets to consider regarding the mental fragility of June and her lack of reasoning.
Sheila was craving love and nobody understood her. Junes high expectations of Sheila hit rock bottom and June must have been mortified at the way things turned out,,but she only had herself to blame.
No wonder her and the twins dreaded going to WHF. Sheilas' loves of her life being forced to pray at every opportunity.This was NOT normal behaviour.
I would say that what clinched it for me was when I'd read something in Claire Powells book,,a very " anti-Bamber " author,,and because I actually saw in black and white,my thoughts that had been mulling around in my mind,I then decided to stick with it and set up a picture in my mind of what had happened.
Thanks for answering, Lookout. I agree that June had serious issues - you don´t get electro shock treatment if you don´t. I also think that Sheila might not even have been ill, but was "carrying" what was in reality June´s illness for the whole family - and broke under it, poor thing.
I just cannot see that June was involved because of what the blood in the bed, and the blood on their gowns (especially Sheila´s) tells us.
-
Jeremy´s position while shooting Sheila is problematic. Hasn´t been explained.
I explained what positions Jeremy could be in and whiche position was most likely. You then said you didn't like the options even though you had no means to establish they were not the field of possibilities.
I told you that his most likely position would be to hold the gun at the hip very close to her neck so that he both would have leverage to keep the gun there even if Sheila tried to push it away and so it would be close enough that the ME would not be able to say the round was fored at adistance so can't be suicide.
You then went back to your discredited claim of Sheila sitting on the bed and said that if Jeremy did it he would have held the gun high up his chest to shoot her.
Trying to pretend I didn't answer you is nonsense, you seem to be developing significant credibility problems or you have a memory that lasts 2 seconds.
-
I explained what positions Jeremy could be in and whiche position was most likely. You then said you didn't like the options even though you had no means to establish they were not the field of possibilities.
I told you that his most likely position would be to hold the gun at the hip very close to her neck so that he both would have leverage to keep the gun there even if Sheila tried to push it away and so it would be close enough that the ME would not be able to say the round was fored at adistance so can't be suicide.
You then went back to your discredited claim of Sheila sitting on the bed and said that if Jeremy did it he would have held the gun high up his chest to shoot her.
Trying to pretend I didn't answer you is nonsense, you seem to be developing significant credibility problems or you have a memory that lasts 2 seconds.
I am not satisfied with your explanation of how Jeremy was supposed to have been standing while shooting Sheila. She propped up against something sitting on the floor - he would have had to be pretty far down to make those UPWARDS shots to her neck.
Just not plausible to me - you don´t have to get nasty and really, must also be able to see the problem in this.
-
I explained what positions Jeremy could be in and whiche position was most likely. You then said you didn't like the options even though you had no means to establish they were not the field of possibilities.
I told you that his most likely position would be to hold the gun at the hip very close to her neck so that he both would have leverage to keep the gun there even if Sheila tried to push it away and so it would be close enough that the ME would not be able to say the round was fored at adistance so can't be suicide.
You then went back to your discredited claim of Sheila sitting on the bed and said that if Jeremy did it he would have held the gun high up his chest to shoot her.
Trying to pretend I didn't answer you is nonsense, you seem to be developing significant credibility problems or you have a memory that lasts 2 seconds.
And this is the same character who complains that he is the one who is goaded and abused. ::)
-
And this is the same character who complains that he is the one who is goaded and abused. ::)
I don´t even take it seriously, he clearly has issues. The "wimpy Europeans" remark yesterday made that pretty obvious.
I dare question a theory of his that does not make one iota of sense to me, and he explodes in my face. Yaya
-
Thanks for answering, Lookout. I agree that June had serious issues - you don´t get electro shock treatment if you don´t. I also think that Sheila might not even have been ill, but was "carrying" what was in reality June´s illness for the whole family - and broke under it, poor thing.
I just cannot see that June was involved because of what the blood in the bed, and the blood on their gowns (especially Sheila´s) tells us.
