Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: nugnug on June 15, 2014, 01:13:PM
-
could of moved the body because they wanted to photograph and it was in an awkward place to do so.
-
It's a possibility nugs.
It was a very ill-though out investigation from start to finish.
Yes,,the EP may have got it right as far as murders go ( by the book ),,but their overall investigation stank.
-
thats the only real reason i can think of for moving it.
-
could of moved the body because they wanted to photograph and it was in an awkward place to do so.
Moved it from where to where?
They could have moved it from the kitchen all the way upstairs in the master bedroom because the kitchen was an awkward place to photograph it?
If this is what you are claiming it makes such little sense a response is not even necessary.
-
i have opinion as to wether they moved it or not.
im just thinking of a reason for doing it.
-
Moved it from where to where?
They could have moved it from the kitchen all the way upstairs in the master bedroom because the kitchen was an awkward place to photograph it?
If this is what you are claiming it makes such little sense a response is not even necessary.
that's what you call putting words into someones mouth.
Some of the officers stated that they thought the body position was not as they remembered by the time the photos were taken.
If they were the crime scene photos that were to be used in court then that fact should have been noted.
-
i cant see why the innocent and guilty posters argue about this so much because it really makes no difference as to who the killer was.
-
i cant see why the innocent and guilty posters argue about this so much because it really makes no difference as to who the killer was.
personally I think it would be because if the police moved the body even to take photographs and the jury were not told then it could have made a difference.
The way he hands are on the rifle looks really staged - so therefore it points to Jeremy just making it look like suicide.
Whereas if as some reported to the family the gun had fallen to her side after the shot - then it would look as if it had not been staged ( if you see what I am getting at) so the jury would be less inclided to think JB had done it.
-
that's what you call putting words into someones mouth.
Some of the officers stated that they thought the body position was not as they remembered by the time the photos were taken.
If they were the crime scene photos that were to be used in court then that fact should have been noted.
I didn't put words in her mouth. I asked her to clarify from where to where but based on previous posts leading up to this where she was claiming the body was moved from the kitchen to upstairs there is a good chance that was what she was referring to. I noted that if such alleged movement is what she is referring to it makes no sense.
Her response seems to confirm that is what she meant not the slight movement of the arm or movement of the gun.
-
if it was moved its very hard to say where it was moved from it could of been moved from anywhere in the house.
-
I didn't put words in her mouth. I asked her to clarify from where to where but based on previous posts leading up to this where she was claiming the body was moved from the kitchen to upstairs there is a good chance that was what she was referring to. I noted that if such alleged movement is what she is referring to it makes no sense.
Her response seems to confirm that is what she meant not the slight movement of the arm or movement of the gun.
nugnug is a he.
-
if it was moved its very hard to say where it was moved from it could of been moved from anywhere in the house.
The pool of blood formed by blood leaking from her neck establishes her body was in the master bedrom like police said when they found her.
You are talking about her body being radically moved from one room to another for photgraphing purposes. The whole point of photographs though is to illustrate where a body was found and in what state. So moving it from its original location to a different location in order to take a photo of it makes no sense.
-
they wouldent of cared as they thought she was the killer at the time.
-
nugnug is a he.
Sorry someone said "us girls" at one point in a debate against me and he was one of those against me so I assumed he was also a girl.
-
they wouldent of cared as they thought she was the killer at the time.
There is no point in taking a photo though other than to document where they found the body.
Moving it to photograph it defeats the whole purpose of the photo.
The only time it makes sense to move a body to photograph it is if the body is no longer where you found it and you want to move it back to where you found it.
-
they would take a photograph because its procedure to do so.
they wouldent of cared about finding out the cause of death because they thought they already knew it.
-
that's what you call putting words into someones mouth.
Some of the officers stated that they thought the body position was not as they remembered by the time the photos were taken.
If they were the crime scene photos that were to be used in court then that fact should have been noted.
That is a very important point. And as you say in a later post, this fact should have been made clear at the trial.
I think the EP had moved Sheila´s body (or maybe just the rifle, but by doing so, they had already compromised the original position) already when it occurred to them that they needed to photograph it in situ. I do think she was first found in the spot we see, but not quite in the position she was placed in - which then made it look as if Jeremy had staged it.
The little blood-free rug under me bother me to no end. Can´t figure out what it is doing there.
-
None of the police have ever said they moved the bodies prior to the photos being taken.
-
well they wouldent they thre not supposed to do it.
they would of been in trouble if they mentioned doing it.
