Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on June 24, 2014, 05:29:PM
-
Just as important as forensic and circumstantial evidence is whether the accused had the opportunity to commit the crime.
A defence that can show there was no or a limited opportunity could put reasonable doubt into the jury.
The prosecution argued Jeremy committed the massacre for money. Did he have the 'opportunity' to achieve his aim ?
INSIDE WHF. WAS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY ?
Was everyone connected to the will in one place ? Yes.
Was everyone likely to be asleep ? Yes.
Were 4/5 of the people physically weaker than Jeremy ? Yes.
Was there a deadly weapon available ? Yes.
GETTING TO WHF. WAS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY ?
Was it close enough ? Yes.
Were there different routes there ? Yes.
Was there a way there without being seen ? Yes.
Were there several transport options ? Yes.
ENTRY INTO AND OUT OF WHF. WAS THERE AN OPPORTINITY ?
Was there a quiet way in ? Yes.
Was there a way to lock a window from outside ? Yes.
THE TIME LIMITS. WAS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY ?
Jeremy was left to his own devices between 10.30pm - 3.00am. Was that enough time ? Yes.
Are there any witnesses that saw or spoke to Jeremy between the above times ? No.
DIVERTING THE BLAME. WAS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY ?
Was there a scapegoat ? Yes.
Jeremy certainly had the 'opportunity' to commit the massacre. Of that we must all agree.
-
all depends what time it was comited theres no definite answer to that.
-
Just as important as forensic and circumstantial evidence is whether the accused had the opportunity to commit the crime.
A defence that can show there was no or a limited opportunity could put reasonable doubt into the jury.
The prosecution argued Jeremy committed the massacre for money. Did he have the 'opportunity' to achieve his aim ?
INSIDE WHF. WAS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY ?
Was everyone connected to the will in one place ? Yes.
Was everyone likely to be asleep ? Yes.
Were 4/5 of the people physically weaker than Jeremy ? Yes.
Was there a deadly weapon available ? Yes.
GETTING TO WHF. WAS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY ?
Was it close enough ? Yes.
Were there different routes there ? Yes.
Was there a way there without being seen ? Yes.
Were there several transport options ? Yes.
ENTRY INTO AND OUT OF WHF. WAS THERE AN OPPORTINITY ?
Was there a quiet way in ? Yes.
Was there a way to lock a window from outside ? Yes.
THE TIME LIMITS. WAS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY ?
Jeremy was left to his own devices between 10.30pm - 3.00am. Was that enough time ? Yes.
Are there any witnesses that saw or spoke to Jeremy between the above times ? No.
DIVERTING THE BLAME. WAS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY ?
Was there a scapegoat ? Yes.
Jeremy certainly had the 'opportunity' to commit the massacre. Of that we must all agree.
so did Sheila - so you are back to square one- glad you have so much time on your hands.
- and yet again I repeat - the police did not manage to lock a window from the outside - so NOT proven your supposition on this point is again hearsay.
-
It appears Adam that you have answered all your own questions? So no need for me to answer any. ::)
-
so did Sheila - so you are back to square one- glad you have so much time on your hands.
- and yet again I repeat - the police did not manage to lock a window from the outside - so NOT proven your supposition on this point is again hearsay.
Hi jansus I agree, am sick of Adam saying that thw window could be locked from the outside, it's not true, the police admitted after the trial that the windows could not be locked from the outside.
-
I don't know what Adams' motive is,,but his repetitive posts tell me that it's someone on a mission of some sort,as he's posting for postings' sake. We've heard it all before.
What's your aim,Adam ? Because clearly,you have NO interest in the case at all.
-
Hello lookout Adam uses the forum as a platform to be heard ;D maybe he should become a preacher and have his own flock ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Susan,,a soapbox would suffice, under a small tree in a small corner tucked away in Hyde Park. ;D ;D
-
Ha Ha lookout should he dress for the occasion ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes,Susan--------a dress would be appropriate ;D ;D
-
Hi Susan,,a soapbox would suffice, under a small tree in a small corner tucked away in Hyde Park. ;D ;D
Well he certainly thinks he is king of the Threads- obviously trying to break some sort of record.
Bless.
-
He,,with a lot of others,won't be smirking and posting their self-satisfying posts when the truth comes out.
While Jeremys' account of the night of the 7th has NEVER faltered,,others have had their statements altered,edited and re-thought about in many instances. So it would seem that Jeremy has told the truth !
It must have rattled EP during his interrogation,,until late at night,for days,that Jeremy gave the same answers each time.