It's a pity that no test was done for gun residue on Junes' hands/nightgown,because there would have been signs that she handled a rifle,,though there's no doubt about Sheila having had the upper-hand as the holder of the gun given that both her parents were badly shot and she wasn't,apart from the two injuries.
It was too much of a coincidence that the two women were found just feet away from each other in the same room. I remember saying last year that it would have appeared that they'd shot each other.
-
The broken rifle butt had to be done by a woman,using all her strength behind the bashing. A man being the stronger sex would have no need to use such force.
A man would have used the barrel end. I Jeremy had done it he would have been reluctant to relinquish control of the business end of the rifle.
-
A man would have used the barrel end. I Jeremy had done it he would have been reluctant to relinquish control of the business end of the rifle.
I just couldn't picture him doing it Grahame,,having no cause or reason just to shoot on speck like that.
-
A man would have used the barrel end. I Jeremy had done it he would have been reluctant to relinquish control of the business end of the rifle.
Not a man who knows anything about weapons.
With the exception of if a bayonet is attached you strike with the butt of the rifle. that is not only what is taught in military training it is the most natural position to use it.
The claim it is more likely to break with a woman wielding it is nonsense. A woman is less likely to strike as hard as a man will and most certainly if a woman had long nails and battered someone with a rifle, bat or any similar object she would break a nail or several in the process.
-
No broken fingernails don´t prove a thing. Some people have strong nails, some have flexible nails - I have the latter, my nails never break - ever.
-
I am not satisfied with your explanation of how Jeremy was supposed to have been standing while shooting Sheila. She propped up against something sitting on the floor - he would have had to be pretty far down to make those UPWARDS shots to her neck.
Just not plausible to me - you don´t have to get nasty and really, must also be able to see the problem in this.
I don't care if you are satisfied or not, you claimed I didn't answer you but now admit I did.
The evidence proves she was propped against something when shot. If not propped against something she would have immediately fell backwards and not have leaked blood down her arm and gown. If wshe were leaning off the bed she would have fell face down onto the floor and not leaked blood on her arm and gown in the matter she did.
So this means she was seated with her back against something when shot.
WHile it is THEORETICALLY possible for her to have been sitting in the chair there was no blood evidence found that establishes she was. It would have been more of ahassle moving her body from the chair than to simply pull her flat while seated on the floor. There would be far more chance in removign her while on the chair to smear blood and get it on other areas to her clothing to indicate she was almost upright. It's not impossible but there is nothing to indicate he went through the effort.
The first shot didn't go up into the head it went to the back of the neck. So it was not a shot where he would have had the gun angled as much as you claim it would have been. The second shot was up but her head would already have been floppy at that point because of her broken vertebrae so he would be able to contron her neck for the fatal shot easier.
For both shots he would have mor econtrol standing and crounching a little than he would by sitting down in front of her or kneeling in front of her. If he was sitting or kneeling on the same level as her then he would have less leverage and she would have a better chance of pushing the gun away.
Unless she was a zombie and acting like a statue so there was extremely unlikely she would try to push the weapon away or try to attack him then standing while she is seated makes much more sense.
These are the only possibilities though, he was either standing, seated (obviously there are several different ways to sit) or kneeling in front of her. There are no other possibilities.
-
No broken fingernails don´t prove a thing. Some people have strong nails, some have flexible nails - I have the latter, my nails never break - ever.
If they ar elong they would break from grasping a rifle extremely tight and repeatedly striking something very hard with it. unless weearing gloves it also causes rubs to the skin of the hands including blisters. Particuarly if a sharp piece of wood breaks off while your hand is on it.
-
how does a man know so much about womans fingenails
having never varnished my nails and tried to bash someones head in with a riffle butt i wouldn't know weather it was true or not.
im very surprised that anyone can say for certain.
-
If they ar elong they would break from grasping a rifle extremely tight and repeatedly striking something very hard with it. unless weearing gloves it also causes rubs to the skin of the hands including blisters. Particuarly if a sharp piece of wood breaks off while your hand is on it.
