Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on June 22, 2014, 08:13:AM
-
Jeremy has accused the relatives of framing him. Source available upon request.
The relatives have denied this. Saying there was enough evidence anyway. Source available upon request.
The forum has worked out the relatives could not and would not have attempted to frame Jeremy. Link available upon request. Infact Anythony Pargeter said he was looking for something else when he found the silencer.
It is correct that there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence against Jeremy. Circumstantial evidence is still vitally important and even more so in the days before DNA. Even the judge said there were a number of curious coincidences & called Neville's phone call 'mysterious' / 'difficult or impossible to understand or explain'.
There was also a motive, opportunity and no alibi. The phone call to the police had rounded the suspects down to two. Similar to this forum, the jury may have determined that making up the phone call was the best option.
The prosecution also had lots of witnesses. The most important being Julie Mugford.
The 2002 appeal also highlighted that there was still a lot of forensic evidence showing Sheila did not commit the massacre.
The jury asked for clarification of the silencer evidence before quickly reaching a 'guilty' verdict. It is obvious the silencer highlights Jeremy's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Without the silencer the prosecution could still ask why there was no blood on the rifle end. Experts had said the shots were contact or close range shots. The prosecution could claim a silencer was used and then disposed of. But then how could it have been Sheila ?
Do people believe Jeremy would have been charged and convicted without the silencer evidence ?
-
NO,,there was NO evidence,NOT even with the silencer !!
-
NO,,there was NO evidence,NOT even with the silencer !!
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5516.0.html
-
A Red Herring,because there was now't else to come up with.
-
Jeremy has accused the relatives of framing him. Source available upon request.
The relatives have denied this. Saying there was enough evidence anyway. Source available upon request.
The forum has worked out the relatives could not and would not have attempted to frame Jeremy. Link available upon request. Infact Anythony Pargeter said he was looking for something else when he found the silencer.
It is correct that there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence against Jeremy. Circumstantial evidence is still vitally important and even more so in the days before DNA. Even the judge said there were a number of curious coincidences & called Neville's phone call 'mysterious' / 'difficult or impossible to understand or explain'.
There was also a motive, opportunity and no alibi. The phone call to the police had rounded the suspects down to two. Similar to this forum, the jury may have determined that making up the phone call was the best option.
The prosecution also had lots of witnesses. The most important being Julie Mugford.
The 2002 appeal also highlighted that there was still a lot of forensic evidence showing Sheila did not commit the massacre.
The jury asked for clarification of the silencer evidence before quickly reaching a 'guilty' verdict. It is obvious the silencer highlights Jeremy's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Without the silencer the prosecution could still ask why there was no blood on the rifle end. Experts had said the shots were contact or close range shots. The prosecution could claim a silencer was used and then disposed of. But then how could it have been Sheila ?
Do people believe Jeremy would have been charged and convicted without the silencer evidence ?
Adam, Anthony Pargeter didn't 'claim' to find the silencer, that would be David Boutflour ::)
-
You are right. He says he checked the cupboard for safety purposes.
If they did check the gun cupboard looking for evidence, that is not a crime. AE says in her WS that she did not believe Sheila was able to commit the crime. So no secret.
Anyway, the thread question.
-
Answer - No
A man should never be convicted of murder on hearsay and character assassination and your favourite saying "curious co-incidences "alone.
The lack of forensics against SC? considering they did not even do thorough forensic tests on her clothes and other evidence was destroyed because they assumed she did it - then I think this is a non starter.
-
well it was 10 2 with silencer and say without it there would of been no chance.
-
There is sufficient evidence even without the suppressor to know he is guilty. Sheila's was shot seated propped against something but then moved flat after her death but while she was still bleeding. The bible was opened and closed in her blood after her deaht but while it was still wet.
Julie's claims would still be as strong and corroborated by this.
Sheila still could not have beaten Nevill without getting his spatte ron her, damaging her hand and breaking a nail or several in the process.
She still would not have been able to load the gun and fire it without eleveated lead levels and GSR.
Without the suppressor he is still guilty but a retrial would be necessary if they could prove the suppressor evidence should be discounted.
That is why they are desperate to try to do so but keep resorting to lies and deception to try to discount it.
-
if it was 10 2 with the silencer theres no way he would of been convicted without it.
-
if it was 10 2 with the silencer theres no way he would of been convicted without it.
The same Jury would not hear a retrial and the evidence I mentioned was not stressed to the Jury that voted 10/2.
I discussed whether there is enough evidence to know he is guilty without the suppressor and the naswer is yes there is still enough to know he is guilty.
-
the relatives said there was enough evidence without the silencer wich i view as an admission of guilt on there part.
-
This is some of the other evidence used at trial.
i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;
ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;
iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;
iv) The appellant's admitted ability to effect covert entry into and exit from the farmhouse and the finding of the hacksaw blade outside the bathroom window. His claim to have entered the house in that way after the first arrest was an attempt to explain these findings;
v) Because on the facts of the case it could only have been the appellant or Sheila Caffell who carried out the killings, the factors below proved they were not the responsibility of the appellant's sister:
a) Although seriously mentally ill, there had been no indication of any deterioration in her mental health in the days before the killings. Neither had she expressed any recent suicidal thoughts and the expert evidence was that she would not have harmed her children or her father;
b) Save for the appellant nobody had seen her use a gun and she had no interest in them. Sheila Caffell also had very poor co-ordination and would not have been capable of loading and operating the rifle nor would she have had the required knowledge to do so;
c) She would not have been able physically to have overcome her father (who was fit, strong and 6' 4" tall) during the struggle which undoubtedly took place before his death in the kitchen;
d) Her hands and feet were clean. They were not blood stained and neither was there any sugar upon them;
e) Hand swabs from her body did not reveal the levels of lead to be expected in somebody who must have re-loaded the magazine of the gun on at least two occasions; and
f) Her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.
vi) The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself. The following aspects of the evidence established it was still in place on the gun when the appellant's sister was murdered:
a) The blood grouping analysis proved (on the particular facts of the case) that Sheila Caffell's blood was inside the moderator; and
b) Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;
d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and
e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.
viii) He stood to inherit considerable sums of money.
-
i take this as an admission the silencer was planted.
-
You believe the police told the lab technicians to expertly put the blood into the silencer ?
-
i take this as an admission the silencer was planted.
Well you are biased beyond all belief. A rational person would not take it as such and would require actual proof the blood and paint were planted.
-
well one minute you saying the slincer evedence cant be disputed then your saying it doesnt matter anyway.
what other rational conclusion can i come to.
-
There is no proof the silencer evidence was planted. Jeremy claimed it years later.
There is a lot of other circumstantial evidence and forensic evidence. See previous page. So there may have been a conviction without the silencer.
So both the points are right.
-
but if the silencer is the genuine articale you dont need to prove the case without it.
so i can only conclude it cant be.
-
We do not know why the two females said 'not guilty'.
Stan Jones says they were taken in by Jeremy's charm, well groomed appearance and presentable manner. The other ten may have still returned a guilty verdict even without the silencer evidence.
-
One thing about the blood on the rifle has always puzzled me. Ann Eaton says more than once that she saw a match-head size, jam-like "blob" of blood on the end of the silencer. How could it be "jam-like"? It would have dried by the time she saw it and simply fallen off. Dried blood doesn´t have the appearence of jam - half dried, yes, dried, no.
-
Adam think most of the Jury would be put off him by his arrogant stupid attitude people do not like arrogance as how well groomed the person is.
-
if the silencer wasnt used then it must of been planted wich discounts any evidence of the people who claimed they found it.
if someone has planted evidence nothing else they say can be considered evedence.
so no silencer no case.
-
A reporter said he was very polite. Source available upon request.
Doubt he was arrogant in court. He had to do all he could to get a 'not guilty' verdict. The defence knew from the beginning it was going to be a very hard case to win. They would have told Jeremy this.
-
We do not know why the two females said 'not guilty'.
Stan Jones says they were taken in by Jeremy's charm, well groomed appearance and presentable manner. The other ten may have still returned a guilty verdict even without the silencer evidence.
i think that comment says more about stan jones than it does the jurors.
-
i think that comment says more about stan jones than it does the jurors.
I agree. He had no idea why they voted as they did, very disrespectful!
-
but if the silencer is the genuine articale you dont need to prove the case without it.
so i can only conclude it cant be.
It is a discussion thread Numug.
Jeremy's supporters have often disputed the silencer. Along with Jeremy.
So we are discussing "what if'.
-
if it was 10 2 with the silencer theres no way he would of been convicted without it.
-
If no one knows why the 2 female jurors said 'not guilty', how do we know there would not be a guilty verdict without the silencer ?
-
There'd have been no case without the silencer !
-
There'd have been no case without the silencer !
-
This is some of the other evidence used at trial.
i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;
ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;
iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;
iv) The appellant's admitted ability to effect covert entry into and exit from the farmhouse and the finding of the hacksaw blade outside the bathroom window. His claim to have entered the house in that way after the first arrest was an attempt to explain these findings;
v) Because on the facts of the case it could only have been the appellant or Sheila Caffell who carried out the killings, the factors below proved they were not the responsibility of the appellant's sister:
a) Although seriously mentally ill, there had been no indication of any deterioration in her mental health in the days before the killings. Neither had she expressed any recent suicidal thoughts and the expert evidence was that she would not have harmed her children or her father;
b) Save for the appellant nobody had seen her use a gun and she had no interest in them. Sheila Caffell also had very poor co-ordination and would not have been capable of loading and operating the rifle nor would she have had the required knowledge to do so;
c) She would not have been able physically to have overcome her father (who was fit, strong and 6' 4" tall) during the struggle which undoubtedly took place before his death in the kitchen;
d) Her hands and feet were clean. They were not blood stained and neither was there any sugar upon them;
e) Hand swabs from her body did not reveal the levels of lead to be expected in somebody who must have re-loaded the magazine of the gun on at least two occasions; and
f) Her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.
vi) The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself. The following aspects of the evidence established it was still in place on the gun when the appellant's sister was murdered:
a) The blood grouping analysis proved (on the particular facts of the case) that Sheila Caffell's blood was inside the moderator; and
b) Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;
d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and
e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.
viii) He stood to inherit considerable sums of money.
-
Adam, please stop quoting posts that are already there. It is annoying.
-
It's the same old bloody thing in all his posts---------nothing new or constructive at all.Boring !
-
There'd have been no case without the silencer !
Try to elaborate on you're sweeping statements.
-
How stupid Jeremy must have been! Wrapping up that bloody silencer with paint on it too and put it in the gun cupboard. Then forget all about it and hand the keys to Ann Eaton. How incredibly stupid!
How strange that five different officers looked into that cupboard and not one of them saw the silencer.
-
Try doing it to your own !
-
NO,,there was NO evidence,NOT even with the silencer !!
-
How stupid Jeremy must have been! Wrapping up that bloody silencer with paint on it too and put it in the gun cupboard. Then forget all about it and hand the keys to Ann Eaton. How incredibly stupid!
How strange that five different officers looked into that cupboard and not one of them saw the silencer.
The silencer was in a box at the back of the gun cupboard.
Stan Jones had the keys to WHF. He asked the relatives to do some tidying up and cleaning.
The police were not looking for incriminating evidence.
-
The silencer was in a box at the back of the gun cupboard.
Stan Jones had the keys to WHF. He asked the relatives to do some tidying up and cleaning.
The police were not looking for incriminating evidence.
So what were they looking for - five times?
Jeremy wanted Ann Eaton to have the keys - I have just read it in her witness statement. No, I will not find it for you, so don´t say, source please.
It is in the archives - 72 pages....
-
the relatives said there still enough evidence he was guilty without the silencer which i personally think was a fruedion slip,
-
the relatives said there still enough evidence he was guilty without the silencer which i personally think was a fruedion slip,
I see what you mean, but it would be nice to know the context.
-
So what were they looking for - five times?
Jeremy wanted Ann Eaton to have the keys - I have just read it in her witness statement. No, I will not find it for you, so don´t say, source please.
It is in the archives - 72 pages....
Who 'gave' the relatives the keys ? Jeremy was probably abroad or in London.
Do you agree with Jeremy that the relatives framed him with the silencer.
-
There'd have been no case without the silencer !
if the silencer evidence is discredited then also by default totally discredits the relatives so the case falls apart.
-
If the silencer did not have blood & paint on, the relatives, in two days had to -
1: Decide in unison to attempt to frame Jeremy. All be confident in each other that no one will crack under pressure. They all had to agree to commit a serious crime & risk criminal charges.
2: Find out about back splatter.
3: Find out if any shots were contact shots which would produce back splatter.
4: Find out Sheila's blood type.
5: Find out if the rifle end had blood on it. Meaning a silencer was not used & they could not frame Jeremy.
6: Get blood which is very close to Sheilas. Assisting in getting a conviction.
7: Find out how to effectivly & realistically put the correct blood into the silencer baffles.
8: Get the right equipment to transfer the found blood into the silencer.
9: Go back to WHF and effectivly put paint onto the silencer.
-
Or the police asked the lab technicians to expertly put incriminating blood into the silencer.
However Jeremy has never accused the police of doing this. Only the relatives of framing him.
-
Who 'gave' the relatives the keys ? Jeremy was probably abroad or in London.
Do you agree with Jeremy that the relatives framed him with the silencer.
Jeremy gave AE the keys.
I don´t know. They all have differing versions of how it was found. That is a bit odd. I do think Ann Eton comes across as truthful though.
-
the relatives had possion of shielas blood stained clothesthey could of easly put her blood on it.
-
Jeremy gave AE the keys.