-
None of the police have ever said they moved the bodies prior to the photos being taken.
Bews said they moved her arm around, which is also clear from the pictures we have of Sheila´s body.
You can also see that the bible was moved around, but he never mentions that.
Leaves you wondering what else was moved around - especially when some officers say that she was in a different position when they first saw her.
-
well they wouldent they thre not supposed to do it.
they would of been in trouble if they mentioned doing it.
Jeremy is not going to get released by claiming the police moved the bodies. He needs evidence or a confession.
An expert at the 2002 trial said Sheila's feet were pulled after the second shot. They suggested this highlighted Jeremy's guilt.
There is no reason for the police to move the bodies in the short period between entrance and the photographer arriving. Even in 1985 it was part of police protocol.
-
how do you know that if it was moved you dont know where it was in the first place.
-
If you want to believe the police moved the bodies for some reason, then denied it. Feel free.
I don't know how it shows Jeremy's innocence.
-
i never said it did.
-
From the 2002 appeal :
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.
-
that's what you call putting words into someones mouth.
Some of the officers stated that they thought the body position was not as they remembered by the time the photos were taken.
If they were the crime scene photos that were to be used in court then that fact should have been noted.
Did you see this, Adam?
-
so this is the police in there own words some of them seemd to think it had been moved.
-
I did not see it. Would be good to see the source.
Thought most of the officers were outside, comforting a sobbing Jeremy.
The way people speak, it is as if there were hundreds of officers outside WHF. There was only a handful.
-
I did not see it. Would be good to see the source.
Thought most of the officers were outside, comforting a sobbing Jeremy.
The way people speak, it is as if there were hundreds of officers outside WHF. There was only a handful.
There were sixty something officers all in all - a great deal of those trampled through the farmhouse - the crime scene. More than fourty, I believe.
-
Did you see the 2002 court transcript ?
There is no suggestion that the police pulled Sheila's legs. So who did ?
-
Did you see the 2002 court transcript ?
There is no suggestion that the police pulled Sheila's legs. So who did ?
I don´t know. Sheila´s body was moved around - I can´t say it was Jeremy who did it. Could have been the EP. They wouldn´t be eager to admit to it, would they?
-
At 03.48 the three occupants – Sergeant Bews and PCs Myall and Saxby – reached Pages Lane, the private road leading to White House Farm. A few minutes later, Bamber arrived at the scene. The three officers were parked a short distance into the lane; Bamber pulled up behind them and left his silver Astra to speak with them. After identifying himself, he was asked to clarify what his father had managed to tell him before being abruptly cut off. The young man reiterated that Nevill, sounding very distressed, had asked him to come over at once because his sister Sheila had gone crazy and got hold of a gun.
Does not seem like 60. Are you including the raid team ?
-
To be fair an additional patrol car from Chelmsford arrived at the scene later.
-
I don´t know. Sheila´s body was moved around - I can´t say it was Jeremy who did it. Could have been the EP. They wouldn´t be eager to admit to it, would they?
Why an earth would the police pull Sheila's legs before the crime scene photographer arrived ?
-
how do we know it would of happend before he arrived.
-
how do we know it would of happend before he arrived.
You need to be more precise in who you are suggesting did what. We can't tell what you are tlaking about with just pronouns.
-
Why an earth would the police pull Sheila's legs before the crime scene photographer arrived ?
CPR
-
CPR
I'll go along with that,Grahame.
-
I'll go along with that,Grahame.
Whatever anyone says, that is the sign that someone has attempted CPR on Sheila. Another sign of course is the blood running out of the mouth. If there is pooled blood in the mouth and you apply CPR then that is what would happen. What happened after that? She was put on her side in the recovery position by someone who was trying to stop the blood going into her airway. That is why there is a lot of blood on her left side. If she was found on her back then you wouldn't get the blood pooling on her left side and under her armpit. These are classic signs of someone applying CPR and then turning her on her left side.
I conctantly wonder why more people have not noticed this? But of course we do know don't we? Because of all the police statements which say that the position in which she was photographed was the polition in which she was found.
It doesn't matter about the questions of how and why. It is just observing the body as it is.
-
Whatever anyone says, that is the sign that someone has attempted CPR on Sheila. Another sign of course is the blood running out of the mouth. If there is pooled blood in the mouth and you apply CPR then that is what would happen. What happened after that? She was put on her side in the recovery position by someone who was trying to stop the blood going into her airway. That is why there is a lot of blood on her left side. If she was found on her back then you wouldn't get the blood pooling on her left side and under her armpit. These are classic signs of someone applying CPR and then turning her on her left side.