That is a guess on your part.
_____________________________________
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4464;image)
Both were upwards shots. I don´t think it happened as you describe it. You can throw a hissy fit all you want.
-
how does a man so much about womans fingenails
He doesn't, Nugs. He just doesn't have the humility to allow that someone other than he can be right..................even about things which maybe of no concern to him.
-
well unless hes grown his fingernails long varnished them and tried to bash someones head in with a gun he couldn't know.
-
how does a man know so much about womans fingenails
having never varnished my nails and tried to bash someones head in with a riffle butt i wouldn't know weather it was true or not.
im very surprised that anyone can say for certain.
Maybe he runs a nail salon beside his careers as lawyer, historian, elite soldier, psychiatrist and sooth sayer?
-
how does a man so much about womans fingenails
Because when women break their nails they bitch and moan about it. Hence having plenty of experience with complaints about broken nails from women using a cash register, typing, while using shovels and other outdoor tools and also softball bats and the like.
If nails break while tightly gripping a bat and hitting a ball then tightly gripping a rifle and bashing a head in is going to definitely cause problems. If her nails were not long it would not be an issue but they were long.
Blisters and abrasions caused by using an object in the manner the rifle was used is a universal concern to males and females alike unless they have calluses and the breaking of the stock cutting the hand likewise a universal concern. Gloves are the only thing which eliminate such injuries.
Gloves would not help protect her nails though. At any rate no gloves were found that Sheila could have used and why would she have used gloves if she had in fact gone into a rage as claimed?
-
there have been hundreds of female killer throghout history im betting a few of them had long nails.
-
In fact, Sheila´s fingernails were not all that long.
-
well unless hes grown his fingernails long varnished them and tried to bash someones head in with a gun he couldn't know.
Each to his own. We mustn't be as judgemental as he is, Nugs ;)
-
That is a guess on your part.
Both were upwards shots. I don´t think it happened as you describe it. You can throw a hissy fit all you want.
I don't throw fits ever.
The angle of the first shot is not steep. Someone can easily crouch a little holding the rifle at a slight upward angle to cause such shot.
You seem to be suggesting someone standing could only angle the rifle down which is not true it acna be angled either way or be a level shot and since the goal was to make it look like a suicide they would intentionally angle it up.
He didn't angle the first shot much so nearly enough for it to go into her head but instead her vertebrae. Hence why he needed a second shot. With the Veretebrae broken her head could flop further backwards though so it wa snot a total loss. So he bent her head back so that the second shot would be delivered into her head. This shot was a contact shot so that the gun could actually hold the head in the position he wanted as he shot.
Trying to pretend such is not possible won't make it so.
-
I am not pretending anything. I happen to find the way you imagine this happening very unlikely and contrived.
-
In fact, Sheila´s fingernails were not all that long.
They are long by the standard of a man and the standard of whether they would be damaged while gripping something tightly as it is used to beat something extremely hard repeatedly.
-
i tell you what why dont we do a reconstruction ill play sheila you can be nevile.
-
They are long by the standard of a man and the standard of whether they would be damaged while gripping something tightly as it is used to beat something extremely hard repeatedly.
You wouldn´t use your fingernails if you were gripping something so thin sized as a rifle; that would take the power out of your grip.
I don´t have a rifle, but just tried it with a broom (which is a little thicker than a rifle) - I don´t use the nails at all. My fingernails are about the same length as what I can see on Sheila.
-
If they ar elong they would break from grasping a rifle extremely tight and repeatedly striking something very hard with it. unless weearing gloves it also causes rubs to the skin of the hands including blisters. Particuarly if a sharp piece of wood breaks off while your hand is on it.
Blisters - from one attack - really?
This comment and the one about the nails is suppostion and nothing more.
Anne had a good look at Jeremy for any sign of injury and her eagles eyes spotted nothing.
-
Blisters - from one attack - really?
This comment and the one about the nails is suppostion and nothing more.