I don´t know. They all have differing versions of how it was found. That is a bit odd. I do think Ann Eton comes across as truthful though.
Wilkes's book says it was Stan Jones.
The police probably took charge of WHF after the massacre. Jeremy said he did not want to go inside & was probably not around.
It sounds right that Jones would have the keys on the 11th August. It also sounds right that the police would have finished their work at WHF by the the 11th. It was murder/suicide.
-
the relatives had possion of shielas blood stained they could of easly put her blood on it.
I am afraid you are totally wrong again. The clothes were in a bucket of water. So any alledged blood would probably be useless to them.
They would also have to do the other 8 things. In two days.
-
Jeremy gave AE the keys.
I don´t know. They all have differing versions of how it was found. That is a bit odd. I do think Ann Eton comes across as truthful though.
Ann Eaton truthful. Her WS highlights how & why she believes Jeremy is guilty several times.
-
no all they had to do was smear blood on it they admited they took it to bits so that explains how they got it deep inside.
ever wonder why they took it to bits.
-
Ann Eaton truthful. Her WS highlights how & why she believes Jeremy is guilty several times.
Then read it again and see that she says that Jeremy wanted her to have the keys. He couldn´t face going into the farm at that stage. Ann Eaton states this.
-
no all they had to do was smear blood on it they admited they took it to bits so that explains how they got it deep inside.
ever wonder why they took it to bits.
I am afraid you are wrong again Numug.
They had to know how blood would correctly enter a silencer due to the result of back splatter. And have the equipment to do this.
Read the 9 points.
Look, this discussion forum have established it must have been the police who framed Jeremy. Telling the lab experts to put incriminating blood into the silencer.
The thread is whether there was enough evidence to get a conviction without the silencer.
-
If there was enough evidence to get a conviction without the silencer then why would the police create false silencer evidence ?
I have just realised this thread may rule out the police.
So if the relatives or the police did not frame Jeremy. How did human/Sheila's/June's/ Neville's blood/DNA get on it ?
-
I am afraid you are wrong again Numug.
They had to know how blood would correctly enter a silencer due to the result of back splatter. And have the equipment to do this.
Read the 9 points.
Look, this discussion forum have established it must have been the police who framed Jeremy. Telling the lab experts to put incriminating blood into the silencer.
The thread is whether there was enough evidence to get a conviction without the silencer.
as shooting people they would allready know about that
remember these are peoplw who use guns and silencers all the time.
-
More evidence:
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
-
Jeremy has never claimed the police framed him via the silencer.
The relatives couldn't. As this board has shown.
Perhaps the silencer was on the rifle during the massacre. It would make sense for Jeremy.
-
the relatives had possion of shielas blood stained they could of easly put her blood on it.
They didn't have wet blood of Sheila's to plant. Water that had bloody clothes soaking doesn't produce blood to plant in the suppressor. Even if they somehow obtained a vile of blood they woudl likely simply pour it in or use a dropper neither of which woudl account for the distribution of blood found in the suppressor. The first 8 baffles had blood land on and dry on those baffles including microscopic drops consistent with high velocity spatter. Only the lab woudl have the know how to potentially plant blood found in such manner.
-
dont you ever wonder why they kept her bloodstained clothes instead of throwing them away
or why they took the silencer to bits in the first place.
-
They didn't have wet blood of Sheila's to plant. Water that had bloody clothes soaking doesn't produce blood to plant in the suppressor. Even if they somehow obtained a vile of blood they woudl likely simply pour it in or use a dropper neither of which woudl account for the distribution of blood found in the suppressor. The first 8 baffles had blood land on and dry on those baffles including microscopic drops consistent with high velocity spatter. Only the lab woudl have the know how to potentially plant blood found in such manner.
are you telling me they knew nothing about blood spatter.
they shot and hunted all the time
i think they would know enough about it to get by.
-
are you telling me they knew nothing about blood spatter.
they shot and hunted all the time
i think they would know enough about it to get by.
They would have no idea that they would need to take wet blood and find a way to spray it in to the barrel so it would coat the first several baffles with both visible blood and microscopic drops to simulate drawback nor would they have any idea that drawback would definitely occur from her shots and last they would have no way to know that the lab would be able to figure out it was definitely her blood and not anyone else's. They had no way to know her blood type at all but if they did know the faily's blood type then they would know June's as well but not have any clue that she had a different adenylate kinase enzyme than June.
-
are you telling me they knew nothing about blood spatter.
they shot and hunted all the time
i think they would know enough about it to get by.
Of course they knew about it. They are all gun experts. Peter Eaton is a gun dealer They were all farmers and well acquainted with firearms. Sciptomaloo knew about it, why shouldn't they? Too much was made of this and I shouldn't have thought the lab would have been bothered with how the blood got in there anyway. They were more concerned with the grouping.
The silencer was a fake. Seems very dodgy to me the first time the family goes to the cupboard and hey presto "This MUST be the silencer". I would still like to know what Ann Eaton's brother meant when he said to her, "I've got something up my sleave".
Since every one of the family knew ways to getting into the house, just as Bamber himself did, then the house was not secure the night before, anyone could have got in and planted the silencer in the cupboard. I think it was a big red herring right from the start. And the family made far too much fuss about it to the police for it to have been genuine.
-
adam talks about droppers like there a hard thing to get hold of.
-
Read post 62.
You do not get an dropper.
How do you recreate the human blood splatter effect into a silencer ? That's right you shoot a human from close range/contact shot.
-
if you know a bit about blood spatter and you would do if your shooting animals all the time its very easy.
-
if you know a bit about blood spatter and you would do if your shooting animals all the time its very easy.
What animals let you walk up and hold the gun directly to their skin? People shooting vermin or even hunting are unlikely to deal with drawback in any significant way.
-
adam talks about droppers like there a hard thing to get hold of.
A dropper would not simulate the blood found. The blood was sprayed so that tiny droplets landed on the first 8 baffles and more substantial drops also landed on the first 5 or so.
-
What animals let you walk up and hold the gun directly to their skin? People shooting vermin or even hunting are unlikely to deal with drawback in any significant way.
all of them do if youve winged them already and your going to finish them off.
-
all of them do if youve winged them already and your going to finish them off.
If you winged them then they run away. If they are immobilized but still breathing and you want to kill them you don't need to put the gun up against them in the meantime and not many people choose to do so.
In the meantime such doesn't inform one of the need or explain how to use a tool to spray blood inside in a manner to mimick drawback as opposed to jsut using a dropper liek any ordinary person woudl do. But again a dropper would not account for the blood distribution found.
-
Read post 62.
You do not get an dropper.
How do you recreate the human blood splatter effect into a silencer ? That's right you shoot a human from close range/contact shot.
In actual fact the lab only looked at one flake of blood. There is nothing to state that they even examined the silencer for blood spatter.
Also scipio gives the false impression that the relatives were quite ignorant country folk who weren't bright enough to reproduce any kind of blood spatter. Apparently he likes to give the impression that he is the only one in the world who knows about such things. Well believe me the reletives were very knowledgeable about guns. They could probably tell you as much as master scipio can?
-
In actual fact the lab only looked at one flake of blood. There is nothing to state that they even examined the silencer for blood spatter.
Also scipio gives the false impression that the relatives were quite ignorant country folk who weren't bright enough to reproduce any kind of blood spatter. Apparently he likes to give the impression that he is the only one in the world who knows about such things. Well believe me the reletives were very knowledgeable about guns. They could probably tell you as much as master scipio can?
As usual Grahame is clueless. A substantial amount of blood was removed from the suppressor. The lab tested a flake of blood AS WELL as blood taken from the first several baffles. In addition the defense found microscopic blood on the first 8 baffles. Both the flake as well as the blood on the baffles was exclusive to Sheila's.
"In dealing with this evidence, the defence were limited by the evidence available from their own expert. They called no such evidence at trial but the material that they had obtained pre-trial has been disclosed in the course of this appeal. The defence had instructed Dr Patrick Lincoln, whose expertise in such matters was well known. On 29 April 1986, he visited the forensic science laboratory and examined the relevant material. He carried out tests on all seventeen baffles. The first eight plates all gave weak or very weak positive reactions for blood. There was no blood clearly visible to the naked eye...The other nine plates "did not produce any evidence for the presence of blood".
No questions were asked at trial of Mr Hayward to establish what part of the blood he had tested. The position was, however, known to the defence through their own expert Dr Lincoln. Dr Lincoln had seen the evidential material upon which the group testing results were based and agreed with the conclusions. He recorded that evidence in the course of his report of 19 September 1986. He said that Mr Hayward had "found a flake of blood trapped under the first or second baffle plate" and that it was this flake that was tested and produced the groupings A, EAP BA, AK1, Hp2.1
Dr Lincoln further recorded: "Mr Hayward states that he could detect visible staining on the "upper baffle plates" and that he swabbed these plates so that the blood was taken onto cotton material which could subsequently be used in grouping tests. On this material Mr Hayward successfully determined the ABO and EAP groups and showed the blood to be groups A, EAP BA."
He agreed with Mr Hayward's conclusion that the combination of blood groups revealed in his testing of the inside of the moderator could have come solely from Sheila Caffell but did not come from any one of the other individuals."
That is from the 2002 Appeal.
The blood they were looking at was believed to be back spatter specifically drawback which is back spatter theat goes into the weapon when the weapon is fired less than 2mm from the flesh.
They found a considerable amount of blood several inches into the suppressor. The blood typed the flake as well as blood obtained from the upper baffles. There was also microscopic drops that remained to be found by the defense expert even though the prosecution had removed all visible blood.
-
Of course they knew about it. They are all gun experts. Peter Eaton is a gun dealer They were all farmers and well acquainted with firearms. Sciptomaloo knew about it, why shouldn't they? Too much was made of this and I shouldn't have thought the lab would have been bothered with how the blood got in there anyway. They were more concerned with the grouping.
The silencer was a fake. Seems very dodgy to me the first time the family goes to the cupboard and hey presto "This MUST be the silencer". I would still like to know what Ann Eaton's brother meant when he said to her, "I've got something up my sleave".
Since every one of the family knew ways to getting into the house, just as Bamber himself did, then the house was not secure the night before, anyone could have got in and planted the silencer in the cupboard. I think it was a big red herring right from the start. And the family made far too much fuss about it to the police for it to have been genuine.
id bet they know more about they know more about the subject than anyone on this forum.
-
Read post 62.
You do not get an dropper.
How do you recreate the human blood splatter effect into a silencer ? That's right you shoot a human from close range/contact shot.
I cannot recall the lab ever recording the pattern of blood spatter. Only that they scraped off a flake from the second baffle? Believe me you can fake anything and I'll tell you another thing magicians have had expert scientists fooled.
-
What animals let you walk up and hold the gun directly to their skin? People shooting vermin or even hunting are unlikely to deal with drawback in any significant way.
Those that are wounded. I trow that you have not been hunting before?
-
A dropper would not simulate the blood found. The blood was sprayed so that tiny droplets landed on the first 8 baffles and more substantial drops also landed on the first 5 or so.
I don't recall anything that was recorded about the blood being sprayed into the silencer? I would be grateful if you could show me where they actually referred to this.
-
If you winged them then they run away. If they are immobilized but still breathing and you want to kill them you don't need to put the gun up against them in the meantime and not many people choose to do so.
In the meantime such doesn't inform one of the need or explain how to use a tool to spray blood inside in a manner to mimick drawback as opposed to jsut using a dropper liek any ordinary person woudl do. But again a dropper would not account for the blood distribution found.
Then may I suggest that you do not know much about hunting animals? Otherwise you would know that that is a false statement.
-
As usual Grahame is clueless. A substantial amount of blood was removed from the suppressor. The lab tested a flake of blood AS WELL as blood taken from the first several baffles. In addition the defense found microscopic blood on the first 8 baffles. Both the flake as well as the blood on the baffles was exclusive to Sheila's.
"In dealing with this evidence, the defence were limited by the evidence available from their own expert. They called no such evidence at trial but the material that they had obtained pre-trial has been disclosed in the course of this appeal. The defence had instructed Dr Patrick Lincoln, whose expertise in such matters was well known. On 29 April 1986, he visited the forensic science laboratory and examined the relevant material. He carried out tests on all seventeen baffles. The first eight plates all gave weak or very weak positive reactions for blood. There was no blood clearly visible to the naked eye...The other nine plates "did not produce any evidence for the presence of blood".
No questions were asked at trial of Mr Hayward to establish what part of the blood he had tested. The position was, however, known to the defence through their own expert Dr Lincoln. Dr Lincoln had seen the evidential material upon which the group testing results were based and agreed with the conclusions. He recorded that evidence in the course of his report of 19 September 1986. He said that Mr Hayward had "found a flake of blood trapped under the first or second baffle plate" and that it was this flake that was tested and produced the groupings A, EAP BA, AK1, Hp2.1
Dr Lincoln further recorded: "Mr Hayward states that he could detect visible staining on the "upper baffle plates" and that he swabbed these plates so that the blood was taken onto cotton material which could subsequently be used in grouping tests. On this material Mr Hayward successfully determined the ABO and EAP groups and showed the blood to be groups A, EAP BA."
He agreed with Mr Hayward's conclusion that the combination of blood groups revealed in his testing of the inside of the moderator could have come solely from Sheila Caffell but did not come from any one of the other individuals."
That is from the 2002 Appeal.
The blood they were looking at was believed to be back spatter specifically drawback which is back spatter theat goes into the weapon when the weapon is fired less than 2mm from the flesh.
