Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on July 14, 2014, 10:40:PM
-
Scipio you seem to have a good knowledge of the case could you point me in the direction of where I could find Julie Mugfords witness statement where she details Jeremy's injuries from the night of the murders and can you recollect how many times she was interviewed?
-
Scipio you seem to have a good knowledge of the case could you point me in the direction of where I could find Julie Mugfords witness statement where she details Jeremy's injuries from the night of the murders and can you recollect how many times she was interviewed?
She was allegedly spoken to by police 33 times.
He worse gloves thus did not receive any injuries of import. While some say he had scratches or abrasions/marks of some kind on his hands there is no way to establish such would have to have been from the murders. While punching someone in the face often will result in abrasions and cuts to knuckles, particualry when strinking the jaw, teeth or breaking bones we have no way to know if Jeremy beat Nevill's face in severely with his fists and gloves would mitigate most damage anyway from such.
Jeremy supporters have a much larger problem because Sheila would not have been wearing gloves had she done it and had long nails so aside form getting cuts and abrasions would have broken her nails or gotten skin and blood of Nevill under her nails and worse the stock as it broke would have cut her hand. These kinds of things would be quite evidence not able to be hidden when her body was autopsied.
Moroever she would nto have had any reason to wash evidence from her body and change her clothes or opportunity to conceal clothing she had been wearing. Had she been the killer her clothing would have had gunshot residue and blood spatter on it. Because the close range of many shots she would have had high velocity spatter from the victims but also medium velocity from beating Nevill. That would have resulted in quite a bit of spatter. The lack of any prints in blood is also consistent with gloves being used.
Jeremy had a reason to use gloves and to wash and change after the murders. He told Julie they had been used and the forensic evidence tends to support that. He also had the opportunity to change and wash after the murders. That could very well explain the big gap between calling Julie at 3AM and then police at 3:26Am. Of course he could have started washing up before he called Julie and finished afterwards.
Since police did not search his house for bloody clothing or insepct his body for wounds right away we have no way to know if he had already disposed of the clothes he worse or not or whether he did have any marks that might have been obtained despite the gloves.
-
The sniffer dog would have smelled blood and gunshot on Jeremy,,even if he'd have bathed or showered,or both,as it happened,the dog wasn't interested. Unlike the the sniffer dogs in Portugal who went mad.
-
The sniffer dog would have smelled blood and gunshot on Jeremy,,even if he'd have bathed or showered,or both,as it happened,the dog wasn't interested. Unlike the the sniffer dogs in Portugal who went mad.
In fact no forensic evidence connects Bamber to the crime.
-
In fact no forensic evidence connects Bamber to the crime.
Which immediately draws you to suspect that he WAS convicted by " other " means,namely hearsay !
-
The sniffer dog would have smelled blood and gunshot on Jeremy,,even if he'd have bathed or showered,or both,as it happened,the dog wasn't interested. Unlike the the sniffer dogs in Portugal who went mad.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/may_2011/The%20Current%20Status%20of%20GSR%20Examinations
"Gunshot residue particles can be removed easily from the surfaces they land on. Regular activities, such as putting hands in pockets, rubbing hands together, or handling items, can wipe them away.4 The washing of hands can remove most, if not all, particles. Rates of loss vary widely with the activity of the subject. Depending on conditions and activity, particles may be removed from a shooter’s hands within 4 to 5 hours after a shooting event.5 They also can transfer from a surface or person to another individual; the amount depends on the number of GSR particles on the contaminated surface (e.g., a person’s clothing or hands) and likely will be a small percentage of the total number of particles present. Tests show that people standing within 3 feet to the side of a shooter may have GSR on their hands, whereas those standing 10 or more feet in the same direction typically will not.6 This can vary with the type of gun and ammunition, number of shots fired, and the environment of the shooting. Gunshot primer residue also can travel downrange with each firing of a weapon.7 Long guns, like rifles and shotguns, tend to leave less GSR on shooters than handguns."
-
Blood smells would still be detected,plus cadaverine,which can be detected regardless, for days.
-
She was allegedly spoken to by police 33 times.
He worse gloves thus did not receive any injuries of import. While some say he had scratches or abrasions/marks of some kind on his hands there is no way to establish such would have to have been from the murders. While punching someone in the face often will result in abrasions and cuts to knuckles, particualry when strinking the jaw, teeth or breaking bones we have no way to know if Jeremy beat Nevill's face in severely with his fists and gloves would mitigate most damage anyway from such.
Jeremy supporters have a much larger problem because Sheila would not have been wearing gloves had she done it and had long nails so aside form getting cuts and abrasions would have broken her nails or gotten skin and blood of Nevill under her nails and worse the stock as it broke would have cut her hand. These kinds of things would be quite evidence not able to be hidden when her body was autopsied.
Moroever she would nto have had any reason to wash evidence from her body and change her clothes or opportunity to conceal clothing she had been wearing. Had she been the killer her clothing would have had gunshot residue and blood spatter on it. Because the close range of many shots she would have had high velocity spatter from the victims but also medium velocity from beating Nevill. That would have resulted in quite a bit of spatter. The lack of any prints in blood is also consistent with gloves being used.
Jeremy had a reason to use gloves and to wash and change after the murders. He told Julie they had been used and the forensic evidence tends to support that. He also had the opportunity to change and wash after the murders. That could very well explain the big gap between calling Julie at 3AM and then police at 3:26Am. Of course he could have started washing up before he called Julie and finished afterwards.
Since police did not search his house for bloody clothing or insepct his body for wounds right away we have no way to know if he had already disposed of the clothes he worse or not or whether he did have any marks that might have been obtained despite the gloves.
Yes despite Annes close inspection no wounds to Jeremy
The second part does not make sense - if you are acknowledging there were scratches and gouges to Neville by saying there should be evidence under Sheilas Nails then there is a flaw - you can not scratch and gouge whilst wearing gloves? And if you did the fibres would be in the wounds - so forensically even in those days ( considering the blood tests) that would be EASY to prove?
Lastly the bit about SC cutting herself on the gun stock is pure supposition,
-
Blood smells would still be detected,plus cadaverine,which can be detected regardless, for days.
Not if you have showered and changed clothes and cadaverine forms during purification so wouldn't be relevant in this case. If guilty, he would certainly have cleaned himself up.
-
well that's true but where did he put hes bloody clothes if he had done it to traces of blood were found in his cottage did he wash them or throw them away.
if he had a shower traces would of been left in the shower.
-
The sniffer dog would have smelled blood and gunshot on Jeremy,,even if he'd have bathed or showered,or both,as it happened,the dog wasn't interested. Unlike the the sniffer dogs in Portugal who went mad.
There is no evidence of a sniffer dog having been present. This is jsut one of the wild tales made up by Jeremy supporters. All that was reported was that there wa sa K9 unit not any sniffer dog. A k9 unit was brought so that if necessary they could have the dog try to subdue a gunman to save the life of officers. It sounds callous but they sometimes make the dog risk getting shot while trying to subdue the gunmean so officers can safely enter after.
-
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/may_2011/The%20Current%20Status%20of%20GSR%20Examinations
"Gunshot residue particles can be removed easily from the surfaces they land on. Regular activities, such as putting hands in pockets, rubbing hands together, or handling items, can wipe them away.4 The washing of hands can remove most, if not all, particles. Rates of loss vary widely with the activity of the subject. Depending on conditions and activity, particles may be removed from a shooter’s hands within 4 to 5 hours after a shooting event.5 They also can transfer from a surface or person to another individual; the amount depends on the number of GSR particles on the contaminated surface (e.g., a person’s clothing or hands) and likely will be a small percentage of the total number of particles present. Tests show that people standing within 3 feet to the side of a shooter may have GSR on their hands, whereas those standing 10 or more feet in the same direction typically will not.6 This can vary with the type of gun and ammunition, number of shots fired, and the environment of the shooting. Gunshot primer residue also can travel downrange with each firing of a weapon.7 Long guns, like rifles and shotguns, tend to leave less GSR on shooters than handguns."
And?
If she shot everyone then went and shot herself what acitivisties would she be doing that would result in the GSR being transferred elsewhere so no longer on her body? It doesn't just vanish it gets transferred elsewhere during activity.
Not mentioned there is that GSR remains longer on clothing and hair even when people are active.
Also not considered is that she supposedly held the rifle up and down adjacent to her body essentially hugging it as she shot which would certainly get GSR on her gown.
We already know base don other evidence she can't have killed herself the lack of GSR on her fgown and hands is simply more evidence of that. She certainly can't have washed herself after she died and would not have been moving around transferring it from her clothing and hands after she died.
The cited FBI statistics means that even if some were found that would not necessarily be proof she fired a gun because proof requires a substantial amount of GSR but to have none at all is even worse.
-
Yes despite Annes close inspection no wounds to Jeremy
The second part does not make sense - if you are acknowledging there were scratches and gouges to Neville by saying there should be evidence under Sheilas Nails then there is a flaw - you can not scratch and gouge whilst wearing gloves? And if you did the fibres would be in the wounds - so forensically even in those days ( considering the blood tests) that would be EASY to prove?
Lastly the bit about SC cutting herself on the gun stock is pure supposition,
I said that someone with long nails fighting with someone will usually get somethign stuck under the nails in the course of such struggle but there was zero evidence of such under her nails.
Moreover, someone engaged in such a struggle would break their nails. Someone with long nails wielding any object even a baseball bat is likely to damage their nails while beating something with such.
As for the point about the broken stock damaging a hand it is a sound claim. Someone beating Nevill with the rifle would indeed be holding the gun in thee narrow part of the stock not the wide part of the stock. The hand would thus be where the stock broke and the notion that as it broke this would do nothing at all to the hand is highly unlikely.
Gloves do not leave fibers ordinarily unless they are knits or they are torn.
-
There is no evidence of a sniffer dog having been present. This is jsut one of the wild tales made up by Jeremy supporters. All that was reported was that there wa sa K9 unit not any sniffer dog. A k9 unit was brought so that if necessary they could have the dog try to subdue a gunman to save the life of officers. It sounds callous but they sometimes make the dog risk getting shot while trying to subdue the gunmean so officers can safely enter after.
Yes,there was a dog and handler outside WHF that night/morning.
-
Yes,there was a dog and handler outside WHF that night/morning.
as I stated there was a k-9 unit called and the reason for k-9 units in gunman situations is so that if needed the dog can attack the gunman and distract it so that officers can safely subde the gunman without being shot.
You need to provide prrof that adog is strained for sniffing and WHAT it is trained to snif for in addition to proof the dog did snif somewhere for something in order to establish it was a sniffer dog and failed to detect.
You and other Jeremy supporters simply assume it was a sniffer dog without a shred of evidence and even seem to insist it could sniff out everything under the Sun.
When you have evidence it was trianed to sniff for something in particular and evidence that is was used in such capacity in this case come back to me.
-
And?
If she shot everyone then went and shot herself what acitivisties would she be doing that would result in the GSR being transferred elsewhere so no longer on her body? It doesn't just vanish it gets transferred elsewhere during activity.
Not mentioned there is that GSR remains longer on clothing and hair even when people are active.
Also not considered is that she supposedly held the rifle up and down adjacent to her body essentially hugging it as she shot which would certainly get GSR on her gown.
We already know base don other evidence she can't have killed herself the lack of GSR on her fgown and hands is simply more evidence of that. She certainly can't have washed herself after she died and would not have been moving around transferring it from her clothing and hands after she died.
The cited FBI statistics means that even if some were found that would not necessarily be proof she fired a gun because proof requires a substantial amount of GSR but to have none at all is even worse.
It all depends on whether they tested her properly I should think? You've already proved to us that Taff Jones was incompetent. So since they were all in the same frame of mind then we must assume that they were all similarly slapdash about their work.
-
It all depends on whether they tested her properly I should think? You've already proved to us that Taff Jones was incompetent. So since they were all in the same frame of mind then we must assume that they were all similarly slapdash about their work.
The lab tested her clothing and the hand swabs not Taff Jones. They used an electron scan microscope not a chemical test. The electron scan microscope was the suprior test available at the time the chmical test less reliable. There is nothing in the record that suggests they erred and no experts to challenge it. It is up to the defense counsel to find someone to try to challenge it or in the event a Jeremy supporter wants to then to find some scientific basis besides just "maybe they messed up".
Hair had a better chance of retaining GSR long term than skin so if much time passes between the shooting and testing a potential shooter then testing the hair should be done as well. But since she was not moving around it doens't matter the reduction from her skin would not rapidly happen from just lying dead. Moreover, GSR leaves clothing at a much reduced rate than even hair so clothing is the optimal place to find it.
In his case even moreso since the place on the rifle that discharges GSR would have been right next to her gown so we have the location and the fact the fabric reatins GSR combining together. Finding not a drop of GSR is very bad for the defense under such conditions.
Ironically on appeal the defense brought up the chance of officers contaminating the evidence which the Appeal Court scoffed at because if the police had contaminated the evidence with GSR that would result in GSR being found. That is just one of the things that shows that the appeal was very poorly thought out and constructed.
I understand that there is not much to work with but making ill conceived arguments just pisses courts off and takes attention away for the strongest arguments and makes it less likely for a court to take your claims serious.
-
"Gloves do not leave fibers ordinarily unless they are knits or they are torn. " A statement by Scipio
Fro someone who writes novels on forensics this is a pretty sweeping statement!
There are hundreds of different types of gloves made from hundreds of types of fabrics. As no gloves were found how on earth can you assume that he was wearing gloves that would leave no fibres in any wounds he inflicted or on the weapon when it broke - etc etc .
-
You're forgetting they were Marigolds ;D
-
"Gloves do not leave fibers ordinarily unless they are knits or they are torn. " A statement by Scipio
Fro someone who writes novels on forensics this is a pretty sweeping statement!
There are hundreds of different types of gloves made from hundreds of types of fabrics. As no gloves were found how on earth can you assume that he was wearing gloves that would leave no fibres in any wounds he inflicted or on the weapon when it broke - etc etc .
Aside for the fact that he told Julie glvoes were used it is obvious that someone planning a murder int he detial that he did woudl plan to use gloves. Moreover the lack of any bloody prints anywhere at the scene, and lack of prints on the weapon especially the blood on the weapon is indicative of such. If you touch a bloody weapon with bare hands you will likely leave prints in such blood and also get such blood on your fingers and thus be able to leave bloody prints on other things.
Fibers from gloves are not usually found at crime scenes. When they are it is usually from the gloves being torn or cut.
Go aheead and post cases where fibers established gloves were used at all let alone matched to a specific glove found in someone's house. Despite gloves being routinley used in murders such is a rare find.
-
And?
If she shot everyone then went and shot herself what acitivisties would she be doing that would result in the GSR being transferred elsewhere so no longer on her body? It doesn't just vanish it gets transferred elsewhere during activity.
Not mentioned there is that GSR remains longer on clothing and hair even when people are active.
Also not considered is that she supposedly held the rifle up and down adjacent to her body essentially hugging it as she shot which would certainly get GSR on her gown.
We already know base don other evidence she can't have killed herself the lack of GSR on her fgown and hands is simply more evidence of that. She certainly can't have washed herself after she died and would not have been moving around transferring it from her clothing and hands after she died.
The cited FBI statistics means that even if some were found that would not necessarily be proof she fired a gun because proof requires a substantial amount of GSR but to have none at all is even worse.
What are you on about? I wasn't talking about Sheila!! You steam in shoving your opinion down people's throats when they aren't even talking to you. I posted the article in response to something Lookout said about Jeremy and sniffer dogs. The point was that he would have showered and changed by the time he returned or do you want to suggest he wouldn't, just for the sake of disagreeing with someone??
-
You're forgetting they were Marigolds ;D
ah yes ! he would have thought about fibres - although obviously not the silencer / position of shot / showing them how he got in and out of the windows etc.
Clever Jeremy
-
What are you on about? I wasn't talking about Sheila!! You steam in shoving your opinion down people's throats when they aren't even talking to you. I posted the article in response to something Lookout said about Jeremy and sniffer dogs. The point was that he would have showered and changed by the time he returned or do you want to suggest he wouldn't, just for the sake of disagreeing with someone??
:) :)
-
well that's true but where did he put hes bloody clothes if he had done it to traces of blood were found in his cottage did he wash them or throw them away.
if he had a shower traces would of been left in the shower.
He wasn't a suspect initially, his cottage was never searched until he was a suspect - by then, there would be nothing to find.
-
He wasn't a suspect initially, his cottage was never searched until he was a suspect - by then, there would be nothing to find.
Come to think of it the cops thought for two weeks that it was murder suicide, so I'm wondering when they made all these tests on Sheila's clothes etc, or even if the did the swab tests properly?
-
What are you on about? I wasn't talking about Sheila!! You steam in shoving your opinion down people's throats when they aren't even talking to you. I posted the article in response to something Lookout said about Jeremy and sniffer dogs. The point was that he would have showered and changed by the time he returned or do you want to suggest he wouldn't, just for the sake of disagreeing with someone??
What did the FBI article have to do with sniffer dogs?
I saw your previous response to lookout about sniffer dogs but didnd't know the FBI article was supposed to be about such.
-
He wasn't a suspect initially, his cottage was never searched until he was a suspect - by then, there would be nothing to find.
The odd thing is that at a later date cop did notice clothing that had what could have been blood spatter but either tests were unsuccessful because of the amount of time that passed/the clothign being washed or the clothing vanished between when seen and they finally went to collect it. I forget which is the case.
He might have been so arrogant that he didn't dispose of all the clothes right away and only did so after police were closing in on him.
I would have expected him to be paranoid enough to throw away the clothing right away. I was rather surprised that such clothing might not have been immediately disposed of.
-
It wasn't Jeremy who suffered paranoia,remember ?
-
It wasn't Jeremy who suffered paranoia,remember ?
He was so paranoid of being seen going to and from WHF in th emiddle fo the night that he planned to use a bike. He was so paranoid of them waking up and using the phone to call authorities before he could successfully kill them that he removed the phone fromt he bedroom in advance.
Apparently he didn't know about blood spatter and was not paranoid about blood evidence though.
-
What did the FBI article have to do with sniffer dogs?
I saw your previous response to lookout about sniffer dogs but didnd't know the FBI article was supposed to be about such.
I thought you were supposed to be intelligent? I highlighted the relevant point which was;
"Gunshot residue particles can be removed easily from the surfaces they land on. Regular activities, such as putting hands in pockets, rubbing hands together, or handling items, can wipe them away.4 The washing of hands can remove most, if not all, particles"
Lookouts post suggested sniffer dogs would have been able to smell gunshot residue and blood on Jeremy,"even if he'd have bathed or showered, or both" - The article QUITE CLEARLY refutes the suggestion that gunshot reside would survive a shower. Now perhaps after I have spelled things out for you, you can see the relevance? If not, I can't help you!
-
He was so paranoid of being seen going to and from WHF in th emiddle fo the night that he planned to use a bike. He was so paranoid of them waking up and using the phone to call authorities before he could successfully kill them that he removed the phone fromt he bedroom in advance.
Apparently he didn't know about blood spatter and was not paranoid about blood evidence though.
How ridiculous!! According to the relatives there was blood on the OUTSIDE of the silencer and yet he didn't bother to look at it and clean the outside before returning it to the gun cupboard? Presumably he wasn't blind and was cunning enough to move phones etc. but didn't think to rub the silencer to remove any traces of blood? :o :o ;D ;D
-
He was so paranoid of being seen going to and from WHF in th emiddle fo the night that he planned to use a bike. He was so paranoid of them waking up and using the phone to call authorities before he could successfully kill them that he removed the phone fromt he bedroom in advance.
Apparently he didn't know about blood spatter and was not paranoid about blood evidence though.
?? The police discounted the bike as evidence - and as I stated before the police could have suspected him earlier or have him under observation so he must have had plans to get rid of all the evidence within a very SHORT time of the murders - and yet he was not so paranoid that he could not stand there so calmly in front of the police - knowing he had all that evidence to get rid of.
-
Scipio
Correct me if I am wrong but haven't we been led to believe that Jeremy father fought for his life but Jeremy didn't have a mark on him.
Julie would definitely have known because she was sleeping with him immediately after he is supposed to have murdered his whole family??
-
And let's face it,JM didn't miss a trick !
-
The clothes Jeremy worn the day before the events im sure would have been worn or some worn the next day so highly unlikely any all of a sudden gone missing so the police had plenty of time to look around I bet worn garments make up a large portion of any conviction how many times you hear he was wearing a so so top and trousers so any injuries received would have left their mark somewhere this was 20th Century investigation methods not 19th.
-
?? The police discounted the bike as evidence - and as I stated before the police could have suspected him earlier or have him under observation so he must have had plans to get rid of all the evidence within a very SHORT time of the murders - and yet he was not so paranoid that he could not stand there so calmly in front of the police - knowing he had all that evidence to get rid of.
Yes they kept bringing it up didn't they. I wonder if they knew that it was all conceived in the head of RWB?
-
Scipio
Correct me if I am wrong but haven't we been led to believe that Jeremy father fought for his life but Jeremy didn't have a mark on him.
Julie would definitely have known because she was sleeping with him immediately after he is supposed to have murdered his whole family??
We've been over all that Jackie. But scipio appears to have selective hearing? ::)
-
Grahame did Mugford give police any information about Jeremy having any injuries? There is no way Jeremy could have been involved in a battle with Neville and not had a mark on him
Is there anything in police statements on this forum?
-
How ridiculous!! According to the relatives there was blood on the OUTSIDE of the silencer and yet he didn't bother to look at it and clean the outside before returning it to the gun cupboard? Presumably he wasn't blind and was cunning enough to move phones etc. but didn't think to rub the silencer to remove any traces of blood? :o :o ;D ;D
What they thought was blood pn the outside could have been paint.
At any rate he assumed they would never look for it or figure out it was used. If he was aware of the blood then he obviously assumed police would be as dumb as his supporters and not look for it and if they did find it to just assume it is animal blood. He had no idea that it would be able to prove Sheila didn't kill herself. He had no clue about drawback.
At first police were as dumb as he hoped and bought his story that he left the rifle out without it attached so never bothered to even look for it. Even after it was found police thought the only vlaue would be fingerprints. The lab came up with the argument about drawback proving that Sheila used it and coudl not have killed herself not police.
-
Grahame did Mugford give police any information about Jeremy having any injuries? There is no way Jeremy could have been involved in a battle with Neville and not had a mark on him
Is there anything in police statements on this forum?
Yet Sheila could? :-\
-
Two different scenarios
If the struggle involved an attack with Sheila I cannot believe Neville would have hit back because of Sheila's serious condition.
If the struggle involved Jeremy I believe his father would have fought back
-
What they thought was blood pn the outside could have been paint.
At any rate he assumed they would never look for it or figure out it was used. If he was aware of the blood then he obviously assumed police would be as dumb as his supporters and not look for it and if they did find it to just assume it is animal blood. He had no idea that it would be able to prove Sheila didn't kill herself. He had no clue about drawback.
At first police were as dumb as he hoped and bought his story that he left the rifle out without it attached so never bothered to even look for it. Even after it was found police thought the only vlaue would be fingerprints. The lab came up with the argument about drawback proving that Sheila used it and coudl not have killed herself not police.