Anne had a good look at Jeremy for any sign of injury and her eagles eyes spotted nothing.
Anne mentioned his dilated pupils, she had been studying him, so you are right. Also Julie, who shared a bed with him, would have noticed any bruises and reported them.
-
your right id never thought of that before.
mugford should really of mentioned that.
-
Blisters - from one attack - really?
This comment and the one about the nails is suppostion and nothing more.
Anne had a good look at Jeremy for any sign of injury and her eagles eyes spotted nothing.
I've noticed that girls with long nails, even working girls like nurses hold things differently than men do automatically so as not to break their nails. Men who say things like, "A woman with long nails wouldn't be able to do that" really do not know anything about women.
-
I've noticed that girls with long nails, even working girls like nurses hold things differently than men do automatically so as not to break their nails. Men who say things like, "A woman with long nails wouldn't be able to do that" really do not know anything about women.
I've always had long nails,,and even now I can still open boxes/parcels,using them to pierce sellotape or other tape wrapping. They've never hindered me at all. When you're used to having them,it's no different than if you hadn't,,it still doesn't hamper you,and I haven't scratched anyone yet,,so Sheila wouldn't have been handicapped when it came to loading a rifle.
-
I've always had long nails,,and even now I can still open boxes/parcels,using them to pierce sellotape or other tape wrapping. They've never hindered me at all. When you're used to having them,it's no different than if you hadn't,,it still doesn't hamper you,and I haven't scratched anyone yet,,so Sheila wouldn't have been handicapped when it came to loading a rifle.
I've even seen girls handle guns with long nails. Nay problem.
-
You wouldn´t use your fingernails if you were gripping something so thin sized as a rifle; that would take the power out of your grip.
I don´t have a rifle, but just tried it with a broom (which is a little thicker than a rifle) - I don´t use the nails at all. My fingernails are about the same length as what I can see on Sheila.
First of all she would have a hard time holding the rifle from the barrel and wielding it that way. The mechanism is the heavy part the barrel weighs little so she woudl have a hard time wielding it and keeping it from falling from her hands. If she were tightly gripping the barrel her nails would have to be inside her fists. Women break nails punching someone with their nail inside their fist let alone while holding a heavy object tighly. Inside a fist doesn't offer full protection and can even end up scratching the hands.
At any rate, the butt of the rifle was used to smash Nevill's head in. Not the sides of the stock (which would have left different damage to the stock including it likely being loose and hanging off the rifle) but the butt- the back of the stock. The back of the rifle hit Nevill this forced the narrow part of the stock to strike the metal of the rifle. This caused part of the stock that hit the metal to split. To accomplish such the rifle would be held by the grip and one hand around the narrow portion of the stock. Her hand would have been where the stock broke so would have been gashed unless she had gloves on. In the meantime her nails would not be inside her hands because the grip and stock are not as narrow as a broom.
-
I've noticed that girls with long nails, even working girls like nurses hold things differently than men do automatically so as not to break their nails. Men who say things like, "A woman with long nails wouldn't be able to do that" really do not know anything about women.
dont suppose you watch goggle box? there is a lady on there who according to this logic would not even be able to visit the ladies let alone do anything else :)
-
I've even seen girls handle guns with long nails. Nay problem.
You have seen them batter someone with a gun because that is the issue, not firing a gun. The issue is to batter someone and not break their nails and not get cut when the pice of stock broke off near where her hand would have been.
She also would have had to taken care not to break a nail as she loaded the magazine.
She was supposedly in a wild frenzy not acting in a careful considered manner like the girls you mention so that is another issue.
-
I'm damn sure that if a woman meant business while pointing a rifle at someone in a threatening manner that she wouldn't be worrying about her nails.
-
I'm damn sure that if a woman meant business while pointing a rifle at someone in a threatening manner that she wouldn't be worrying about her nails.
The issue is that she didn't damage her nails or hands but would have if she had been the one who bludgeoned Nevill with the rifle and had her hand on the rifle stock when it broke. SHe would not have been wearing gloves or in your words worrying about protecting her nails so would have not taken precautions that Jeremy would have to protect his hands.