-
Ha Ha lookout I like it can just imagine it ;D ;D ;D where is he anyway gathering info for more threads ;D
-
His ID should be Spider-----------because he does a lot of spinning. ;D His posts are full of it.
-
Hello lookout Adam uses the forum as a platform to be heard ;D maybe he should become a preacher and have his own flock ;D ;D ;D
At Sunday service, he would just say, Sermon already made. It is the same sermon as last Sunday´s. Remember to read up on the 19 Commandments. Source Please. Amen
And don´t forget to say your "five sources" twenty times every day, now, bugger off, peeps.
He would quickly lose his "flock", eh! 8)
-
Hi jansus I agree, am sick of Adam saying that thw window could be locked from the outside, it's not true, the police admitted after the trial that the windows could not be locked from the outside.
Did you not see my 'five' sources ?
-
so did Sheila - so you are back to square one- glad you have so much time on your hands.
- and yet again I repeat - the police did not manage to lock a window from the outside - so NOT proven your supposition on this point is again hearsay.
Did you not read my five sources ? Yes I did say five.
-
Hi jansus I agree, am sick of Adam saying that thw window could be locked from the outside, it's not true, the police admitted after the trial that the windows could not be locked from the outside.
The police didn't say that. The police never went to have the family show them how to do it apparently. The police told the family they would see how they did it but never did and instead at trial relied on the family.
The family members stated the were ABLE to colse the kitchen window and the latch would fall into place as they closed it.
You have no way to prove the fmaily wrong you didn't go there to try it they did. So we have their claim and I trust anything they say over anything you claim because 1) they are first part witnesses while you are not and 2) you have demonstrated no objectivity whatsoever and 30) you are constantly wrong
-
Five sources (again) -
Julies WS
AE's WS
2002 appeal.
Wilkes's book.
Jeremy's interview transcripts.
-
If AE & Julie were trying to frame Jeremy, bit stupid to make up something the police could easily check.
If it was wrong, then the police would get suspicious of them.
Bit of a co incidence they both said the same thing.
-
If it was brought up in the 2002 appeal, it must have been discussed at trial. And proven at trial.
The police may have checked the windows early on. And found nothing unusual. But knew nothing about it being lockable from outside. Until informed a long time afterwards. It was murder/suicide so they would not check certain things.
-
Did you not read my five sources ? Yes I did say five.
Did you not read my quotes from EP stating after the trial that the windows could NOT be locked from outside.
-
Did you not read my quotes from EP stating after the trial that the windows could NOT be locked from outside.
Some cops stated they were not able to figure out how it could be done. They did not ask the family how the family did it. The family stated they were able to close the window and lock it. The police never bothered to have the family demonstrate instead the prosecution relied at trial on the family asserting it could be done.
-
Some cops stated they were not able to figure out how it could be done. They did not ask the family how the family did it. The family stated they were able to close the window and lock it. The police never bothered to have the family demonstrate instead the prosecution relied at trial on the family asserting it could be done.
Exactly, it was never proven. The police tried to lock it and didn't succeed, AE and RWB claimed it could be done but they were unable to prove it and how did they know as they spent very little time at WHF. It was a myth which was allowed to flourish,by EP and the prosecution during the trial. After Jeremy Bamber was found guilty the police admitted there was no proof the window could be locked from outside. Adam continues to peddle this myth .
-
They were all relying on a Robin to show them which window Jeremy left the farm trough that night - it wasn´t just Colin...
I´ll find the passage from Colin´s book when I have time (tomorrow).
Great "proof"!
-
Exactly, it was never proven. The police tried to lock it and didn't succeed, AE and RWB claimed it could be done but they were unable to prove it and how did they know as they spent very little time at WHF. It was a myth which was allowed to flourish,by EP and the prosecution during the trial. After Jeremy Bamber was found guilty the police admitted there was no proof the window could be locked from outside. Adam continues to peddle this myth .
With my 5 sources.
Why didn't Jeremy tell his defence this ? The defence could go to WHF & prove at trial it could not be done.
Result, Jeremy walks.
-
With my 5 sources.
Why didn't Jeremy tell his defence this ? The defence could go to WHF & prove at trial it could not be done.
Result, Jeremy walks.
He did - read the court transcripts - the police admitted they had not proved it - so the court just said it did not have to be proved because it was "possible"
Its like groundhog day again !
-
When you've done nothing,how are you expected to rattle off anything when you know nothing ? If,and when you do,you're then putting words in the mouths of the officers,aren't you ? Which is exactly what they WANT !