They found a considerable amount of blood several inches into the suppressor. The blood typed the flake as well as blood obtained from the upper baffles. There was also microscopic drops that remained to be found by the defense expert even though the prosecution had removed all visible blood.
So no proof to substantiate your claim of how the blood was distributed then? No mention of it beimng sprayed into the silencer by backspatter? In any case it can be duplicated by a simple spray device such as a perfume spray bottle. Listen master scipio, anything can be faked and scientists are usually very easy to fool as Uri Geller demonstrated very well.
-
Of course they knew about it. They are all gun experts. Peter Eaton is a gun dealer They were all farmers and well acquainted with firearms. Sciptomaloo knew about it, why shouldn't they? Too much was made of this and I shouldn't have thought the lab would have been bothered with how the blood got in there anyway. They were more concerned with the grouping.
The silencer was a fake. Seems very dodgy to me the first time the family goes to the cupboard and hey presto "This MUST be the silencer". I would still like to know what Ann Eaton's brother meant when he said to her, "I've got something up my sleave".
Since every one of the family knew ways to getting into the house, just as Bamber himself did, then the house was not secure the night before, anyone could have got in and planted the silencer in the cupboard. I think it was a big red herring right from the start. And the family made far too much fuss about it to the police for it to have been genuine.
It is very interesting to me that the guilters loudly proclaim how Jeremy knew how to get into WHF via the windows but never, ever accept that others within the family and maybe outside the family themselves used or knew of this facility. Therefore there was nothing to stop anyone entering the farmhouse after, the murders while it lay empty and very possibly the reason for the alarm, panic button to be fitted.
The only thing which points to Jeremy as being the murderer is the phone call, without that phone call it could have been anyone. How stupid was Jeremy to actually, effectively put his hand up and shout hey it was me, I did it!!!!!
-
It is very interesting to me that the guilters loudly proclaim how Jeremy knew how to get into WHF via the windows but never, ever accept that others within the family and maybe outside the family themselves used or knew of this facility. Therefore there was nothing to stop anyone entering the farmhouse after, the murders while it lay empty and very possibly the reason for the alarm, panic button to be fitted.
The only thing which points to Jeremy as being the murderer is the phone call, without that phone call it could have been anyone. How stupid was Jeremy to actually, effectively put his hand up and shout hey it was me, I did it!!!!!
Yes, but if he is guilty, I doubt that he considered not being believed. The phone call puts him somewhere else when Neville (in effect) was alive. Of course the call can't be proven either way and I have seen logs concerning the call which have been faked - you have to ask why?
-
Yes, but if he is guilty, I doubt that he considered not being believed. The phone call puts him somewhere else when Neville (in effect) was alive. Of course the call can't be proven either way and I have seen logs concerning the call which have been faked - you have to ask why?
I do agree Caroline, that is a question and I can see how he may have thought it was clever to fake the phone call but if he did he didn't look very far as he was effectively saying .... if Sheila didn't do it well I did!!!
On the other hand as you say those logs didn't correspond, they were definitely faked ........ why??
-
I don't think anything was faked as such,it was sheer incompetence on the part of EP from beginning to end,and a case of too many cooks,all jotting down their individual logs/notes which at the end of the day didn't tally.
None of the officers were prepared for what they found inside the farmhouse and so nothing was carried out as systematically as it should have been.
-
I don't think anything was faked as such,it was sheer incompetence on the part of EP from beginning to end,and a case of too many cooks,all jotting down their individual logs/notes which at the end of the day didn't tally.
None of the officers were prepared for what they found inside the farmhouse and so nothing was carried out as systematically as it should have been.
When something is supposed to be a copy of something else but contains a spelling mistake on one, which isn't on the other - and there are several versions; I'd say that was a fake or someone trying to cover something up.
-
When something is supposed to be a copy of something else but contains a spelling mistake on one, which isn't on the other - and there are several versions; I'd say that was a fake or someone trying to cover something up.
Can you post these version's , you mention above please ?
-
When something is supposed to be a copy of something else but contains a spelling mistake on one, which isn't on the other - and there are several versions; I'd say that was a fake or someone trying to cover something up.
Hi Caroline,,my own view is that it's going on for 30 years and IF it had been a fake,,there'd have been thousands of people up in arms and not just a handful on one or two forums thrashing it out.
Police and mistakes are,and have come to the fore of late,so why not in this case ?
Neither is it a cover-up. The police have clearly made mistakes but nobody is prepared to rectify them for obvious reasons. The same things happen in hospitals. The ones who make mistakes/slip-ups will NEVER admit to doing it,though how they can live their lives knowing that they've either caused someones' death,or in Jeremys' case,incarceration,I don't know,but they do,and like SJ,go their graves with that mistake. Which is going to happen here.
-
It is very interesting to me that the guilters loudly proclaim how Jeremy knew how to get into WHF via the windows but never, ever accept that others within the family and maybe outside the family themselves used or knew of this facility. Therefore there was nothing to stop anyone entering the farmhouse after, the murders while it lay empty and very possibly the reason for the alarm, panic button to be fitted.
The only thing which points to Jeremy as being the murderer is the phone call, without that phone call it could have been anyone. How stupid was Jeremy to actually, effectively put his hand up and shout hey it was me, I did it!!!!!
Well there was absolutely no reason for him to tell about a phone call. If it was to implicate Sheila all he had to do was...erm....nothing. No one would have suspected him. Because of this reason I suspect that he acted just as an innocent man would act. A guilty man by definition would just keep quiet.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5440.0.html
-
Those that are wounded. I trow that you have not been hunting before?
:) :) :)
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5405.0.html
Jeremy's best option was to ring the police. Several threads already created.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5405.0.html
Jeremy's best option was to ring the police. Several threads already created.
They are opinion and suppostion - just because you believe your own conclusions does not mean we have to .
-
Maggie said Jeremy would be first on the scene in the morning.
Is that better than Jeremy being able to spend hours insinuating Sheila in a siege situation ? After being picked up by the police of course.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5440.0.html
Adam,you can create as many threads until the cows come home,but you can't alter the fact that there was great incompetency involving EP and its tin-pot investigations.
Until an admission comes forthwith ( Hell will freeze over first ) I can't see any further advancement with the case.
Nothing short of a miracle is what's needed right now.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5405.0.html
Jeremy's best option was to ring the police. Several threads already created.
Just your assumptions Adam I'm afraid. Jeremy would probably have had breakfast at home befor going to the farm. Also the time for him starting work was probably the same as everyone else? In fact one farm worker turned up long after the police arrived on the scene. It would therefore be ney bother to Jeremy even if he had discovered the scene by being the first there.
While we are on the subject. How was he to enter the farm house? Did he have a key, or did he not have a key. If he had a key to the front door then there would not have been all this discussion as to how he entered or left the premises.
If he did not have a key to the premises then when he could not make anyone hear his knocks he would probably have gone to a neighbour's house, or eventually have callled the police. So as I said, ney borther.
-
Jeremy leaving the bodies to be found would still be a suspect. Especially with Neville having put up a fight.
Sheila would have been the main suspect. But the relatives would still not believe it & there was only one other person who had a motive to kill those five people. Other people have agreed today no one would believe a random stranger massacre or that the person who found the bodies (Barbara Wilson ?) committed the crime. Although Jeremy if under pressure may suggest the random stranger scenario.
Jeremy may have been interviewed straight away by the police & been a suspect much sooner. Especially if he showed indifference to the deaths. He would have no alibi.
So it makes sense for Jeremy to phone the police & lead them in a direction on the back of Nevilles call. Giving himself an alibi at the same time which cannot be disproven. The police did not know Jeremy and would surely never believe Jeremy would committ such a horrific crime.
It also makes sense to phone Chelmsford police station, which was seven miles further away from WHF than Witham. Jeremy said he did not phone 999 because it 'did not occur to him' although dialling 999 is quicker than looking for a phone number & will result in a quicker response time.
The longer the delay between his 3.26am phone call & the discovery of the bodies, the more it gets into everyones mind sets that there really is a crazy woman with a gun still alive inside. Jeremy could spend several hours continuing to enlighten everyone about his 'nutter' sister & Nevilles phone call /alibi.
The Raid Team would automatically be called in a seige situation. Delaying things by several more hours. Jeremys Neville phone alibi is becoming more plausible by the minute. He 'should have been an actor'.
Having the police pick Jeremy up would have been even better still. It would have shown him as having just got dressed & rushing into their car. Giving the impression he had been at home all night & woken up by Nevilles call. It is also another alibi, showing Jeremy did not phone from WHF. However the police refused Jeremys request & told him to make his own way. Jeremy did the next best thing & arrived after the police. Driving very slowly.
So the phone call to the police meant Jeremy could work with & assist the police. Use his charm to become their buddies. Give them his version of events & look upset when the bodies are discovered. By 9am that morning & for the next few weeks, Neville's alibi had worked.
Jeremys supporters say 'why phone the police if you are not innocent'? Another equally good question is 'why not phone the police if guilty ' ?
-
Jeremy leaving the bodies to be found would still be a suspect. Especially with Neville having put up a fight.
Sheila would have been the main suspect. But the relatives would still not believe it & there was only one other person who had a motive to kill those five people. Other people have agreed today no one would believe a random stranger massacre or that the person who found the bodies (Barbara Wilson ?) committed the crime. Although Jeremy if under pressure may suggest the random stranger scenario.
Jeremy may have been interviewed straight away by the police & been a suspect much sooner. Especially if he showed indifference to the deaths. He would have no alibi.
So it makes sense for Jeremy to phone the police & lead them in a direction on the back of Nevilles call. Giving himself an alibi at the same time which cannot be disproven. The police did not know Jeremy and would surely never believe Jeremy would committ such a horrific crime.
It also makes sense to phone Chelmsford police station, which was seven miles further away from WHF than Witham. Jeremy said he did not phone 999 because it 'did not occur to him' although dialling 999 is quicker than looking for a phone number & will result in a quicker response time.
The longer the delay between his 3.26am phone call & the discovery of the bodies, the more it gets into everyones mind sets that there really is a crazy woman with a gun still alive inside. Jeremy could spend several hours continuing to enlighten everyone about his 'nutter' sister & Nevilles phone call /alibi.
The Raid Team would automatically be called in a seige situation. Delaying things by several more hours. Jeremys Neville phone alibi is becoming more plausible by the minute. He 'should have been an actor'.
Having the police pick Jeremy up would have been even better still. It would have shown him as having just got dressed & rushing into their car. Giving the impression he had been at home all night & woken up by Nevilles call. It is also another alibi, showing Jeremy did not phone from WHF. However the police refused Jeremys request & told him to make his own way. Jeremy did the next best thing & arrived after the police. Driving very slowly.
So the phone call to the police meant Jeremy could work with & assist the police. Use his charm to become their buddies. Give them his version of events & look upset when the bodies are discovered. By 9am that morning & for the next few weeks, Neville's alibi had worked.
Jeremys supporters say 'why phone the police if you are not innocent'? Another equally good question is 'why not phone the police if guilty ' ?
(1) If there is a murder police always suspect the family first of all. In this case everyone connected with the family. But Jeremy would not have been the only suspect.
(2) There would have been no silencer looked for let alone allegedly found.
(3) JM would not have testified against him.
But who knows, the resulting guilty verdict may still have happened? When some are intent on implicating those who are the greatest threat to their own livelyhoods you will still get moj's.
-
I doubt that any " competent murderer " would sh1t on his own doorstep.
-
Maggie said Jeremy would be first on the scene in the morning.
Is that better than Jeremy being able to spend hours insinuating Sheila in a siege situation ? After being picked up by the police of course.
When was he picked up by the police? I thought he made his own way there?
-
When was he picked up by the police? I thought he made his own way there?
Is right,Grahame. They wouldn't even pick him up !
-
Maggie said Jeremy would be first on the scene in the morning.
Is that better than Jeremy being able to spend hours insinuating Sheila in a siege situation ? After being picked up by the police of course.
I believe it was probably so but I don't know for certain what time others turned up or what the procedure was first thing in the morning though I presume Jeremy would turn up and go straight into the farmhouse but not ever having been there at that time in the morning or any other time I cannot be absolutely certain. 8) 8)
-
When was he picked up by the police? I thought he made his own way there?
He asked the police to pick him up.
See my 'Jeremy's double alibi attempt. Would it have made a difference' thread.
-
He asked the police to pick him up.
See my 'Jeremy's double alibi attempt. Would it have made a difference' thread.
Because they asked him to meet them there and wait until they arrived ? Whats wrong with that.
Boasting about your threads again? Full of yourself today aren't you ;)
-
He asked the police to pick him up.
See my 'Jeremy's double alibi attempt. Would it have made a difference' thread.
I don't see that in any of his statements Adam? Or was that from that book you read? All I have read is that he was told to meet them there?
-
Can you post these version's , you mention above please ?
Sorry, no - you'll just have to take my word for it. They haven't been released 'yet'.
-
Hi Caroline,,my own view is that it's going on for 30 years and IF it had been a fake,,there'd have been thousands of people up in arms and not just a handful on one or two forums thrashing it out.
Police and mistakes are,and have come to the fore of late,so why not in this case ?
Neither is it a cover-up. The police have clearly made mistakes but nobody is prepared to rectify them for obvious reasons. The same things happen in hospitals. The ones who make mistakes/slip-ups will NEVER admit to doing it,though how they can live their lives knowing that they've either caused someones' death,or in Jeremys' case,incarceration,I don't know,but they do,and like SJ,go their graves with that mistake. Which is going to happen here.
Like I just said to Jon, they haven't been released. I did actually post them here last year before I realised that the Official Site referred to them but said they couldn't yet post copies.Until they are offically in the public domain, I can't (and won't) post them.