I conctantly wonder why more people have not noticed this? But of course we do know don't we? Because of all the police statements which say that the position in which she was photographed was the polition in which she was found.
It doesn't matter about the questions of how and why. It is just observing the body as it is.
Grahame,,I wouldn't mind betting that what was heard on tape,was Sheila spluttering,,especially if she was on her back. That alone would prompt them to go in.
-
You need to be more precise in who you are suggesting did what. We can't tell what you are tlaking about with just pronouns.
its impossble to be precise as it could of happend at any time before it was photographed.
remember the title of this thread is might not did.
-
Why an earth would the police pull Sheila's legs before the crime scene photographer arrived ?
EP have been pulling our legs for long enough now !
-
there simple answer to that so he could get her legs in the photograph.
-
I did not see it. Would be good to see the source.
Thought most of the officers were outside, comforting a sobbing Jeremy.
The way people speak, it is as if there were hundreds of officers outside WHF. There was only a handful.
Adam you have seen the source before .
Question 1- if you were on the jury and you had seen a photo where it looks like the scene of how the victim was holding the gun looked staged and it was indicated this was because it was in fact muder and not suicide - would it affect your judgment on the case?
Question 2 - if later on the police admitted they had moved the hand in order to take photos and that was not the exact original positon of the gun and hand as found on entry - would that affect your opinion ?
A simple yes or no will do.
This is only to point out how small details can be so vital. Nothing more.
-
well the jury be under the impression they were looking actually photo not a staged one.
so if the body was moved it would mean the jury had been misled.
-
EP have been pulling our legs for long enough now !
;D ;D
-
i think almost says it was defently moved in some way.
mind you hes not exactly a reliable witness.
-
I was watching crimes that shook Britain, and Miller said that Sheila was laid alongside June not on the floor.the also stated that Jeremy placed the rifle on the table not the settle
-
oh so moving riffles as well.
-
I was watching crimes that shook Britain, and Miller said that Sheila was laid alongside June not on the floor.the also stated that Jeremy placed the rifle on the table not the settle
Originally that is what the relatives were told on the bed with the bible between them
I think the confusion with the rifle has been explained by the confusion that there were two kitchens in effect ( one more like a scullery)
-
are i see so the riffle hadent moved.
-
I am afraid an expert in the 2002 COA is saying Sheila's legs were pulled after the second shot.
The COA are suggesting this would have benefited the prosecution at trial.
There is no suggestion the police moved any bodies.
-
I am afraid an expert in the 2002 COA is saying Sheila's legs were pulled after the second shot.
The COA are suggesting this would have benefited the prosecution at trial.
There is no suggestion the police moved any bodies.
Adam - there are "suggestions" for a start on the following day what EP told the relatives about the position of the bodies and admitting about what happened during the photographs in court.
so your statement is incorrect - or are the police and family not telling the truth?
-
gun moved and hand moved - appears in different places on the photograph.
-
gun moved and hand moved - appears in different places on the photograph.
Interesting, jansus, thanks for that.
-
No mention of Sheila's being pulled.
If there is a big fuss about Sheila's hand or gun being moved after the first lot of photos. The first batch of photos just need to be supplied.
-
No mention of Sheila's being pulled.
If there is a big fuss about Sheila's hand or gun being moved after the first lot of photos. The first batch of photos just need to be supplied.
so impatient
-
No mention of Sheila's being pulled.
If there is a big fuss about Sheila's hand or gun being moved after the first lot of photos. The first batch of photos just need to be supplied.
Adam I was not making a big fuss - but there are statements that show three different officers seem to disagree about who checked the rifle and when -
also see the attached - why would the police say the body was found in the bed and where the bible was?
-
gun moved and hand moved - appears in different places on the photograph.
So it they moved the gun to take a picture of the bloodstain, why then do we not have a picture of this bloodstain with the gun moved?
-
So it they moved the gun to take a picture of the bloodstain, why then do we not have a picture of this bloodstain with the gun moved?
Why not indeed ?
-
There are different allegations being bandied about.
Some allege Sheila's body was moved by police from one room to another. There is no basis for this claim though at all: the pool of blood in the bedroom that formed from her neck proves that is where she was, all police statements say she was found in the bedroom and no one claims to have seen her in the kitchen let alone is there a photo of such.