-
OK, took the time today anyway. Here it is - not just Colin harping on about a robin.... in fact, it wasn´t him at all in the first place, he just latched on to the idea! It was the family, Colin wasn´t there! Good grief!!!
Colin´s book, page 173:
"I learnt another surprising story that afternoon. Apparently, only weeks after the shootings, while the family were all at Whitehouse trying to decide which window Jeremy had used to get out, a robin flew in through the back door and landed on the kitchen window-sill.
When Anthony tried to capture it and put it outside, the robin flew past the open door and landed by the scullery window - the other one they had been debating over. On each attempt to catch it the robin flew past the open door and back to the other window-sill. This kept happening until someone voiced the opinion that it might be trying to help them come to a decision. At this point, the robin "left its signature" on the kitchen window-sill and finally allowed Anthony to pick it up and put it outside."
"The really strange thing was," said Anthony, "that after all that chasing, it didn´t struggle in my hands.""
Are we in the Middle ages? This is really shocking!!!
Colin has bought this thing about the robin and puts meaning into "robin sights" on several occasions. I can see that having lost two children in such a horrendous manner, Colin was at a weak point in his life and would need anything to hold on to. But the FAMILY deciding which window Jeremy got out of because of a robin shitting in the window-sill is nothing short of CRAZY!!!
More the family told Colin about a robin, page 193:
"On the morning of the first day of the trial, a robin flew into the house of Karen and David Boutflour. They found it in their living room, singing on top of a glass display cabinet which contained a porcelain robin given to them by Ina and Anthony Pargeter - in memory of their shared earlier experiences."
REALLY?! :o
-
FGS,that's all I can say.
-
It went so silent in here.... :P
-
Exactly, it was never proven. The police tried to lock it and didn't succeed, AE and RWB claimed it could be done but they were unable to prove it and how did they know as they spent very little time at WHF. It was a myth which was allowed to flourish,by EP and the prosecution during the trial. After Jeremy Bamber was found guilty the police admitted there was no proof the window could be locked from outside. Adam continues to peddle this myth .
It was proven by the family. You don't need police to testify to something if someone else can testify to it. The family testified they WERE able to close the window and lock it from outside. Their testimony is proof. You schoose not to believe them becaus eof bias but have no evidence ot prove they were incapable of doing what they claim.
-
Proven how? A robin shitting on the window-sill "told" them which window Jeremy had exited. How can anyone take anything they say seriously? :o
-
It was proven by the family. You don't need police to testify to something if someone else can testify to it. The family testified they WERE able to close the window and lock it from outside. Their testimony is proof. You schoose not to believe them becaus eof bias but have no evidence ot prove they were incapable of doing what they claim.
It is not bias to quote police as stating a fact as opposed to believing what members of an extended family cannot prove but state as fact. Ann Eaton was not the oracle anymore than you are. She and her father claimed you could lock the window from the outside, the police stated as far as they were concerned it was not possible. I suppose there was a 'possibility' Jeremy may have been able to do this but it was at best just a possibility.
-
Proven how? A robin shitting on the window-sill "told" them which window Jeremy had exited. How can anyone take anything they say seriously? :o
They stated (in their written statements) that they were able to get the latch to lock as they closed the window from the outside.
-
They stated (in their written statements) that they were able to get the latch to lock as they closed the window from the outside.
I don´t believe them. Not after that robin-thing, they are plain nuts!
This is no proof.
-
They stated (in their written statements) that they were able to get the latch to lock as they closed the window from the outside.
I don't remember AE stating that however they were never seen to do it therefore as we are not in a court of law but on a discussion forum site I would say anyone can say anything but it proves nothing. The police tried to do it and didn't succeed, they later stated the fact they were unable to do it.
-
It is not bias to quote police as stating a fact as opposed to believing what members of an extended family cannot prove but state as fact. Ann Eaton was not the oracle anymore than you are. She and her father claimed you could lock the window from the outside, the police stated as far as they were concerned it was not possible. I suppose there was a 'possibility' Jeremy may have been able to do this but it was at best just a possibility.
A cop (Barlow) stated he looked at the kitchen window alone and allegedly stated he, "found nothing unusual with it". That doesn't mean Ann Eaton lied about being able to lock it from the outside. The statement doesn't indicate he did anything but look at the window (and other windows) it doesn't claim he tested their claim.