-
Adam think it would have made a difference thread. ;D
-
I believe it was probably so but I don't know for certain what time others turned up or what the procedure was first thing in the morning though I presume Jeremy would turn up and go straight into the farmhouse but not ever having been there at that time in the morning or any other time I cannot be absolutely certain. 8) 8)
In all likelihood there would have been someone who worked at the farm before Jeremy usually arrived.
This is bad in the sense that Jeremy has no alibi. Saying he was home alone sleeping is not a solid alibi if they suspect it is murder.
His frame job featured making an alibi of sorts by saying he was hope to receive a phone call and making sure police saw him arrive so they would not think he was there and had phoned from WHF then walked outside.
His frame job also placed the blame sqaurely on Sheila to try to cast suspicion away from him. Instead of just leaving the rifle on her he went out of his way to suggest she was responsible.
Had he simply left her body seated where she died, have taken the suppressor off before killing her, had not made up the story about the gun lacking the suppressor, had staged a box that had at least 5 less bullets and not had told Julie so much he would have gotten away with it.
-
if your innocent you cant choose what your alibi is.
the reason a lot of people dont have good albis when there acused of crimes is becouse they dont think they will need an albi becouse they dont know there going to be accused of a crime.
-
if your innocent you cant choose what your alibi is.
the reason a lot of people dont have good albis when there acused of crimes is becouse they dont think they will need an albi becouse they dont know there going to be accused of a crime.
Which goes to prove he is not innocent because instead of being asleep without an alibi other than sleeping he invented the alibi of being home when Nevill phoned. He made up an alibi because he is guilty. He messed up the frame job and thus got caught.
-
I don't see that in any of his statements Adam? Or was that from that book you read? All I have read is that he was told to meet them there?
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=3fupU66vOYXF7Aaz7IHABw&url=http://crimeheartsandcoronets.blogspot.com/2010/11/jeremy-bamber-guilty-as-charged.html%3Fm%3D1&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNF8FRXwlb0EyzXJ_jYIMjyaamC2KQ
-
Which goes to prove he is not innocent because instead of being asleep without an alibi other than sleeping he invented the alibi of being home when Nevill phoned. He made up an alibi because he is guilty. He messed up the frame job and thus got caught.
I have to admit, I have a hard time accepting the phone call BUT I have seen things (logs) that make me question both sides.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=3fupU66vOYXF7Aaz7IHABw&url=http://crimeheartsandcoronets.blogspot.com/2010/11/jeremy-bamber-guilty-as-charged.html%3Fm%3D1&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNF8FRXwlb0EyzXJ_jYIMjyaamC2KQ
So it was not in any of Jeremy's statements then? It appears to me that whoever wrote the article in the link you provided had got it wrong?
-
Why would Jeremy say this in his statement ?
-
I have to admit, I have a hard time accepting the phone call BUT I have seen things (logs) that make me question both sides.
What is so questionable about the log?
PC West submitted a written statement recounting how Jeremy phoned to report that Nevill had called him. The statement explains how he then contacted Bonnet through the internal wireless radio communication system requesting a car be dispatched and that he recounted to Bonnet everything he was told.
Bonnet in turn submitted his own statement stating that PC West had contacted him to send a car to WHF because of the acocunt Jeremy told West.
Bonnet's log matches his statement. It details that he received a message from PC West (PcWest is listed as the caller) and recounts how Jeremy was allegedly called by Nevill and recounts what Nevill allegedly stated to Jeremy.
PC West's log matches his claims he made in his statement as well.
The only issue at all is that one stated 3:26 and another the time as 3:36 wiht the discrepancy obviously was either a typographical error or misreading of the clock.
-
What is so questionable about the log?
PC West submitted a written statement recounting how Jeremy phoned to report that Nevill had called him. The statement explains how he then contacted Bonnet through the internal wireless radio communication system requesting a car be dispatched and that he recounted to Bonnet everything he was told.
Bonnet in turn submitted his own statement stating that PC West had contacted him to send a car to WHF because of the acocunt Jeremy told West.
Bonnet's log matches his statement. It details that he received a message from PC West (PcWest is listed as the caller) and recounts how Jeremy was allegedly called by Nevill and recounts what Nevill allegedly stated to Jeremy.
PC West's log matches his claims he made in his statement as well.
The only issue at all is that one stated 3:26 and another the time as 3:36 wiht the discrepancy obviously was either a typographical error or misreading of the clock.
COLP asked for and EXACT copy of the original phone log so you would imagine that 'Tolleshunt' would be spelled qonly one way from original to the copy given to Colp?
-
COLP asked for and EXACT copy of the original phone log so you would imagine that 'Tolleshunt' would be spelled qonly one way from original to the copy given to Colp?
The claim Bonnet fielded a call from Nevill is impossible. Bonnet's line was an internal HQ police line. Calling 999 would not result in Bonnet answering nor would calling the main Chemsford police station line. The station he was at could only be reached by someone who knew the unpublished extension number he was at. His job was to dispatch cars and keep incident reports for each that police reported to him not to field calls from the public.
Jeremy phoned Julie around 3AM which means Nevill would have to have phoned him earlier than this. The notion that Nevill was still alive at 3:36AM and no shooting had taken place but that Sheila then killed everyone including herself prior to police arriving is simply not credible.
At the end of the day though one wondering if Nevill called police would have to search the records of those manning the 999 lines and published police lines for evidence of Nevill phoning directly and somehow not reporting the incident to Bonnet but to someone else who was unaware Bonnet already was handling the incident reports.
At most Bonnet would be in a position to conceal that a cop or 999 operator reported to HQ that Nevill had phoned them.
But that is not what is being alleged. It is being alleged he fielded a call directly which is impossible and that allegation is mainly because of he quoted what Nevill supposedly told Jeremy.
-
Which goes to prove he is not innocent because instead of being asleep without an alibi other than sleeping he invented the alibi of being home when Nevill phoned. He made up an alibi because he is guilty. He messed up the frame job and thus got caught.
You can't say it goes to prove anything. You may say that it is indicative that he is guilty. But not proof.
-
Why would Jeremy say this in his statement ?
Then you have not established that what you say is true. It simply is not good enough to allege something on someone else's sayso. That person may be wrong and you may be just passing on the myth just because you think it was true?
-
The claim Bonnet fielded a call from Nevill is impossible. Bonnet's line was an internal HQ police line. Calling 999 would not result in Bonnet answering nor would calling the main Chemsford police station line. The station he was at could only be reached by someone who knew the unpublished extension number he was at. His job was to dispatch cars and keep incident reports for each that police reported to him not to field calls from the public.
Jeremy phoned Julie around 3AM which means Nevill would have to have phoned him earlier than this. The notion that Nevill was still alive at 3:36AM and no shooting had taken place but that Sheila then killed everyone including herself prior to police arriving is simply not credible.
At the end of the day though one wondering if Nevill called police would have to search the records of those manning the 999 lines and published police lines for evidence of Nevill phoning directly and somehow not reporting the incident to Bonnet but to someone else who was unaware Bonnet already was handling the incident reports.
At most Bonnet would be in a position to conceal that a cop or 999 operator reported to HQ that Nevill had phoned them.
But that is not what is being alleged. It is being alleged he fielded a call directly which is impossible and that allegation is mainly because of he quoted what Nevill supposedly told Jeremy.
I dispute the timing of the call to JM. I detect a bit of jiggery pockery with those times so it would harmonize with the prosecution's account of what happened. At least one other person in the house where muggy was testified that the time was around 3.30am. I think JM was being rather economical with the truth with the help of one detective Jones?
-
The claim Bonnet fielded a call from Nevill is impossible. Bonnet's line was an internal HQ police line. Calling 999 would not result in Bonnet answering nor would calling the main Chemsford police station line. The station he was at could only be reached by someone who knew the unpublished extension number he was at. His job was to dispatch cars and keep incident reports for each that police reported to him not to field calls from the public.
Jeremy phoned Julie around 3AM which means Nevill would have to have phoned him earlier than this. The notion that Nevill was still alive at 3:36AM and no shooting had taken place but that Sheila then killed everyone including herself prior to police arriving is simply not credible.
At the end of the day though one wondering if Nevill called police would have to search the records of those manning the 999 lines and published police lines for evidence of Nevill phoning directly and somehow not reporting the incident to Bonnet but to someone else who was unaware Bonnet already was handling the incident reports.
At most Bonnet would be in a position to conceal that a cop or 999 operator reported to HQ that Nevill had phoned them.
But that is not what is being alleged. It is being alleged he fielded a call directly which is impossible and that allegation is mainly because of he quoted what Nevill supposedly told Jeremy.
You're NOT listening! COLP asked for the original log of the phone call (or at least an EXACT copy of it) to see if it had been altered. However, what they got looked the same until you look at it carefully then you can see that Tolleshunt is spelled incorrectly in the copy which means it was NOT the original log or an EXACT copy. Now why didn't they send the original?
-
Which goes to prove he is not innocent because instead of being asleep without an alibi other than sleeping he invented the alibi of being home when Nevill phoned. He made up an alibi because he is guilty. He messed up the frame job and thus got caught.
Or he could be telling the truth - and the phone call happened - so does not PROVE anything
-
Jeremy said 'no comment' when the police asked him why he called Julie.
In court Jeremy could not say 'No comment'. So said he phoned Julie because he was worried.
Poor Jeremy.
-
Jeremy said 'no comment' when the police asked him why he called Julie.
In court Jeremy could not say 'No comment'. So said he phoned Julie because he was worried.
Poor Jeremy.
??What does this show? Nothing - perhaps he did feel guilty that because of the quick phone call and no reply when he rang back - that he did not react properly to what his father was trying to tell him.
He knew his sister had the gun , he knew his father did not like getting the police involved , He did not know she had shot or was about to shoot anyone and he probably was half asleep - so he made probably what were some bad decisions ? And if he was telling the truth then his father did as well?
If he had called the police instead of Jeremy then Jeremy would not have been implicated - which still makes me believe that at the time of the call Neville had not been shot.
-
Jeremy said 'no comment' when the police asked him why he called Julie.
In court Jeremy could not say 'No comment'. So said he phoned Julie because he was worried.
Poor Jeremy.
I have read Jeremy's statement and as far as I can see he was very co-operative towards them.
-
??What does this show? Nothing - perhaps he did feel guilty that because of the quick phone call and no reply when he rang back - that he did not react properly to what his father was trying to tell him.
He knew his sister had the gun , he knew his father did not like getting the police involved , He did not know she had shot or was about to shoot anyone and he probably was half asleep - so he made probably what were some bad decisions ? And if he was telling the truth then his father did as well?
If he had called the police instead of Jeremy then Jeremy would not have been implicated - which still makes me believe that at the time of the call Neville had not been shot.
Thought Neville did call the police. Said Jeremy decades later. Contradicting his claims on the night.
Surprised the police did not tell him Neville had phoned them. It was murder/suicide for a month.
-
EP knew it was murder/suicide right from the start. It was the relatives who then took over,thus putting EP on the back seat,so in effect,the relatives were allowed to override what had already been established,even going against what the pathologist had said. That's how much clout the Masons' have got,namely RWB !
-
Thought Neville did call the police. Said Jeremy decades later. Contradicting his claims on the night.
Surprised the police did not tell him Neville had phoned them. It was murder/suicide for a month.
But you guilters are giving your version which says he did not - and the EP reords of the timings are ALL OVER the place so if he did how do we know for certain it was not AFTER he called JB and that is why the phone was engaged - after all EP checked the line to confirmm that fact .
You PROVE to me that NB did not call JB first then realised things were more serious than he thought ( heard a shot) and then tried to call the police?
-
I have read Jeremy's statement and as far as I can see he was very co-operative towards them.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4847.0.html
-
Thought Neville did call the police. Said Jeremy decades later. Contradicting his claims on the night.
Surprised the police did not tell him Neville had phoned them. It was murder/suicide for a month.
No that is wrong. He found a second telephone log as he then thought. It was that second log that apparently contradicted the log that was presented in court. So he didn't actually contradict himself. He thought that he had found a new piece of evidence that apparently showed that Ralph phoned the police. His lawyers advised him not to use it in an appeal, but he didn't listen to them because he was convinced that this was a new piece of evidence. It was not him suddenly changed his mind. So in effect he was not at fault and did not lie. If you had properly read about it you would not come up with such damaging remarks, you should be interested in whole truths and not half truths. That is being dishonest.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4847.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1091.msg33705.html#msg33705
-
Why have you posted Jeremys WS. What has that got to do with his appalling attitude when interviewed.
My view with the police interview is Jeremy knew he was guilty. He also knew the police knew he was guilty. So there was no point pretending.
Which explained his singing answers etc. Thread link above.
However Jeremy was not going to admit anything. There was money to inherit. The police were going to have to get a guilty verdict in court. You know what ? They did.
-
Why have you posted Jeremys WS. What has that got to do with his appalling attitude when interviewed.
My view with the police interview is Jeremy knew he was guilty. He also knew the police knew he was guilty. So there was no point pretending.
Which explained his singing answers etc. Thread link above.
However Jeremy was not going to admit anything. There was money to inherit. The police were going to have to get a guilty verdict in court. You know what ? They did.
Because this shows that he was actually helpful to the police and not as you say that he was unhelpful. This is the actual information he gave. By the way neither does it record the near gestapo techniques that the police used against him. What you have posated is just something you read in some book. Why don't you go to official sources to prove your points and not to some second hand information as to what happened, which may not have happened.
-
You know what ? You and others like you are in for a rude awakening !!