Others allege police moved her arms and the gun at times. Indeed police did move her arm because in the oldest photo her hand is covering a blood stain on her dress. That blood stain was formed by blood running down her wrist onto the outside palms of her hand and finally on her gown under her hand. Her hand was therefore covering the stain. Her hand was thus moved so that the blood could be seen and photographed. Other movements include the gun and bible being moved but then put back to try to recreate the scene.
These movements have no implication on the case against Jeremy. None of these movements occurred when she was still bleeding or the blood would have been wet.
The blood evidence proves that the following occurred:
1) Sheila had been shot while seated. She was seated because blood dripped down onto her arm and down her gown right under the wounds.
2) Sheila had been seated with her back against something. Had she not been seated against something then she would have fell backwards lying down and would not have bled onto her arm and gown.
3) That both shots were fired several seconds apart because if more time passed than Sheila would have had a lot more blood on her arm and down her gown.
4) That shortly after Sheila died her body was placed flat. This occurred soon after because she was still bleeding at the time as evidenced by the pool of blood on the floor under her neck. The blood ran dwn her neck onto the floor where it pooled. Had this movement not taken place right away then all this blood that ran down her neck onto the floor would instead have leaked on her gown.
5) Sheila's arm was located on the very spot where the only blood dripped on the lower portion of her dress. The blood clearly leaked onto her wrist and palm and then from these locations onto the dress. This proves her hand was in such location while the blood was still wet.
6) That the bible was in the pool of blood that formed on the floor after she died and was opened and closed while the blood on the floor and in the bible was still wet.
Only if police entered right after she was shot could they have been the ones who moved her body flat while still bleeding, to cause the blood to drip from her arm onto her gown or to have played with the bible while the blood was wet.
But there is no evidence at all to suggest she was shot significantly after any one else let alone right as police entered the building. Moreover, all 5 initial police to find her body say it was flat with the rifle on it when they found it. As soon as the building was secure 2 inspectors walked through the house and observed her flat with the rifle on her. These are the first 7 people to see the body.
The various movements of the body have no implications at all as far as the blood evidence goes unless Sheila had been shot very shortly before police moved her and there is no evidence of that at all. The evidence being bandied about about movements in between photographs was well after the blood was dry and could not possibly account for any of the movements proven by the blood.
Thus thye are a waste of time even discussing. People who want to establish police caused the movements documented by the blood evidence need to produce evidence that Sheila was shot very shortly before they moved her.
The evidence is that Sheila can't have shot herself and then put the suppressor away so any allegation she shot herself as police were walking in is not supportable.
There is no evidence to support allegations police shot her.
There is no evidence any shots were fired at any time after police arrives. No one heard anything that sounded like shots nor any other indicia of shots fired.
There is no evidence to support allegations she died significantly later than anyone else.
There is no evidence to support allegations she wasn't flat but rather seated when police found her let alone that they found her seated while she was still bleeding and after they moved her the pool of blood formed at the side of her neck.
Discussing movements that happened hours after she was found is a complete waste of time and effort and was dismissed as completely immaterial by the Court of Appeal because it is.
This thread is mostly discussing such movements that have no bearing on anything.
-
it has a very big bearing a jury assumes when shown a photograph that its an acruate reflection of the original crime scene if it isnt they have been misled.
-
it has a very big bearing a jury assumes when shown a photograph that its an acruate reflection of the original crime scene if it isnt they have been misled.
Such has no bearing on making a verdict unsafe unless the alleged error undermines the forensic evidence presented.
It has no bearing on the evidence at all that establishes his guilt.
She was shot seated then moved flat. You need to establish that she was found seate dby police very shortly after she was shot and then moved flat by them so that the pool of blood formed after that and that the bible thus was played with by them while wet.
That is the only thing that could undermine the claim that the killer moved her body and the bible.
In the meantime that still would not overcome the suppressor evidence, that would also need to be undermined.
If all of this were undermined then the prosecution would no longer have evidence that proves she could not have killed herself.
Then the prosecution would have to rely on the lack of evidence that she fired a gun at all and lack of physical evidence she killed anyone. This still is evidence but not nearly as powerful as the evidence that says she can't possibly have killed herself- this is definitive so stronger. Definitive evidence definitely constitututes beyond a reaosnable doubt.
Evidence that is not definitive can still constitute beyond a reasonable doubt but might not and jurors making that decision might not agree even if the prosecution thinks it is strong enough.
-
combined with other things it could certanly make a conviction unsafe.
i admit it probebly couldent on its own.