(http://s9.postimg.org/3xfkjelov/rifle_strike.jpg)
-
The issue is that she didn't damage her nails or hands but would have if she had been the one who bludgeoned Nevill with the rifle and had her hand on the rifle stock when it broke. SHe would not have been wearing gloves or in your words worrying about protecting her nails so would have not taken precautions that Jeremy would have to protect his hands.
(http://s9.postimg.org/3xfkjelov/rifle_strike.jpg)
How did Ross Kemp get into this story?
-
I still hold that during those hours that the cops waited Sheila had time to clean herself up and paint her nails. It is the natural thing to do for a womam who is intent on committing suicide. My father inlaw who was in the Thames River Police had seen it many times when he recovered the bodies of women from the river.
-
and that scenrio she had plenty of time to do anything she wanted.
-
I still hold that during those hours that the cops waited Sheila had time to clean herself up and paint her nails. It is the natural thing to do for a womam who is intent on committing suicide. My father inlaw who was in the Thames River Police had seen it many times when he recovered the bodies of women from the river.
That's very true Grahame. For some unknown reason,,some of them like to look their best ?
-
Mind you,saying that,,not that I was attempting suicide or anything,,but I woke up one morning a couple of years ago,,with a " rapid heartbeat " do,,and I know time is of the essence to get to hospital,,but I still risked/struggled having a shower and putting on my good clothes ? I could literally have had either a stroke or a heart attack,,but I had to be clean and looking my best. Women,eh ?
-
I still hold that during those hours that the cops waited Sheila had time to clean herself up and paint her nails. It is the natural thing to do for a womam who is intent on committing suicide. My father inlaw who was in the Thames River Police had seen it many times when he recovered the bodies of women from the river.
1) It is not the natural thing to do to clean up and paint your nails if you are going to commit suicide. The naturla thing to do is not care about washing up
2) Some of her nails would have broke, painting them woulld not be able to conceal such
3) Police would have heard the shots and the ME woudl have been able to tell if she had died significantly later than the rest
4) she can't have killed herself then put the suppressor away, moved her body and opened an dclosed the bible in a pool of blood that formed after she was dead.
You are doing what all Jeremy supporters do, ignore relaity, ignore evidence an dignore common sense all to pretend he is innocent despite the evidence saying otherwise.
-
nobody can say what someone in deeply psychotic state would or wouldn't do.
-
I still hold that during those hours that the cops waited Sheila had time to clean herself up and paint her nails. It is the natural thing to do for a womam who is intent on committing suicide. My father inlaw who was in the Thames River Police had seen it many times when he recovered the bodies of women from the river.
Not only that; some people make sure that everything is in perfect order: their house/flat, paperwork taken care of - then suicide. It is not at all unusual.
-
nobody can say what someone in deeply psychotic state would or wouldn't do.
how many women who decide to kill others and then themselves wash up, change their clothes and paint their nails after murdering?
It's something not likely at all.
-
Not only that; some people make sure that everything is in perfect order: their house/flat, paperwork taken care of - then suicide. It is not at all unusual.
It is indeed unusual. It is very rare for people who commit suicide alone to make their body in perfect order let alone to kill others and then change clothing and wash up sp the evidence of th emurders is gone when they commit suicide.
Happening in rare instances doesn't make it common and worse there is no evidence it happened, the house was not nice and neat, no clothing she woudl have ahnged out of was found and cleaning will not eliminate broken nails or cuts. The stock breaking where one of her hands would have been holding it would have resulted in an injury of some kind.
In the meantime she can't have killed herself.
-
you cant what the behavior of someone in that state of mind is going to be theirs no such thing as standard here
-
you cant what the behavior of someone in that state of mind is going to be theirs no such thing as standard here
Whether something is common or not is a provable fact. The reality is that the allegations being made are not common at all, that there is no evidence of any change of clothing or bathing (indeed she can't have changed her clothes after she was dead so should have GSR on her clothing if she shot herself) and she can't have shot herself anyway.