Sorry, thought you only dealt in evidence? You know nothing of what he 'thought' but ANYONE who was cunning enough to switch phones around (as you have suggested) wouldn't be dumb enough to put something used on the murder weapon back in a cupboard without wiping it first. Further, he didn't even need to put it back, he could have simply unscrewed it and dropped it on the floor next to Sheila. The silencer wasn't used!
-
Scipio
Correct me if I am wrong but haven't we been led to believe that Jeremy father fought for his life but Jeremy didn't have a mark on him.
Julie would definitely have known because she was sleeping with him immediately after he is supposed to have murdered his whole family??
His father tried to wrestle the gun away. He had a broken arm so limited use of his left arm during such endeavor. Jeremy would have been unlikely to have been wouded from Nevill trying to strike him since Nevill was busy trying to take the rifle away. The gratest chance of injury was from the rifle stock breaking that was the event most likely to cause a noticeable wound the killer. To a lesser entext punching Nevill would result to marks on the hand though again gloves would mitigate that a great deal as well as mitigate the damage from the broken stock.
Jeremy used gloves Sheila would not have. So Sheila is the one who would have greater visible damage had she been the one who fought Nevill moreover she had long nails that would break during this while Jeremy did not.
At any rate Jeremy was not closely inspected while Sheila's body was.
-
The clothes Jeremy worn the day before the events im sure would have been worn or some worn the next day so highly unlikely any all of a sudden gone missing so the police had plenty of time to look around I bet worn garments make up a large portion of any conviction how many times you hear he was wearing a so so top and trousers so any injuries received would have left their mark somewhere this was 20th Century investigation methods not 19th.
The police did not look through his clothes until weeks later. By that time he had plenty of time to soak the in bleach or throw them out.
-
His father tried to wrestle the gun away. He had a broken arm so limited use of his left arm during such endeavor. Jeremy would have been unlikely to have been wouded from Nevill trying to strike him since Nevill was busy trying to take the rifle away. The gratest chance of injury was from the rifle stock breaking that was the event most likely to cause a noticeable wound the killer. To a lesser entext punching Nevill would result to marks on the hand though again gloves would mitigate that a great deal as well as mitigate the damage from the broken stock.
Jeremy used gloves Sheila would not have. So Sheila is the one who would have greater visible damage had she been the one who fought Nevill moreover she had long nails that would break during this while Jeremy did not.
At any rate Jeremy was not closely inspected while Sheila's body was.
Mugford slept with him every night. If there were any injuries then she would have noticed them.
-
Yet Sheila could? :-\
That would work both ways Mat. If your argument is that Bamber could beat Ralph without receiving injuries then the same goes for Sheila. I've know mentally ill people go into a rage and become twice as strong as they normally are.
-
Grahame did Mugford give police any information about Jeremy having any injuries? There is no way Jeremy could have been involved in a battle with Neville and not had a mark on him
Is there anything in police statements on this forum?
Mugford never reported any injuries on Jeremy Jackie.
-
Grahame did Mugford give police any information about Jeremy having any injuries? There is no way Jeremy could have been involved in a battle with Neville and not had a mark on him
Is there anything in police statements on this forum?
This is one of the statements that shows how irrational you and Grahame truly are. I am aaccused of having selective hearing when in fact you are just projecting because that is exactly what you are engagaing in.
There is no way tall, stong Jeremy could not be wounded in the struggle over the weapon with his father, but skinny short Sheila could engage in such struggle without getting a scratch on her. Do you even think before you post?
In the meantime the reality is that the killer had to have blood spatter from Nevill after such bludgeoning but Sheila had none. Jerey went home and changed hence why he had none visible when police saw him.
-
This is one of the statements that shows how irrational you and Grahame truly are. I am aaccused of having selective hearing when in fact you are just projecting because that is exactly what you are engagaing in.
There is no way tall, stong Jeremy could not be wounded in the struggle over the weapon with his father, but skinny short Sheila could engage in such struggle without getting a scratch on her. Do you even think before you post?
In the meantime the reality is that the killer had to have blood spatter from Nevill after such bludgeoning but Sheila had none. Jerey went home and changed hence why he had none visible when police saw him.
You my dear scipio are just guessing. You really have no idea of what people are capable of do you. Ralph was by your own scenario already wounded badly with two or three bullets in him. Also you said he had a broken arm. Those bullets alone would incapacitate him. It wouldn't take sheila much strength to finish him off. No I don't think it was a violent struggle as the prosecution suggested as Ralph was already very weak. If Bamber had no injuries and was guilty. In other words no signs of a struggle with Ralph, then exactly the same could be said of Sheila. You can have it both ways mate. And not so much of the dumb supporters either. Someone is not dumb just because they don't accept your embellished scenarios.
-
It is my belief that Sheila attacked her father after he had been shot
As you know Scipio it looked as if Sheila had showered and clothes with blood on were in a bucket
The type of blood could easily be identified today if they had not been destroyed
-
You my dear scipio are just guessing. You really have no idea of what people are capable of do you. Ralph was by your own scenario already wounded badly with two or three bullets in him. Also you said he had a broken arm. Those bullets alone would incapacitate him. It wouldn't take sheila much strength to finish him off. No I don't think it was a violent struggle as the prosecution suggested as Ralph was already very weak. If Bamber had no injuries and was guilty. In other words no signs of a struggle with Ralph, then exactly the same could be said of Sheila. You can have it both ways mate. And not so much of the dumb supporters either. Someone is not dumb just because they don't accept your embellished scenarios.
Jeremy supporters try to have it both ways not me.
Jeremy did not have long nails to breka while SHeila did so while SHeila's nails would have broken under such circumstances Jeremy had no nails to break
Jeremy would have been wearing gloves thus would have mitigated any injuries that would have resulted from punching Nevill or from the rifle when stock broke esactly where the killer would have been holding it. Sheila would not have been wearing gloves thus would have been wounded by that breka and would have had abrasions from punching Nevill. In addiiton Sheila would have letft her prints in the blood that was on the rifle since she had no gloves while Jeremy would not since he wore gloves.
The killer deifnitely owuld have had medium vemolicyt spatter from bludgeoning nevill it got on the rifle and wound have gotten on the killer as well. Sheil didn't have a reaosn to change let alone opportunity to go dispose of her bloody clothing outside the house somethwere not to be found while Jeremy did have a reson to change and the ability to change upon arrivig home.
These are the salient points.
-
That would work both ways Mat.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say to Jackie.
-
It is my belief that Sheila attacked her father after he had been shot
As you know Scipio it looked as if Sheila had showered and clothes with blood on were in a bucket
The type of blood could easily be identified today if they had not been destroyed
It didn't look like she showered and changed her clothes nor would she have any rea0osn to shower and change her clothes in anticipation of suicide.
The clothes were 2 pairs of panties and leggigs all of which were stianed with blood in the crotch area. Only a fool would try asserting this blood might have been spatter from the victims and that she wore such clothing during the murders then changed and soaked them in buckets before blowing her head off.
The clothing that would have the greatest amoun of spatter and GSR would be clothing coveringthe top of her body. What shirt or gown was found to have blood spatter and GSR that she coudl have changed out of?
Nevill was obviusly shot 4 times upstairs on his left side then made his way to the kitchen where he tried to disarm his killer. He struggled over control of the weapon with his killer in the precess knocking over various things. Because the moderator was attached it was tall enough to break the ceiling lampshade. It further scratched the aga mantle in a zigzag pattern indicative of the struggle over control as opposed to a simple lateral mark that would result from just a plain accidental brushing against it while walking or it falling. Things were knocked around but the killer eventually gained sole control of the weapon and then began to bash Nevill with the stock. Nevill tried to block the blows with his right arm. His watch was torn off and defensive wounds were left on his arm. The killer managed to bash his head in knocking him unconscious and getting covered in mendium velocity spatter. In the meantime the blows were so hard that the stock of the rifle broken exactly where one hand was holding it. The only thing that saved his hand from damage from this break was the pair of gloves he was wearing. With Nevill unconscious he reloaded and shot him a further 4 times killing him.
-
It is my belief that Sheila attacked her father after he had been shot
As you know Scipio it looked as if Sheila had showered and clothes with blood on were in a bucket
The type of blood could easily be identified today if they had not been destroyed
-
Two different scenarios
If the struggle involved an attack with Sheila I cannot believe Neville would have hit back because of Sheila's serious condition.
If the struggle involved Jeremy I believe his father would have fought back
Yes,,I believe his father would have walloped him,,probably for the first time in his life,which would have frightened the dickens out of him. Jeremy,to my mind,couldn't punch a hole in a wet newspaper ( sorry Jeremy ) but he didn't strike me as being a fisty-cuffs.
-
Jeremy supporters try to have it both ways not me.
Jeremy did not have long nails to breka while SHeila did so while SHeila's nails would have broken under such circumstances Jeremy had no nails to break
Jeremy would have been wearing gloves thus would have mitigated any injuries that would have resulted from punching Nevill or from the rifle when stock broke esactly where the killer would have been holding it. Sheila would not have been wearing gloves thus would have been wounded by that breka and would have had abrasions from punching Nevill. In addiiton Sheila would have letft her prints in the blood that was on the rifle since she had no gloves while Jeremy would not since he wore gloves.
The killer deifnitely owuld have had medium vemolicyt spatter from bludgeoning nevill it got on the rifle and wound have gotten on the killer as well. Sheil didn't have a reaosn to change let alone opportunity to go dispose of her bloody clothing outside the house somethwere not to be found while Jeremy did have a reson to change and the ability to change upon arrivig home.
These are the salient points.
Time you started to think sideways old boy. Don't just tow the party line. Come at this thing from all sides.
ps: Absolutely no proof whatsoever that Jeremy did the murders and to me it is a cop out to introduce gloves just so that it fits in with your own scenario. Most of what you have is just guesswork. Why do I say that? Oh because you just don't have enough evidence to place Bamber at the scene you have to "invent" certain things in order to make your sceario work, such as gloves. Take out all your guesswork and you have nothing. As I said learn to think sideways, then perhaps there's hope that one day you might, just might be a fairly good investigator. But you cannot do that if you keep on inventing pieces of the jigsaw in order to complete the whole picture. You must work with just the available pieces and they are few.
-
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say to Jackie.
Jackie? Blimey! I must have had a sex change? ;D
-
Yes,,I believe his father would have walloped him,,probably for the first time in his life,which would have frightened the dickens out of him. Jeremy,to my mind,couldn't punch a hole in a wet newspaper ( sorry Jeremy ) but he didn't strike me as being a fisty-cuffs.
Lookout, with the injuries Nevill had sustained I imagine his balance would have been severely compromised. I don't think using his good arm to "wallop" anyone was on the cards.
-
Lookout, with the injuries Nevill had sustained I imagine his balance would have been severely compromised. I don't think using his good arm to "wallop" anyone was on the cards.
I was really referring from the start before any shooting began,as Neville would have unarmed Jeremy,no problem,then clouted him.
-
It didn't look like she showered and changed her clothes nor would she have any rea0osn to shower and change her clothes in anticipation of suicide.
The clothes were 2 pairs of panties and leggigs all of which were stianed with blood in the crotch area. Only a fool would try asserting this blood might have been spatter from the victims and that she wore such clothing during the murders then changed and soaked them in buckets before blowing her head off.
The clothing that would have the greatest amoun of spatter and GSR would be clothing coveringthe top of her body. What shirt or gown was found to have blood spatter and GSR that she coudl have changed out of?
Nevill was obviusly shot 4 times upstairs on his left side then made his way to the kitchen where he tried to disarm his killer. He struggled over control of the weapon with his killer in the precess knocking over various things. Because the moderator was attached it was tall enough to break the ceiling lampshade. It further scratched the aga mantle in a zigzag pattern indicative of the struggle over control as opposed to a simple lateral mark that would result from just a plain accidental brushing against it while walking or it falling. Things were knocked around but the killer eventually gained sole control of the weapon and then began to bash Nevill with the stock. Nevill tried to block the blows with his right arm. His watch was torn off and defensive wounds were left on his arm. The killer managed to bash his head in knocking him unconscious and getting covered in mendium velocity spatter. In the meantime the blows were so hard that the stock of the rifle broken exactly where one hand was holding it. The only thing that saved his hand from damage from this break was the pair of gloves he was wearing. With Nevill unconscious he reloaded and shot him a further 4 times killing him.
This is a common practice with people who commit suicide. They want to look their best. The very fact that she was exceptionally clean is an indication that she did in fact shower before she killed herself? It is interesting also that the forensics didn't pay as much attention to the other victims as they did with Sheila, therefore were not able to compare the levels of gunshot residue on each of them. Remember also that with a rifle there is not so much residue at the stock end than there is at the barrel end? Remember also that it is strange that the gunshot residue on Sheila was "under normal". Whilst the air around her must have formally been filled with the stuff. Her hair for instance did not contain much residue. What does this tell you? Well it tells me that something was done to Sheila before she was killed when most of the residue had settled. The idea that comes to my mind is that her body and her hair must have been washed? Now of course adhering to my own rules I must submit that this is only a guess on my part. But at the same time my suggestion is equal to your own. ;)
-
Believe me,,there are many women who have the urge to kill during the onset of menstruation alone.PMT ! Read about it.
-
Poor Sheila had all the hormone-related problems for years. In the end,,she flipped.
-
Time you started to think sideways old boy. Don't just tow the party line. Come at this thing from all sides.
ps: Absolutely no proof whatsoever that Jeremy did the murders and to me it is a cop out to introduce gloves just so that it fits in with your own scenario. Most of what you have is just guesswork. Why do I say that? Oh because you just don't have enough evidence to place Bamber at the scene you have to "invent" certain things in order to make your sceario work, such as gloves. Take out all your guesswork and you have nothing. As I said learn to think sideways, then perhaps there's hope that one day you might, just might be a fairly good investigator. But you cannot do that if you keep on inventing pieces of the jigsaw in order to complete the whole picture. You must work with just the available pieces and they are few.
I already came at it from all sides.
If Sheila did it then there would be physicla evidence indicating she did it.
Worse there are 3 different pieces of evidence that prove she can't have killed herself.
On the flip side is evidence that Jeremy lied to frame Sheila including his fairytale about leaving the gun out and Nevill removing the scope when clearly the only reaosn to remove the scope was to murder the family. A tale which featured staged bullets as well which dismantled his claims further.
The call form Nevill makes no sense from any perspective and his reactions to the call even less sense.
You claim there is no evidence against Jeremy is a joke which amounts to you simply refusing to accept the evidence. That doesn't make the evidence go away it just makes you look foolish by living in denial.
-
I already came at it from all sides.
If Sheila did it then there would be physicla evidence indicating she did it.
Worse there are 3 different pieces of evidence that prove she can't have killed herself.
On the flip side is evidence that Jeremy lied to frame Sheila including his fairytale about leaving the gun out and Nevill removing the scope when clearly the only reaosn to remove the scope was to murder the family. A tale which featured staged bullets as well which dismantled his claims further.
The call form Nevill makes no sense from any perspective and his reactions to the call even less sense.
You claim there is no evidence against Jeremy is a joke which amounts to you simply refusing to accept the evidence. That doesn't make the evidence go away it just makes you look foolish by living in denial.
In actual fact he was asked by Ann Eaton (I believe it was her?) whether he had shewn her how to load the gun and instead of using that as an opportunity to bolster the fact that she could load the gun he instead said, that he didn't shew her.
And no I don't continue to live in de Nile, cos there are crocodiles in there. ::)
-
I already came at it from all sides.
If Sheila did it then there would be physicla evidence indicating she did it.
Worse there are 3 different pieces of evidence that prove she can't have killed herself.
On the flip side is evidence that Jeremy lied to frame Sheila including his fairytale about leaving the gun out and Nevill removing the scope when clearly the only reaosn to remove the scope was to murder the family. A tale which featured staged bullets as well which dismantled his claims further.
The call form Nevill makes no sense from any perspective and his reactions to the call even less sense.
You claim there is no evidence against Jeremy is a joke which amounts to you simply refusing to accept the evidence. That doesn't make the evidence go away it just makes you look foolish by living in denial.
personally I think you look foolish not Grahame :) If I left this forum it would not be because you have changed my mind. Far from it . Your posts are so convoluted that they send me to sleep.
You are as bad as Adam about why the phone call would not have happened . you were not there on the night , you don't know the exact order of what happened so you are making an educated guess. At least the rest of us admit that.
-
personally I think you look more foolish than Grahame :) If I left this forum it would not be because you have changed my mind. Far from it . Your posts are so convoluted that they send me to sleep.
You are as bad as Adam about why the phone call would not have happened . you were not there on the night , you don't know the exact order of what happened so you are making an educated guess. At least the rest of us admit that.
Hey! waddaya mean I'm foolish? ;D
-
In actual fact he was asked by Ann Eaton (I believe it was her?) whether he had shewn her how to load the gun and instead of using that as an opportunity to bolster the fact that she could load the gun he instead said, that he didn't shew her.
And no I don't continue to live in de Nile, cos there are crocodiles in there. ::)
His claims changed depending upon who he was speaking to and what day it was. He had already abandoned the claim she fired guns by the time of his written statement because the family denied she had any interest in guns and he didn't want police to see him as a liar.
He instead claimed she had walked aorund so could have seen how a gun operates by walking along when Nevill or himself used it. He also claimed she was able to see him load the magazine in the kitchen during his fairytale account of loading it to shoot rabbits.
He didn't have his lies thought out well and memorized and wound up telling police there was no argument about the part time foster care and that she was quiet and had little reaction. WHen he spoke to Colin he wanted Colin to believe she did it so told him that she had been arguing with them and that the argument was ongoing while he left. Jeremy did this constantly he would tell different people different things.
He told Boutflour that he removed the scope himself from the rifle. But in September he told police Nevill did it. When he did so he contradicted other previous testimony to police as well. He previously stated he had not touched the murder weapon the week prior to the murders. The first time in a while he touched it was the night of the murders when he got it out to shoot the rabbits supposedly.
But the last known user of the rifle told police it had been put away with the moderator and scope attached. Police told him about the account and thus said Jeremy should have found it with these items attached so what did he have to say about it. Jeremy drastically changed his atory. he went from neve rusing it that weak to claiming he used it constantly that week and that so did Nevill. He said sometimes when he got the gun from the closet it had the moderator and scope attached but other times it didn't. He said Nevill was repeatedly taking the moderator and scope on and off during that week sometimes using it with and sometimes without.
These claims were not credible at all Nevill would have no reaosn to use the gun without the scope and moderator and no reason to remove them, and he clearly changed his story purely to deal with the fact there was evidence that he would have found the gun with the scope and moderator attached if he got the gun as claimed.
He never was able to think up a lie to account for the fact there were 30 bullets left and should have been only 25 at most left if his claims were true.
If one carfully scrutinizes Jeremy's claims they will find he told different people different things, changed his claims to people when convenient, that many of his claims make no sense and that many are contradicted by others.
Those who consider Jeremy credible are living in a fantasy world.
-
Hey! waddaya mean I'm foolish? ;D
;D that did not come out quite right :-[ but I am sure you know what I meant.
-
personally I think you look more foolish than Grahame :) If I left this forum it would not be because you have changed my mind. Far from it . Your posts are so convoluted that they send me to sleep.
You are as bad as Adam about why the phone call would not have happened . you were not there on the night , you don't know the exact order of what happened so you are making an educated guess. At least the rest of us admit that.
Jeremy supporters admit they are making guesses when they insist it is fact that evidence was planted and all the wild claims I see on here? Not hardly.
I admit the limits of what the evidence can't reveal and discuss what it can. I present evidence to estbalish the order of events and describe the limits not not knowing for sure whether the twins dies last of Sheila. The gun had 10 shots and ten were fired into the twins and Sheila. DId Jeremy shoot her then go shoot them with the remaining 8 rounds or shoot them with 8 and leave 2 for her? We have no way to know.
Other things are easier to tell like only the initial action would feature the gun loaded with 11 rounds and based on the casings and more we can tell all 11 were fired in the master bedroom and then the gun was empty when the action continued in the kitchen. Evidence and logic combines. Why would a killer beat Nevill with the gun if the gun had bullets in it? When could the killer have reloaded anyway before the struggle? Had there been more than 1 magazine things would have been different the killer would not have need to beat Nevill and coudl have rapidly inserted another magazine and continued the shooting.
These considerations are all things Jeremy supporters do not want to look at and never mention at all. I'm the first perosn on this site to discuss them. So much for Jeremy supporters being interested in the truth and facts when they never honestly look at the facts and evidence from any standpoint other than how to try to twist such to support Jeremy.
The evidence I presented with all the problems with the phonecall have not been rebutted. You say who cares you find it boring. All that means is my points are unrebutted. When you don't rebut evidence and instead ignore it all that does is make one a denialist. That fails to estbalish Jeremy is innocent it merely establisheds you don't want to face it.
Peopel have not rebutted my posts about all the problems with the phone call because they can't. A few people tried a little with relidulous faiytales about Sheila hiding in the bathroom which only made the supposed call look even more ridiculous.
Jackie shot any chance of credibility in this thread asserting that Jeremy would have to have been injured if he was the killer but smaller, lighter, weaker Sheila would not have to be injured. My last post discredited her claims further. She failed to post a rebuttal and instead just repeated the same exact mantra I just discredited.
That is the reality of how the debates go here.
After Jeremy supporters are discredited and they are unable to rebut the posts that discredit their claims they just repated the same discredited mantra saying they refuse to acknowledge the post that deiscreted their claims.
That's as effective as the defense doing nothing in court to challenge the moderator and simply saying in closing arguments we dismiss their claims as not valid don't pay attention to it.
-
His claims changed depending upon who he was speaking to and what day it was. He had already abandoned the claim she fired guns by the time of his written statement because the family denied she had any interest in guns and he didn't want police to see him as a liar.
He instead claimed she had walked aorund so could have seen how a gun operates by walking along when Nevill or himself used it. He also claimed she was able to see him load the magazine in the kitchen during his fairytale account of loading it to shoot rabbits.
He didn't have his lies thought out well and memorized and wound up telling police there was no argument about the part time foster care and that she was quiet and had little reaction. WHen he spoke to Colin he wanted Colin to believe she did it so told him that she had been arguing with them and that the argument was ongoing while he left. Jeremy did this constantly he would tell different people different things.
He told Boutflour that he removed the scope himself from the rifle. But in September he told police Nevill did it. When he did so he contradicted other previous testimony to police as well. He previously stated he had not touched the murder weapon the week prior to the murders. The first time in a while he touched it was the night of the murders when he got it out to shoot the rabbits supposedly.
But the last known user of the rifle told police it had been put away with the moderator and scope attached. Police told him about the account and thus said Jeremy should have found it with these items attached so what did he have to say about it. Jeremy drastically changed his atory. he went from neve rusing it that weak to claiming he used it constantly that week and that so did Nevill. He said sometimes when he got the gun from the closet it had the moderator and scope attached but other times it didn't. He said Nevill was repeatedly taking the moderator and scope on and off during that week sometimes using it with and sometimes without.
These claims were not credible at all Nevill would have no reaosn to use the gun without the scope and moderator and no reason to remove them, and he clearly changed his story purely to deal with the fact there was evidence that he would have found the gun with the scope and moderator attached if he got the gun as claimed.