Eaton and others stated that they were together when they played with the window. There were various claims including this one from Ann Eaton where she explained the catch could be set up so that it could be maneuvered into locking from the outside:
(http://s15.postimg.org/riz5h19iz/anneaton.jpg)
Other statements detail the same claim which resulted with the prosecution asserting at trial and the appeal court making a finding that: "He then left the premises, one available route being to climb out of the kitchen window, banging it from the outside to drop the catch back into position and then cycled home."
Barlow simply looking at a window doesn't trump the claims of fmaily that say they examine dit and were able to tap the window to get the catch to fall. You need someone who tested the window and proved such was not possible to prove their claim impossible. You don't have that. You grossly try to twist Barlow's claims and actions but it won't work.
-
I don't remember AE stating that however they were never seen to do it therefore as we are not in a court of law but on a discussion forum site I would say anyone can say anything but it proves nothing. The police tried to do it and didn't succeed, they later stated the fact they were unable to do it.
In or out of court you still need evidence to back up your claims and your supposed evidence of Barlow looking at the window and saying it didn't look unusual falls far short of disproving their assertion they successfully lated the window from the outside.
-
A cop (Barlow) stated he looked at the kitchen window alone and allegedly stated he, "found nothing unusual with it". That doesn't mean Ann Eaton lied about being able to lock it from the outside. The statement doesn't indicate he did anything but look at the window (and other windows) it doesn't claim he tested their claim.
Eaton and others stated that they were together when they played with the window. There were various claims including this one from Ann Eaton where she explained the catch could be set up so that it could be maneuvered into locking from the outside:
(http://s15.postimg.org/riz5h19iz/anneaton.jpg)
Other statements detail the same claim which resulted with the prosecution asserting at trial and the appeal court making a finding that: "He then left the premises, one available route being to climb out of the kitchen window, banging it from the outside to drop the catch back into position and then cycled home."
Barlow simply looking at a window doesn't trump the claims of fmaily that say they examine dit and were able to tap the window to get the catch to fall. You need someone who tested the window and proved such was not possible to prove their claim impossible. You don't have
that. You grossly try to twist Barlow's claims and actions but it won't work.
Hi scipio, I think what I am talking about is more than looking at a window but I shall check it out when I can and come back about it.
In the meantime I would just point out that I have not 'grossly twisted' anything. Just because you don't agree with me does not make me a liar anymore than others you have accused of lying and twisting are liars either just because they have a different opinion to you. Surely you
can debate without being so aggressive and confrontational?
-
In or out of court you still need evidence to back up your claims and your supposed evidence of Barlow looking at the window and saying it didn't look unusual falls far short of disproving their assertion they successfully lated the window from the outside.
I am not talking about Barlow just looking at the window, I am talking about them trying to bang it shut and lock it. I have said I am not in a position at the moment to back up my opinion but will later.
-
Please point me to the fanlight window (I thought such a window would have a fan-like shape, not sure but AE must mean the little, slightly open, elongated window on top.)
Doesn´t look as if it is large enough for a grown man to crawl through! Not even a child.
(http://i.imgur.com/Yn4Kr.jpg)
The door has a fanlight window. Her statement is confusing.
(http://i.imgur.com/aRlRb.jpg)
-
Please point me to the fanlight window (I thought such a window would have a fan-like shape, not sure but AE must mean the little, slightly open, elongated window on top.)
Doesn´t look as if it is large enough for a grown man to crawl through! Not even a child.
(http://i.imgur.com/Yn4Kr.jpg)
The door has a fanlight window. Her statement is confusing.
(http://i.imgur.com/aRlRb.jpg)
Yes, that's the fanlight Alias, find it hard to believe a grown man could have climbed through it without severely damaging himself. If he could get through surely he would have fallen on his head?
-
Perhaps he should have tried the letterbox !
Or limbo-danced under a gap in the door !
-
Please point me to the fanlight window (I thought such a window would have a fan-like shape, not sure but AE must mean the little, slightly open, elongated window on top.)
Doesn´t look as if it is large enough for a grown man to crawl through! Not even a child.
(http://i.imgur.com/Yn4Kr.jpg)
The door has a fanlight window. Her statement is confusing.
(http://i.imgur.com/aRlRb.jpg)
A fanlight window in the sense she is using the term means a window above another item. The window is not above the door it is part of the door and usually called a half moon window. Had the window been above the door it would be a transom window and sometimes sitll is called this but sometimes is called a fanlight window, particularly by older people.
So yes the little window above the kitchen window is the the fanlight window she is talking about since it is not part of the main window and is above.