Jeremy supporters keep raising unlikely hypotheticals, that have no evidentiary support at all and suggest these hypos should carry the day at creating reasonable doubt though that is ludicrous and worse there is evidence that proves the hypos to be bogus.
If she changed then his blood would be on other clothing of hers that she took off and changed out of but such was not found.
Sheila can't have killed herself let alone could have inflicteda beating on Nevill to the point the rifle broke without receiving an injury of some sort and his blood on her.
-
It is indeed unusual. It is very rare for people who commit suicide alone to make their body in perfect order let alone to kill others and then change clothing and wash up sp the evidence of th emurders is gone when they commit suicide.
Happening in rare instances doesn't make it common and worse there is no evidence it happened, the house was not nice and neat, no clothing she woudl have ahnged out of was found and cleaning will not eliminate broken nails or cuts. The stock breaking where one of her hands would have been holding it would have resulted in an injury of some kind.
In the meantime she can't have killed herself.
Anne Eaton took the clothes she was wearing that day along with the clothes soaking in the bucket - its in her statements.And it is in an "experts" statement that it is not unusual for people in her state of mind to carry our ritual washing - so it is not impossible.
-
Can you account for the three buckets of bloodied clothes in the kitchen, which had been left soaking ?
-
Old cloth ears didn't really read what I wrote did he? My father in law was in the river police and found that it was very common for women to make themselves up and dress in their best clothes before they kill themselves. The twat is talking out his arse again ;D
-
Whether something is common or not is a provable fact. The reality is that the allegations being made are not common at all, that there is no evidence of any change of clothing or bathing (indeed she can't have changed her clothes after she was dead so should have GSR on her clothing if she shot herself) and she can't have shot herself anyway.
Jeremy supporters keep raising unlikely hypotheticals, that have no evidentiary support at all and suggest these hypos should carry the day at creating reasonable doubt though that is ludicrous and worse there is evidence that proves the hypos to be bogus.
If she changed then his blood would be on other clothing of hers that she took off and changed out of but such was not found.
Sheila can't have killed herself let alone could have inflicteda beating on Nevill to the point the rifle broke without receiving an injury of some sort and his blood on her.
not common and couldn't happen are 2 very different things.
i
-
A Porsche kit-car. Get it right.
-
Old cloth ears didn't really read what I wrote did he? My father in law was in the river police and found that it was very common for women to make themselves up and dress in their best clothes before they kill themselves. The twat is talking out his arse again ;D
On a cerebral level, she'd have been leaving things neatly tied up, everything in place and a place for everything. On a spiritual level she was looking her best for meeting God, rather like putting on ones best clothes to go to church.
-
not common and couldn't happen are 2 very different things.
i
All the indications are that she did wash and make-up. That gave the impression that she didn't do the crime. Look at her face. Made up to the nines. Nails clipped and glossed. Hair still wet as you can clearly see in the photographs. She put clothes in the wash bucket and Ann Eaton took them away thus destroying the evidence. Then put a clean nightie on.
-
Old cloth ears didn't really read what I wrote did he? My father in law was in the river police and found that it was very common for women to make themselves up and dress in their best clothes before they kill themselves. The twat is talking out his arse again ;D
He never listens,Grahame. He's an ignorant pig.
-
All the indications are that she did wash and make-up. That gave the impression that she didn't do the crime. Look at her face. Made up to the nines. Nails clipped and glossed. Hair still wet as you can clearly see in the photographs. She put clothes in the wash bucket and Ann Eaton took them away thus destroying the evidence. Then put a clean nightie on.
if her hair was still wet that means she must have recently washed.
-
On a cerebral level, she'd have been leaving things neatly tied up, everything in place and a place for everything. On a spiritual level she was looking her best for meeting God, rather like putting on ones best clothes to go to church.
Part of the preparation,April. I'd like to think that I'll be presentable when I meet my Maker.