He never was able to think up a lie to account for the fact there were 30 bullets left and should have been only 25 at most left if his claims were true.
If one carfully scrutinizes Jeremy's claims they will find he told different people different things, changed his claims to people when convenient, that many of his claims make no sense and that many are contradicted by others.
Those who consider Jeremy credible are living in a fantasy world.
Well it is strange that the relatives said he expressed no interest in guns, because Pargeter said he's been out with him shooting and that Bamber claimed to be a good shot. So there you have different people contradicting themselves. I am ready to bet that if we searched the family photo album we would find a few photos with her holding guns, (we may even find her at the Scotland shoot as told by DB?) possibly a shotgun, because Ann Eaton when she heard of the shooting at first believed it was so because she thought it was a shotgun that Sheila used. So why she should find it more believable to her to have used a shotgun as opposed to a small calibre rifle I don't know?
-
Well it is strange that the relatives said he expressed no interest in guns, because Pargeter said he's been out with him shooting and that Bamber claimed to be a good shot. So there you have different people contradicting themselves. I am ready to bet that if we searched the family photo album we would find a few photos with her holding guns, (we may even find her at the Scotland shoot as told by DB?) possibly a shotgun, because Ann Eaton when she heard of the shooting at first believed it was so because she thought it was a shotgun that Sheila used. So why she should find it more believable to her to have used a shotgun as opposed to a small calibre rifle I don't know?
The family, farm workers and even Julie said that he didn't like the idea of shooting rabbits and thus the suggestion he took the gun out to do so was odd.
Pargeter did not contradict this at all, Pargeter said that Jeremy had no interest in guns in the past but recently had taken an interest in his gun and had shot targets with Pargeter. They shared Pargeter's gun while shooting targets.
Showing an interest in target shooting with Pargeter doesn't help support his tale that he got the gun out to shoot rabbits. It also tends to suggest that his motive for getting Nevill to buy the gun was so he could use it to murder the family with it.
He was using Pargeter's gun for target shooting with him, they would share it. He claimed he was going to get his own gun. What gun did he want? A 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun with a 5 round magazine. Is that suitable for target shooting? No it would be for game but he didn't shoot game when he was with Anthony or anyone else and Nevill already had a 12 gauge shotgun but it only held 2 rounds. Why did he want a semi-auto and one that held 5 rounds? Because 5 rounds available is much better for murdering because what if after 2 rounds they are not dead and attack him?
The only semi-auto he could talk Nevill into was a .22 (purchased Nov 30, 1984). If he wanted a gun for target shooting a 22 should have been his first choice not the shotgun. It was 8 months old when Anthony found and used the murder weapon and it looked like it was brand new. Suggestions by Jeremy that it was used daily to shoot rabbits clearly was BS, if Nevill did use it to shoot rabbits then it was sparingly. He probably still preferred his 410s for such.
Jeremy had his father buy the weapon so he could kill the family with it, he would not even pay for the murder weapon himself.
Sheila was at WHF various times after the gun was purchased but the first time the boys stayed over after its purchase was in August 1985. So it was his first chance to kill the entire lot of them together.
-
Jeremy didn't 'share' AP's rifle with him at all! The weekend before the murders AP fitted new sights to his rifle and was zeroing them in,or whatever its called. He asked Jeremy to try out his rifle to see if he thought it was shooting straight. AP also handled the anschutz and yet his fingerprints don't appear to have been found on it. AP hadn't visited the farm for a long long time prior to that weekend as he and Nevill had had some kind of big falling out. Then of course there was the changing of his statements. His rifle was at whf at the time of the murders,at it always was,but by the time he had made his next statement he had changed his mind and stated that he had taken it home. I am convinced the murders were a two gun crime. Why would EP want to cover that up?
-
Just a thought, but does anyone else find it odd that a person who is said, by Julie, amongst others, to dislike the thought of shooting rabbits, is said to have told Julie that he strangled rats with his bare hands.
-
Jeremy supporters admit they are making guesses when they insist it is fact that evidence was planted and all the wild claims I see on here? Not hardly.
I admit the limits of what the evidence can't reveal and discuss what it can. I present evidence to estbalish the order of events and describe the limits not not knowing for sure whether the twins dies last of Sheila. The gun had 10 shots and ten were fired into the twins and Sheila. DId Jeremy shoot her then go shoot them with the remaining 8 rounds or shoot them with 8 and leave 2 for her? We have no way to know.
Other things are easier to tell like only the initial action would feature the gun loaded with 11 rounds and based on the casings and more we can tell all 11 were fired in the master bedroom and then the gun was empty when the action continued in the kitchen. Evidence and logic combines. Why would a killer beat Nevill with the gun if the gun had bullets in it? When could the killer have reloaded anyway before the struggle? Had there been more than 1 magazine things would have been different the killer would not have need to beat Nevill and coudl have rapidly inserted another magazine and continued the shooting.
These considerations are all things Jeremy supporters do not want to look at and never mention at all. I'm the first perosn on this site to discuss them. So much for Jeremy supporters being interested in the truth and facts when they never honestly look at the facts and evidence from any standpoint other than how to try to twist such to support Jeremy.
The evidence I presented with all the problems with the phonecall have not been rebutted. You say who cares you find it boring. All that means is my points are unrebutted. When you don't rebut evidence and instead ignore it all that does is make one a denialist. That fails to estbalish Jeremy is innocent it merely establisheds you don't want to face it.
Peopel have not rebutted my posts about all the problems with the phone call because they can't. A few people tried a little with relidulous faiytales about Sheila hiding in the bathroom which only made the supposed call look even more ridiculous.
Jackie shot any chance of credibility in this thread asserting that Jeremy would have to have been injured if he was the killer but smaller, lighter, weaker Sheila would not have to be injured. My last post discredited her claims further. She failed to post a rebuttal and instead just repeated the same exact mantra I just discredited.
That is the reality of how the debates go here.
After Jeremy supporters are discredited and they are unable to rebut the posts that discredit their claims they just repated the same discredited mantra saying they refuse to acknowledge the post that deiscreted their claims.
That's as effective as the defense doing nothing in court to challenge the moderator and simply saying in closing arguments we dismiss their claims as not valid don't pay attention to it.
You too make guesses. In fact you make up stuff so to make it fit into your scenarios. Remember the "driving at 5mph" (hoping people would skip over it but didn't you called it "a figure of speach". A bit like the president saying after a nuclear war, "Oh I didn't really mean Press the red button. It was only a figure of speech". ;D
-
Just a thought, but does anyone else find it odd that a person who is said, by Julie, amongst others, to dislike the thought of shooting rabbits, is said to have told Julie that he strangled rats with his bare hands.
It is a good thought imo April.The two statements just do not make sense. Neither does the oft stated fact by RWB, I believe, that Jeremy was a 'pansy', or something similarly offensive because he hated killing any animal but was apparently capable of killing his whole family in an orgy of bloody carnage. How DOES such a person carry out such a crime without the slightest sign of trauma?
-
The family, farm workers and even Julie said that he didn't like the idea of shooting rabbits and thus the suggestion he took the gun out to do so was odd.
Pargeter did not contradict this at all, Pargeter said that Jeremy had no interest in guns in the past but recently had taken an interest in his gun and had shot targets with Pargeter. They shared Pargeter's gun while shooting targets.
Showing an interest in target shooting with Pargeter doesn't help support his tale that he got the gun out to shoot rabbits. It also tends to suggest that his motive for getting Nevill to buy the gun was so he could use it to murder the family with it.
He was using Pargeter's gun for target shooting with him, they would share it. He claimed he was going to get his own gun. What gun did he want? A 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun with a 5 round magazine. Is that suitable for target shooting? No it would be for game but he didn't shoot game when he was with Anthony or anyone else and Nevill already had a 12 gauge shotgun but it only held 2 rounds. Why did he want a semi-auto and one that held 5 rounds? Because 5 rounds available is much better for murdering because what if after 2 rounds they are not dead and attack him?
The only semi-auto he could talk Nevill into was a .22 (purchased Nov 30, 1984). If he wanted a gun for target shooting a 22 should have been his first choice not the shotgun. It was 8 months old when Anthony found and used the murder weapon and it looked like it was brand new. Suggestions by Jeremy that it was used daily to shoot rabbits clearly was BS, if Nevill did use it to shoot rabbits then it was sparingly. He probably still preferred his 410s for such.
Jeremy had his father buy the weapon so he could kill the family with it, he would not even pay for the murder weapon himself.
Sheila was at WHF various times after the gun was purchased but the first time the boys stayed over after its purchase was in August 1985. So it was his first chance to kill the entire lot of them together.
What is more odd is that he told people that he took the gun out, (1) when he had a perfectly good alibi in that because he expressed no interest in guns it couldn't have been him. (2) Then he wouldn't invent a story of his father had phoned him because he didn't need to. So doesn't it seem odd to you that he had the choice of two alibis that he failed to use?
But of course the real oddity is that (3) whilst they testified that he expressed no interest in guns that didn't stop them from suspecting him right from the beginning. But of course RWB did say that he destested him.
-
What is more odd is that he told people that he took the gun out, (1) when he had a perfectly good alibi in that because he expressed no interest in guns it couldn't have been him. (2) Then he wouldn't invent a story of his father had phoned him because he didn't need to. So doesn't it seem odd to you that he had the choice of two alibis that he failed to use?
But of course the real oddity is that (3) whilst they testified that he expressed no interest in guns that didn't stop them from suspecting him right from the beginning. But of course RWB did say that he destested him.
He invented the story he did to cast extra suspicion on Sheila and to try to have an alibi.
How would the fact he didn't like to shoot rabbits help him? In the meantime their testimony was all of a sudden he became interested in guns asking about getting a semi-auto shotgun and having Anthony allow him to use his gun to shoot targets.
Had the body been found the next day his alibi would be he was asleep alone- not much of an alibi.
The calll story cast suspicion on Sheila and estbalished him at home to receive the call.
The lie about tkaing the gun out to shoot rabbits and leaving it and th ebullets out was to establish there was a wepaon of opportunity available because Sheila would not have gone to seek it out herself and if she had then the gun would have had the moderator and scope attached.
-
He invented the story he did to cast extra suspicion on Sheila and to try to have an alibi.
How would the fact he didn't like to shoot rabbits help him? In the meantime their testimony was all of a sudden he became interested in guns asking about getting a semi-auto shotgun and having Anthony allow him to use his gun to shoot targets.
Had the body been found the next day his alibi would be he was asleep alone- not much of an alibi.
The calll story cast suspicion on Sheila and estbalished him at home to receive the call.
The lie about tkaing the gun out to shoot rabbits and leaving it and th ebullets out was to establish there was a wepaon of opportunity available because Sheila would not have gone to seek it out herself and if she had then the gun would have had the moderator and scope attached.
Well everyone else was asleep as well. I wonder if their alibis were checked out. In fact we may enquire where each of them were the night before the silencer was allegedly found?
Why invent the rabbit story if it was so stupid that no one would believe it? Sorry, but this doesn't sound like someone who had been planning this thing for a year. ;D
-
Well everyone else was asleep as well. I wonder if their alibis were checked out. In fact we may enquire where each of them were the night before the silencer was allegedly found?
Why invent the rabbit story if it was so stupid that no one would believe it? Sorry, but this doesn't sound like someone who had been planning this thing for a year. ;D
Who would suspicion fall on if it were clear someone went there and murdered them all?
Squarely on Jeremy which is why instead he tried to place suspicion on Sheila.
-
Who would suspicion fall on if it were clear someone went there and murdered them all?
Squarely on Jeremy which is why instead he tried to place suspicion on Sheila.
Of course it wouldn't you idiot. Don't be a twit. I thought at least that you would have a modicum of common sense even in that very biased mind of yours.
-
Of course it wouldn't you idiot. Don't be a twit. I thought at least that you would have a modicum of common sense even in that very biased mind of yours.
You seem to have anger issues in addition to a lack of any sense at all. Trying to deny that he would be the prime suspect is hilarious. Who would have a reason to kill everyone in the house evne the kids? The person who benefits most would be him. Establishing a benefit for someone else like Colin would be much more tenuous but surely the main initial suspect would be Jeremy.
-
You seem to have anger issues in addition to a lack of any sense at all. Trying to deny that he would be the prime suspect is hilarious. Who would have a reason to kill everyone in the house evne the kids? The person who benefits most would be him. Establishing a benefit for someone else like Colin would be much more tenuous but surely the main initial suspect would be Jeremy.
No not really. Just an incapacity to suffer fools gladly. ;)
-
When it became clear that Sheila wasn't responsible, I think Jeremy would have been the suspect - because the house was locked. They would begin to look at who was able to access the house and leave it in that condition. Plus, Jeremy had been there until 10/10:30 - I don't see what the chances are of someone else arriving at WHF after that time to murder everyone yet only using the guns in the house and not their own weapon.
-
When it became clear that Sheila wasn't responsible, I think Jeremy would have been the suspect - because the house was locked. They would begin to look at who was able to access the house and leave it in that condition. Plus, Jeremy had been there until 10/10:30 - I don't see what the chances are of someone else arriving at WHF after that time to murder everyone yet only using the guns in the house and not their own weapon.
Upon realizing no one in the house did it the inquiry becomes who did. The first thing they look at to determine who is why they were killed. The motive helps determine who did it. Hence why you look at whether it was a robbery or what have you. But robbers don't usually kill eveyrone in a house especially not in bed. If people don't wake up and thus can't ID them there is no reason to kill hem. Moreover using a gun from the house for such would not make sense. Hence why staging it as a robbery would have been dicey. That is why he selected blaming Sheila. Her mentla state make her a convenient scapegoat.
Vanezis said two things very prescient, the killer had to be quite skilled with the weapon to not miss a single time and that if Sheila did not do it then Jeremy did.
Grahame disagrees but Grahame consistently demonstrates his opinions are all absurd and baseless so not really of any value.
-
Who locked the house and what time.
-
Who locked the house and what time.
We don't know if the house was locked. DCI Jones might not have actually tested every window like he claims because the bathroom window was unlocked (though not opened) when police checked everything before elaving. WHy would a cop unlock the window but not open it? The windows touched by cops had been touched to open them.
If the windows were all locked and Jeremy did not use a ladder then he used the kitchen window and locked it before he fled the murder scene. The housekeeper testifed that the items in the kitchen sink had been removed and placed to the side. The prosecution suggested that it was removed so Jeremy coudl then climb out through that window and lock it fromt he outside as the family figured out was possible and as he told Julie was possible thus proving he knew about it.
-
0h dear Scipio. The windows were all closed apart from a small window in the main bedroom. All doors locked and bolted apart from the kitchen door which had no bolts but was locked with the key found still in the lock on the inside. The police later took responsibility for the items around the kitchen sink being moved and the watery blood AE spotted on the glass of the kitchen window,whilst cleaning up the scene.
-
Oh,and the raid team opened a window as a form of escape should it be needed.
-
0h dear Scipio. The windows were all closed apart from a small window in the main bedroom. All doors locked and bolted apart from the kitchen door which had no bolts but was locked with the key found still in the lock on the inside. The police later took responsibility for the items around the kitchen sink being moved and the watery blood AE spotted on the glass of the kitchen window,whilst cleaning up the scene.
They don't know for sure that the bathroom window was locked when they entered. No one opened the bathroom window at any time that anyone is aware of so ther eis no way to know it was really locked.
The police did not take credit for the items in the sink according to the Dickinson Report so if you disagree post the statement of the cop who took credit.
-
Yes,I'm afraid the Police DID admit moving the items around the sink whilst cleaning up. And I wasn't aware that the windows had locks fitted to them?
-
Yes,I'm afraid the Police DID admit moving the items around the sink whilst cleaning up. And I wasn't aware that the windows had locks fitted to them?
You are in error no police indicated they moved any of the items near the window. The windows had latches though they were apparently worthless if someone really wanted to get in since they could be opened from the outside using a long slim object.
-
I am not in error. Police moved the items around the sink whilst cleaning up. I will post proof tomorrow when on my pc.
-
You are in error no police indicated they moved any of the items near the window. The windows had latches though they were apparently worthless if someone really wanted to get in since they could be opened from the outside using a long slim object.
Most houses of that era were insecure. If a burglar wanted to get in he will get in.
-
Most houses of that era were insecure. If a burglar wanted to get in he will get in.
Twenty years prior to then,you left the key under the mat !
-
Most houses of that era were insecure. If a burglar wanted to get in he will get in.
What is different from now?
Aside from houses with alarms that is still the case and even alarms can be bipassed though to a lesser extent.
At least in my house a burglar has to cut or break the glass to open a widow though, there is no way to use a knife or like to unlock them.
-
Twenty years prior to then,you left the key under the mat !
We used to leave our back door open at night in the 50's.
-
What is different from now?
Aside from houses with alarms that is still the case and even alarms can be bipassed though to a lesser extent.
At least in my house a burglar has to cut or break the glass to open a widow though, there is no way to use a knife or like to unlock them.
That is true. I am in charge of security at the school where I work in the evenings and I can testify that what you say is correct. But in the 80's in England at least, whilst there still were break-ins etc people depended more upon locks and bolts than with alarms, althought they were about of course. Today security is big business. I must say that since we have modernised the school we have had far far fewer attempted break-ins. But of course it still depends a lot upon my vigilance. I don't think the governors and heads know just how much work I put it to keep the school and the staff & students safe?
-
I said that someone with long nails fighting with someone will usually get somethign stuck under the nails in the course of such struggle but there was zero evidence of such under her nails.
Moreover, someone engaged in such a struggle would break their nails. Someone with long nails wielding any object even a baseball bat is likely to damage their nails while beating something with such.
As for the point about the broken stock damaging a hand it is a sound claim. Someone beating Nevill with the rifle would indeed be holding the gun in thee narrow part of the stock not the wide part of the stock. The hand would thus be where the stock broke and the notion that as it broke this would do nothing at all to the hand is highly unlikely.
Gloves do not leave fibers ordinarily unless they are knits or they are torn.
No, not neccessarily. Some people have nails that do not break easily - or ever; I happen to be one of those persons, my fingernails bend when under strain, they never, and I mean never ever, break.
So what you are saying is just your suppostition and proves nothing.
-
What are you on about? I wasn't talking about Sheila!! You steam in shoving your opinion down people's throats when they aren't even talking to you. I posted the article in response to something Lookout said about Jeremy and sniffer dogs. The point was that he would have showered and changed by the time he returned or do you want to suggest he wouldn't, just for the sake of disagreeing with someone??
Yapyap, noticed this too - it happens all the time with scipio, he doesn´t read other people´s posts properly, but prefers to stick to his fixed, uniform opinion about all people who are the slightest bit pro Bamber (which you aren´t BTW, that fact must have flown over his head somehow).
I was very annoyed with this in the beginning don´t care so much anymore. It just shows how unobservant he really is, and the rigidity of his mindset.
-
No, not neccessarily. Some people have nails that do not break easily - or ever; I happen to be one of those persons, my fingernails bend when under strain, they never, and I mean never ever, break.
So what you are saying is just your suppostition and proves nothing.
Take a rifle wrap your hands around the foregrip and the stock and then back the stock into something as hard as you cna multiple times and see if they chip or break.
-
Take a rifle wrap your hands around the foregrip and the stock and then back the stock into something as hard as you cna multiple times and see if they chip or break.
I would if I had a rifle, but sadly I don´t! :-\
My fingernails bend, then snap into the original shape immediately, they never break, ever, trust me! I have long fingernails too. We don´t know the quality of Sheila´s fingernails - they could have been the same as mine, so you cannot claim with certainty that her nails would have chipped or broken. That´s all I´m saying.
-
Take a rifle wrap your hands around the foregrip and the stock and then back the stock into something as hard as you cna multiple times and see if they chip or break.
This is Europe not the US!
-
This is Europe not the US!
If I were a hunter, I could own a rifle - or if I were in guard service; I am neither!! Firearms in the middle of Copenhagen are very, very rare, especially rifles! :P
-
No, not neccessarily. Some people have nails that do not break easily - or ever; I happen to be one of those persons, my fingernails bend when under strain, they never, and I mean never ever, break.
So what you are saying is just your suppostition and proves nothing.
I think I read that Vanesis said that it didn't seen strange to him that her nails were intact either, or something similar?
-
If I were a hunter, I could own a rifle - or if I were in guard service; I am neither!! Firearms in the middle of Copenhagen are very, very rare, especially rifles! :P
Most areas restrict handguns moreso than rifles, that is an interesting reversal.
-
I'll just butt in here by saying that they're having " a lot of weather at the moment " in Essex,so I don't reckon our Essex friends will be here until their electrical storms abate. It sounds awful down there.
Fires caused by lightening strikes,,and floods by the deluge of rains. Hope all are okay.
-
Take a rifle wrap your hands around the foregrip and the stock and then back the stock into something as hard as you cna multiple times and see if they chip or break.
What makes you think Sheila did that? I doubt that the rifle would kick back in that fashion. Neither would she hold it like that to smash it over Ralph's head. Most likely she would be holding the barrel end to do that? Also maybe there was a fault and therefore a weak point in the structure of the rifle butt that made the end break off like it did? But as with other things we of course weren't there so we don't actually know what happened?
-
I'll just butt in here by saying that they're having " a lot of weather at the moment " in Essex,so I don't reckon our Essex friends will be here until their electrical storms abate. It sounds awful down there.
Fires caused by lightening strikes,,and floods by the deluge of rains. Hope all are okay.
No storms here lookout. Mind you we may have a sharknado soon? ;D I fell asleep just after a late dinner. Just this minute woken up.
-
Most areas restrict handguns moreso than rifles, that is an interesting reversal.
Handguns aren´t allowed at all - unless you are a police officer. Why I wrote what I did is because obviously there are criminals who don´t give a shit and have them anyway; they are more likely to have handguns than rifles!
-
Grahame,the most likeliest thing that could have happened there would have been when she went to bash her father,she may have missed if he'd ducked,and so slamming the rifle against the wall ?
-
Handguns aren´t allowed at all - unless you are a police officer. Why I wrote what I did is because obviously there are criminals who don´t give a shit and have them anyway; they are more likely to have handguns than rifles!
After the Dunblane massacre the gun laws have been tightened up so much that to even own a handgun is against the law and carries a heavy penalty. I think one MP here has just been found guilty of owning an old WW11 German handgun. An SAS man not so long ago was also found guilty of owning a handgun and actually went to prison for it. Gun laws are very strict here and I'm glad. I don't want Britain to become like America where gun accidents and gun crimes are concerned.
-
Grahame,the most likeliest thing that could have happened there would have been when she went to bash her father,she may have missed if he'd ducked,and so slamming the rifle against the wall ?
In fact if you work it out logically by shooting the rifle it Sheilas nails need not have come in contact with the gun at all, except of course the loading of the bullets, if she knew how to do it. Aman naturally thinks of using more of the tip of his thumb to push the bullets into the magazine, whereas women are naturally more inventive than men and she would possibly have used the side of her thumb rather than the nail part? It is of course all very debatable? But all her other nails should not have posed a problem?
-
No storms here lookout. Mind you we may have a sharknado soon? ;D I fell asleep just after a late dinner. Just this minute woken up.