Today they often call anything that has ribs that fan away a fanlight window but that is not the term it used to have in the olden days. There seems to be a lot of variety as to what qualifies as a fan shape to people as well. Terms mean different things to different people which is why you always have to nail down what a witness is talking about so that later they can't claim they meant something different.
You can get your arms in the fanlight window to set the latch so that the large window could be locked by tapping on it according to them. They said they accomplished such.
-
They should have crawled out of that "fanlight" window to prove it, then shut it....
-
They should have crawled out of that "fanlight" window to prove it, then shut it....
exactly.
And his foot prints would have been all over the sill - or did he lean back in and wipe those as well.
-
Jeremy's quite the contortionist,isn't he ? After 17 hours harvesting too,some feat,eh ?
-
I noticed something else, the one who claims the bathroom window was locked was DCI Jones, he claims he checked all the windows. I don't particularly believe he went to eveyr window personally and tried ot open them. The bathroom window was unlocked when checked in the afternoon and while police kept track of which windows they touched that is one that was not supposedly touched. This calls Taff Jones' claim into even more question.
-
I noticed something else, the one who claims the bathroom window was locked was DCI Jones, he claims he checked all the windows. I don't particularly believe he went to eveyr window personally and tried ot open them. The bathroom window was unlocked when checked in the afternoon and while police kept track of which windows they touched that is one that was not supposedly touched. This calls Taff Jones' claim into even more question.
There were other officers beside Jones who confirmed the ground floor was secure on entry .
-
Jeremy wasn´t that thin, actually rather stockily built with a little bit of a stomach and balloon-butt (as I´ve seen in another photo). No way he could have crawled through that window. But of course, the robin was adamant and shat there, so.....
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6035;image)
-
Jeremy wasn´t that thin, actually rather stockily built with a little bit of a stomach and balloon-butt (as I´ve seen in another photo). No way he could have crawled through that window. But of course, the robin was adamant and shat there, so.....
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6035;image)
He would decfo have got stuck Alias, especially as they say he had a big head, he would NEVER have got that through there!!!!!
-
Jeremy was thin. As highlighted in many pictures and videos.
-
I don't remember AE stating that however they were never seen to do it therefore as we are not in a court of law but on a discussion forum site I would say anyone can say anything but it proves nothing. The police tried to do it and didn't succeed, they later stated the fact they were unable to do it.
Read her WS.
-
It was proven by the family. You don't need police to testify to something if someone else can testify to it. The family testified they WERE able to close the window and lock it from outside. Their testimony is proof. You schoose not to believe them becaus eof bias but have no evidence ot prove they were incapable of doing what they claim.
I'm afraid that just because they said it could be done is not actual proof that it could be done. It should have been checked that it could be done by the police which I believe was not done. So the onus is on the family to prove it. Not upon the defence to prove that it cannot be done.
-
Why didn't the defence prove it could not be done ? Not hard to do.
The 2002 appeal mentions the lockable from outside window. So it was proved at trial.
Being able to bang lock a window from outside is no big deal.
-
I'm afraid that just because they said it could be done is not actual proof that it could be done. It should have been checked that it could be done by the police which I believe was not done. So the onus is on the family to prove it. Not upon the defence to prove that it cannot be done.
The prosecution was under no obligation to prove how the entry and exit occurred. It is not an element of the crime. They offered several pieces of evidence that it could be done though they didn't have to. The fact Sheila didn't kill herself was enough to say it happened there was no need to prove how entry occurred. Only the element of a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense in this case did need to rebut the claims made by proving it impossible. But they couldn't indeed a ladder could have been used even. That is why the appeal court declared:
"The Crown did not have the burden of proving by which window and by which mechanism the entry was made. The Crown proved capacity both to enter and leave."
At any rate he stated he could get in through the kitchen window:
"He told the police that there were occasions when he gained entry to his parents' home by way of a number of the downstairs windows including those in the kitchen and the bathroom. He explained that he used a knife to move the catches in order that the window could be opened from the outside."
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
-
Jeremy was thin. As highlighted in many pictures and videos.
He was a tall ungainly man who probably never climbed a tree,let alone a skylight or fanlight.
Christ,I've heard everything now. Bicycle,wetsuit,fanlight--------can it get any worse ? Of course it can,out of the gobs of idiots !
-
He was a tall ungainly man who probably never climbed a tree,let alone a skylight or fanlight.
Christ,I've heard everything now. Bicycle,wetsuit,fanlight--------can it get any worse ? Of course it can,out of the gobs of idiots !