-
I cannot tell from the pictures whether Sheila´s hair looks wet, but I can see that it is freshly washed - I think just left to dry without combing.
-
Alias I have always thought Sheila's hair looked freshly washed and had just been left to dry naturally.
-
Sheila hadn't been looking after herself either,,so she made sure that night that she was refreshed.
Her features didn't show any fear or dread,,as in being led to her death.
-
Grahame I would have thought the nightie Sheila was wearing belonged to June.
-
Alias I have always thought Sheila's hair looked freshly washed and had just been left to dry naturally.
It very much looks like that; but let´s wait and see if there isn´t a certain someone here who is also an expert on how women´s hair works - he sure knows all about fingernails and varnish. 8)
-
It very much looks like that; but let´s wait and see if there isn´t a certain someone here who is also an expert on how women´s hair works - he sure knows all about fingernails and varnish. 8)
He's probably a tranny. ;D ;D ;D
-
He's probably a tranny. ;D ;D ;D
Lookout, I wouldn't hold THAT again st him.
-
It very much looks like that; but let´s wait and see if there isn´t a certain someone here who is also an expert on how women´s hair works - he sure knows all about fingernails and varnish. 8)
How are you supposed to tell from a photo if hair was freshly washed or not? Unless hair is particularly dirty and this shows in a photo you can tell it wasn't washed. There is no corresponding way to tell if it was washed unless it is wet in a photo which means it was either washed or there is a major leak somewhere.
-
Here ya,,someone's wound him up again. ;D
Sheilas' hair had a tendency to look like " rats tails ",,as remarked by her friend Sonja who used to tell her to get it cut,etc.
-
how long would her hair of taken to lose that look.
-
how long would her hair of taken to lose that look.
She washed and tidied up her nails and painted them, The only explanation. The shots into her neck would not have been heard. Why? (1) Thick farmhouse walls. (2) Both were contact shots having the same effect as a silencer would. Common sense. The simplest answers are usually the right ones. Better explanation than to have Bamber pissing around with phones like he was a contortionist.
-
She washed and tidied up her nails and painted them, The only explanation. The shots into her neck would not have been heard. Why? (1) Thick farmhouse walls. (2) Both were contact shots having the same effect as a silencer would. Common sense. The simplest answers are usually the right ones. Better explanation than to have Bamber pissing around with phones like he was a contortionist.
Sound travels through windows and any shots fired would have been heard by those outside.
There is no evidence at all that she painted her nails or bathed moreover painting will not conceal broken nails or damage to skin on the hands as would have resulted to anyone who used the rifle to bash Nevill's head in unless they were wearing gloves.
-
Both her hands were bloodied by the way,as the handprint on her nightdress was from her right hand.
This was from the pathology report. Chances are,the blood inside the Bible would have come from the palm of her right hand.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27943874
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27943874
Tip of the iceberg? Shocking, really!
-
Not only that; some people make sure that everything is in perfect order: their house/flat, paperwork taken care of - then suicide. It is not at all unusual.
The Heavens Gate mass suicide offers some answers.
-
The Heavens Gate mass suicide offers some answers.
Absolutely, and good to see you mertol! I missed you!
-
The Heavens Gate mass suicide offers some answers.
Which bears no relation at all to what allegedly happened at WHF.
-
Which bears no relation at all to what allegedly happened at WHF.
We don´t need you to tell us that. Mertol is here rarely, I appreciate it when he is, because he always has a different point of view. Everybody needs a different point of view.
-
if there was no sign of life in the house why dident the raid time go in there why did they wait outside.
No night vision equip made them very vunrable
Standard SOP in those days asy the people who were there
-
No night vision equip made them very vunrable
Standard SOP in those days asy the people who were there
2 hours trying to make contact with "persons" in the house is a bit excessive though. ( as per police statement.)
-
2 hours trying to make contact with "persons" in the house is a bit excessive though. ( as per police statement.)
I wonder why they kept shouting at nothing for two hours?