Ooooo,they tell lies on the news. It was one of those " breaking news " things too. ::)
I snoozed after my dinner before too. ;D Couldn't keep my eyes open at all.
-
After the Dunblane massacre the gun laws have been tightened up so much that to even own a handgun is against the law and carries a heavy penalty. I think one MP here has just been found guilty of owning an old WW11 German handgun. An SAS man not so long ago was also found guilty of owning a handgun and actually went to prison for it. Gun laws are very strict here and I'm glad. I don't want Britain to become like America where gun accidents and gun crimes are concerned.
I am glad the gun laws are so very strict here too. There is one thing I do not get at all about some states in America. You claim you want a firearm in your home to be able to protect yourself; reluctantly I can see a reason for that, but what do you need semi-automatic guns for - and or a whole arsenal of guns?
The mass shootings in schools and other places have become so frequent that you almost have gotten used to them - that is just not right! I don´t understand why people wouldn´t want gun laws, which could limit them!
-
I am glad the gun laws are so very strict here too. There is one thing I do not get at all about some states in America. You claim you want a firearm in your home to be able to protect yourself; reluctantly I can see a reason for that, but what do you need semi-automatic guns for - and or a whole arsenal of guns?
The mass shootings in schools and other places have become so frequent that you almost have gotten used to them - that is just not right! I don´t understand why people wouldn´t want gun laws, which could limit them!
It even happened in Norway. One of the places that you really do not expect that kind of lunacy. One of the most peaceful nations on Earth.
-
If I were a hunter, I could own a rifle - or if I were in guard service; I am neither!! Firearms in the middle of Copenhagen are very, very rare, especially rifles! :P
Actually, I live in the middle of the Durham Dales so guns aren't so unusual here. Having said that, I never see them but hear them quite often, especially during Grouse season - which is coming up.
-
In fact if you work it out logically by shooting the rifle it Sheilas nails need not have come in contact with the gun at all, except of course the loading of the bullets, if she knew how to do it. Aman naturally thinks of using more of the tip of his thumb to push the bullets into the magazine, whereas women are naturally more inventive than men and she would possibly have used the side of her thumb rather than the nail part? It is of course all very debatable? But all her other nails should not have posed a problem?
As a wearer of long nails myself,you have certain knacks on how to handle various things to avoid " breakages ",but they're not a hindrance when you're used to them and you just carry on as though the nails aren't long. I've never been perturbed by them for any job,so Sheila wouldn't have had a problem there at all.
-
It even happened in Norway. One of the places that you really do not expect that kind of lunacy. One of the most peaceful nations on Earth.
That was a terrible tragedy! About eight years ago, we drove past that island where it happened, Utoya, very beautiful place.
There was also a school shooting in Finland some years ago, so it does happen, but of course it is limited compared to the US, because the weapons aren´t so easy to get.
-
Hi Caroline we are the same in the Highlands people come from far away to shoot innocent birds for pleasure talk about the glorious 12th :'(
-
Hi Caroline we are the same in the Highlands people come from far away to shoot innocent birds for pleasure talk about the glorious 12th :'(
I bet they're guilty birds really Susan? ;) i Reckon they regularly go on secret rampages, waking up the neighbours before light and going around at night kicking over all the beer bottles outside pubs. The farmers have brown wise to them and so go out with dogs and guns and beaters and try and catch them off guard. ;D
-
Hi Grahame
think you maybe thinking of crows ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Grahame
think you maybe thinking of crows ;D ;D ;D
Then they've got the wrong culprits Susan? :-\
-
Hi Caroline we are the same in the Highlands people come from far away to shoot innocent birds for pleasure talk about the glorious 12th :'(
I know, I hate it, poor things!! Alfie likes to chase the birds through the heather - I love the sound they make, it's like a 'chuckle' (or is it a cough? ;D ;D ;D ;D)
-
Caroline guess it is a cry for help guess poor Alfie would not know what to do with one if he caught one ;D ;D ;D
-
Grahame I love crows very cunning clever birds farmers shoot them all the time in my area :'(
-
What makes you think Sheila did that? I doubt that the rifle would kick back in that fashion. Neither would she hold it like that to smash it over Ralph's head. Most likely she would be holding the barrel end to do that? Also maybe there was a fault and therefore a weak point in the structure of the rifle butt that made the end break off like it did? But as with other things we of course weren't there so we don't actually know what happened?
The gun is too heavy and unweildy to hold from the barrel the weight is all in the back of the weapon. Aside from cutting/scratching herself on the sights she would likely drop it allowing Nevill to grab it from her or pick it up. She would probably chip or break her nails even more trying to do that including them cutting her. The gun would also whack her as it left her grip leaving some kind of mark on her face or somewhere else.
You have to hold the weapon from the middle to effectively use it as a hammer and swing it instead of using a butt stroke. In any event trying to wield it as a hammer or axe would cause the stock to break in a different manner or worse would cause the barrel to break. The stock is only attached by one screw (the one the trigger guard attaches to the stock with. But for the screw the stock can be pulled off. The metal receiver has a cone shaped projection off the rear. The stock has a round hole and slides on this cone. To prevent it from sliding off the screw the trigger guard attaches with holds it in. If you bash the gun very hard while holding it from the barrel there are 2 possibilities.
1) the barrel bends or even breaks free from the receiver. If it beds the gun needs to be repaired it will not fire right anymore.
2) the stock cracks in the area where it slides onto the metal cone.
Take a bic pen pretend the pen is rifle barrel. Stick the pen in between your thumb and index finger of your right hand. Hold it tight. Now with your left hand bend the pen up or down. What happens? The pen starts bending. Also it starts to pull out from your fingers.
(http://s11.postimg.org/7gnho5mub/525barrel.jpg)
Note how there is only a tiny portion of th ebarrel that slides into the receiver. Holding the weapon from the barrale and bashing it like a sledge hammer coudl cause the small part of the barrel that slides into the receiver to break free in which case the gun is going to be in 2 parts. The receiver and stock being one half and what you see in the photo being the other half. If it doesn't break free instead the metal coudl bend in which case if you try firing it will misfire.
What if the pen is instead treated as the conical projection that sticks off of the receiver and your hand slides around it and acts as the stock? The more force the more it makes your hand move away from it. Your hand would be wood and would crack from the inside out. It would first crack from around the conical projection.
That is not what happened to the murder wepaon. A split occurred that caused part to sheer off and it was caused by the front of the stock hitting against the metal receiver as would occur when the butt of the stock is used to bash someone of something with a butt stroke like I showed in the prior photo.
-
The gun is too heavy and unweildy to hold from the barrel the weight is all in the back of the weapon. Aside from cutting/scratching herself on the sights she would likely drop it allowing Nevill to grab it from her or pick it up. She would probably chip or break her nails even more trying to do that including them cutting her. The gun would also whack her as it left her grip leaving some kind of mark on her face or somewhere else.
You have to hold the weapon from the middle to effectively use it as a hammer and swing it instead of using a butt stroke. In any event trying to wield it as a hammer or axe would cause the stock to break in a different manner or worse would cause the barrel to break. The stock is only attached by one screw (the one the trigger guard attaches to the stock with. But for the screw the stock can be pulled off. The metal receiver has a cone shaped projection off the rear. The stock has a round hole and slides on this cone. To prevent it from sliding off the screw the trigger guard attaches with holds it in. If you bash the gun very hard while holding it from the barrel there are 2 possibilities.
1) the barrel bends or even breaks free from the receiver. If it beds the gun needs to be repaired it will not fire right anymore.
2) the stock cracks in the area where it slides onto the metal cone.
Take a bic pen pretend the pen is rifle barrel. Stick the pen in between your thumb and index finger of your right hand. Hold it tight. Now with your left hand bend the pen up or down. What happens? The pen starts bending. Also it starts to pull out from your fingers.
(http://s11.postimg.org/7gnho5mub/525barrel.jpg)
Note how there is only a tiny portion of th ebarrel that slides into the receiver. Holding the weapon from the barrale and bashing it like a sledge hammer coudl cause the small part of the barrel that slides into the receiver to break free in which case the gun is going to be in 2 parts. The receiver and stock being one half and what you see in the photo being the other half. If it doesn't break free instead the metal coudl bend in which case if you try firing it will misfire.
What if the pen is instead treated as the conical projection that sticks off of the receiver and your hand slides around it and acts as the stock? The more force the more it makes your hand move away from it. Your hand would be wood and would crack from the inside out. It would first crack from around the conical projection.
That is not what happened to the murder wepaon. A split occurred that caused part to sheer off and it was caused by the front of the stock hitting against the metal receiver as would occur when the butt of the stock is used to bash someone of something with a butt stroke like I showed in the prior photo.
You keep guessing.
-
You keep guessing.
On the contray unlike you and most here I actually thought about th eissue before I actually concluded what to believe.
The guesses are from peopel who claim Sheila would have wielded it like a sledge hammer which demonstrates know knowledge at all about guns period.
You didn't even read what I wrote to try to evaluate it.
Look mentioned how she has to be craeful not to break her nails. SHeila in a rage woudl nto be careful nor accustomed to using a rifle to bash anyone. She would Find it difficult to bash anyone holding it form the barrle and have it easily taken away. Worse the sights would cut her. If she did wield it hard the gun would have been damaged differently and so woudl she.
People who insist she woudl have been able to do it woithout getting hurt an dwithout getting any bask spatter on her are either the dumbest people on the planet or simply too dishonest to face facts because they so desperately want to pretend Jeremy could be innocent.
-
On the contray unlike you and most here I actually thought about th eissue before I actually concluded what to believe.
The guesses are from peopel who claim Sheila would have wielded it like a sledge hammer which demonstrates know knowledge at all about guns period.
You didn't even read what I wrote to try to evaluate it.
Look mentioned how she has to be craeful not to break her nails. SHeila in a rage woudl nto be careful nor accustomed to using a rifle to bash anyone. She would Find it difficult to bash anyone holding it form the barrle and have it easily taken away. Worse the sights would cut her. If she did wield it hard the gun would have been damaged differently and so woudl she.
People who insist she woudl have been able to do it woithout getting hurt an dwithout getting any bask spatter on her are either the dumbest people on the planet or simply too dishonest to face facts because they so desperately want to pretend Jeremy could be innocent.
You are an arrogant p...., aren´t you just!
I am a fast reader, I did read your post. This coming from you is rich! You NEVER read what people write and mix us all up! LOL, too funny!
Maybe Lookout has to be careful not to break her nails - I don´t, my nails do not break; but you choose to pretend Sheila had a certain type of nails, which suit your puspose. You are guessing.
-
Grahame I love crows very cunning clever birds farmers shoot them all the time in my area :'(
Every wood around here seems to be a "shooting wood". The farmers shoot and hang Jays from trees in order to discourage them from stealing the pheasant eggs. Why does every wood need to be a shooting wood? I hate killing animals. Except of course when get sharknados. ::)
-
The gun is too heavy and unweildy to hold from the barrel the weight is all in the back of the weapon. Aside from cutting/scratching herself on the sights she would likely drop it allowing Nevill to grab it from her or pick it up. She would probably chip or break her nails even more trying to do that including them cutting her. The gun would also whack her as it left her grip leaving some kind of mark on her face or somewhere else.
You have to hold the weapon from the middle to effectively use it as a hammer and swing it instead of using a butt stroke. In any event trying to wield it as a hammer or axe would cause the stock to break in a different manner or worse would cause the barrel to break. The stock is only attached by one screw (the one the trigger guard attaches to the stock with. But for the screw the stock can be pulled off. The metal receiver has a cone shaped projection off the rear. The stock has a round hole and slides on this cone. To prevent it from sliding off the screw the trigger guard attaches with holds it in. If you bash the gun very hard while holding it from the barrel there are 2 possibilities.
1) the barrel bends or even breaks free from the receiver. If it beds the gun needs to be repaired it will not fire right anymore.
2) the stock cracks in the area where it slides onto the metal cone.
Take a bic pen pretend the pen is rifle barrel. Stick the pen in between your thumb and index finger of your right hand. Hold it tight. Now with your left hand bend the pen up or down. What happens? The pen starts bending. Also it starts to pull out from your fingers.
(http://s11.postimg.org/7gnho5mub/525barrel.jpg)
Note how there is only a tiny portion of th ebarrel that slides into the receiver. Holding the weapon from the barrale and bashing it like a sledge hammer coudl cause the small part of the barrel that slides into the receiver to break free in which case the gun is going to be in 2 parts. The receiver and stock being one half and what you see in the photo being the other half. If it doesn't break free instead the metal coudl bend in which case if you try firing it will misfire.
What if the pen is instead treated as the conical projection that sticks off of the receiver and your hand slides around it and acts as the stock? The more force the more it makes your hand move away from it. Your hand would be wood and would crack from the inside out. It would first crack from around the conical projection.
That is not what happened to the murder wepaon. A split occurred that caused part to sheer off and it was caused by the front of the stock hitting against the metal receiver as would occur when the butt of the stock is used to bash someone of something with a butt stroke like I showed in the prior photo.
Excuse me mate but the gun is so light it could be handled easily by a child. Please don't give the impression that it is so heavy that only Rambo could shoot the thing. Man you must be incredibly weak?
-
On the contray unlike you and most here I actually thought about th eissue before I actually concluded what to believe.
The guesses are from peopel who claim Sheila would have wielded it like a sledge hammer which demonstrates know knowledge at all about guns period.
You didn't even read what I wrote to try to evaluate it.
Look mentioned how she has to be craeful not to break her nails. SHeila in a rage woudl nto be careful nor accustomed to using a rifle to bash anyone. She would Find it difficult to bash anyone holding it form the barrle and have it easily taken away. Worse the sights would cut her. If she did wield it hard the gun would have been damaged differently and so woudl she.
People who insist she woudl have been able to do it woithout getting hurt an dwithout getting any bask spatter on her are either the dumbest people on the planet or simply too dishonest to face facts because they so desperately want to pretend Jeremy could be innocent.
If you read Vanesis he actually says her nightdress was spotted with blood. It was not entirely free from blood on the front of it.
-
You are an arrogant p...., aren´t you just!
I am a fast reader, I did read your post. This coming from you is rich! You NEVER read what people write and mix us all up! LOL, too funny!
Maybe Lookout has to be careful not to break her nails - I don´t, my nails do not break; but you choose to pretend Sheila had a certain type of nails, which suit your puspose. You are guessing.
I not only read what others write I actually address it.
I'm not arrogant I actually use my brain, something that others should try to do.
You are guided purely by emotion and bias not any common sense at all.
Your claim you know your nails would not break is pure speculation based on not actually trying to beat anyone or do anything rough. You just assume it without having a clue what is actually entailed and suggest that all women could be like that and thus there is no way to tell what will happen. I saw a female rip her nail by firing a weapon. She was clowning around and her finger slipped and shen she pulled her finger to fire her nail hit the trigger instead of her finger. I doubt your nails would hold up any better than hers under those conditions. Sheila firing wildly in a rage very well could have done the same thing.
Women with long nails have to slowly carefully load magazines or they get chipped.
Women with long nails break their nails using shovels, picks, hammers, baesball bats even brooms.
They not only break them during fights when they punch and scratch and slap hands also get abrasions and cuts during such including male hands.
There is a reason why women who undergo military training do not have long nails. Nails break during all sorts of activities from hand to hand combat to rope climbing to loading and firing weapons and using their weapon to batter an enemy!
There are countless ways one's hands get injured while fighting an opponent and battering him with a rifle.
You clearly have no experience at all with weapons. On the other hand I not only know what a pain that would be to hold a weapon by the barrel, I know how easy it is to disarm someone who is holding it by a barrel.
I also know how and where a stock is most likely to break when beating someone with a rifle. I know because of experience in addition to research.
I also know that iron sights can cut and scratch. The iron sights would be right under her hands. What happens when she is swinging it and hits someonthing or worse someone yanks the gun the iron sights are going to come into contact with her hands and cause her to let go probably in addition to cutting her.
I also know that if someone walks in the kitchen holding the gun and then someone tries to take it away the shooter is not goign to let go so the other person gets it and then try to grab the barrel. You are going to keep holding the stock and the foregrip which is how you would have held it to begin with. You are going to try to swing the butt into the other person's jaw or if they are too tall then into their abdomen.
The fact of the matter is that you and others put very little thought into the subject at all beyond what amounts to a pathetic claim your nails will never break or chip no matter and completely ignores the nature of the break to the stock, how the weapon would most likely be handled and all the rest.
To try to say there was no damage to the hand when the stock sheered the claim is made up that she would have been holding it by the lightest part which would be extremely hard to handle and woudl fail to account for the damage that occurred.
The notion she would have been able to beat Nevill without having any injuries including on her feet is simply ludicrous to anyone with a clue.
Likewise she would have been covered in spatter from the victims had she done anything.
She would have had spatter from the victims and GSR on her clothing. There is no way she could have avoided such.
There is no reason at all she would have washed and changed her clothes just to kill herself. It is ludicrous and the best anyone can come to as far as suggesting suicide "victims" who did such is ritualistic suicide which clealry is not the case. But worse whashing up would not be able to heal wounds that she would have suffered. Worst of all she would not have been able to change out of blood/GSR stained clothing and to have hidden same without anyone finding same let alone had any reason to do such.
People who honestly believe such are complete fools. But most just assert they believe such and depp down they don't thye are just liars not fools.
This doesn't even take into acocunt though the evidence that Sheila can't have killed herself which people choose to ignore and hide from with wild tales of police planting evidence and moving her body flat while she was stil lblleeding and openeing and closing the bible in her wet blood because she can't have done these things herself and obviously that means she didn't kill herself so to keep the farce alive she could have killed herself people have to assert absurd things.
I don't beleive anyone honestly believes the BS they assert here I think that people just want to pretend they do. If Mike actually believe Jeremy was innocent he would not need to make up lies to try to establish it.
I don't see any sincere beliefs at all what I see is are beliefs people wish they could have and trying any way possible to avoid having to face that their beliefs are a pipedream.
If that pipedream is burst then they have to find a different dream and something else to regularly talk about. That would be a catastrophe to many.
-
Not if you have showered and changed clothes and cadaverine forms during purification so wouldn't be relevant in this case. If guilty, he would certainly have cleaned himself up.
Hi Caroline
I don't think that is correct the cadaver lingers whether an item of clothing has been through the washer or not. They say the dogs can smell cadaver some 100 years later...not the same dog...Hey I am digging an hole lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Caroline
I don't think that is correct the cadaver lingers whether an item of clothing has been through the washer or not. They say the dogs can smell cadaver some 100 years later...not the same dog...Hey I am digging an hole lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
cadaverine forms during purification - that could hardly have occurred in the short time between shooting the victims and leaving the premises. Not sure about the 100 years theory but I won't be trying to replicate the notion this time!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I not only read what others write I actually address it.
I'm not arrogant I actually use my brain, something that others should try to do.
You are guided purely by emotion and bias not any common sense at all.
Your claim you know your nails would not break is pure speculation based on not actually trying to beat anyone or do anything rough. You just assume it without having a clue what is actually entailed and suggest that all women could be like that and thus there is no way to tell what will happen. I saw a female rip her nail by firing a weapon. She was clowning around and her finger slipped and shen she pulled her finger to fire her nail hit the trigger instead of her finger. I doubt your nails would hold up any better than hers under those conditions. Sheila firing wildly in a rage very well could have done the same thing.
Women with long nails have to slowly carefully load magazines or they get chipped.
Women with long nails break their nails using shovels, picks, hammers, baesball bats even brooms.
They not only break them during fights when they punch and scratch and slap hands also get abrasions and cuts during such including male hands.
There is a reason why women who undergo military training do not have long nails. Nails break during all sorts of activities from hand to hand combat to rope climbing to loading and firing weapons and using their weapon to batter an enemy!
There are countless ways one's hands get injured while fighting an opponent and battering him with a rifle.
You clearly have no experience at all with weapons. On the other hand I not only know what a pain that would be to hold a weapon by the barrel, I know how easy it is to disarm someone who is holding it by a barrel.
I also know how and where a stock is most likely to break when beating someone with a rifle. I know because of experience in addition to research.
I also know that iron sights can cut and scratch. The iron sights would be right under her hands. What happens when she is swinging it and hits someonthing or worse someone yanks the gun the iron sights are going to come into contact with her hands and cause her to let go probably in addition to cutting her.
I also know that if someone walks in the kitchen holding the gun and then someone tries to take it away the shooter is not goign to let go so the other person gets it and then try to grab the barrel. You are going to keep holding the stock and the foregrip which is how you would have held it to begin with. You are going to try to swing the butt into the other person's jaw or if they are too tall then into their abdomen.
The fact of the matter is that you and others put very little thought into the subject at all beyond what amounts to a pathetic claim your nails will never break or chip no matter and completely ignores the nature of the break to the stock, how the weapon would most likely be handled and all the rest.
To try to say there was no damage to the hand when the stock sheered the claim is made up that she would have been holding it by the lightest part which would be extremely hard to handle and woudl fail to account for the damage that occurred.
The notion she would have been able to beat Nevill without having any injuries including on her feet is simply ludicrous to anyone with a clue.
Likewise she would have been covered in spatter from the victims had she done anything.
She would have had spatter from the victims and GSR on her clothing. There is no way she could have avoided such.
There is no reason at all she would have washed and changed her clothes just to kill herself. It is ludicrous and the best anyone can come to as far as suggesting suicide "victims" who did such is ritualistic suicide which clealry is not the case. But worse whashing up would not be able to heal wounds that she would have suffered. Worst of all she would not have been able to change out of blood/GSR stained clothing and to have hidden same without anyone finding same let alone had any reason to do such.
People who honestly believe such are complete fools. But most just assert they believe such and depp down they don't thye are just liars not fools.
This doesn't even take into acocunt though the evidence that Sheila can't have killed herself which people choose to ignore and hide from with wild tales of police planting evidence and moving her body flat while she was stil lblleeding and openeing and closing the bible in her wet blood because she can't have done these things herself and obviously that means she didn't kill herself so to keep the farce alive she could have killed herself people have to assert absurd things.
I don't beleive anyone honestly believes the BS they assert here I think that people just want to pretend they do. If Mike actually believe Jeremy was innocent he would not need to make up lies to try to establish it.
I don't see any sincere beliefs at all what I see is are beliefs people wish they could have and trying any way possible to avoid having to face that their beliefs are a pipedream.
If that pipedream is burst then they have to find a different dream and something else to regularly talk about. That would be a catastrophe to many.
I think you are a little bit crazy to be honest! Such a long post for so little! OMG
I never claimed I had any knowledge of weapons - never touched one, never will!
You clearly have no knowledge about fingernails! ;D
-
Excuse me mate but the gun is so light it could be handled easily by a child. Please don't give the impression that it is so heavy that only Rambo could shoot the thing. Man you must be incredibly weak?