Jeremy said himself when interviewed by the police he could get in and out of windows at WHF.
I wonder if he sang this to them ?
-
Fanlight ?
I have never mentioned a wetsuit. I have only seen Bob Woffinden mentioning it. He bravely changed his mind on the case.
However I do not agree with him that Jeremy killed the twins first. Too risky in case Neville, June or Sheila hear him. The evidence shows he entered the main bedroom first. Fully loaded.
-
Bob Woffinden's article:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=S0WsU-_qGe-e7AalioHwBw&url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFwLBB2YC59V3jdXEhsTUclxHbIeg
-
Woffinden is correct in saying that Jeremy shooting the twins first may have woken Neville. So Neville may have been partially ready when Jeremy entered the main bedroom. Explaining how Neville briefly escaped.
Two intial shots into the twins would still have left Jeremy with 9 bullets. Which he would have assumed would be enough. However they were not enough to kill June & Neville. So extra bullets were fired after the kitchen fight & downstairs reload.
More bullets were then fired into the twins to make the massacre more 'crazy'.
-
I still believe Jeremy entered the main bedroom first.
There are so many different ways Jeremy could have done it. But with Sheila no one can even explain what she was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy.
-
I still believe Jeremy entered the main bedroom first.
There are so many different ways Jeremy could have done it. But with Sheila no one can even explain what she was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy.
possibly running upstairs to shoot her family?
-
possibly running upstairs to shoot her family?
Then how could she hang up the phone?
Moreover, she would not have any bullets left to use on Nevill. Going down to the kitchen to get more bullets would result in her being disarmed as she tried to load the magazine.
In the meantime the evidence stablishes both June and Nevill were shot in the master bedroom before things progressed to the kitchen.
-
Then how could she hang up the phone?
Moreover, she would not have any bullets left to use on Nevill. Going down to the kitchen to get more bullets would result in her being disarmed as she tried to load the magazine.
In the meantime the evidence stablishes both June and Nevill were shot in the master bedroom before things progressed to the kitchen.
Who said she hung up the phone? How do you know that he did not run upstairs to find out that she had shot June and then she shot him therein the bedroom?
-
Who said she hung up the phone? How do you know that he did not run upstairs to find out that she had shot June and then she shot him therein the bedroom?
Jeremy claims he was disconnected and immediately phoned back and the phone was busy. If Nevill hung up abruptly and ran to see what Sheila was doing then Jeremy would have been able to call as claimed but would not have received a busy signal.
If Nevill simply dropped the phone without hanging up then Jeremy could not have dialed a sclaimed. He would have to have left the phone hung up for 1-2 solid minutes before he could use it.
To try to make his claims possible Jeremy supporters insist Sheila pushed the receiver buttons down with her finger so it ended the call and then when she took her finger away the phone was registered as off the hook so no calls could be made.
If Nevill was alone why would he leave the phone off the hook to go run upstairs (which would mean Jeremy could not have immediately called back as claimed) and why would he not take a weapon as he went up to investigate?
The only explanation for him not arming himself in the kitchen with a knife, gun or other item would be if Sheila was there with him so he was prevented.
-
Nevill could have registered something Sheila was doing (perhaps running upstairs as jansus suggests), at the same time as Jeremy was saying something. To better hear what Sheila was doing, he could have automatically put his finger on the receiver button, then quickly put the handset on the counter and chased after Sheila.
Could have happened that way.
-
Pity he hadn't left the line open.That would have cleared Jeremy altogether.
-
Nevill could have registered something Sheila was doing (perhaps running upstairs as jansus suggests), at the same time as Jeremy was saying something. To better hear what Sheila was doing, he could have automatically put his finger on the receiver button, then quickly put the handset on the counter and chased after Sheila.
Could have happened that way.
That is right. Sheila had her blue nightie on. And was holding a rifle.
Neville & June had upset her earlier with a fostering conversation while Jeremy was hunting rabbits.
-
June and Sheila had ample opportunity to have committed the massacre. They were " daggers drawn " as soon as Sheila and the boys entered the farmhouse ! Their relationships had deteriorated,as well as the health of the two women.
-
This is no excuse,,but there were two psychotic women under the same roof. I've worked on a ward full of them and this is where the word " bedlam " comes into its own. It was sheer Hell,with them screaming at each other,all with the same twisted personalities.
Sheila,to my mind,had her personality manipulated by her mother from a very early age,as I doubt if Sheila would have gone down the same route as her mother if it hadn't been drilled into her that she was a " child of the Devil ",,something that the girl/woman had to try and shut out of her mind over the years,but was constantly reminded of.