-
Why have you posted Jeremys WS. What has that got to do with his appalling attitude when interviewed.
My view with the police interview is Jeremy knew he was guilty. He also knew the police knew he was guilty. So there was no point pretending.
Which explained his singing answers etc. Thread link above.
However Jeremy was not going to admit anything. There was money to inherit. The police were going to have to get a guilty verdict in court. You know what ? They did.
And by the way why did you post the link anyway. We were talking about you accusing Jeremy of changing his statement about his father's alleged phone call to the police and why he thought he had phoned the police and what I posted was the real reason he used that in order to try and get an appeal. That it was not Jeremy "changing his mind". But rather the ambiguous words used in that second telephone log. Which to my mind as well was very misleading.
-
Jeremy can't win in your eyes. If his head had been bowed during his INTERROGATION,you'd have said he was definitely guilty. But because he was cocky about answering questions,it showed a bad attitude towards guilt.
At the funeral was the same. Because he wasn't blubbering over everyones' shoulder,you said he was guilty,if he had have been,he'd have still been guilty.
The press were in his face every step of the way.The case was media-driven,,what chance did he have ?
Did you see the two Princes crying openly at their mothers' funeral ? NO,neither did I. It's the way a person is brought up,not to make a show of themselves in public.Or didn't you know that ?
Usually,tears are for the guilty ones like the odious Philpotts and their crocodile tears !
-
Keep spinning Spider,you'll eventually trap yourself in your own web !
-
Jeremy can't win in your eyes. If his head had been bowed during his INTERROGATION,you'd have said he was definitely guilty. But because he was cocky about answering questions,it showed a bad attitude towards guilt.
At the funeral was the same. Because he wasn't blubbering over everyones' shoulder,you said he was guilty,if he had have been,he'd have still been guilty.
The press were in his face every step of the way.The case was media-driven,,what chance did he have ?
Did you see the two Princes crying openly at their mothers' funeral ? NO,neither did I. It's the way a person is brought up,not to make a show of themselves in public.Or didn't you know that ?
Usually,tears are for the guilty ones like the odious Philpotts and their crocodile tears !
if you dont cry its called no emotion if you do cry its called crocdile tears.
-
if you dont cry its called no emotion if you do cry its called crocdile tears.
He couldn't win,nugs. Damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
-
Police were very suspicious of Colin Caffell because he seemed so calm in the aftermath of the murders. It is a known fact that people never react as you are "supposed to" during grieving. Differs from person to person, so it is futile to try to read anything into people´s behaviour.
-
and when people do cry they all cry in diffrent ways.
-
and when people do cry they all cry in diffrent ways.
They do - and sometimes crying sounds like laughter...
-
Police were very suspicious of Colin Caffell because he seemed so calm in the aftermath of the murders. It is a known fact that people never react as you are "supposed to" during grieving. Differs from person to person, so it is futile to try to read anything into people´s behaviour.
it probely hadent sunk in yet delayed shock.
-
it probely hadent sunk in yet delayed shock.
That´s right. The reaction came much later. It is a lot to take in. Also for Jeremy...
-
It's almost like hysteria,where a sudden intake of breath can sound like a laugh and,or a cry. A delayed reactionary shock.
-
It's almost like hysteria,where a sudden intake of breath can sound like a laugh and,or a cry. A delayed reactionary shock.
I actually laugh when I am in shock - has happened more than once.
-
I actually laugh when I am in shock - has happened more than once.
Some people do,Alias. I've known some who've smiled at being given bad news,,but it's of no consequence that they do this as those who understand grief and the like know that people act differently,so aren't offended by it.
Those who don't understand peoples' various reactions are the ones who are dangerous,and start spreading gossip and lies.
-
Why have you posted Jeremys WS. What has that got to do with his appalling attitude when interviewed.
My view with the police interview is Jeremy knew he was guilty. He also knew the police knew he was guilty. So there was no point pretending.
Which explained his singing answers etc. Thread link above.
However Jeremy was not going to admit anything. There was money to inherit. The police were going to have to get a guilty verdict in court. You know what ? They did.
Singing answers? What a strange description.
Adam your main problem is that you do not for one moment put yourself in the position of JB IF he was innocent. You have no empathy for any one else in any situation , unless you think it is how you would react - which is in my opinion very short sighted.
And yes they did convict - So as Caroline posted why are you trying to convict him all over again?
You don't actually ask questions and even consider the replies or documents you are shown - you have your "pat" answers in reserve just waiting to post them again.
It is not the sign of an enquiring mind , so I can only conclude that you do have a vested interest in the case because otherwise why do you bother.
-
Singing answers? What a strange description.
Adam your main problem is that you do not for one moment put yourself in the position of JB IF he was innocent. You have no empathy for any one else in any situation , unless you think it is how you would react - which is in my opinion very short sighted.
And yes they did convict - So as Caroline posted why are you trying to convict him all over again?
You don't actually ask questions and even consider the replies or documents you are shown - you have your "pat" answers in reserve just waiting to post them again.
It is not the sign of an enquiring mind , so I can only conclude that you do have a vested interest in the case because otherwise why do you bother.
If you read my threads. The last line nearly always asks everyone a question.
Yes. The police said his answers were said in a singing tone. Yeeeees, noooo etc. While he chewed on a thread from his jumper.
The police said they would have got a confession if everything was slowed down by writing. This I do not believe. Jeremy was much too determined. Threads already created.
-
And by the way why did you post the link anyway. We were talking about you accusing Jeremy of changing his statement about his father's alleged phone call to the police and why he thought he had phoned the police and what I posted was the real reason he used that in order to try and get an appeal. That it was not Jeremy "changing his mind". But rather the ambiguous words used in that second telephone log. Which to my mind as well was very misleading.
Why did I post the link ? See you're post 124.
-
Jeremy can't win in your eyes. If his head had been bowed during his INTERROGATION,you'd have said he was definitely guilty. But because he was cocky about answering questions,it showed a bad attitude towards guilt.
At the funeral was the same. Because he wasn't blubbering over everyones' shoulder,you said he was guilty,if he had have been,he'd have still been guilty.
The press were in his face every step of the way.The case was media-driven,,what chance did he have ?
Did you see the two Princes crying openly at their mothers' funeral ? NO,neither did I. It's the way a person is brought up,not to make a show of themselves in public.Or didn't you know that ?
Usually,tears are for the guilty ones like the odious Philpotts and their crocodile tears !
He was cocky and 'not' answering questions. As highlighted by threads.
I never said Jeremy was innocent or guilty based on his funeral performance.
-
Why did I post the link ? See you're post 124.
I think you are just going round in circles Adam? Your link proves nothing. On the contrary it is just someone elses opinion of what was said. But Jeremy's actual statement is proof of what he said.
-
Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 -don't knows' & 'can't say'.
Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so' & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'
The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer. He initially said he phoned Mugford before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Mugford was phoned after the police phone call. He even suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila !
These interviews were several weeks after the deaths. Jeremy seemed to be recovering well & enjoying himself, having just returned from a second post massacre holiday. So could not use grief/shock as a reason for his poor performance.
All this is fact. In the interview transcripts.
-
No that is wrong. He found a second telephone log as he then thought. It was that second log that apparently contradicted the log that was presented in court. So he didn't actually contradict himself. He thought that he had found a new piece of evidence that apparently showed that Ralph phoned the police. His lawyers advised him not to use it in an appeal, but he didn't listen to them because he was convinced that this was a new piece of evidence. It was not him suddenly changed his mind. So in effect he was not at fault and did not lie. If you had properly read about it you would not come up with such damaging remarks, you should be interested in whole truths and not half truths. That is being dishonest.
Yes I know Jeremy saw a piece of paper decades later, and then claimed Neville phoned the police. Something no police have ever said. Most importantly on the massacre night and the month afterwards.
Why would Neville call the police and Jeremy ?
What I did not know was that his lawyers did not think it was worthy of using. But Jeremy used it anyway.
Do you have a source please ?
-
You're NOT listening! COLP asked for the original log of the phone call (or at least an EXACT copy of it) to see if it had been altered. However, what they got looked the same until you look at it carefully then you can see that Tolleshunt is spelled incorrectly in the copy which means it was NOT the original log or an EXACT copy. Now why didn't they send the original?
I'm listening fine. Years later how are paper pushers are supposed to figure out which is the original verse a copy and they sent the wrong thing. For all we know the original was left in a copy machine and disposed of that happened to me at a kinkos once during a document production. Leaping to the suggestion tha tthis means Nevill made acall is already ridiculous but to say that means it proves he called Bonnet at 3:36 is crazy since there is no way Bonnet would have fielded a call.
Clerical errors happen all the time at all states- (drafting/editing/mailing/filing etc) trying to read too much into that doesn't work. You can try digging because of it to see if you find something but it virtually never leads to anything.
When I was in high school word processors took over typwriters which by college had been largely replaced by computers though the internet really helped finish off typewriters and word processors completely. Most of the documents I revewed early in my career were from the 1960' to late 70s so all typewritten or handwritten and there would be numerous versions of the same documents because of editing. They kept the drafts and all changes. Sometimes they said draft but usually not so trying to figure out which document was the final version was near impossible in many instances. Documents that needed to be filled out in duplicate or triplicate will have various differences because of typos what is the original if you need to file in triplicate and the 3 copies are different? What if they make a mistake, redo it and keep both the error and the revision even though the revision is what they filed? SOmetimes errors are trashed othertimes they are retained though never provided to anyone and simply left in a file.
Electronically maintained files are nice because you can figure out when any changes are made and what they are. Moreover, scanned documents can be sorted and made searchable on a CD or card drive. Technology is a blessing but in that era they still relied on typewriters and that must be allowed for. Not that typos don't exist today they certainly still do. Dates particularly are still screwed up regularly, month, day and year. Sometime it is because a template is used and people forget to plug in all relevant information from the matter at hand. Other times just a typing error. If changes and revisions are to something critical then it is worth a good look. If the log actually claimed Nevill had phoned 999 and 999 passed the message to Bonnet and it was crossed out on another copy then that would be pretty significant as far as investigation. There isn't anything close to that though.
-
I'm listening fine. Years later how are paper pushers are supposed to figure out which is the original verse a copy and they sent the wrong thing. For all we know the original was left in a copy machine and disposed of that happened to me at a kinkos once during a document production. Leaping to the suggestion tha tthis means Nevill made acall is already ridiculous but to say that means it proves he called Bonnet at 3:36 is crazy since there is no way Bonnet would have fielded a call.
Clerical errors happen all the time at all states- (drafting/editing/mailing/filing etc) trying to read too much into that doesn't work. You can try digging because of it to see if you find something but it virtually never leads to anything.
When I was in high school word processors took over typwriters which by college had been largely replaced by computers though the internet really helped finish off typewriters and word processors completely. Most of the documents I revewed early in my career were from the 1960' to late 70s so all typewritten or handwritten and there would be numerous versions of the same documents because of editing. They kept the drafts and all changes. Sometimes they said draft but usually not so trying to figure out which document was the final version was near impossible in many instances. Documents that needed to be filled out in duplicate or triplicate will have various differences because of typos what is the original if you need to file in triplicate and the 3 copies are different? What if they make a mistake, redo it and keep both the error and the revision even though the revision is what they filed? SOmetimes errors are trashed othertimes they are retained though never provided to anyone and simply left in a file.
Electronically maintained files are nice because you can figure out when any changes are made and what they are. Moreover, scanned documents can be sorted and made searchable on a CD or card drive. Technology is a blessing but in that era they still relied on typewriters and that must be allowed for. Not that typos don't exist today they certainly still do. Dates particularly are still screwed up regularly, month, day and year. Sometime it is because a template is used and people forget to plug in all relevant information from the matter at hand. Other times just a typing error. If changes and revisions are to something critical then it is worth a good look. If the log actually claimed Nevill had phoned 999 and 999 passed the message to Bonnet and it was crossed out on another copy then that would be pretty significant as far as investigation. There isn't anything close to that though.
It is so interesting the way you quote the relatives and particularly Ann Eaton as oracles of truth. Everything they have ever said is taken on face value as truth even though they barely knew Jeremy and Sheila. At the same time anything which doesn't fit in with your reasoning is dismissed, excuses are found backed up by insults, any possibility will do to dismiss any theory which doesn't fit your personal scenario. You try to hide your bias behind claims of being a lawyer but to me it is an oh so familiar pattern which is repeated over and over again on this forum.
-
Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 -don't knows' & 'can't say'.
Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so' & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'
The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer. He initially said he phoned Mugford before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Mugford was phoned after the police phone call. He even suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila !
These interviews were several weeks after the deaths. Jeremy seemed to be recovering well & enjoying himself, having just returned from a second post massacre holiday. So could not use grief/shock as a reason for his poor performance.
All this is fact. In the interview transcripts.
When someone is being questioned by the police,they DON'T have to answer,whether there's a lawyer present or not. It's a NORMAL procedure to answer NO COMMENT to every question asked !
The more a detainee talks,,the deeper the hole he's digging for himself as police ARE known for twisting and contradicting evidence. The LEAST said the BETTER !
-
Yes I know Jeremy saw a piece of paper decades later, and then claimed Neville phoned the police. Something no police have ever said. Most importantly on the massacre night and the month afterwards.
Why would Neville call the police and Jeremy ?
What I did not know was that his lawyers did not think it was worthy of using. But Jeremy used it anyway.
Do you have a source please ?
I just gave you the source. Jeremy's witness statement. The alleged second phone log is well known and easy to find.