Another straw argument, that seems to be all you are capable if. Who siad it was too heavy for a woman to fire? The issue is all the weight is in the rear of the gun so it would be top heavy to handle from the barrel. Moreover, handling it in such manner leaves little traction to grip. Someone coudl take it away and just pulling would result in the iron sights gouging the hands. Also the barrel could be bent or worse ripped out of the gun. It is not a gun where the barrel is attached to the receiver. The barrel is removable. If somehow the barrel held and the stock broke from being wielded like an axe then the break woud be formt he inside out. The break that sheered a piece off happens from the butt of the rifle being used to batter not the side of the stock. Then there is the whole issue of what kind of damage would occur to someone wildly bashing the rifle not to mention all the back spatter that would cover such person.
But hey this is all stuff that you can't refute so instead you create a straw argument about the gun being too heavy for a girl to shoot instead because that you can address.
-
Another straw argument, that seems to be all you are capable if. Who siad it was too heavy for a woman to fire? The issue is all the weight is in the rear of the gun so it would be top heavy to handle from the barrel. Moreover, handling it in such manner leaves little traction to grip. Someone coudl take it away and just pulling would result in the iron sights gouging the hands. Also the barrel could be bent or worse ripped out of the gun. It is not a gun where the barrel is attached to the receiver. The barrel is removable. If somehow the barrel held and the stock broke from being wielded like an axe then the break woud be formt he inside out. The break that sheered a piece off happens from the butt of the rifle being used to batter not the side of the stock. Then there is the whole issue of what kind of damage would occur to someone wildly bashing the rifle not to mention all the back spatter that would cover such person.
But hey this is all stuff that you can't refute so instead you create a straw argument about the gun being too heavy for a girl to shoot instead because that you can address.
How do you know how Sheila would have handled the gun in order for a piece of the butt to break off. In order to generate enough force behind it she needed to hold it at the opposite end to the butt. Maybe not right at the end of the barrel, but somewhere near the end. Physics old chap, physics. The force relies on leverage and for the butt to be struck at right angles. Not straw argument at all. Just a different opinion as is your own opinion. I'm not even sure that the butt of the rifle hit Ralph? It obviously hit a hard unmoveable object?
-
How do you know how Sheila would have handled the gun in order for a piece of the butt to break off. In order to generate enough force behind it she needed to hold it at the opposite end to the butt. Maybe not right at the end of the barrel, but somewhere near the end. Physics old chap, physics. The force relies on leverage and for the butt to be struck at right angles. Not straw argument at all. Just a different opinion as is your own opinion. I'm not even sure that the butt of the rifle hit Ralph? It obviously hit a hard unmoveable object?
I hadn't actually thought of it before, but it does seem as if it MAY have been an act of frustration, the barrel held with both hands raised above the head and bought down with full force onto something harder and less malleable than a skull.
-
I hadn't actually thought of it before, but it does seem as if it MAY have been an act of frustration, the barrel held with both hands raised above the head and bought down with full force onto something harder and less malleable than a skull.
Yes all this time we may have been thinking in the wrong direction? In effect it doesn't really matter how Sheila held the gun to smash it. The question must be were there any injuries on Ralph that match the bit of the gun that was chipped off?
-
Yes all this time we may have been thinking in the wrong direction? In effect it doesn't really matter how Sheila held the gun to smash it. The question must be were there any injuries on Ralph that match the bit of the gun that was chipped off?
And was there evidence on the gun, of it having been in close contact with Nevill?
-
Caroline
Can you post details again of why you believe Jeremy is guilty?
Can you give me some idea what you believed happened that night and do you believe Mugford?
-
Caroline
Can you post details again of why you believe Jeremy is guilty?
Can you give me some idea what you believed happened that night and do you believe Mugford?
Hi Jackie.
I'll dig out some old post later but I can answer the Mugford question now - I think there might be 'some' truth in what she said BUT, I don't think he confided that much in her and most of what she said was reported in the papers.
-
I think you are a little bit crazy to be honest! Such a long post for so little! OMG
I never claimed I had any knowledge of weapons - never touched one, never will!
You clearly have no knowledge about fingernails! ;D
Seeing how I have seen fingernals break while a female was shooting a weapon, while women used bats and tools and during physical altercations it would seem I am on much more solid ground than you.
But that is not unusual you constantly make spurious claims without any basis such as insiting that th emdoerator would be not admissible under today's existing rules of court though you have no evidence at all to support such claim and simply mad eit up. Today's evidentiary rules are little different substantively than back in 1985. Tere is no legal basis to exclude evidenc ejsu tbecause it was found by someone other than police.
To attack it on the basis of saying evidence coudl have been planted requires establish a likelihood the evidence was planted. Of course the family would have lacked the know how, skill and much more so trying to pretend they could have done so is a joke which is why neithe rat trial nor on appeal the defense has not been able to allege such to the courts.
They would need an evidentiary basis to make such suggestions. You on the other hand don't worry about needing evidence and just believe any nonsense you feell like which is your right but it does make you foolish to do so.
-
Seeing how I have seen fingernals break while a female was shooting a weapon, while women used bats and tools and during physical altercations it would seem I am on much more solid ground than you.
But that is not unusual you constantly make spurious claims without any basis such as insiting that th emdoerator would be not admissible under today's existing rules of court though you have no evidence at all to support such claim and simply mad eit up. Today's evidentiary rules are little different substantively than back in 1985. Tere is no legal basis to exclude evidenc ejsu tbecause it was found by someone other than police.
To attack it on the basis of saying evidence coudl have been planted requires establish a likelihood the evidence was planted. Of course the family would have lacked the know how, skill and much more so trying to pretend they could have done so is a joke which is why neithe rat trial nor on appeal the defense has not been able to allege such to the courts.
They would need an evidentiary basis to make such suggestions. You on the other hand don't worry about needing evidence and just believe any nonsense you feell like which is your right but it does make you foolish to do so.
So are we to draw the conclusion that, because YOU have seen women break fingernails whilst shooting, EVERY woman who has ever handled a gun has broken her nails?
-
Seeing how I have seen fingernals break while a female was shooting a weapon, while women used bats and tools and during physical altercations it would seem I am on much more solid ground than you.
But that is not unusual you constantly make spurious claims without any basis such as insiting that th emdoerator would be not admissible under today's existing rules of court though you have no evidence at all to support such claim and simply mad eit up. Today's evidentiary rules are little different substantively than back in 1985. Tere is no legal basis to exclude evidenc ejsu tbecause it was found by someone other than police.
To attack it on the basis of saying evidence coudl have been planted requires establish a likelihood the evidence was planted. Of course the family would have lacked the know how, skill and much more so trying to pretend they could have done so is a joke which is why neithe rat trial nor on appeal the defense has not been able to allege such to the courts.
They would need an evidentiary basis to make such suggestions. You on the other hand don't worry about needing evidence and just believe any nonsense you feell like which is your right but it does make you foolish to do so.
Maybe not. But my contention is that it was found by interested parties, in that if Bamber was to be banged up for the murders then the interested parties would benefit greatly.
-
So are we to draw the conclusion that, because YOU have seen women break fingernails whilst shooting, EVERY woman who has ever handled a gun has broken her nails?
Probably by shooting much larger weapons that have a recoil. This rifle has practically no recoil. I've shot a .22 pistol and that had a little recoil.
-
Caroline
Can you post details again of why you believe Jeremy is guilty?
Can you give me some idea what you believed happened that night and do you believe Mugford?
It's basiically all in here Jackie http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5565.0.html
-
And was there evidence on the gun, of it having been in close contact with Nevill?
this is what I have asked as well - if he was beaten with the gun then his blood and perhaps skin would have been on the gun . But although it seems they can make detailed reports on the small amount of blood in the moderator I have not seen the same type of reports on the rifle.
-
this is what I have asked as well - if he was beaten with the gun then his blood and perhaps skin would have been on the gun . But although it seems they can make detailed reports on the small amount of blood in the moderator I have not seen the same type of reports on the rifle.
Jansus, I don't believe I know the details of what were Nevill's injuries, save that they were vicious. That being said I would have expected the presence of, not just blood, but tissue, hair and possibly bone to have been found on the weapon.
-
this is what I have asked as well - if he was beaten with the gun then his blood and perhaps skin would have been on the gun . But although it seems they can make detailed reports on the small amount of blood in the moderator I have not seen the same type of reports on the rifle.
This might be of interest? :-\
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=698.0;attach=2846;image)
-
So who was the blood attributed to?
-
And so does that mean there was blood on the rifle but only one partial fingerprint - so the gun was not "wiped" then ?
-
Ta for that, Harters :) Blood staining and blood smears, given the vast amount of ready to bleed profusely tiny blood vessels laying just beneath a thin layer of skin stretching over the skull, doesn't exactly fit with a "vicious" attack. It certainly doesn't seem to fit with him being hit repeatedly.
-
That's only a kastle-meyer test which forensics use to test if it's blood,so it's not grouped.
-
So that could not be grouped - but the flake in the moderator could?
-
So that could not be grouped - but the flake in the moderator could?
This is from the 2002 Appeal:
71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. A "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none.
-
So that could not be grouped - but the flake in the moderator could?
That's about the size of it.
Further extracts from the 2002 Appeal indicate that the blood on the outside of the moderator also couldn't be grouped:
75. Traces of blood in the form of smears were found in three places on the outside of the moderator: on the flat surface at the muzzle end, in the knurled end and in the ridge at the gun end of the device. The blood on the outside of the moderator was confirmed to be of human origin but there were insufficient quantities to permit grouping analysis.
76. Inside the moderator, on the four or five baffles nearest to the end from which the bullet would exit, there was a considerable amount of blood. At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing. Results were obtained for four of the five tests performed. Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist said that they showed that the blood could have come from Sheila Caffell but not from any of the other individuals involved. Mr. Hayward said that there was a possibility that the blood could be a mixture of blood from more than one person and if it was, a mixture of blood from Nevill Bamber and June Bamber could account for the findings in the grouping tests. However he judged that possibility to be a "remote" one.
-
So that could not be grouped - but the flake in the moderator could?
I can't see how,Jansus. Someone doesn't know very much ::)
-
And so does that mean there was blood on the rifle but only one partial fingerprint - so the gun was not "wiped" then ?
No, it wasn't wiped.
-
That's about the size of it.
Further extracts from the 2002 Appeal indicate that the blood on the outside of the moderator also couldn't be grouped:
75. Traces of blood in the form of smears were found in three places on the outside of the moderator: on the flat surface at the muzzle end, in the knurled end and in the ridge at the gun end of the device. The blood on the outside of the moderator was confirmed to be of human origin but there were insufficient quantities to permit grouping analysis.
76. Inside the moderator, on the four or five baffles nearest to the end from which the bullet would exit, there was a considerable amount of blood. At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing. Results were obtained for four of the five tests performed. Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist said that they showed that the blood could have come from Sheila Caffell but not from any of the other individuals involved. Mr. Hayward said that there was a possibility that the blood could be a mixture of blood from more than one person and if it was, a mixture of blood from Nevill Bamber and June Bamber could account for the findings in the grouping tests. However he judged that possibility to be a "remote" one.
So much for a 'fine mist distribution' ::)
-
And so does that mean there was blood on the rifle but only one partial fingerprint - so the gun was not "wiped" then ?
It is funny how the same stuff comes up over and over again. I don't know how many times I indicated there was blood so the weapon was not completely cleaned and rubbed down as peopel were trying to claim.
This is only of the reaons why I said it is obvious gloves were used. This is just the blood that remained after the killings but is enough to show the gun had blood all around which means so did the killer. blood wasn't just splashing on the gun but also the killer. There was more blood even but some would have dripped off or be transferred from the gun to the killer as it was being used. What happens if you don't use gloves? 1) you leave bloody prints on the gun, 2) you leave bloody prints elsewhere. Someone using the gun without gloves would have left an impression in some of the blood unless they were extremely careful and someone in a crazy rage would not have been.
If you have gloves on you smudge blood without leaving any prints. THere are niche items like things tips that cover your fingers including a sticky substance that some use instead of gloves because it provides greater dexterity but they allow plam prints and don't protect against wounds so are a bafd idea. If a killer's blood is left behind that is very damaging. Hands are the number 1 thing dmaged when committing murders so you need gloves. Gloves used for Tattooing are very strong yet provide great flexibility so are ideal. I use them (though not for crime).
-
It is funny how the same stuff comes up over and over again. I don't know how many times I indicated there was blood so the weapon was not completely cleaned and rubbed down as peopel were trying to claim.
This is only of the reaons why I said it is obvious gloves were used. This is just the blood that remained after the killings but is enough to show the gun had blood all around which means so did the killer. blood wasn't just splashing on the gun but also the killer. There was more blood even but some would have dripped off or be transferred from the gun to the killer as it was being used. What happens if you don't use gloves? 1) you leave bloody prints on the gun, 2) you leave bloody prints elsewhere. Someone using the gun without gloves would have left an impression in some of the blood unless they were extremely careful and someone in a crazy rage would not have been.
If you have gloves on you smudge blood without leaving any prints. THere are niche items like things tips that cover your fingers including a sticky substance that some use instead of gloves because it provides greater dexterity but they allow plam prints and don't protect against wounds so are a bafd idea. If a killer's blood is left behind that is very damaging. Hands are the number 1 thing dmaged when committing murders so you need gloves. Gloves used for Tattooing are very strong yet provide great flexibility so are ideal. I use them (though not for crime).
But when you use a thousand words when fifty would do, nobody gets round to reading it all.
-
So much for a 'fine mist distribution' ::)
All that speaks to is the flake tested it doesn't discuss the distributon on the baffles that resulted from a spray. I provided you all the relavenat passages regarding such is you memory that short or are you just that dishonest?
At any rate if you hactually had the expertise that you shoudl have from studying this case for so long you should know all about the visible blood found by the prosecution ont he first 4-6 baffles or 4-7 if you go by Fletecher and microscopic blood found by the defense on the first 8 and how the quantity on each dimished and how it was testified to that this was consistent with drawback.
But only the people who are actually objective are willing to face and discuss all the evidence.
Those like yourself with an agenda can't so won't and instead have to live in denial to make your fantasy claims work.
-
But when you use a thousand words when fifty would do, nobody gets round to reading it all.
They read it they said I was wrong but failed to explain how and went on to ignore the point.
-
...................... I provided you all the relavenat passages regarding such is you memory that short or are you just that dishonest?
TROUBLE IS, MOST OF US IGNORE WHAT YOU SAY BECAUSE WE FIND YOUR TONE OBJECTIONABLE
But only the people who are actually objective are willing to face and discuss all the evidence
Those like yourself with an agenda can't so won't and instead have to live in denial to make your fantasy claims work
WE COULD TURN YOUR LAST TWO POINTS AROUND AND DIRECT THEM BACK. THEY APPLY EQUALLY AS WELL, FROM WHERE WE'RE SITTING, TO YOU
-
So much for a 'fine mist distribution' ::)
Yes I think that was just one of scipio's clever inventions. Nowhere does any report anywhere mention a "fine mist" of blood.
-
The rifle stock was used to bash Nevill largely by striking his face, arms and head with the butt in such manner:
(http://s14.postimg.org/ask53t8td/rifle_strike.jpg)
Some people suggest that instead the killer held the rifle by the barrel and wielded it like a sledgehammer. There are several pieces of evidence though that tell us that is not what happened and that it was wilded like in the photo above. The killer helpd the narrow portion of the butt with one hand, the forwgrip with the other and jabbed Nevill with the butt.
I. The stress fractures to the stock
The rifle stock had several stress fractures and a piece that actually sheered off. The stress fractures and piece that sheered off all ran in the same direction. The fractures were all horizonal. Why would the wood fracture horizontally?
Picure walls closing like something out of Indiana Jones. Imagine the rifle stock being in between the walls with the metal buttplate against one wall and the smaller side against another. How will it fracture as the walls compress it? It will fracture the same way the murder weapon's stock did. There will be horizontal fractures as it is squeezed.
The same force will be at work if the butt of the rifle stock is being bashed into something. The stock is being crushed between the person pushing and the object being stuck, so it will be compressed.
If instead the gun were being swung like a sledge hammer then the damage would have been different.
1) the barrel could be bent or broken free from the receiver. The murder weapon has a lightweight barrel that is not likely to hold up if the weapon is furiously wielded like a sledge hammer. Depending on the location of a strike the barrel could actually bend in which case forget about firing it again until a new one is obtained.
The gun breaks down in half. The barrel and foregrip as one unit and the receiver/stock as the other unit.
(http://s11.postimg.org/7gnho5mub/525barrel.jpg)
Note the small section of the barrel that slides inside the receiver. A great deal of force is going to damage it one way or another.
2) The stock attaches to the receiver in a rather simple way. The receiver has a metal projection sticking out at the end:
(http://s3.postimg.org/fmay43kar/525receiver.jpg)
The wooden stock has a hole to match this and slides on it. The trigger guard is screwed into the receiver on one end and the stock on the other and this is how the stock stays attached. If the gun is used as a sledgehammer with the stock being the hammer part what is the first part of the stock that start to fracture? The wood around the metal projection will start to fracture because the wood is going to be stressed against the metal projection.
Were there any fractures or damage to the area where it slides into the metal projection? No. Yet if the stock were being bent left, right, up or down that is eactly where the stress would be, where it stildes onto that projection.
Since the barrel was not damaged, the stock was not damaged near the porjection and instead was damaged by a motion of being compressed from front to back this tells us the rifle was used to bash Nevill like the photo demonstrates.
II. Lack of cast off
The gun had blood on it and that blood largely got on it when Nevill was being bashing. He had blood on his body and that blood was mainly projected onto the weapon and the killer. When someone swings a blood covered object like a stedge hammer or axe the blood on it is cast off onto other objects. When the object is raised back up blood is cast off onto the ceiling and the wall behind the person swinging the weapon. The ceiling did not have any cast off blood nor did any walls. This indicates the gun was not swung like an axe and confrims that the weapon was used in the striking motions shown the photo above.
III. Nevill's wounds
Nevill's wounds to his arm, face and head are all consistent with being hit by the butt of the rifle.
He had skin ripped off a finger, bruising to his elbow and his forearm had the wounds seen below. The butt of the stock was jabbed into his arm and left gouges. The flat bottom, top or sides of the stock do not make gauges like that. It was made by the butt of the rifle glancing off and digging in.
(http://s27.postimg.org/jzo0w7qwz/arm1.jpg)
The buttplate has ridges and can thus gouge but worse look at the sharp corners of the butt
(http://s27.postimg.org/qmoxdztoj/arm2.jpg)
Nevill raised his right arm blocking his face with it. His elbow was facing to his right and his hand to his left. The killer was striking his arm with the butt of the rifle.
-
WE COULD TURN YOUR LAST TWO POINTS AROUND AND DIRECT THEM BACK. THEY APPLY EQUALLY AS WELL, FROM WHERE WE'RE SITTING, TO YOU
All that amounts ot is projection. WHen people who are irraitonal and living in denial or have some other flaw try to pretend they don't have the flaw and instead pretend others do it is called projection.
The evidence is sqaurely on my side including the conviction while all you do is live in fantasy land.
It is impossible for the killer not to have gotten back spatter and GSR on his/her clothing. The killer also had to have worn gloves to avoid leaving any prints in blood.
If Sheila were the killer such gloves and clothing had ot have bene in the house. Where were they? No where because she wasn't the killer. That doesn't even take into account the wounds she would have suffered.
But all evidence is simply ignored not refuted and then people who cite the evidence you are unable to refute are called biased because they don't also baslessly dismiss evidence that you don't like because it is so damaging to Jeremy.
If you want people to reject the moderator evidence then you need to provide evidence to refute it not make up wild claims you can't prove and that clearly are baseless.
WHen peopel project it is just more evidence they have no leg to stand on so go right ahead.
-
The rifle stock was used to bash Nevill largely by striking his face, arms and head with the butt in such manner:
(http://s14.postimg.org/ask53t8td/rifle_strike.jpg)
Some people suggest that instead the killer held the rifle by the barrel and wielded it like a sledgehammer. There are several pieces of evidence though that tell us that is not what happened and that it was wilded like in the photo above. The killer helpd the narrow portion of the butt with one hand, the forwgrip with the other and jabbed Nevill with the butt.
I. The stress fractures to the stock
The rifle stock had several stress fractures and a piece that actually sheered off. The stress fractures and piece that sheered off all ran in the same direction. The fractures were all horizonal. Why would the wood fracture horizontally?
Picure walls closing like something out of Indiana Jones. Imagine the rifle stock being in between the walls with the metal buttplate against one wall and the smaller side against another. How will it fracture as the walls compress it? It will fracture the same way the murder weapon's stock did. There will be horizontal fractures as it is squeezed.
The same force will be at work if the butt of the rifle stock is being bashed into something. The stock is being crushed between the person pushing and the object being stuck, so it will be compressed.
If instead the gun were being swung like a sledge hammer then the damage would have been different.
1) the barrel could be bent or broken free from the receiver. The murder weapon has a lightweight barrel that is not likely to hold up if the weapon is furiously wielded like a sledge hammer. Depending on the location of a strike the barrel could actually bend in which case forget about firing it again until a new one is obtained.
The gun breaks down in half. The barrel and foregrip as one unit and the receiver/stock as the other unit.
(http://s11.postimg.org/7gnho5mub/525barrel.jpg)
Note the small section of the barrel that slides inside the receiver. A great deal of force is going to damage it one way or another.
2) The stock attaches to the receiver in a rather simple way. The receiver has a metal projection sticking out at the end:
(http://s3.postimg.org/fmay43kar/525receiver.jpg)
The wooden stock has a hole to match this and slides on it. The trigger guard is screwed into the receiver on one end and the stock on the other and this is how the stock stays attached. If the gun is used as a sledgehammer with the stock being the hammer part what is the first part of the stock that start to fracture? The wood around the metal projection will start to fracture because the wood is going to be stressed against the metal projection.
Were there any fractures or damage to the area where it slides into the metal projection? No. Yet if the stock were being bent left, right, up or down that is eactly where the stress would be, where it stildes onto that projection.
Since the barrel was not damaged, the stock was not damaged near the porjection and instead was damaged by a motion of being compressed from front to back this tells us the rifle was used to bash Nevill like the photo demonstrates.
II. Lack of cast off
The gun had blood on it and that blood largely got on it when Nevill was being bashing. He had blood on his body and that blood was mainly projected onto the weapon and the killer. When someone swings a blood covered object like a stedge hammer or axe the blood on it is cast off onto other objects. When the object is raised back up blood is cast off onto the ceiling and the wall behind the person swinging the weapon. The ceiling did not have any cast off blood nor did any walls. This indicates the gun was not swung like an axe and confrims that the weapon was used in the striking motions shown the photo above.
III. Nevill's wounds
Nevill's wounds to his arm, face and head are all consistent with being hit by the butt of the rifle.
He had skin ripped off a finger, bruising to his elbow and his forearm had the wounds seen below. The butt of the stock was jabbed into his arm and left gouges. The flat bottom, top or sides of the stock do not make gauges like that. It was made by the butt of the rifle glancing off and digging in.
(http://s27.postimg.org/jzo0w7qwz/arm1.jpg)
The buttplate has ridges and can thus gouge but worse look at the sharp corners of the butt
(http://s27.postimg.org/qmoxdztoj/arm2.jpg)
Nevill raised his right arm blocking his face with it. His elbow was facing to his right and his hand to his left. The killer was striking his arm with the butt of the rifle.