June herself was a sick woman with her religious psychosis,which in effect is a form of schizophrenia,after having suffered long bouts of depression herself to which she was treated with ECT for. Nobody fully recovers from the illness,they just remain in remission until such time as an emotional issue crops up then the illness kicks off.
Because of Junes' religious issues,she may not have taken any medication which to her,would have masked her feelings towards " God ",,as this is something which does happen in those of a religious bent. Certain types of medication make you forget the thoughts you have,,but June wanted to be in full control of them.
This was NO opportunistic massacre,,it was between two women whose beliefs spilled over into a tragedy.
-
June and Sheila had ample opportunity to have committed the massacre. They were " daggers drawn " as soon as Sheila and the boys entered the farmhouse ! Their relationships had deteriorated,as well as the health of the two women.
What a disgrace. Anyone else spouting this shit would be met with the correct condemnation by all members of the forum. You seem to have a free pass to post unsubstantiated hate.
-
What a disgrace. Anyone else spouting this shit would be met with the correct condemnation by all members of the forum. You seem to have a free pass to post unsubstantiated hate.
Sorry mat but I do not agree. Lookout has posted a point of view you may not agree with but it is not 'unsubstantiated hate' as far as I can see.
-
Sorry mat but I do not agree. Lookout has posted a point of view you may not agree with but it is not 'unsubstantiated hate' as far as I can see.
I don't care if you agree Maggie, I wasn't asking you to agree. There is no evidence that points anywhere near June having anything to do with this crime - so it's unsubstantiated hate to say that June had anything to do with it, unless you're able to point me in the direction of evidence that says otherwise?
-
What a disgrace. Anyone else spouting this shit would be met with the correct condemnation by all members of the forum. You seem to have a free pass to post unsubstantiated hate.
I don't particularly care what YOU think about my post. On the contrary,there is NO hate in what I posted,,and the simple reason why you say what you do is that June was never a suspect,or was she ? Yes,,she actually was before Sheila became one,and if you followed the case instead of my bloody posts you might just learn something !
-
I don't particularly care what YOU think about my post. On the contrary,there is NO hate in what I posted,,and the simple reason why you say what you do is that June was never a suspect,or was she ? Yes,,she actually was before Sheila became one,and if you followed the case instead of my bloody posts you might just learn something !
If you choose to think that June is still a suspect after all the information became known, after the autopsies after the number of wounds she recieved, where she recieved them etc then it is you who needs to follow the case more closely.
Yes, it's a very hateful thing to post about June, Lookout.
-
I don't care if you agree Maggie, I wasn't asking you to agree. There is no evidence that points anywhere near June having anything to do with this crime - so it's unsubstantiated hate to say that June had anything to do with it, unless you're able to point me in the direction of evidence that says otherwise?
I think you may find that I have stood up and argued in favour of June more than most on this forum and paid quite a price for it but I cannot see why Lookout's post deserved being labelled as 'unsubstantiated hate'. Unsubstantiated yes but not really hate imo.
I don't believe for a minute you were asking me to agree or that you care what I think but I was just pointing out once again that you attack Lookout at any opportunity and for no apparent reason.
-
What a disgrace. Anyone else spouting this shit would be met with the correct condemnation by all members of the forum. You seem to have a free pass to post unsubstantiated hate.
I don´t agree with lookout on this and have said so. Can´t keep saying it every time she airs her theory!
-
I think you may find that I have stood up and argued in favour of June more than most on this forum and paid quite a price for it but I cannot see why Lookout's post deserved being labelled as 'unsubstantiated hate'. Unsubstantiated yes but not really hate imo.
I don't believe for a minute you were asking me to agree or that you care what I think but I was just pointing out once again that you attack Lookout at any opportunity and for no apparent reason.
I'm pretty sure it can be classed as hateful to accuse an innocent dead person of these crimes, it's vulgar to do so.
I'm not attacking Lookout for no reason - I'm attacking her post and I said why - unsubstantiated and hateful - goes against all evidence.
Even Bamber would condemn it.
I don´t agree with lookout on this and have said so. Can´t keep saying it every time she airs her theory!
That's True, Alias.
-
I'm pretty sure it can be classed as hateful to accuse an innocent dead person of these crimes, it's vulgar to do so.
I'm not attacking Lookout for no reason - I'm attacking her post and I said why - unsubstantiated and hateful - goes against all evidence.