Personally I agree with his legal team at the time that Jeremy acted rashly and claimed that the document proved that his father phoned the police. I don't believe he did.
-
It is so interesting the way you quote the relatives and particularly Ann Eaton as oracles of truth. Everything they have ever said is taken on face value as truth even though they barely knew Jeremy and Sheila. At the same time anything which doesn't fit in with your reasoning is dismissed, excuses are found backed up by insults, any possibility will do to dismiss any theory which doesn't fit your personal scenario. You try to hide your bias behind claims of being a lawyer but to me it is an oh so familiar pattern which is repeated over and over again on this forum.
I would never believe anything the relatives said or say now without vrification from other reliable sources. Neither do I believe in Mugford's witness as what she said on many things cannot be proved because there was no one else there when what she claimed happened or was said. Also the witnesses she did produce concerning the phone call she received from Jeremy all confirmed different times and her original time itself was 3.30am. That was until old Jonesy worked on her in 32 interviews.
-
When someone is being questioned by the police,they DON'T have to answer,whether there's a lawyer present or not. It's a NORMAL procedure to answer NO COMMENT to every question asked !
The more a detainee talks,,the deeper the hole he's digging for himself as police ARE known for twisting and contradicting evidence. The LEAST said the BETTER !
If that was me being interviewed (verbally abused) by the cops I would react in a much worse way than he did. What they would record of course would be somewthing like, "Suspect unco-operative". People would obviously believe them instead of me because they would intentionally leave out all the threats against me and the constant abuse they threw at me.
How do I know that? Because I've seen it that's why. Of course nowerdays every interview must be recorded by a dual tape recorder and the police hold one tape and the second tape is given to the accused's solicitor.
-
I just gave you the source. Jeremy's witness statement. The alleged second phone log is well known and easy to find.
Personally I agree with his legal team at the time that Jeremy acted rashly and claimed that the document proved that his father phoned the police. I don't believe he did.
No. The source that says his lawyers felt it was not worth bringing up. But Jeremy went against his lawyers advice and brought it up.
-
I would never believe anything the relatives said or say now without vrification from other reliable sources. Neither do I believe in Mugford's witness as what she said on many things cannot be proved because there was no one else there when what she claimed happened or was said. Also the witnesses she did produce concerning the phone call she received from Jeremy all confirmed different times and her original time itself was 3.30am. That was until old Jonesy worked on her in 32 interviews.
It really beggars belief that the main prosecution witness,by rights,had a criminal record:
Taking drugs.
Selling drugs.
Smuggling drugs from Canada to the UK.
Accessory to burglary.
Cheque book fraud.
With a possible accessory to murder ( questionable )
-
I often wonder if it was any of us having landed ourselves as a prosecution witness,would we be given the same treatment with a background pedigree of criminal activities ??
-
If you read my threads. The last line nearly always asks everyone a question.
Yes. The police said his answers were said in a singing tone. Yeeeees, noooo etc. While he chewed on a thread from his jumper.
The police said they would have got a confession if everything was slowed down by writing. This I do not believe. Jeremy was much too determined. Threads already created.
So he would have confessed then - but has spent all this time protesting his innocence?. I think who ever made that comment was deluded.
And I never said you don't ask questions - my observation was you think you already know the answer so actually ignore the answers as you have already come to your own conclusion before you post.
Closed mind.
-
That upset me.
I created a thread called 'Would Jeremy have confessed if the interview was taped ?' Would you like me to find it ?
-
That upset me.
I created a thread called 'Would Jeremy have confessed if the interview was taped ?' Would you like me to find it ?
No thanks
It would all be supposition because we will never know will we .
-
It is so interesting the way you quote the relatives and particularly Ann Eaton as oracles of truth. Everything they have ever said is taken on face value as truth even though they barely knew Jeremy and Sheila. At the same time anything which doesn't fit in with your reasoning is dismissed, excuses are found backed up by insults, any possibility will do to dismiss any theory which doesn't fit your personal scenario. You try to hide your bias behind claims of being a lawyer but to me it is an oh so familiar pattern which is repeated over and over again on this forum.
The claims of the relatives that are important are the direct things that they witnessed. Evaluating their claims involves looking at whether they could have witnessed what they claim, whether it makes sense etc. Their claims about having used the murder weapon, where it was stored, how it was usually stored, the condition etc are all relevant. The claim the scope would not be removed is extremely credible. The reasoning was sound that people don't remove scopes so that they have to rezero them UNLESS they only use a weapon rarely at a range for target shooting and don't mind zeroing it there.
Their claims are least reliable when discussing things they have no personal knowledge of at all like where the bodies were actually found. That is the only use you have of them. To try to look through their statements for things like how Eaton claimed she supposedly was told Sheila had been found in bed. Obviously either the cop who told her that was wrong (they are not even sure who such cop was for sure) or she misunderstood and got it wrong. How dare I dismiss things that she had no personal knowledge about and only use her as a witness to things witnessed firsthand. How diabolical of me.
You are the one biased not me. I evaluate evidence the way it should be evaluated. I don't need to twist anything the evidence is squarely against Jeremy and I simply follow the evidence where it leads. Jeremy supporters including yourself distort and that is why I tear apart the nonsense it is not because you don't have any actual evidence you need to try to invent evidence to support the claims you come up with SOLELY out of bias and thus constantly make invalid claims.
I have listed in extreme detail all the evidence that lead me to the conclusion Jeremy is guilty. What evidence leads you to believe Jeremy is innocent? None! You have no evidence at all to suggest he is innocent you just choose to believe it out of bias.
What evidence is there that Sheila killed anyone? None!
Any evidence she loaded a gun? No, she had no elevated lead levels.
Any evidence she fired a gun? No, she had no GSR or high velocity back spatter from the victims
Any evidence she beat Nevill? No, even though she would have: damaged her nails, damaged her hand when the stock broke, been hit with medium velocity blood spatter from the victim and would have gotten her prints on the rifle in his blood none of this occurred.
Any evidence that she killed herself? No she can't have killed herself because after she was shot seated with her body propped against something the killer: 1) removed the moderator and put it in the closet, 2) moved her blody flat so she then bled down the side of her neck forming a blood pool, 3) placed the bible in such pool of blood then opened and closed it repatedly before the blood dried, 4) no evidence she died substantially later than the other victims.
What evidence is there that Nevill actually phoned Jeremy? None
Did Jeremy react as someone who received such a call would react? No
Would Nevill have been likely to make such a call to him? No for a whole host of reasons I already mentioned previously which you claimed you addressed in the past but that was a blatant lie because the reality is you have no ability to address my points.
I am guided by logic and evidence while you are guided by pure bias.
It is pure bias that results in claiming police or relatives planted evidence. There is nothing at all to suggest they did and you have been able to produce ZILCH to suggest they did so you are not guided by evidence but simply bias.
There was a thread titled why do you think Jeremy is innocent or guilty. You didn't have the guts to list your full case for why you think he is innocent even though this site is run by Jeremy supporters. I listed my case knowing it would be attacked but the funny thing is no one managed to dent it.
There are ridiculous things like supporters constantly denying that a struggle took place in the kitchen but the evidence proves otherwise that is another example of bias at play to deny reality.
There are hilarious claims like Sheila would not have been able to sleep through the noise and yet claims that the walls were too thick for gunshots to be heard while in the house and that it would even prevent gunshots from being heard outside the house as if the sound of gunshots doesn't travel though windows.
That kind of hypocrisy really does one in demonstrating the true extent of their bias and willingness to distort.
Good luck trying to find an example of that with me.
-
I'm listening fine. Years later how are paper pushers are supposed to figure out which is the original verse a copy and they sent the wrong thing. For all we know the original was left in a copy machine and disposed of that happened to me at a kinkos once during a document production. Leaping to the suggestion tha tthis means Nevill made acall is already ridiculous but to say that means it proves he called Bonnet at 3:36 is crazy since there is no way Bonnet would have fielded a call.
Clerical errors happen all the time at all states- (drafting/editing/mailing/filing etc) trying to read too much into that doesn't work. You can try digging because of it to see if you find something but it virtually never leads to anything.
When I was in high school word processors took over typwriters which by college had been largely replaced by computers though the internet really helped finish off typewriters and word processors completely. Most of the documents I revewed early in my career were from the 1960' to late 70s so all typewritten or handwritten and there would be numerous versions of the same documents because of editing. They kept the drafts and all changes. Sometimes they said draft but usually not so trying to figure out which document was the final version was near impossible in many instances. Documents that needed to be filled out in duplicate or triplicate will have various differences because of typos what is the original if you need to file in triplicate and the 3 copies are different? What if they make a mistake, redo it and keep both the error and the revision even though the revision is what they filed? SOmetimes errors are trashed othertimes they are retained though never provided to anyone and simply left in a file.
Electronically maintained files are nice because you can figure out when any changes are made and what they are. Moreover, scanned documents can be sorted and made searchable on a CD or card drive. Technology is a blessing but in that era they still relied on typewriters and that must be allowed for. Not that typos don't exist today they certainly still do. Dates particularly are still screwed up regularly, month, day and year. Sometime it is because a template is used and people forget to plug in all relevant information from the matter at hand. Other times just a typing error. If changes and revisions are to something critical then it is worth a good look. If the log actually claimed Nevill had phoned 999 and 999 passed the message to Bonnet and it was crossed out on another copy then that would be pretty significant as far as investigation. There isn't anything close to that though.
I don't think you have quite grasped what I am saying. so never mind.
-
The claims of the relatives that are important are the direct things that they witnessed. Evaluating their claims involves looking at whether they could have witnessed what they claim, whether it makes sense etc. Their claims about having used the murder weapon, where it was stored, how it was usually stored, the condition etc are all relevant. The claim the scope would not be removed is extremely credible. The reasoning was sound that people don't remove scopes so that they have to rezero them UNLESS they only use a weapon rarely at a range for target shooting and don't mind zeroing it there.
Their claims are least reliable when discussing things they have no personal knowledge of at all like where the bodies were actually found. That is the only use you have of them. To try to look through their statements for things like how Eaton claimed she supposedly was told Sheila had been found in bed. Obviously either the cop who told her that was wrong (they are not even sure who such cop was for sure) or she misunderstood and got it wrong. How dare I dismiss things that she had no personal knowledge about and only use her as a witness to things witnessed firsthand. How diabolical of me.
You are the one biased not me. I evaluate evidence the way it should be evaluated. I don't need to twist anything the evidence is squarely against Jeremy and I simply follow the evidence where it leads. Jeremy supporters including yourself distort and that is why I tear apart the nonsense it is not because you don't have any actual evidence you need to try to invent evidence to support the claims you come up with SOLELY out of bias and thus constantly make invalid claims.
I have listed in extreme detail all the evidence that lead me to the conclusion Jeremy is guilty. What evidence leads you to believe Jeremy is innocent? None! You have no evidence at all to suggest he is innocent you just choose to believe it out of bias.
What evidence is there that Sheila killed anyone? None!
Any evidence she loaded a gun? No, she had no elevated lead levels.
Any evidence she fired a gun? No, she had no GSR or high velocity back spatter from the victims
Any evidence she beat Nevill? No, even though she would have: damaged her nails, damaged her hand when the stock broke, been hit with medium velocity blood spatter from the victim and would have gotten her prints on the rifle in his blood none of this occurred.
Any evidence that she killed herself? No she can't have killed herself because after she was shot seated with her body propped against something the killer: 1) removed the moderator and put it in the closet, 2) moved her blody flat so she then bled down the side of her neck forming a blood pool, 3) placed the bible in such pool of blood then opened and closed it repatedly before the blood dried, 4) no evidence she died substantially later than the other victims.
What evidence is there that Nevill actually phoned Jeremy? None
Did Jeremy react as someone who received such a call would react? No
Would Nevill have been likely to make such a call to him? No for a whole host of reasons I already mentioned previously which you claimed you addressed in the past but that was a blatant lie because the reality is you have no ability to address my points.
I am guided by logic and evidence while you are guided by pure bias.
It is pure bias that results in claiming police or relatives planted evidence. There is nothing at all to suggest they did and you have been able to produce ZILCH to suggest they did so you are not guided by evidence but simply bias.
There was a thread titled why do you think Jeremy is innocent or guilty. You didn't have the guts to list your full case for why you think he is innocent even though this site is run by Jeremy supporters. I listed my case knowing it would be attacked but the funny thing is no one managed to dent it.
There are ridiculous things like supporters constantly denying that a struggle took place in the kitchen but the evidence proves otherwise that is another example of bias at play to deny reality.
There are hilarious claims like Sheila would not have been able to sleep through the noise and yet claims that the walls were too thick for gunshots to be heard while in the house and that it would even prevent gunshots from being heard outside the house as if the sound of gunshots doesn't travel though windows.
That kind of hypocrisy really does one in demonstrating the true extent of their bias and willingness to distort.
Good luck trying to find an example of that with me.
Don't think I shall be bothering scipio but thanks for proving my point, just cannot understand why you are so aggressive. :)
-
The claims of the relatives that are important are the direct things that they witnessed. Evaluating their claims involves looking at whether they could have witnessed what they claim, whether it makes sense etc. Their claims about having used the murder weapon, where it was stored, how it was usually stored, the condition etc are all relevant. The claim the scope would not be removed is extremely credible. The reasoning was sound that people don't remove scopes so that they have to rezero them UNLESS they only use a weapon rarely at a range for target shooting and don't mind zeroing it there.