Poppycock!!! It is documented that the injuries sustained to NB's arm were from the barrel of the rifle and not the butt....
Do you work at Asda? lol
-
Poppycock!!! It is documented that the injuries sustained to NB's arm were from the barrel of the rifle and not the butt....
Yes that is what a vastly experienced forensic pathologist deduced, having examined first hand both the wounds and the rifle.
Poppycock? I think it's utterly absurd that a person on this forum with very little information to hand, can not only claim that Vanezis's findings are inaccurate, but actually make fun of his findings as if they are so obviously outrageous.
A professional person who was so highly regarded, that he was selected to carry out a post mortem on Princess Diana.
Poppycock? I'd have to agree!
Just saying. :-\
-
Yes that is what a vastly experienced forensic pathologist deduced, having examined first hand both the wounds and the rifle.
Poppycock? I think it's utterly absurd that a person on this forum with very little information to hand, can not only claim that Vanezis's findings are inaccurate, but actually make fun of his findings as if they are so obviously outrageous.
A professional person who was so highly regarded, that he was selected to carry out a post mortem on Princess Diana.
Poppycock? I'd have to agree!
Just saying. :-\
I'm interested as to how the butt of the rifle broke? I would have though that it would have hit a hard surface and not something soft like Nevill's arms or head?
-
I'm interested as to how the butt of the rifle brok? I would have though that it would have hit a hard surface and not something soft like Neill's arms or head?
Stone floor is my best guess. :-\
-
Vanezis was spot on in the initial findings when he examined Sheila ( suicide ), but was sadly forced to do an about turn once the police forced the issue of Jeremy having killed her.
This is what happened in the Ian Tomlinson case where it was denied that the police had used undue force,and the coroner went along with what police had otherwise stated. The said coroner was dismissed from his post when it was found that Mr Tomlinson indeed,died from his injuries and not natural causes
I quote," No one doubted that a thorough examination of the bodies had been carried out by Dr Peter Vanezis,the Home Office pathologist,and there were no suggestions at the inquest that anything contradictory to the police theory of the murders had been discovered,unquote ".
"All forensic,medical and scientific experts were informed of EP's belief that it had been 4 murders and a suicide ".
-
No, it wasn't wiped.
Interesting. So there should have been Jeremys prints from where he picked up the rifle and or Sheilas ( and I still think he would have tried to put her prints on there as if she had used the gun) also if Neville had put the gun away there could have been his prints on there - but there was only one partial print and the blood could not be grouped . So is it true that sheilas prints were on other guns in the house?
-
Interesting. So there should have been Jeremys prints from where he picked up the rifle and or Sheilas ( and I still think he would have tried to put her prints on there as if she had used the gun) also if Neville had put the gun away there could have been his prints on there - but there was only one partial print and the blood could not be grouped . So is it true that sheilas prints were on other guns in the house?
It's a claim that has been made, I have seen no evidence to support this claim.
-
It's a claim that has been made, I have seen no evidence to support this claim.
thanks
I do like to see documentary evidence - so I will put those claims to the back of my mind .
But no prints found on the rifle or in the blood on the rifle - except for one partial print.
Any ideas why?
I guess everyone is assuming gloves were used that removed previous prints. I just find it odd that if Jeremy planned everything that he did not think of that "problem"
And As I said before I would have imagined there could have been fibres from the gloves .
Were there any other reported forensics from the rifle ?
-
Somehow,I don't get the fact that Jeremy would broadcast to those he knew,that he was going " to kill his parents ",knowing full well that word would soon get round.
Didn't he ever expect a knock on his door at any time ? Or a large hand on his shoulder ?
Is it usual for a killer to say,and also to carry out his intentions ? Or was it one of those phenomenas that occur once you've said something,then it happens ?
A sad example being the guy who took a pic of the stricken Malaysian plane and told someone that " this is the plane in case you don't see it again ". He didn't mean what he'd said,he was being jocular referring to the other " missing " Malaysian flight. See what I mean ?
-
Yes that is what a vastly experienced forensic pathologist deduced, having examined first hand both the wounds and the rifle.
Poppycock? I think it's utterly absurd that a person on this forum with very little information to hand, can not only claim that Vanezis's findings are inaccurate, but actually make fun of his findings as if they are so obviously outrageous.
A professional person who was so highly regarded, that he was selected to carry out a post mortem on Princess Diana.
Poppycock? I'd have to agree!
Just saying. :-\
Vanezis did not examine the rifle. Nor did he say the wounds to the arms were definitely caused by the barrel which even if true would not negate my points about the way the rifle hit the head which many want to ignore. He didn't say anything about the barrel of the rifle causing the wounds to the head.
Vanezis said they COULD have been caused by a linar object WITH A ROUNDED END. He did not say it was caused by the rifle barrel. A rifle stock is linear as well and is known to cause linear wounds including linear skull fractures and the end of it can cause the relatively round wounds on the arm though they are not perfectly round by any stretch.
The suggestion maybe they were caused by the rifle barrel doesn't hold up though when one looks at the actual marks made by a barrel and mind you he made the claim without taking into account that the barrel was threaded and worse the moderator was attached.
He didn't try to piece together what actually happened in total.
When you piece it together and look at the evidence proving the stock was bashed against his skull causing "severe fractures", and that this is what Nevill was trying to block it with his arm then it puts things in perspective.
Vanezis never claimed the rifle barrel was bashed against the head or even the face. Indeed that would fail to account for the fractures to Nevill's skull or the damage to the rifle stock.
Why would Nevill block the rifle barrel (which still would likely result in the moderator hitting him in the head unless of course it was the moderator he was blocking) but the killer saw this was going no where so flipped the gun to hit him with the stock and then he let the killer bash his head in but not try to block with his arm anymore?
Vanezis didn't even want to discuss what damage might occur to fingernails because his understanding with respect to firearms and anything related to them was not that strong and clearly that is the case because his analysis is left wanting in some respects as a result.
(http://s27.postimg.org/b1s04kd8z/vanezislinear.jpg)
"such injuries could have been caused by multiple blows by a linear object with a rounded end either by hitting the forearm with the side of the linear object, 3 or possibly 4 times and 4 times with the rounded end of that object"
So he is saying it would require hitting the arm 7-8 times. 3-4 with the side of the object and another 4 with just the round end. There was a moderator attached so how could the rounded end of the barrel have hit his arm? The end was concealed by the moderator. In the meantime a rifle barrel will not cause the bruises he thinks. He did not test to see what damage will be caused by the side of a linear object with a round end and ventured no guess as to what force would be required. That is what lab personnel were to try to figure out. I have seen what damage a rifle stock will do and it can cause deep abrasions and fractures.
It would be interesting to see what Vanezis would say today and if he has anymore experience or went through additional training with respect to guns.
-
Interesting. So there should have been Jeremys prints from where he picked up the rifle and or Sheilas ( and I still think he would have tried to put her prints on there as if she had used the gun) also if Neville had put the gun away there could have been his prints on there - but there was only one partial print and the blood could not be grouped . So is it true that sheilas prints were on other guns in the house?
Something to bear in mind is that Jeremy wanted this gun not Nevill, Nevill's interest in shooting was waning according to testimony.
Jeremy initially wanted a semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun. Why? He claimed to shoot game. He was told such is not sporting so he could only have a double barrel 12 gauge. He didn't want it because it only had 2 rounds and he wanted a semi-auto. The only semi-auto he could find was for target and varmint shooting. That alone should mmake someone wonder why he wanted a semi-auto so bad and why he otlaly lost interest in trying game hunting when he found out he could not get a semi-auto. Funny that at this time he was also formulating a plan to kill his parents...
There is no evidence that Nevill used this gun much if ever to shoot animals and barely went target hunting. Nor any that Jeremy used it to ever shoot rabbits. He was known to target shoot with it a few times merely. The gun was barely used when Anthony found it. Expecting Nevill's prints on a gun he barely used is not too realistic. Subsequent use will remove them unless they are in remote places.
Blood can cover prints as well. But when a gun has blood on it and is being manuvered a lot the killer would be extremely likely to leave a print in the blood. The killer used gloves quite clearly.
There were 5 prints total on the gun, 4 of them were latent prints that superglue fuming revealed but 3 were just partials and could not be matched to anyone.
As for Sheila's alleged prints on the shotguns, this appears to be another made up fable. I cna't find any evidence of this at all and of course Mike can't provide any actual evidenc ehe just claims he has seen evidence...
For a while I gave him the benefit of the doubt but that shipped sailed.
-
Something to bear in mind is that Jeremy wanted this gun not Nevill, Nevill's interest in shooting was waning according to testimony.
Jeremy initially wanted a semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun. Why? He claimed to shoot game. He was told such is not sporting so he could only have a double barrel 12 gauge. He didn't want it because it only had 2 rounds and he wanted a semi-auto. The only semi-auto he could find was for target and varmint shooting. That alone should mmake someone wonder why he wanted a semi-auto so bad and why he otlaly lost interest in trying game hunting when he found out he could not get a semi-auto. Funny that at this time he was also formulating a plan to kill his parents...
There is no evidence that Nevill used this gun much if ever to shoot animals and barely went target hunting. Nor any that Jeremy used it to ever shoot rabbits. He was known to target shoot with it a few times merely. The gun was barely used when Anthony found it. Expecting Nevill's prints on a gun he barely used is not too realistic. Subsequent use will remove them unless they are in remote places.
Blood can cover prints as well. But when a gun has blood on it and is being manuvered a lot the killer would be extremely likely to leave a print in the blood. The killer used gloves quite clearly.
There were 5 prints total on the gun, 4 of them were latent prints that superglue fuming revealed but 3 were just partials and could not be matched to anyone.
As for Sheila's alleged prints on the shotguns, this appears to be another made up fable. I cna't find any evidence of this at all and of course Mike can't provide any actual evidenc ehe just claims he has seen evidence...
For a while I gave him the benefit of the doubt but that shipped sailed.
I agree if it was Jeremy he would have worn gloves, but with blood on the rifle wouldn't there still be marks that were consistent with someone having worn gloves?
By the way, although I STILL believe the silencer was a plant, I am willing to concede that given the time frame between taking the blood samples and the arrival at the lab, makes it unlikely (although not impossible), that they were used to contaminate. I do have another source in mind but not sure how reliable that it - at the moment. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong so don't accuse me of making things up. Everyone makes mistakes including you. EVERYONE here is looking for the truth!!
However, there was a meeting and from the start Jones had suspicions about Jeremy, so much so that other officers were influenced by him.
I have had a few drinks tonight so can't remember who made the following statement but I'm sure someone will recognise it (Hartley?) and it proves there was most certainly discussion about Jeremy's guilt in the VERY early stages of the investigation in fact in the recent Channel 5 Docu - Slaughter at the Farm, Miller states that he also suspected Jeremy from day one. (http://www.channel5.com/shows/countdown-to-murder/episodes/slaughter-at-the-farm). This is also where Babs Wilson mentions seeing the silencer (complete with blood), for the VERY first time.
-
Somehow,I don't get the fact that Jeremy would broadcast to those he knew,that he was going " to kill his parents ",knowing full well that word would soon get round.
Didn't he ever expect a knock on his door at any time ? Or a large hand on his shoulder ?
Is it usual for a killer to say,and also to carry out his intentions ? Or was it one of those phenomenas that occur once you've said something,then it happens ?
A sad example being the guy who took a pic of the stricken Malaysian plane and told someone that " this is the plane in case you don't see it again ". He didn't mean what he'd said,he was being jocular referring to the other " missing " Malaysian flight. See what I mean ?
The first half yes, I understand, the second part, not really, but, Lookout, you are cool!
-
I agree if it was Jeremy he would have worn gloves, but with blood on the rifle wouldn't there still be marks that were consistent with someone having worn gloves?
Gloves don't leave marks except in one respect. They soak up blood and can transfer it elsewhere like other clothes or body parts. If you have a glove covered in blood and leave it on a clean object it can leave an outline like a hand. If they just sit making an impresison like a hand you know it was a hand or gloves tha tmade it. Any object covered in blood placed against a clean area can do that. Some are easier to recognize than others a full outline is far easier to recognize. It is worthless though since you can't match it to anyone that is the whole point of wearing them to protect from leaving palm prints or finger prints which can actully be matched.
When you have blotches of blood on a weapon being mashed around by gloves the lack of prints is what typically gives away the person wore gloves or even sleeves over their hands. Anything to prevent prints. High velocity spatter is usually little drops just so easy enough to avoid touching so long as you are careful afterwards. It is more substantial spatter that you are going to get on your fingers to leave prints somewhere or would be sure to leave your prints on the blood covered object you touched.
The beating of Nevill would have resulted in hands moving around on the weapon much more than just shooting where you typically don't change your position much.
But for the beating aside from reloading the hand positon for shooting would have been the same few locations touched. Wiping those specific locations would thus be sufficient if not using gloves. Most people won't take that kind of risk though because you never know if you sufficiently got rid of your prints or not and might be careless and touch elsewhere by accident or if plans go awry.
Shoeprints in blood are another problem. though shoeprints can be a problem period of course. Tread patterns and wear can be matched to a single pair of shoes. Some wear socks or socks over shoes to account for such the covers doctors use are good for that.
What you can figure out and can't is very fact specific sometime a lack of certian evidence can tell you something other times not.
General rules only go so far.
By the way, although I STILL believe the silencer was a plant, I am willing to concede that given the time frame between taking the blood samples and the arrival at the lab, makes it unlikely (although not impossible), that they were used to contaminate. I do have another source in mind but not sure how reliable that it - at the moment. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong so don't accuse me of making things up. Everyone makes mistakes including you. EVERYONE here is looking for the truth!!
To me there are some who seem to be here for propaganda sake not the truth so we can agree to disagree on that one.
As for the planting of evidence people can have supicions but I don't see how they can have beliefs when there is no evidence to establish it. It might seem semantics but suspcions and beliefs are different things.
I suspect Sheila encouraged Jeremy and was more helpful than she claimed but I can't prove it and can only go on intuition based on people always minimizing their actions, Jeremy telling her too much if she actually protested anytime he brought it up and how he blamed the family (saying since they liked the idea he would not marry her to spite them) for breaking their engagement so maybe she thought once they were dead he would marry her. I have no evidence though so it is not a belief just somethign I suspect.
However, there was a meeting and from the start Jones had suspicions about Jeremy, so much so that other officers were influenced by him.
I have had a few drinks tonight so can't remember who made the following statement but I'm sure someone will recognise it (Hartley?) and it proves there was most certainly discussion about Jeremy's guilty in the VERY early stages of the investigation in fact in the recent Channel 5 Docu - Murder at the Farm, Miller states that he also suspected Jeremy from day one.
1) I never trust revisionist accounts down the road. Naturally the police want to look smart so say they knew all along... I go by what they told others contemporaneously. It seems that in their conversations with Vanezis they had reservations and some suspicions but had not come around to believing Jeremy was definitely guilty until the lab presented their side.
2) Saying they had doubts though is much different from knowing he did it and knowing there was no evidence to convict him. Till everything was processed by the lab they would not know that and some of the evidence that should have told them went over the head of the cops.
In the US all cops are armed and gun crimes are common so police are more skilled at investigating gun crimes. Those areas in the US with few gun crimes often do not have as skilled personnel investigating and things can slip through the cracks as a result. I think this same problem hurt the Bamber investigation.
The lack of blood and GSR on Sheila's clothing should have set off lightbulbs. It seems not to have done so with anyone but the lab not even Vanezis.
To his credit he did recommend changes so in the future a ballistic expert and pathologist immediately visit the scene and "wrap" about it.
Given this lack of expertise it seems highly unlikely they would be able to figure out the fatal wound would have resulted in drawback and know ot plant blood at all let alone know how to plant it to accurately mimick drawback. If they had planted it then they would have been eager for the lab to test it and would not have wasted weeks on fingerprinting and finally getting the lab do thorugh testing of the blood around the middle of September. In the meantime they didn't think the paint was significant becuas ein theory it could be claimed the paint was chipped off prior to the murders and compared to the blood it wasn't that significnat so if they planted blood why would they even bother with the paint?
Too many things do not add up or make any sense with respect to planting evidence theories
-
I agree if it was Jeremy he would have worn gloves, but with blood on the rifle wouldn't there still be marks that were consistent with someone having worn gloves?
By the way, although I STILL believe the silencer was a plant, I am willing to concede that given the time frame between taking the blood samples and the arrival at the lab, makes it unlikely (although not impossible), that they were used to contaminate. I do have another source in mind but not sure how reliable that it - at the moment. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong so don't accuse me of making things up. Everyone makes mistakes including you. EVERYONE here is looking for the truth!!
However, there was a meeting and from the start Jones had suspicions about Jeremy, so much so that other officers were influenced by him.
I have had a few drinks tonight so can't remember who made the following statement but I'm sure someone will recognise it (Hartley?) and it proves there was most certainly discussion about Jeremy's guilty in the VERY early stages of the investigation in fact in the recent Channel 5 Docu - Murder at the Farm, Miller states that he also suspected Jeremy from day one.
"Additionally, in order to stage manage Sheila she would probably need to be under the influence of drugs."
She was not Sheila was not on drugs. Right here is my problem with the whole thing, the way Sheila was found, where Sheila was while everybody else was being killed.
I can sense here that a police officer has the same problem.
-
"Additionally, in order to stage manage Sheila she would probably need to be under the influence of drugs."
She was not Sheila was not on drugs. Right here is my problem with the whole thing, the way Sheila was found, where Sheila was while everybody else was being killed.
I can sense here that a police officer has the same problem.
She was on a sedative and over sedated because not only was she being given too much she was not taking any counter. One of the things the counter agent does is to give the person energy because it is an upper to counter the sedative properties of Haldol
"This is a major tranquiliser which is administered intrauscully. ... if a patient became over sedated I would expect the following symptoms, slow deliberate movements and possibly a lack of co-ordination and slowness in speech. In very over sedated cases I would expect involuntary movements and drug induced Parkinsonism. This is where the patient shows symptons similar to Parkinsons Disease which arise from too much tranquilising drugs. This is something that could be easily missed unless specifically told of the symptoms by the patient.
I would say from the description I have received of Sheila's last weeks of life it would appear to me that she was becoming over sedated and receiving too much Haloperidol.
I would like to add that if Sheila was over-sedated she would have been vacant, difficult to converse with and it is possible she would have slept quite soundly and deeply but this is not absolutely certain. I would say that her whole physical performance would be reduced"
That was from Dr Ferguson.
What we know now is that the Parkinson's is much more common of a side effect of Haldol than he thought or maybe he still thought she was taking her Procyclidine.
"Procyclidine is used to treat parkinsonism (slowed movements, stiffness of the body, uncontrollable body movements, weakness, tiredness, soft voice, and other symptoms caused by damaged nerves in the brain). Procyclidine is also used to treat problems with moving and drooling that may be caused by certain medications for mental illness. Procyclidine is in a class of medications called antispasmodics or antimuscarinics. It works by preventing sudden tightening of the muscles."
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a605037.html
She never refilled her Procyclidine prescription and from that point forward all the symptoms of being over sedated cropped up including being constantly tired, vacant, hard to talk to -which everyone from Freddie, to Colin, to June, to the twins to Pamela observed. This was why June was worried about her and said she peopel said she is not herself.
-
.....................................
She never refilled her Procyclidine prescription and from that point forward all the symptoms of being over sedated cropped up including being constantly tired, vacant, hard to talk to -which everyone from Freddie, to Colin, to June, to the twins to Pamela observed. This was why June was worried about her and said she peopel said she is not herself.
I'm not certain why you say she was over sedated when her meds had been halved but I'm truly delighted to read that you say generalizations can only go so far. Is this astounding statement heralding the birth of a much looser Scipio, I wonder.
It may be that your point about generalization comes into play here because what you say doesn't equate with a Sheila, who within the same time frame was seen to be laughing and skipping with the twins, and had the energy to attack a tradesman AND run screaming from a monastery at LEAST 7 miles from WHF. These actions require an energy, which according to you, because she was over medicated, she simply wouldn't have had.
-
[quote author=scipio_usmc link=topic=5584.msg245297#msg245297 date=1406082351
.................................................General rules only go so far.....................................................................
[/quote]
I think these words should be kept for posterity ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm not certain why you say she was over sedated when her meds had been halved but I'm truly delighted to read that you say generalizations can only go so far. Is this astounding statement heralding the birth of a much looser Scipio, I wonder.
It may be that your point about generalization comes into play here because what you say doesn't equate with a Sheila, who within the same time frame was seen to be laughing and skipping with the twins, and had the energy to attack a tradesman AND run screaming from a monastery at LEAST 7 miles from WHF. These actions require an energy, which according to you, because she was over medicated, she simply wouldn't have had.
Her doctor said it, he diagnosed her as over medicated. I quoted Ferguson. Unless one is completely dishonest they see that the symptoms he quoted are the same symptoms people observed her having when she was on Haldol and her Procyclidine was gone. You and others quoted these symptoms when trying to say it meant she was rejecting her medicaiton and having mental problems again. Instead it says the opposite but anything that demolishes what you want to believe is ignored, hidden and attempted to be distorted just like your gross distortion of her "attacking a tradesman". She was home alone and a stranger entered the house without her knowing and when she encountered him she panicked and screamed. There was no attack but since the truth doesn't help you, you decide to distort.
100MG of Haldol is a high dosage. Halfing her medicine doesn't change that 100MG is a high dosage and that most are given around 50MG max over that is reserved for tough cases as the sided effects grow the greater the dosage. A counter agent is also given with Haldol to counter the Parkinson's and the sedative effects. She was not taking Procyclidine anymore so on just Haldol getting the full sedative effects.
Jeremy supports want one thing from Ferguson, to quote how prior to diagnosis and treatment she said she had thought about suicide and had delusions about the twins. Everything after treatment is harmful to their cause so they want to ignore it all like all the evidence proving Jeremy did it.
-
I agree if it was Jeremy he would have worn gloves, but with blood on the rifle wouldn't there still be marks that were consistent with someone having worn gloves?
By the way, although I STILL believe the silencer was a plant, I am willing to concede that given the time frame between taking the blood samples and the arrival at the lab, makes it unlikely (although not impossible), that they were used to contaminate. I do have another source in mind but not sure how reliable that it - at the moment. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong so don't accuse me of making things up. Everyone makes mistakes including you. EVERYONE here is looking for the truth!!
However, there was a meeting and from the start Jones had suspicions about Jeremy, so much so that other officers were influenced by him.
I have had a few drinks tonight so can't remember who made the following statement but I'm sure someone will recognise it (Hartley?) and it proves there was most certainly discussion about Jeremy's guilt in the VERY early stages of the investigation in fact in the recent Channel 5 Docu - Slaughter at the Farm, Miller states that he also suspected Jeremy from day one. (http://www.channel5.com/shows/countdown-to-murder/episodes/slaughter-at-the-farm). This is also where Babs Wilson mentions seeing the silencer (complete with blood), for the VERY first time.
That is from Vanezis.
The full statement can be seen here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1191.0.html
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1191.0.html)
-
(http://www.channel5.com/shows/countdown-to-murder/episodes/slaughter-at-the-farm). This is also where Babs Wilson mentions seeing the silencer (complete with blood), for the VERY first time.