Even Bamber would condemn it.
That's True, Alias.
I have also said I don't agree with Lookout on this however she has a right to her opinion just as you have a right to disagree with it.
-
BTW,,it wasn't me who first said this,,it was " Taff " Jones,,so Mat will have a job on his hands trying to castigate him,won't he ?
Then again,,whatever I post,the snake slithers on. He's got a BIG problem !!
-
If it was an argument between June and Sheila I could understand Neville trying to wade in and break it up - but it would not explain why those two boys were shot. Not at all.
Also where would the "suicide" come into the scenario.?
Also why none of her prints on the gun?
-
If it was an argument between June and Sheila I could understand Neville trying to wade in and break it up - but it would not explain why those two boys were shot. Not at all.
Also where would the "suicide" come into the scenario.?
Also why none of her prints on the gun?
Nor would it explain Nevill phoning and claiming Sheila had the gun and had gone crazy if June were the one with the gun.
If one wants to pretend the fiction that Nevill did call Jeremy then one has to stand by the claim made that Sheila was the one running around mad with the gun.
-
What a disgrace. Anyone else spouting this shit would be met with the correct condemnation by all members of the forum. You seem to have a free pass to post unsubstantiated hate.
I don't for one moment agree with Lookout's view and see nothing to suggest there is even a remote possibility of things happening that way. But I don't see how it's hateful, it's just her opinion. I have to admit that I find it uncomfortable to read BUT it is a discussion board about the case and as mods we can't tell people what to think.
-
Thanks Caroline.
It just goes to show how something can be misinterpreted to suit,and if he'd read all my posts,he'd have perhaps seen that I'm treating this case a psychological killing and not a criminal one.
-
I don't for one moment agree with Lookout's view and see nothing to suggest there is even a remote possibility of things happening that way. But I don't see how it's hateful, it's just her opinion. I have to admit that I find it uncomfortable to read BUT it is a discussion board about the case and as mods we can't tell people what to think.
I agree it is uncomfortable to read, but I personally find it hateful towards June to sling such mud at her when she isn't here to defend herself and when the evidence is clear cut.
As for the mods telling people what to think I'm not asking for her posts to be edited or anything like that.
-
Nor would it explain Nevill phoning and claiming Sheila had the gun and had gone crazy if June were the one with the gun.
If one wants to pretend the fiction that Nevill did call Jeremy then one has to stand by the claim made that Sheila was the one running around mad with the gun.
there were times in Jeremys interview where he did say that he thought his father perhaps had said "she" rather than Sheila - but the call was quick and he was not 100% sure .
But I still don't know why the police would implicate June - or was that just the press? And can not see for one moment why the twins would be involved.
-
there were times in Jeremys interview where he did say that he thought his father perhaps had said "she" rather than Sheila - but the call was quick and he was not 100% sure .
But I still don't know why the police would implicate June - or was that just the press? And can not see for one moment why the twins would be involved.
Aside from Mike, lookout and Holly (who got banned here posts as Holly on red) I have not seen anyone who has considered the claim possible that June could have been involved. Jeremy tried to make the argument when he felt his case against Sheila was going downhill but had to revert to it because the notion June was involved is so ridiculous. Mike added June into the mix out of opportunism though not any other reason. To account for the lack of spatter and other forensic evidence Sheila would have had on her body if she beat Nevill and the lack of lead on her hands he attributed the beating to June and loading of the gun to June. Since June was neither tested for elevate lead levels nor foreign blood there is no way to prove she didn't have such evidence on her. So while we can disprove Sheila had such evidence the same can't be said for June. That is why June is a scapegoat of opportunity. Not a successful scapegoat though because few people consider the idea credible so it rarely surfaces.
-
Why did Holly get banned ? She is a Jeremy supporter, as are the moderators on here. She always seems polite on the Red forum.
-
What's that got to do with anything ? You're an " anti ",so why aren't you on the red forum ?
-
He says he likes it here. 8)
-
He says he likes it here. 8)
Ahhh! that I sooo cute :) :) :) :) :) :'(
-
He says he likes it here. 8)
Including all the insults he gets ? ;D ;D ;D From me in particular.
-
Including all the insults he gets ? ;D ;D ;D From me in particular.
Some people like it a little rough! 8)
-
Some people like it a little rough! 8)
Or perhaps the dominance. ;D ;D ;D Right,where's me whip.
-
Ha Ha lookout packagebuilder would like you Mrs Whiplash in her wet look lycra ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
A sight to behold. ;D ;D