Their claims are least reliable when discussing things they have no personal knowledge of at all like where the bodies were actually found. That is the only use you have of them. To try to look through their statements for things like how Eaton claimed she supposedly was told Sheila had been found in bed. Obviously either the cop who told her that was wrong (they are not even sure who such cop was for sure) or she misunderstood and got it wrong. How dare I dismiss things that she had no personal knowledge about and only use her as a witness to things witnessed firsthand. How diabolical of me.
You are the one biased not me. I evaluate evidence the way it should be evaluated. I don't need to twist anything the evidence is squarely against Jeremy and I simply follow the evidence where it leads. Jeremy supporters including yourself distort and that is why I tear apart the nonsense it is not because you don't have any actual evidence you need to try to invent evidence to support the claims you come up with SOLELY out of bias and thus constantly make invalid claims.
I have listed in extreme detail all the evidence that lead me to the conclusion Jeremy is guilty. What evidence leads you to believe Jeremy is innocent? None! You have no evidence at all to suggest he is innocent you just choose to believe it out of bias.
What evidence is there that Sheila killed anyone? None!
Any evidence she loaded a gun? No, she had no elevated lead levels.
Any evidence she fired a gun? No, she had no GSR or high velocity back spatter from the victims
Any evidence she beat Nevill? No, even though she would have: damaged her nails, damaged her hand when the stock broke, been hit with medium velocity blood spatter from the victim and would have gotten her prints on the rifle in his blood none of this occurred.
Any evidence that she killed herself? No she can't have killed herself because after she was shot seated with her body propped against something the killer: 1) removed the moderator and put it in the closet, 2) moved her blody flat so she then bled down the side of her neck forming a blood pool, 3) placed the bible in such pool of blood then opened and closed it repatedly before the blood dried, 4) no evidence she died substantially later than the other victims.
What evidence is there that Nevill actually phoned Jeremy? None
Did Jeremy react as someone who received such a call would react? No
Would Nevill have been likely to make such a call to him? No for a whole host of reasons I already mentioned previously which you claimed you addressed in the past but that was a blatant lie because the reality is you have no ability to address my points.
I am guided by logic and evidence while you are guided by pure bias.
It is pure bias that results in claiming police or relatives planted evidence. There is nothing at all to suggest they did and you have been able to produce ZILCH to suggest they did so you are not guided by evidence but simply bias.
There was a thread titled why do you think Jeremy is innocent or guilty. You didn't have the guts to list your full case for why you think he is innocent even though this site is run by Jeremy supporters. I listed my case knowing it would be attacked but the funny thing is no one managed to dent it.
There are ridiculous things like supporters constantly denying that a struggle took place in the kitchen but the evidence proves otherwise that is another example of bias at play to deny reality.
There are hilarious claims like Sheila would not have been able to sleep through the noise and yet claims that the walls were too thick for gunshots to be heard while in the house and that it would even prevent gunshots from being heard outside the house as if the sound of gunshots doesn't travel though windows.
That kind of hypocrisy really does one in demonstrating the true extent of their bias and willingness to distort.
Good luck trying to find an example of that with me.
I don't think they are "hilarious" claims as you put it? Because neither has been actually tested I just think that it is one view against another. It's not really good to insult the intelligence of another by calling their claims hilarious.
I personally believe that if the shots to Sheila were close contact shots, then no I don't think they would necessarily be heard. I have been outside of a similar house when someone was target shooting inside with a .22 rifle and I must confess I heard nothing. So we must out of courtesy refer to this part as "unproven", since it was never tested after the shooting.
The other question as to whether sheila would not have been able to remain asleep throughout the "noise" as you put it again must remain a moot point. If Sheila's parents woke up, then it would be only reasonable to suspect that she would have been woken up also. Unless of course she was already awake?
So please do not refer to these claims as hilarious and then to claim that they are hilarious just because you yourself do not agree with it.
-
I don't think they are "hilarious" claims as you put it? Because neither has been actually tested I just think that it is one view against another. It's not really good to insult the intelligence of another by calling their claims hilarious.
I personally believe that if the shots to Sheila were close contact shots, then no I don't think they would necessarily be heard. I have been outside of a similar house when someone was target shooting inside with a .22 rifle and I must confess I heard nothing. So we must out of courtesy refer to this part as "unproven", since it was never tested after the shooting.
The other question as to whether sheila would not have been able to remain asleep throughout the "noise" as you put it again must remain a moot point. If Sheila's parents woke up, then it would be only reasonable to suspect that she would have been woken up also. Unless of course she was already awake?
So please do not refer to these claims as hilarious and then to claim that they are hilarious just because you yourself do not agree with it.
1) Saying that Sheila would hear shots fired in the house but police near the window of the room would not hear anything and police in the house would likewise hear nothing is contradictory and doesn't make any sense. If a sleeping Sheila could be awakened by the shots then cops in the house already awake would certainly hear them and so would police outside. I don't know why your friend would be shooting inside of his house but if he did one wonders if you have hearing problems or not bbecause shots fired in a house while you are close to it outside without any background noise going on as you intently are staring at the house and listening for something to happen are not going to be missed. Maybe there was background noise occupying your attention and you were not close to the area where the shot was fired from.
In any event there is a huge disconnect in arguing the walls are too thick for the sounds of gunshots to penetrate and then to insist Sheila had to be awakened by the shots or struggle in the kitchen and that she could not have slept through things like the boys did.
2) Some people don't wake up from loud noises while others do. Last night we had a major thunder storm and my wife slept right through it without hearing a thing she had no idea it thundered. So the notion that Sheila had to wake up is not true indeed the boys did not wake up so why would Sheila have to? The parents could very well have been woken up when the lights turned on in their room. June could have woken up upon being shot we have no way of knowing. The assumption that the parents waking up as being shot means someone in a different room would also wake up is not a safe bet as demonstrated by the boys still being asleep. There are also plenty of documented cases where people slept through murders committed by guns and woke up in the morning to find their family or rooomates had been killed. Many times it is children but not always it happens with adults as well. Some people are heavy sleepers. It probably saved their lives because had they gotten up they likely would have been killed as well.
-
Love the way there are the two extremes on here.
Scipio writes long posts, Numug rarely writes more than two lines, even when creating a thread.
There is no right or wrong.
-
1) Saying that Sheila would hear shots fired in the house but police near the window of the room would not hear anything and police in the house would likewise hear nothing is contradictory and doesn't make any sense. If a sleeping Sheila could be awakened by the shots then cops in the house already awake would certainly hear them and so would police outside. I don't know why your friend would be shooting inside of his house but if he did one wonders if you have hearing problems or not bbecause shots fired in a house while you are close to it outside without any background noise going on as you intently are staring at the house and listening for something to happen are not going to be missed. Maybe there was background noise occupying your attention and you were not close to the area where the shot was fired from.
In any event there is a huge disconnect in arguing the walls are too thick for the sounds of gunshots to penetrate and then to insist Sheila had to be awakened by the shots or struggle in the kitchen and that she could not have slept through things like the boys did.
2) Some people don't wake up from loud noises while others do. Last night we had a major thunder storm and my wife slept right through it without hearing a thing she had no idea it thundered. So the notion that Sheila had to wake up is not true indeed the boys did not wake up so why would Sheila have to? The parents could very well have been woken up when the lights turned on in their room. June could have woken up upon being shot we have no way of knowing. The assumption that the parents waking up as being shot means someone in a different room would also wake up is not a safe bet as demonstrated by the boys still being asleep. There are also plenty of documented cases where people slept through murders committed by guns and woke up in the morning to find their family or rooomates had been killed. Many times it is children but not always it happens with adults as well. Some people are heavy sleepers. It probably saved their lives because had they gotten up they likely would have been killed as well.
In other words both are moot points as I said. We can both argue our own points until the cows come home. But as I said, neither was tested and so remains just our own opinions. Your reasons are just as "hilarious" as mine appear to be so to you and for this reason. None of us know either the sequence of the shootings nor how loud they were. eg: You may think the kids were killed last. But they may indeed have been killed first? again neither of us know if the occupants of the house were awake or asleep, except of course for the twins where it looks very likely that they were killed in their sleep.
-
In other words both are moot points as I said. We can both argue our own points until the cows come home. But as I said, neither was tested and so remains just our own opinions. Your reasons are just as "hilarious" as mine appear to be so to you and for this reason. None of us know either the sequence of the shootings nor how loud they were. eg: You may think the kids were killed last. But they may indeed have been killed first? again neither of us know if the occupants of the house were awake or asleep, except of course for the twins where it looks very likely that they were killed in their sleep.
Making contradictory claims is not moot it means one is being hypocritical and making contradictory claims.
Scipio: Gunshots could be heard by anyone in the house and by those outside particuarly those near the windows of the room. Thus Sheila could have heard the shots and have been woken up by them. The police would have heard any shots fired while they were present.
Some Jeremy supporters: The walls are too thick for gunshots to be heard in a different room and for noise to travel around the house. Police inside or outside the house would not have been able to hear gunshots fired in the house. Dogs outside would have woken up the whole house. Sheila would definitely have been woken up by the gunshots and struggle.
Are any of my claims contradictory? No Are the claims of the supporters contradictory? Yes because when it suits their interest they claim people would hear noises not only being made inside but even noises from outside but when it suits their interest claim the noises would not be heard. Their claims are not consistent that is what is so funny and damning.
-
Making contradictory claims is not moot it means one is being hypocritical and making contradictory claims.
Scipio: Gunshots could be heard by anyone in the house and by those outside particuarly those near the windows of the room. Thus Sheila could have heard the shots and have been woken up by them. The police would have heard any shots fired while they were present.
Some Jeremy supporters: The walls are too thick for gunshots to be heard in a different room and for noise to travel around the house. Police inside or outside the house would not have been able to hear gunshots fired in the house. Dogs outside would have woken up the whole house. Sheila would definitely have been woken up by the gunshots and struggle.
Are any of my claims contradictory? No Are the claims of the supporters contradictory? Yes because when it suits their interest they claim people would hear noises not only being made inside but even noises from outside but when it suits their interest claim the noises would not be heard. Their claims are not consistent that is what is so funny and damning.
No master scipio I am not being hypocritical. I don't think anyone has the essential evidence to answer those questions confidently. Why? Because as I have confirmed in other posts no one is in possession of the entire truth. Why is that. Oh because no one alive or on this forum was there. Or to quote one of the best known saying of Vietnam vets, (in a gruff voice) "You werrn't thayre".
That is why I would like to here the audio tapes of the events that took place when the raid team went in, which the police are still for some reason guarding with their lives.
Calling someone a hypocrite is very offensive as it is a judgment of their character or their motives. Nobody has the ability to judge someone else's motives.
-
No master scipio I am not being hypocritical. I don't think anyone has the essential evidence to answer those questions confidently. Why? Because as I have confirmed in other posts no one is in possession of the entire truth. Why is that. Oh because no one alive or on this forum was there. Or to quote one of the best known saying of Vietnam vets, (in a gruff voice) "You werrn't thayre".
That is why I would like to here the audio tapes of the events that took place when the raid team went in, which the police are still for some reason guarding with their lives.
Calling someone a hypocrite is very offensive as it is a judgment of their character or their motives. Nobody has the ability to judge someone else's motives.
When someone claims sounds can't penetrate walls when it suits them but can penetrate the same walls when it suits them they are being hypocrites and it is for sure because of bias. Nothing you say can alter these facts.
-
That upset me.
I created a thread called 'Would Jeremy have confessed if the interview was taped ?' Would you like me to find it ?
Jansus said 'no' so no need to post it.
-
When someone claims sounds can't penetrate walls when it suits them but can penetrate the same walls when it suits them they are being hypocrites and it is for sure because of bias. Nothing you say can alter these facts.
I haven't claimed either. I said that it is a point that needs to be proved. Please don't call me a hypocrite scipio.
-
When someone claims sounds can't penetrate walls when it suits them but can penetrate the same walls when it suits them they are being hypocrites and it is for sure because of bias. Nothing you say can alter these facts.
So there are hypocrites all around. Guilters claim that Sheila would have slept through 23 shots inside the house, but the police would have heard two contact shots outside.
-
So there are hypocrites all around. Guilters claim that Sheila would have slept through 23 shots inside the house, but the police would have heard two contact shots outside.
No guilters say she COULD have slept through the shots fired with a moderator because some people have in fact slept through shots fired in next door rooms even when fired without a moderator and that police would definitely hear 2 shots fired without a moderator when there is no background noise because it is early and they were all intently watching and listening to the house for movement and signs of life. There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory at all.
-
Silencer be buggered.It was a straightforward revenge attack between two women who hated each other like poison ! A very violent domestic. Things got slightly overheated.
Sheila was being forced into a situation by a strong suggestion of going away to convalesce in some place at the seaside. June was arrangeing foster care for the boys when they returned from their holiday with their father and his girlfriend ( another bone of contention with Sheila )
I can't see anything more simple and straightforward as this,,except that greed and jealousy happened to rear its ugly head to turn the case completely on its head and cause utter mayhem all round.
-
No guilters say she COULD have slept through the shots fired with a moderator because some people have in fact slept through shots fired in next door rooms even when fired without a moderator and that police would definitely hear 2 shots fired without a moderator when there is no background noise because it is early and they were all intently watching and listening to the house for movement and signs of life. There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory at all.
A hypocrite is someone who is pretending to be something they are not.
-
A hypocrite is someone who is pretending to be something they are not.
Fits the bill nicely !!
-
A hypocrite is someone who is pretending to be something they are not.
That depends on which dictionary you consult. Some limit it to people who claim to have virtues they do not actually possess or not practicing what they preach. Others are more expansive and define it as those who make hypocritical claims. I am using it in the latter sense.