I don't know any better, but I wonder if this is just the first time that WE have seen/heard/read about Babs seeing the sound moderator?
The reason I say that is, there have been some comments (including from yourself) that nobody had seen any reference to Basil Cock stating that he was present during the finding of the sound moderator. That still appears to be the case, however the following post from Mike today, appears to suggest that Cock did indeed make a statement mentioning his presence during the finding of the sound moderator.
There is something very odd about Basil Cocks witness statement in which he describes him being present at whf when the silencer was found. Yet, he says he can specifically remember the occasion when the silencer was discovered because there was white fingerprint dust on everything at the scene...
-
Her doctor said it, he diagnosed her as over medicated. I quoted Ferguson. Unless one is completely dishonest they see that the symptoms he quoted are the same symptoms people observed her having when she was on Haldol and her Procyclidine was gone. You and others quoted these symptoms when trying to say it meant she was rejecting her medicaiton and having mental problems again. Instead it says the opposite but anything that demolishes what you want to believe is ignored, hidden and attempted to be distorted just like your gross distortion of her "attacking a tradesman". She was home alone and a stranger entered the house without her knowing and when she encountered him she panicked and screamed. There was no attack but since the truth doesn't help you, you decide to distort.
100MG of Haldol is a high dosage. Halfing her medicine doesn't change that 100MG is a high dosage and that most are given around 50MG max over that is reserved for tough cases as the sided effects grow the greater the dosage. A counter agent is also given with Haldol to counter the Parkinson's and the sedative effects. She was not taking Procyclidine anymore so on just Haldol getting the full sedative effects.
Jeremy supports want one thing from Ferguson, to quote how prior to diagnosis and treatment she said she had thought about suicide and had delusions about the twins. Everything after treatment is harmful to their cause so they want to ignore it all like all the evidence proving Jeremy did it.
If 50mg is reputedly the correct dose, HOW did she manage to walk out of the hospital with 200mg in her system. I'm surprised she managed to get out of bed. There are no reports of her lethargy from her biological mother, although as she'd not seen her previously, she wouldn't have known, I suppose. From where did you dig up the Parkinson's disease that you label her with? I thought she'd been diagnosed as having PS.
As for you refuting the "attack on the tradesman", this ISN'T America and here we tend NOT to attack first and ask questions later. You make the assumption that she hadn't had prior notice of his arrival. He must have had permission to walk straight in, or are you suggesting he was attempting to burgle the house? I imagine from where HE was, he felt attacked and it isn't your place to say otherwise. However you choose to dismiss and make excuses for it, her behaviour was totally inappropriate.
At a guess, I'd say that everything you use to point fingers at us, we COULD turn back on you, but the one thing we can't be accused of is telling you what think, unlike you. Personally, I'd really rather NOT be told what you IMAGINE I think.
-
If 50mg is reputedly the correct dose,
50MG or even less is usually sufficent to control the problem. In tough cases they will go as high as 100MG but the percentage rate of the difference in effectiveness between 50 and 100 is not large.
The higher you go the more the chance of side effects and above 100MG is simply not considered safe and offers virtually no benefit of any kind in a medical sense because the effectivness does not really increase beyond 100MG.
HOW did she manage to walk out of the hospital with 200mg in her system. I'm surprised she managed to get out of bed. There are no reports of her lethargy from her biological mother, although as she'd not seen her previously, she wouldn't have known, I suppose. From where did you dig up the Parkinson's disease that you label her with? I thought she'd been diagnosed as having PS.
She was taking a daily countering agent at the time. The countering agent was orally taken though. Aside form the fact that taken mediciden makes it build up in your system over time it was when she stopped taking the counter that the signs of over sedation were observed. She intially had problems sleeping and agitation which is a side effect of the counter agent. Upon stopping the counter the insomnia went away and instead she was often vacant, tired much earlier than usual and so forth.
As for you refuting the "attack on the tradesman", this ISN'T America and here we tend NOT to attack first and ask questions later. You make the assumption that she hadn't had prior notice of his arrival. He must have had permission to walk straight in, or are you suggesting he was attempting to burgle the house? I imagine from where HE was, he felt attacked and it isn't your place to say otherwise. However you choose to dismiss and make excuses for it, her behaviour was totally inappropriate.
I am strongly refuting the characterization as an attack, that is totally unsupported. He says she wildly screamed upon seeing him and he fled as a result. That is not an attack. Do you have any evidence that she was informed he would be arriving and to expect him? Did he knock on the door and she let him in? No she didn't let him in she encountered a stranger and screamed upon seeing him.
It doesn't matter what nationality you are that is not an attack and trying to pretend it is reveals desperation. When one has to strain so much to try pretending she attacked someone that reveals 10 they are not objective and searchin for the truth but rather have an agenda and 2) they have no valid evidence to support their agenda so are straining to try to pretend they have a case.
At a guess, I'd say that everything you use to point fingers at us, we COULD turn back on you, but the one thing we can't be accused of is telling you what think, unlike you. Personally, I'd really rather NOT be told what you IMAGINE I think.
Your agenda is as plain as day and the strianing efforts to support it simply demonstrate how weak your position is.
-
50MG or even less is usually sufficent to control the problem. In tough cases they will go as high as 100MG but the percentage rate of the difference in effectiveness between 50 and 100 is not large.
The higher you go the more the chance of side effects and above 100MG is simply not considered safe and offers virtually no benefit of any kind in a medical sense because the effectivness does not really increase beyond 100MG.
She was taking a daily countering agent at the time. The countering agent was orally taken though. Aside form the fact that taken mediciden makes it build up in your system over time it was when she stopped taking the counter that the signs of over sedation were observed. She intially had problems sleeping and agitation which is a side effect of the counter agent. Upon stopping the counter the insomnia went away and instead she was often vacant, tired much earlier than usual and so forth.
I am strongly refuting the characterization as an attack, that is totally unsupported. He says she wildly screamed upon seeing him and he fled as a result. That is not an attack. Do you have any evidence that she was informed he would be arriving and to expect him? Did he knock on the door and she let him in? No she didn't let him in she encountered a stranger and screamed upon seeing him.
It doesn't matter what nationality you are that is not an attack and trying to pretend it is reveals desperation. When one has to strain so much to try pretending she attacked someone that reveals 10 they are not objective and searchin for the truth but rather have an agenda and 2) they have no valid evidence to support their agenda so are straining to try to pretend they have a case.
Your agenda is as plain as day and the strianing efforts to support it simply demonstrate how weak your position is.
And yours is to twist everything said by anyone else until it conforms with where you want it to be. Haven't you said somewhere that secondhand information isn't to be relied upon. That makes YOUR version of what happened to the meter man second hand and as he was there at the time, if he SAID he was attacked and he FELT as if he was being attacked, I feel inclined to take his word for it. It certainly isn't for me to say otherwise.
-
And yours is to twist everything said by anyone else until it conforms with where you want it to be. Haven't you said somewhere that secondhand information isn't to be relied upon. That makes YOUR version of what happened to the meter man second hand and as he was there at the time, if he SAID he was attacked and he FELT as if he was being attacked, I feel inclined to take his word for it. It certainly isn't for me to say otherwise.
You are twisting not me. He said she screamed and he was scared she would attack him so he ran to his car. He never claimed she did anything to his physically or tried. Trying to hold this out as evidence she was violent is dishonest and fails.
-
He obviously ran to his car before she had the chance to lash out or anything. ::)
-
You are twisting not me. He said she screamed and he was scared she would attack him so he ran to his car. He never claimed she did anything to his physically or tried. Trying to hold this out as evidence she was violent is dishonest and fails.
Well if you insist on reassessing and giving YOUR evaluation of everything, that happens to others, to suit your own view point, I guess the whole history of the world would be quite different.......................but I'm forgetting myself, you've already done it. You've rewritten history, haven't you?
I would remind you that there are numerous ways of attacking. You seem to have mastered the art of one of them rather competently yourself.
-
Well if you insist on reassessing and giving YOUR evaluation of everything, that happens to others, to suit your own view point, I guess the whole history of the world would be quite different.......................but I'm forgetting myself, you've already done it. You've rewritten history, haven't you?
I would remind you that there are numerous ways of attacking. You seem to have mastered the art of one of them rather competently yourself.
Everytime a Bamber supporter is shown to have a baseless position the tears and feigning indignities come out to try to change the subject.
Frankly after the the lies and misconceptions by Jeremy supporters I wonder whether this supposed witness statement even exists. No name is ever mentioned for him quite curiously which one would want to include if they actually read it as claimed:
"The witness statement of an Electric Board official who went to White House Farm to read the electric metre two days before the shootings is revealing. The man had an arrangement with the Bambers where he could get the key and let himself in to read the meter. On this particular occasion, the official was confronted by Sheila inside the farmhouse; she screamed and shouted abuse at him. The man was terrified and ‘feared for his life’ and was grateful when June appeared, calmed Sheila down and took her away. June commented that Sheila hadn’t been taking her medication and wasn’t well. The Electric Board official made a witness statement to the police, but this statement was never passed on to Jeremy’s defence team."
If we assume this actually happened all it demostrates is the guy knew where the key was because he routinely unlocked the door with it to let himself in to read the meter. The account describes it as a longstanding arrangment not something new. Sheila would be aware of this arrangement why? He let himself in, she saw a stranger who entered unannounced and she screamed at it to get out.
Did she physically assault him? No If she had assualted him to chase him out would such have been indicative of her having delusions again and being violent during delusions? No
To any rational person is is perfectly understnadable and acceptable to chase a stranger from your house and property. She didn't go get a gun to chase him or any other weapon so it is not something that can be used to try to refute claims she woudl no touch guns and had no interest. If it happened it is not of any use at all unless one is dishonest and tries to spin it as Jeremy supporters do out of desperation because they have no actual evidence of her having delusions after being released from the hospital in March or any violence during the any psychotic episodes. Since there was no such evidence supporters scan through everything trying to see what they could twist to try to pretend there is evidence and this is basically the only episode they can try to spin.
Supporters look dishonest and pathetic trying to pretend this (if it actually happened) supports the view she was relapsing and violent.
Just as pathetic and dishonest when asserting Sheila would have changed her clothing before killing herself and the clothes in the bucket are evidence of this and that is why her clothign had no GSR or blood though such clothing was only for her lower half and the blood and GSR would have mainly been on the clothing on her upper half and no such clothing she could have changed out of was found.
You voluntarily have decided to wage an agenda in support of Jeremy as opposed to following the evidence objectively. You do so despite the complete lack of evidence to use to support your position. That is your choice. The fact you have no evidence to support your position doesn't give you licencse to spin things and then not be called on it.
So if you have a problem with being challenged then don't post nonsense claims and distortions it is that simple.
-
I notice in the statement of Vanesis posted in July 2011 there are these words:
Standard examinations conducted on Mr. Bamber and Sheila including handswabs for firearms
Now which Mr. Bamber would that have been, Jeremy, or Ralph?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1191.0.html
-
Everytime a Bamber supporter is shown to have a baseless position the tears and feigning indignities come out to try to change the subject.
Frankly after the the lies and misconceptions by Jeremy supporters I wonder whether this supposed witness statement even exists. No name is ever mentioned for him quite curiously which one would want to include if they actually read it as claimed:
"The witness statement of an Electric Board official who went to White House Farm to read the electric metre two days before the shootings is revealing. The man had an arrangement with the Bambers where he could get the key and let himself in to read the meter. On this particular occasion, the official was confronted by Sheila inside the farmhouse; she screamed and shouted abuse at him. The man was terrified and ‘feared for his life’ and was grateful when June appeared, calmed Sheila down and took her away. June commented that Sheila hadn’t been taking her medication and wasn’t well. The Electric Board official made a witness statement to the police, but this statement was never passed on to Jeremy’s defence team."
If we assume this actually happened all it demostrates is the guy knew where the key was because he routinely unlocked the door with it to let himself in to read the meter. The account describes it as a longstanding arrangment not something new. Sheila would be aware of this arrangement why? He let himself in, she saw a stranger who entered unannounced and she screamed at it to get out.
Did she physically assault him? No If she had assualted him to chase him out would such have been indicative of her having delusions again and being violent during delusions? No
To any rational person is is perfectly understnadable and acceptable to chase a stranger from your house and property. She didn't go get a gun to chase him or any other weapon so it is not something that can be used to try to refute claims she woudl no touch guns and had no interest. If it happened it is not of any use at all unless one is dishonest and tries to spin it as Jeremy supporters do out of desperation because they have no actual evidence of her having delusions after being released from the hospital in March or any violence during the any psychotic episodes. Since there was no such evidence supporters scan through everything trying to see what they could twist to try to pretend there is evidence and this is basically the only episode they can try to spin.
Supporters look dishonest and pathetic trying to pretend this (if it actually happened) supports the view she was relapsing and violent.
Just as pathetic and dishonest when asserting Sheila would have changed her clothing before killing herself and the clothes in the bucket are evidence of this and that is why her clothign had no GSR or blood though such clothing was only for her lower half and the blood and GSR would have mainly been on the clothing on her upper half and no such clothing she could have changed out of was found.
You voluntarily have decided to wage an agenda in support of Jeremy as opposed to following the evidence objectively. You do so despite the complete lack of evidence to use to support your position. That is your choice. The fact you have no evidence to support your position doesn't give you licencse to spin things and then not be called on it.
So if you have a problem with being challenged then don't post nonsense claims and distortions it is that simple.
DEAR Scipio, you really must learn to calm down. I see no evidence of Jeremy's supporters looking either dishonest or pathetic, except, perhaps to you, who seems to get himself into a frightful tizz without provocation. Whilst we may not agree with you, most of us don't resort to calling you rude names because of your beliefs....................unless it's in retaliation to the things you say of us. You never know what miracles you may bring about if you changed your approach to conversational as apposed to accusation.
-
I don't know any better, but I wonder if this is just the first time that WE have seen/heard/read about Babs seeing the sound moderator?
The reason I say that is, there have been some comments (including from yourself) that nobody had seen any reference to Basil Cock stating that he was present during the finding of the sound moderator. That still appears to be the case, however the following post from Mike today, appears to suggest that Cock did indeed make a statement mentioning his presence during the finding of the sound moderator.
I know he was present at the time. But there is no reference to the fact that he actually saw the silencer when it was found? I had before thought that there were no independent witnesses.
-
I know he was present at the time. But there is no reference to the fact that he actually saw the silencer when it was found? I had before thought that there were no independent witnesses.
Maybe. :-\ From Mikes comment, I'm not so sure. :-\
-
I notice in the statement of Vanesis posted in July 2011 there are these words: Now which Mr. Bamber would that have been, Jeremy, or Ralph?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1191.0.html
Nevill. Because he was involved in the kitchen struggle and potentially could have thus fired a weapon they tested him not just Sheila. SInce June was shot in bed and died shortly after she fell fromt he bed or got out of the bed they assumed she would not have been in a position to fire a weapon and to have been invovled int he murders in any way other than a victim. Likewise since the twins were killed in bed. So they only tested Nevill and Sheila's hands.
-
I notice in the statement of Vanesis posted in July 2011 there are these words: Now which Mr. Bamber would that have been, Jeremy, or Ralph?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1191.0.html
Jeremy.
-
Jeremy.
Vanezis refers to Jeremy as Jeremy and to Nevill as Mr. Bamber in that document.
-
Vanezis refers to Jeremy as Jeremy and to Nevill as Mr. Bamber in that document.
Yes, you are quite correct. :-[
-
Jeremy.
So Jeremy was tested for firearms use at the time then? Some said he was tested weeks after the event?
-
You are twisting not me. He said she screamed and he was scared she would attack him so he ran to his car. He never claimed she did anything to his physically or tried. Trying to hold this out as evidence she was violent is dishonest and fails.
And now show me where Jeremy had a history of violence.
-
Everytime a Bamber supporter is shown to have a baseless position the tears and feigning indignities come out to try to change the subject.
Frankly after the the lies and misconceptions by Jeremy supporters I wonder whether this supposed witness statement even exists. No name is ever mentioned for him quite curiously which one would want to include if they actually read it as claimed:
"The witness statement of an Electric Board official who went to White House Farm to read the electric metre two days before the shootings is revealing. The man had an arrangement with the Bambers where he could get the key and let himself in to read the meter. On this particular occasion, the official was confronted by Sheila inside the farmhouse; she screamed and shouted abuse at him. The man was terrified and ‘feared for his life’ and was grateful when June appeared, calmed Sheila down and took her away. June commented that Sheila hadn’t been taking her medication and wasn’t well. The Electric Board official made a witness statement to the police, but this statement was never passed on to Jeremy’s defence team."
If we assume this actually happened all it demostrates is the guy knew where the key was because he routinely unlocked the door with it to let himself in to read the meter. The account describes it as a longstanding arrangment not something new. Sheila would be aware of this arrangement why? He let himself in, she saw a stranger who entered unannounced and she screamed at it to get out.
Did she physically assault him? No If she had assualted him to chase him out would such have been indicative of her having delusions again and being violent during delusions? No
To any rational person is is perfectly understnadable and acceptable to chase a stranger from your house and property. She didn't go get a gun to chase him or any other weapon so it is not something that can be used to try to refute claims she woudl no touch guns and had no interest. If it happened it is not of any use at all unless one is dishonest and tries to spin it as Jeremy supporters do out of desperation because they have no actual evidence of her having delusions after being released from the hospital in March or any violence during the any psychotic episodes. Since there was no such evidence supporters scan through everything trying to see what they could twist to try to pretend there is evidence and this is basically the only episode they can try to spin.
Supporters look dishonest and pathetic trying to pretend this (if it actually happened) supports the view she was relapsing and violent.
Just as pathetic and dishonest when asserting Sheila would have changed her clothing before killing herself and the clothes in the bucket are evidence of this and that is why her clothign had no GSR or blood though such clothing was only for her lower half and the blood and GSR would have mainly been on the clothing on her upper half and no such clothing she could have changed out of was found.
You voluntarily have decided to wage an agenda in support of Jeremy as opposed to following the evidence objectively. You do so despite the complete lack of evidence to use to support your position. That is your choice. The fact you have no evidence to support your position doesn't give you licencse to spin things and then not be called on it.
So if you have a problem with being challenged then don't post nonsense claims and distortions it is that simple.
The claims are not baseless scipio, they are events that people in general who knew her have witnessed these acts of Sheila. Acts of witness need not be written down in order to be true. They can be the general perception of others about an individual. There is for instance the incident where she attacked a delivery man witnessed by others. She obviously had violent tempers. But Jeremy have absolutely no history of violence.
-
And now show me where Jeremy had a history of violence.
I have no need to. He killed to inherit money. There is no requirment to have a hsitory of violence to kill for money and indeed most people who do so have no prior history of violence.
You in contrast are alleging Sheila was prone to violence and killed her family while having delusions and then killed herself.
You have the burden of proving she was violent but you failed miserably.
Not only can't you establish she was likely to engage in violence against her family if she had delusions, worse yet you can't prove she would be likely to have delusions since she was not only medicated but over medicated. She delusions in the past when she wasn't medicated which happnes to be when all with mental illness are at risk.
-
In order to carry out murder,there HAS to be a high level of violence within that person. Or insanity !
-
I have no need to. He killed to inherit money. There is no requirment to have a hsitory of violence to kill for money and indeed most people who do so have no prior history of violence.
You in contrast are alleging Sheila was prone to violence and killed her family while having delusions and then killed herself.
You have the burden of proving she was violent but you failed miserably.
Not only can't you establish she was likely to engage in violence against her family if she had delusions, worse yet you can't prove she would be likely to have delusions since she was not only medicated but over medicated. She delusions in the past when she wasn't medicated which happnes to be when all with mental illness are at risk.
but he had to have violence within him to do that - what was he going to do bash them round the heads with some marshmallows?
-
but he had to have violence within him to do that - what was he going to do bash them round the heads with some marshmallows?
Being capable of violence when required and repeatedly resorting to violence out of habit or in many different situations are very different things.
If you are trying to establish someone did something out of habit and was prone to using violence in certain circumstances and was thus likely to use violence in a particualr situation then you must back up your claims with evidence someone was prone to such and that only serves for helping establish motive. It doesn't help prove it deifntiely occurred you need other evidence to show that.
When motive is money there is no need to prove one has resorted int he past to violence to obtain money and in many instances prior bad acts can't be mentioned because it is prejudicial. You can't argue in court that someone committed murder in the past so likely did it again. You can bring up prior bad acts to the extent of saying someone used the same method of operation in the past if there is something that matches such aspect.
There is no such thing as a magic answer to telling who is capable of murder. Some give off warning signs some do not. Some warning signs we never learn about because people failed to appreciate them, missed them or simply never told anyone about them later on even so we have no idea to this day such warning signs existed.
We don't know how many warning signs were missed and never mentioned but some have come to light. Nevill being in fear Jeremy would kill him, Jeremy telling Ann soon he would be her partner and Nevill would be out of the picture with regards to the Caravan site. telling Robert Boutflour he could kill people and telling Julie about his plans are all warning signs that were missed at the time. Who knows how many more there were.
The key evidence though is the physical evidence and how the murders went down. I could tell someone I am going to kill my boss and my boss can turn up dead but that is not proof for sure I did it. His death could be from cancer a heart attack, stroke or even someone else murdering him. I could have been out of state so it was impossible for me to have been the one who killed him. The evidence against Jeremy is more than just what he told Julie it is tha the was aware of the murders and blamed Sheila but clearly Sheila did not do it.
Sheila could not have killed everyone else without her clothing and body having evidence of such including some injuries. If she did it then she would have had at minimum some minor injuries and victim blood and GSR on her clothing. She also would have had such evidence on her body and had no reason to wash but people insist she did anyway to try to pretend she didn't do it. That won't work with the clothes or injuries that would not wash away simply. There is also evidence she can't have killed herself beecause after she was dead the moderator was put away, her body moved and the bible opened and closed in a pool of blood that formed after she was dead.
It is a total waste of time trying to pretend she had a propensisty for violence because even if she did that still doesn't change the fact she can't have done it and can't have killed herself. Change the facts a little to me being in Sheila's place and threatening to kill Nevill publicly. DOes tha tmean I did it? No I can't have killed everyone and then have committed suicide someone else did it.
So Jeremy supporters are always ignoring the most important aspects and always insist he is innocent not by looking at the most important key evidence but formulated their opinions he is innocent jsut on a hunch based on something else and are stuck trying to ignore the heart of the case and simply to dismiss it since it can't be refuted.
-
I hope that was a nice long post ;)
-
I hope that was a nice long post ;)
I have nugs and Maggie on ignore - you're right that it gives you a good break, I wish it would removed the posts completely though instead of you having to still scroll past it.
-
I have nugs and Maggie on ignore - you're right that it gives you a good break, I wish it would removed the posts completely though instead of you having to still scroll past it.
yes sometimes you have to be in a mood to read a trashy newspaper - other times you might want to read a fictional novel .
Just depends how the mood takes you really.
-
I have no need to. He killed to inherit money. There is no requirment to have a hsitory of violence to kill for money and indeed most people who do so have no prior history of violence.
You in contrast are alleging Sheila was prone to violence and killed her family while having delusions and then killed herself.