-
That depends on which dictionary you consult. Some limit it to people who claim to have virtues they do not actually possess or not practicing what they preach. Others are more expansive and define it as those who make hypocritical claims. I am using it in the latter sense.
Master scipio I am a master of Greek. The word "hypocrite" comes from the Greek and applies to the mask used by the actors on stage. To depict different characters they used to change their mask that portrays that character.
No it doesn't depent upon which dictionary you use. It depends upon the etymology of the word, which I have just given. If you study the origin of words then you are more likely to be able to use them correctly.
-
Master scipio I am a master of Greek. The word "hypocrite" comes from the Greek and applies to the mask used by the actors on stage. To depict different characters they used to change their mask that portrays that character.
No it doesn't depent upon which dictionary you use. It depends upon the etymology of the word, which I have just given. If you study the origin of words then you are more likely to be able to use them correctly.
Someone who acts in a hypocritcal fashion is to me a hypocrite. They are a phony and full of crap.
Someone who claims gunshots fired inside a room cannot be heard outside where there is no background noise and cops are intently watching and listening is full of crap. Such person is claiming such SOLELY because of an agenda. The only people making that claim are those with the agenda of suggesting it is plausible Jeremy is innocent and that Sheila wasn't dead before police arrived.
Worse though there are phonies who are full of crap who contend gunshots would definitely be heard by Sheila and definitely wake her up but would not be heard by cops in the house. The walls are unable to be penetrated when cops are in the house an doutside but can be penetrated by sound when cops are not around and only Sheila is there. Dogs barking outside would wake up all but shots fired inside could not penetrate woindows.
What is the common theme? That when it suits Jeremy supporters sound travels through the windows and walls and doors like normal but when it doesn't suit them each room is soundproof.
It seems to me that hypocrite is a kind description and other indeed come to mind for those making such claims.
The same hypocrites also create straw men arguments and try to pretend their opponents are the ones doing this. For instance trying to pretend their opponents suggest sound would not have penetrated Sheila's room. But that is not the claim at all it is a strawman. The actual claim is that some people sleep through loud noises without waking up so it is possible she slept through the noise possible she woke up, there is no way to know. Moreover, some peopel wake up but go right back to sleep and don't bother to get out of bed to investigate. Last it is ignored that it was suggested a moderator was used which contrary to claims reduces the sound of the shots to that made by a cap gun. There is a difference between a cap gun and 22 regardless of claims otherwise.
Hypocrite or biased distorting clown? In this case both refer to the same thing but the former sounds kinder.
from windowsfrom outdoors is either deaf
-
" They are a phoney and full of crap ".Mmmmm.
-
Someone who acts in a hypocritcal fashion is to me a hypocrite. They are a phony and full of crap.
Someone who claims gunshots fired inside a room cannot be heard outside where there is no background noise and cops are intently watching and listening is full of crap. Such person is claiming such SOLELY because of an agenda. The only people making that claim are those with the agenda of suggesting it is plausible Jeremy is innocent and that Sheila wasn't dead before police arrived.
Worse though there are phonies who are full of crap who contend gunshots would definitely be heard by Sheila and definitely wake her up but would not be heard by cops in the house. The walls are unable to be penetrated when cops are in the house an doutside but can be penetrated by sound when cops are not around and only Sheila is there. Dogs barking outside would wake up all but shots fired inside could not penetrate woindows.
What is the common theme? That when it suits Jeremy supporters sound travels through the windows and walls and doors like normal but when it doesn't suit them each room is soundproof.
It seems to me that hypocrite is a kind description and other indeed come to mind for those making such claims.
The same hypocrites also create straw men arguments and try to pretend their opponents are the ones doing this. For instance trying to pretend their opponents suggest sound would not have penetrated Sheila's room. But that is not the claim at all it is a strawman. The actual claim is that some people sleep through loud noises without waking up so it is possible she slept through the noise possible she woke up, there is no way to know. Moreover, some peopel wake up but go right back to sleep and don't bother to get out of bed to investigate. Last it is ignored that it was suggested a moderator was used which contrary to claims reduces the sound of the shots to that made by a cap gun. There is a difference between a cap gun and 22 regardless of claims otherwise.
Hypocrite or biased distorting clown? In this case both refer to the same thing but the former sounds kinder.
from windowsfrom outdoors is either deaf
Scipio my dear friend. I will have more respect for your astronomical claims if you are able to prove those points. Personally I think in your heart of hearts you know that I am right but just bulk at the idea that I can personally testify that what I say is true. The noise from such a weapon sounds just like a cap gun and that the noise from other sounds, such as a yappy barking Shitzu could mask that cap gun sound. You surely must agree with me that attaching a silencer the sound would be reduced to a click sound. Come on master scipio, if you're honest and I believe you are, you must acknowledge that I'm right on that? ;)
-
Lots of Youtube videos on a 22 rifle.
-
Hello Adam goody goody am looking forward to those ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Lots of Youtube videos on a 22 rifle.
I've done that Adam, but he still is unconvinced. The trouble with youtube videos and scipio is right about this, is that they can never duplicate the same environment. You see in WHF there was furniture and carpets and beds that would all help to muffle the sounds. I contend that the windows would make no difference in this case. Plus you have the business of the contact shots, which would in itself act as a silencer and deaden the sound of the shot.
What we need to do in order to judge this this rightly is to produce exactly the same environment. This was done by no one.
-
I've done that Adam, but he still is unconvinced. The trouble with youtube videos and scipio is right about this, is that they can never duplicate the same environment. You see in WHF there was furniture and carpets and beds that would all help to muffle the sounds. I contend that the windows would make no difference in this case. Plus you have the business of the contact shots, which would in itself act as a silencer and deaden the sound of the shot.
What we need to do in order to judge this this rightly is to produce exactly the same environment. This was done by no one.
Good point about the contact shots. Makes it even less likely Sheila would wake.
-
Scipio my dear friend. I will have more respect for your astronomical claims if you are able to prove those points. Personally I think in your heart of hearts you know that I am right but just bulk at the idea that I can personally testify that what I say is true. The noise from such a weapon sounds just like a cap gun and that the noise from other sounds, such as a yappy barking Shitzu could mask that cap gun sound. You surely must agree with me that attaching a silencer the sound would be reduced to a click sound. Come on master scipio, if you're honest and I believe you are, you must acknowledge that I'm right on that? ;)
Afternoon Grahame, I can't always tell when you are just on a wind up or whether you are offering genuinely held opinions.
For the benefit of others, having recently fired a .22 rimfire rifle with and without a P&H moderator. My experience was that without a SM attached, the sound was fairly loud, a bit louder than a cap gun I would say. With the SM attached, the sound was reduced a little bit, maybe by about 30% but was still quite audible.
It was also amazing (to me at least) how light the rifle was.
That was my experience anyway, you may have had a different one.
-
Afternoon Grahame, I can't always tell when you are just on a wind up or whether you are offering genuinely held opinions.
For the benefit of others, having recently fired a .22 rimfire rifle with and without a P&H moderator. My experience was that without a SM attached, the sound was fairly loud, a bit louder than a cap gun I would say. With the SM attached, the sound was reduced a little bit, maybe by about 30% but was still quite audible.
It was also amazing (to me at least) how light the rifle was.
That was my experience anyway, you may have had a different one.
Welcome back Harters :)! I'd say that pretty much backs up what Grahame has maintained.
-
Welcome back Harters :)! I'd say that pretty much backs up what Grahame has maintained.
Well maybe, but I wouldn't describe it just as a click when the SM was attached. The main thing which stood out, is that the SM didn't actually seem to make a great deal of difference.
-
Is the rifle used mainly for shooting vermin ?
Seems strange that the SM does not make much difference. Not much vermin will be caught.
I assume there are lots of different types of the rifle 22 ?
-
Adam thought you watched the videos on the 22's you posted up and you would know all about them. ;D
-
Afternoon Grahame, I can't always tell when you are just on a wind up or whether you are offering genuinely held opinions.
For the benefit of others, having recently fired a .22 rimfire rifle with and without a P&H moderator. My experience was that without a SM attached, the sound was fairly loud, a bit louder than a cap gun I would say. With the SM attached, the sound was reduced a little bit, maybe by about 30% but was still quite audible.
It was also amazing (to me at least) how light the rifle was.
That was my experience anyway, you may have had a different one.
Hello Hartley :) You opinion is always respected and thank you for that enlightening information. You didn't try it indoors by any chance did you? ;D No I shouldn't think so. Furniture and all that.
-
Is the rifle used mainly for shooting vermin ?
Seems strange that the SM does not make much difference. Not much vermin will be caught.
I assume there are lots of different types of the rifle 22 ?
Yeah, it's noticeable that without the SM attached, all the rabbits scarpered, but with it attached, they just looked up and then carried on. So there is obviously a difference in sound, just not as much as I thought there would be.
-
Adam thought you watched the videos on the 22's you posted up and you would know all about them. ;D
I have not watched any. I will leave that to you.
-
Is the rifle used mainly for shooting vermin ?
Seems strange that the SM does not make much difference. Not much vermin will be caught.
I assume there are lots of different types of the rifle 22 ?
Yes. Some are used for hunting small game and some are just used for target shooting. Some I must agree are louder than others. There I understand from general gossip on the forum that some people use subsonic ammo and some supersonic ammo. Not sure what the difference is though and under what circumstances each are used for, not knowing much about guns myself.
-
Hello Hartley :) You opinion is always respected and thank you for that enlightening information. You didn't try it indoors by any chance did you? ;D No I shouldn't think so. Furniture and all that.
Unsurprisingly, it was outside.
If fired indoors I suspect the sound may if anything be a little louder, rather than being absorbed/deadened.
-
Unsurprisingly, it was outside.
If fired indoors I suspect the sound may if anything be a little louder, rather than being absorbed/deadened.
Ok Hartley, thank you for that. :)
-
Adam naughty boy trying to get me to do your research on 22's ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Adam naughty boy trying to get me to do your research on 22's ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quite honestly Susan I don't think we will get much of an idea of how the gun sounded by trawling youtube? I've watched quite a few and they are all different sounds. But I have heard a .22 rifle being fired outside and I must say the sound travels quite a distance. But I'm still not sure about if one is fired inside a building. I've actually been fired AT by someone with a .22 rifle and although I didn't hear the rifle much I did hear the bullet whistle overhead and hit the tree behind me. I've also been hit by a richochet on the arm. Ouch! that really smarts.
-
Quite honestly Susan I don't think we will get much of an idea of how the gun sounded by trawling youtube? I've watched quite a few and they are all different sounds. But I have heard a .22 rifle being fired outside and I must say the sound travels quite a distance. But I'm still not sure about if one is fired inside a building. I've actually been fired AT by someone with a .22 rifle and although I didn't hear the rifle much I did hear the bullet whistle overhead and hit the tree behind me. I've also been hit by a richochet on the arm. Ouch! that really smarts.
You should get yourself some new friends! 8)
-
Grahame Ha Ha I was not trawling you tube that was Adams suggestion but notice he did not trawl it either "do as I say not what I do" thats his motto ;D.
-
Grahame Ha Ha I was not trawling you tube that was Adams suggestion but notice he did not trawl it either "do as I say not what I do" thats his motto ;D.
Well it is obvious that he isn't that curious to be a real detective. I see him more as a book reader to be of much use as an investigator?
-
Grahame think Adam is trying to educate me on this case as I never post a new thread or give scenario's or indeed a source ;D
-
Don't you think that if Jeremy had been guilty,he would also have dropped Julie in it too by saying that " she knew of his plan " months ago,but chose to do nothing about it ? And why didn't she ?
-
Bringing Julie down was an option for Jeremy. But it is admitting certain guilt.
Julie can always deny his accusations. If guilty Julie's sentence will be much more lenient as she was miles away in London. She would only be guilty of knowing about his plans. She said she knew anyway, but did not believe him.
-
So,she didn't believe him,or chose not to believe him for fear of incriminating herself,which is it to be ?
-
If he'd been guilty then he most definitely would have roped Julie in,without a doubt,wouldn't you ?
-
If he'd been guilty then he most definitely would have roped Julie in,without a doubt,wouldn't you ?
He would admit his guilt and then say Julie was an accomplice hoping that she would go to prison to?
No most people won't admit guilt instead of fighting guilt. Your claim that most people would do such is not borne out at all by past cases let alone human nature which is to deny guilt and try to avoid prison.
-
There is no way was or ever is going to admit guilt. If that means he cannot incriminate Julie, so be it.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5358.0.html
-
He would admit his guilt and then say Julie was an accomplice hoping that she would go to prison to?
No most people won't admit guilt instead of fighting guilt. Your claim that most people would do such is not borne out at all by past cases let alone human nature which is to deny guilt and try to avoid prison.
Did lookout say "most people" or "most definitely"?
-
There is no way was or ever is going to admit guilt. If that means he cannot incriminate Julie, so be it.
If I was guilty of such a crime (heaven forbid, I wouldn't be able to live with myself) I wouldn't waste all these years telling everyone I was innocent. I would be busy planning how to get out of that place and escaping abroad somewhere. Come to think of it I would do exactly the same if I was innocent. To be innocent and free is better that to be innocent and locked up for life. I'd be on the run by now if it were me.
-
Reading the judges summing up again, I had not realised the prosecution thought their case was overwhelming without the silencer. The relatives thought this to.
-
If he'd been guilty then he most definitely would have roped Julie in,without a doubt,wouldn't you ?
You are right - he would not have told her unless he had a sure fire way of keeping her quiet . So for example helping with the sleeping tablet plot . If it ever existed , because that's an easy one to make up that needs no proof.
-
For everyone.