You have the burden of proving she was violent but you failed miserably.
Not only can't you establish she was likely to engage in violence against her family if she had delusions, worse yet you can't prove she would be likely to have delusions since she was not only medicated but over medicated. She delusions in the past when she wasn't medicated which happnes to be when all with mental illness are at risk.
scipio. Take the blinkers off lad. ;)
-
scipio. Take the blinkers off lad. ;)
You have blinders on not me.
The shooter's clothing has to have high velocity spatter, medium velocity spatter and GSR on it particularly the vclothing ont he top half. The killer would have some kind of wounds to the hand form the stock when it broke. Just looking at these issues how did Sheila kill anyone?
This doesn't even take into account that Sheila could not have killed herself because after she was dead she could not have put the moderator away, moved her own body and opened and closed the bibble in a pool of blood that formed after her death. Nor does it look at the 30 staged bullets Jeremy left in the kitchen which do not match the evidence and he could not even think up a lie a year later to account for or having removed the scope to the rifle as he admitted to doing to RWB or the phone he hid and replaced with the bedroom phone by his own admission.
You can't address these things so you don't you just pretend they don't exist that means yo uhave the blinders on and hiding from them doesn't make them go away or refute them.
-
You have blinders on not me.
The shooter's clothing has to have high velocity spatter, medium velocity spatter and GSR on it particularly the vclothing ont he top half. The killer would have some kind of wounds to the hand form the stock when it broke. Just looking at these issues how did Sheila kill anyone?
This doesn't even take into account that Sheila could not have killed herself because after she was dead she could not have put the moderator away, moved her own body and opened and closed the bibble in a pool of blood that formed after her death. Nor does it look at the 30 staged bullets Jeremy left in the kitchen which do not match the evidence and he could not even think up a lie a year later to account for or having removed the scope to the rifle as he admitted to doing to RWB or the phone he hid and replaced with the bedroom phone by his own admission.
You can't address these things so you don't you just pretend they don't exist that means yo uhave the blinders on and hiding from them doesn't make them go away or refute them.
Whats this got to do with a tendency to violence. Here is your theory: Jeremy didn't have a tendency for violence. But he didn't need to have in order to have committed the murders. But on the other hand Sheila didn't have a tendency for violence therefore she couldn't have done the murders.
So what do we have according to your theory. A person doesn't need to have a tendency for murder to be a murderer. On the other hand Sheila didn't have a tendency for violence therefore she couldn't have done it. Why on earth did you introduce this argument in the first place if it makes no difference if a person has a tendency for violence or not. Furthermore why are you arguing your pants off trying to prove that Sheila was a really ok person and was a very stable character in fact.
Forgive me (this is not an apology) but why are ytou arguing BS? ::)
-
Whats this got to do with a tendency to violence. Here is your theory: Jeremy didn't have a tendency for violence. But he didn't need to have in order to have committed the murders. But on the other hand Sheila didn't have a tendency for violence therefore she couldn't have done the murders.
So what do we have according to your theory. A person doesn't need to have a tendency for murder to be a murderer. On the other hand Sheila didn't have a tendency for violence therefore she couldn't have done it. Why on earth did you introduce this argument in the first place if it makes no difference if a person has a tendency for violence or not. Furthermore why are you arguing your pants off trying to prove that Sheila was a really ok person and was a very stable character in fact.
Forgive me (this is not an apology) but why are ytou arguing BS? ::)
You are the one arguing BS not me. You always pick strawmen because you can't ever actually succesfuly challenge my actual arguments.
"But on the other hand Sheila didn't have a tendency for violence therefore she couldn't have done the murders."
That's not my argument. The longest posts on this board contain my arguments of why he is guilty and the evidence that supports my arguments. That wa snot among them. The fact Sheila had no tendency for violence is one of the MANY reasons why it is unlikely she would commit such a crime. I never argued that proves she didn't do it.
My evidence that she didn't kill anyone else it is that the killer installed the moderator and used it, obtained at least 5 bullets from the gun closet to use if not entirely using bullets from the closet, loaded the gun to capacity (11 rounds) firing all of them at the parents in the bedroom, wore gloves, had to have been covered in victim back spatter and GSR and landed 25 of 25 rounds therefore had to be skilled with the gun.
Sheila had never used a semi-auto before and in fact was not known to have ever used any guns, she would not have known she needed to chamber a round before firing the gun let alone knew how to do so and would not have known how to load 11 rounds let alone bothered to do so and she had hand eye-coordination problems so would not have landed all rounds she fired. She would not have gone to the closet to get the moderator to install and would not have used 20 rounds from the kitchen but ran to the closet to get 5 more when there were still 30 left. The bullets in the kitchen were clearly staged there by Jeremy. She would not have had any reason to use gloves but if she were the killer she would have and the gloves would have been found by police and her clothes would have been covere din blood/GSR. Sh would have had no reaosn to wash and change before killing herself but if she had done the unlikely then her blouse, nightdress or whatever she wore on her upper body that was stained with blood and GSR would have been found. The fact no such clothing or gloves were at WHF means she cna't have killed anyone. Nor could she have killed herself because after she was dead the killer removed the moderator and put it away in the closet, moved her blody flat and opened and closed the bible in a pool of her wet blood that formed after she died.
That is why Sheila can't have done it not because she didn't have a history of violence.
Since you can't dent my actual argument which is multifaceted you create a simple strawman that I never argued.
Since she can't have done it who did? That is where all the evidence against Jeremy comes in from him pretending he got a phone call from Nevill, his alleged reactions to that call which made no sense, to removing the scope in anticipation fo the murders, to staging the bullets in the kitchen, to hiding the phone to all his documented lies aimed at framing Sheila to, his various lies to police and changing story to telling Julie of his plans beforehand and admitting he was repsonsible after.
The evidence against Jeremy is overwhelming. So overwhlming that for you to have even a remote chance of pretending he is innocent you have to ignore all the actual arguments and evidence presented and create simple strawmen.
-
Sheila would not have had to load a full magazine at any time.
Backspatter occurs from close contact shots where the blood is drawn into the weapon by the vacuum.
How come she didn't have GSR on her nightdress when the rifle was laying on top of her?
Coordination problems may have been an invention by AE. Did she know Sheila that well? How often did she see her? It may have been when she was stoned on some other drug or receiving the full dose of Halperol.
Reason does not come into the equation talking about people having psychotic episodes.
She could have been naked at the time of the murders.
Where did you get the information about the garments in the buckets only having menstrual blood on them?
Freddie was very fearful that Sheila would become violent. Who do you think gouged Neville's arm?
Please be concise if you answer... or is verbal diarrhea your MO to wear people down.
-
Sheila would not have had to load a full magazine at any time.
Backspatter occurs from close contact shots where the blood is drawn into the weapon by the vacuum.
How come she didn't have GSR on her nightdress when the rifle was laying on top of her?
Coordination problems may have been an invention by AE. Did she know Sheila that well? How often did she see her? It may have been when she was stoned on some other drug or receiving the full dose of Halperol.
Reason does not come into the equation talking about people having psychotic episodes.
She could have been naked at the time of the murders.
Where did you get the information about the garments in the buckets only having menstrual blood on them?
Freddie was very fearful that Sheila would become violent. Who do you think gouged Neville's arm?
Please be concise if you answer... or is verbal diarrhea your MO to wear people down.
Lebaleb, hello :) It was just going through my head to question exactly what we know, and from who we know it, of those soaking clothes!!!!!
Regarding Sheila, Ann's "set piece" was that she couldn't, accurately, get beans on toast!!! Curious, don't you think for a girl who could accurately apply make-up and nail polish. Reading her WS, the underlying message is that Ann used every trick in the book to avoid contact with Sheila. Indeed, on several occasions, ignoring Sheila's overtures,she actually snubbed her, saying she was too busy to talk. In fairness, I don't believe they had ANYTHING in common. There was an 8-10 year age difference, their lifestyles were totally polarized and what comes over loud and clear was Ann's jealousy of Sheila, or at least the money SPENT on her.
-
Sheila would not have had to load a full magazine at any time.
Backspatter occurs from close contact shots where the blood is drawn into the weapon by the vacuum.
How come she didn't have GSR on her nightdress when the rifle was laying on top of her?
Coordination problems may have been an invention by AE. Did she know Sheila that well? How often did she see her? It may have been when she was stoned on some other drug or receiving the full dose of Halperol.
Reason does not come into the equation talking about people having psychotic episodes.
She could have been naked at the time of the murders.
Where did you get the information about the garments in the buckets only having menstrual blood on them?
Freddie was very fearful that Sheila would become violent. Who do you think gouged Neville's arm?
Please be concise if you answer... or is verbal diarrhea your MO to wear people down.
I agree lebaleb we have to be very careful of sources as so many so called 'facts' are built on myths, personally I find AEs statements fairly bizarre and agree her insistence that Sheila was badly coordinated very questionable. It is perfectly clear to all willing to look at the true picture that Sheila she was quite capable of rolling ciggies etc and applying makeup, at the time of the killings.
We know for a fact June was worried about Sheila's behaviour, she told Pamela that on the very night of her worries........ that is the most up to date info we have of Sheila's behaviour, we KNOW that is fact unless Pamela Boutflour made it up which is highly unlikely.
-
You are the one arguing BS not me. You always pick strawmen because you can't ever actually succesfuly challenge my actual arguments.
"But on the other hand Sheila didn't have a tendency for violence therefore she couldn't have done the murders."
That's not my argument. The longest posts on this board contain my arguments of why he is guilty and the evidence that supports my arguments. That wa snot among them. The fact Sheila had no tendency for violence is one of the MANY reasons why it is unlikely she would commit such a crime. I never argued that proves she didn't do it.
My evidence that she didn't kill anyone else it is that the killer installed the moderator and used it, obtained at least 5 bullets from the gun closet to use if not entirely using bullets from the closet, loaded the gun to capacity (11 rounds) firing all of them at the parents in the bedroom, wore gloves, had to have been covered in victim back spatter and GSR and landed 25 of 25 rounds therefore had to be skilled with the gun.
Sheila had never used a semi-auto before and in fact was not known to have ever used any guns, she would not have known she needed to chamber a round before firing the gun let alone knew how to do so and would not have known how to load 11 rounds let alone bothered to do so and she had hand eye-coordination problems so would not have landed all rounds she fired. She would not have gone to the closet to get the moderator to install and would not have used 20 rounds from the kitchen but ran to the closet to get 5 more when there were still 30 left. The bullets in the kitchen were clearly staged there by Jeremy. She would not have had any reason to use gloves but if she were the killer she would have and the gloves would have been found by police and her clothes would have been covere din blood/GSR. Sh would have had no reaosn to wash and change before killing herself but if she had done the unlikely then her blouse, nightdress or whatever she wore on her upper body that was stained with blood and GSR would have been found. The fact no such clothing or gloves were at WHF means she cna't have killed anyone. Nor could she have killed herself because after she was dead the killer removed the moderator and put it away in the closet, moved her blody flat and opened and closed the bible in a pool of her wet blood that formed after she died.
That is why Sheila can't have done it not because she didn't have a history of violence.
Since you can't dent my actual argument which is multifaceted you create a simple strawman that I never argued.
Since she can't have done it who did? That is where all the evidence against Jeremy comes in from him pretending he got a phone call from Nevill, his alleged reactions to that call which made no sense, to removing the scope in anticipation fo the murders, to staging the bullets in the kitchen, to hiding the phone to all his documented lies aimed at framing Sheila to, his various lies to police and changing story to telling Julie of his plans beforehand and admitting he was repsonsible after.
The evidence against Jeremy is overwhelming. So overwhlming that for you to have even a remote chance of pretending he is innocent you have to ignore all the actual arguments and evidence presented and create simple strawmen.
That is the bit I was referring to as BS. I just wonder if it is irelevant whether someone has a history of violence or not why did you ever bring the subject up in the first place? ::) It was you who first suggested that Sheila couldn't have done it because she didn't have a history of violence and then almost immediately that Jeremy did it because it doesn't matter if a person has a history of violence anyway. To me that is BS argument.
-
I have nugs and Maggie on ignore - you're right that it gives you a good break, I wish it would removed the posts completely though instead of you having to still scroll past it.
I don't have anyone on ignore. It's a useless facility anyway, because I just found myself clicking on reveal post just to see what those I put on ignore said.
-
Sheila would not have had to load a full magazine at any time.
Backspatter occurs from close contact shots where the blood is drawn into the weapon by the vacuum.
How come she didn't have GSR on her nightdress when the rifle was laying on top of her?
Coordination problems may have been an invention by AE. Did she know Sheila that well? How often did she see her? It may have been when she was stoned on some other drug or receiving the full dose of Halperol.
Reason does not come into the equation talking about people having psychotic episodes.
She could have been naked at the time of the murders.
Where did you get the information about the garments in the buckets only having menstrual blood on them?
Freddie was very fearful that Sheila would become violent. Who do you think gouged Neville's arm?
Please be concise if you answer... or is verbal diarrhea your MO to wear people down.
I agree with you on the magazine bit. Someone who was in a hurry would find it very difficult anyway to load the magazine fully each time. That would apply to Jeremy as well. Although thinking about it, even if she half loaded the magazing she would still have to take it off the gun each time?
Concerning backspatter and contact shots. Of course they only "assumed" it was backspatter and they never examined the silencer in that way as scipio insists they did. In fact there is no evidence that they tested the silencer except for blood and blood grouping.
But according to Vanesis none of the shots on anybody were contact shots.
-
Sheila would not have had to load a full magazine at any time.
The gun had 11 rounds so not just a full magazine but one in the chamber when the shooting in the master bedroom took place. The gun was emptied on the parents and then Nevill made his way to the kitchen either chansing the killer or with the killer chasing him. If the killer had less than 11 round sin the gun then Nevill would have jumped the killer as he/she tried to relaod or would have fled to the kitchen before the killer coudlreload in which case the 11 shots would not have been fired anyway.
Backspatter occurs from close contact shots where the blood is drawn into the weapon by the vacuum.
Wrong drawback is where blood is drawn into the weapon and that is when the gun is fired less than 2mm from the body.
Back spatter can occur regardless of the distance the shot is fired. When the shooter is within severla feet of the victim that is when such spatter can hit the shooter.
Distance determines whether the spatter will land on the shooter.
Back spatter also occurs during the course of beatings, stabbings, bludgeonings. Gunshots cause high velocity spatter the drops are finer. Medium velociy spatter results in larger drops.
How come she didn't have GSR on her nightdress when the rifle was laying on top of her?
Because she didn't shoot herself. Had she hugged the rifle and shot herself then there would have been GSR on her nightgown. Her nightgown would have been right next to the firing mechanism where the GSR cloud forms. The lack of such is evidence she didn't shoot herself. The killer held the gun so the firing mechansim was not adjacent to her body rather the rifle was far awy form her body because the moderator was touching her not the rifle.
Coordination problems may have been an invention by AE. Did she know Sheila that well? How often did she see her? It may have been when she was stoned on some other drug or receiving the full dose of Halperol.
She had the coordination problems long term that is why she coudl not drive her hand eye coordination and depth perception rpoblems. The medicide would have mad eit worse though. 100MG is a full dose. Haldol causes tremors and the like as well as sedates. Procyclidine was the counter that was supposed to give her energy and to counter the tremors. She never refilled that prescription and was not tkaing it. That could very well be why she was over sedated. Ferguson made that diagnosis based on what every stated they obversed: Freddie and everyone else who saw her after she was on Haldol said she was vacant, talked very slow and was hard to talk to was often tired... He noted the physical abilities of such person would be limited.
Reason does not come into the equation talking about people having psychotic episodes.
She could have been naked at the time of the murders.
Where did you get the information about the garments in the buckets only having menstrual blood on them?
Even crazy people have a reason for doing the things they do. I was waiting for someone to claim she did it nude and then took a shower. It is not enough to say that is a theoretical possiiblity you need to establish it is reasonably likely to have occurred. Of course you can't do that because you have no evidence and simply made up that claim. If she did it nude then for sure she would have had injuries and would have left her prints in blood as well. The killer wore gloves and no such gloves were found at WHF the killer left with them.
The items in the buckets were all female clothing worn on the lower half of the body with large stains in the crotch area. No felames were wounded in an are of the body that could have resulted to heavy bleeding to the crotch area of the clothing- 2 pairs of panties and 1 pair of leggings.
The evidence indicating it was menstrual is overwhelming and in fact SHeila was menstrauting when she was killed...
Freddie was very fearful that Sheila would become violent.
so? He was scared that she would become violent during the course of a long psychotic episode but she didn't. That is evidence that even during a long psychotic episode caused by her not taking her medicaiton that she had not become violent. Worse for you, though she recognized no one else during her delusions she recognzed Nevill as soon as she saw him and she instantly became calm, stopped having delusions and became totally rational. SO if she were having delusions at WHF upon seeing Nevill she likely would have calmed down not become worse. She was properly medicated while at WHF no scratch that over medicated as opposed to not tkaing her medication which Freddie experienced.
Far from helping you his testimony harms your claims a great deal.
Who do you think gouged Neville's arm?
Please be concise if you answer... or is verbal diarrhea your MO to wear people down.
Jeremy did such. He did such with the butt of the rifle. The very end of the butt had a "knob" that would do nicely in causing those gouges and dragging the linaer butt againt the arm will cause the linear wounds. Vanezis believes the stock caused the skull fractures and the evidence bears that out.
There were stress fractures to the stock and a peice even broke off along one of those fracture lines. Such fractures are caused by the force of the stock being compressed by someone forcing the rifle butt into something hard. Jeremy was holding the rifle with one hand on the narrow portion of the stock and the other on the foregrip. The stock broke exactly where it was being held so it would have curt or at minimum left a scratch on the hand of the killer unless the killer had gloves on. This could very well be what ripped off Jeremy's glove. He described a glove being torn off during the struggle.
When the killer was busy bashing the butt of the rifle into Nevill's face and head he didn't just let the killer do it. He raised his arm to block the blows. His arm was horixzonal in front of him blocked the blows. His forearm and elbow were thus damaged and his wristwatch that was on such arm ripped off.
His arm blocked blows fromt eh butt getting defensive wounds int he proces sbut eventually the killer got through and did breka his nose, give him black eyes and bash his skull in.
A nude Sheila would have been covered in blood and woudl have been wounded when the stock broke plus have cut her feet. Jeremy was protected from such because he had on gloves though he would have been covere din blood and thus washed up and changed his clothes before he called the police.
-
The gun had 11 rounds so not just a full magazine but one in the chamber when the shooting in the master bedroom took place. The gun was emptied on the parents and then Nevill made his way to the kitchen either chansing the killer or with the killer chasing him. If the killer had less than 11 round sin the gun then Nevill would have jumped the killer as he/she tried to relaod or would have fled to the kitchen before the killer coudlreload in which case the 11 shots would not have been fired anyway.
Wrong drawback is where blood is drawn into the weapon and that is when the gun is fired less than 2mm from the body.
Back spatter can occur regardless of the distance the shot is fired. When the shooter is within severla feet of the victim that is when such spatter can hit the shooter.
Distance determines whether the spatter will land on the shooter.
Back spatter also occurs during the course of beatings, stabbings, bludgeonings. Gunshots cause high velocity spatter the drops are finer. Medium velociy spatter results in larger drops.
Because she didn't shoot herself. Had she hugged the rifle and shot herself then there would have been GSR on her nightgown. Her nightgown would have been right next to the firing mechanism where the GSR cloud forms. The lack of such is evidence she didn't shoot herself. The killer held the gun so the firing mechansim was not adjacent to her body rather the rifle was far awy form her body because the moderator was touching her not the rifle.
She had the coordination problems long term that is why she coudl not drive her hand eye coordination and depth perception rpoblems. The medicide would have mad eit worse though. 100MG is a full dose. Haldol causes tremors and the like as well as sedates. Procyclidine was the counter that was supposed to give her energy and to counter the tremors. She never refilled that prescription and was not tkaing it. That could very well be why she was over sedated. Ferguson made that diagnosis based on what every stated they obversed: Freddie and everyone else who saw her after she was on Haldol said she was vacant, talked very slow and was hard to talk to was often tired... He noted the physical abilities of such person would be limited.
Even crazy people have a reason for doing the things they do. I was waiting for someone to claim she did it nude and then took a shower. It is not enough to say that is a theoretical possiiblity you need to establish it is reasonably likely to have occurred. Of course you can't do that because you have no evidence and simply made up that claim. If she did it nude then for sure she would have had injuries and would have left her prints in blood as well. The killer wore gloves and no such gloves were found at WHF the killer left with them.
The items in the buckets were all female clothing worn on the lower half of the body with large stains in the crotch area. No felames were wounded in an are of the body that could have resulted to heavy bleeding to the crotch area of the clothing- 2 pairs of panties and 1 pair of leggings.
The evidence indicating it was menstrual is overwhelming and in fact SHeila was menstrauting when she was killed...
so? He was scared that she would become violent during the course of a long psychotic episode but she didn't. That is evidence that even during a long psychotic episode caused by her not taking her medicaiton that she had not become violent. Worse for you, though she recognized no one else during her delusions she recognzed Nevill as soon as she saw him and she instantly became calm, stopped having delusions and became totally rational. SO if she were having delusions at WHF upon seeing Nevill she likely would have calmed down not become worse. She was properly medicated while at WHF no scratch that over medicated as opposed to not tkaing her medication which Freddie experienced.
Far from helping you his testimony harms your claims a great deal.
Jeremy did such. He did such with the butt of the rifle. The very end of the butt had a "knob" that would do nicely in causing those gouges and dragging the linaer butt againt the arm will cause the linear wounds. Vanezis believes the stock caused the skull fractures and the evidence bears that out.
There were stress fractures to the stock and a peice even broke off along one of those fracture lines. Such fractures are caused by the force of the stock being compressed by someone forcing the rifle butt into something hard. Jeremy was holding the rifle with one hand on the narrow portion of the stock and the other on the foregrip. The stock broke exactly where it was being held so it would have curt or at minimum left a scratch on the hand of the killer unless the killer had gloves on. This could very well be what ripped off Jeremy's glove. He described a glove being torn off during the struggle.
When the killer was busy bashing the butt of the rifle into Nevill's face and head he didn't just let the killer do it. He raised his arm to block the blows. His arm was horixzonal in front of him blocked the blows. His forearm and elbow were thus damaged and his wristwatch that was on such arm ripped off.
His arm blocked blows fromt eh butt getting defensive wounds int he proces sbut eventually the killer got through and did breka his nose, give him black eyes and bash his skull in.
A nude Sheila would have been covered in blood and woudl have been wounded when the stock broke plus have cut her feet. Jeremy was protected from such because he had on gloves though he would have been covere din blood and thus washed up and changed his clothes before he called the police.
June walked around the bedroom bleeding. This indicates that not all of the shots were fired at the same time. Similarly, 5 shots to Neville would have been enough to disable him. After 2 shots to the head he could barely get downstairs. Jumping the killer would have been impossible. The remaining shots delivered to both after reloading.
If that is Backspatter then what on earth were they talking about at the trial. Or did they all get it wrong?
But the rifle itself must have been covered in GSR. From the trajectory of the shots to Sheila, the rifle must have been close to her regardless of who pulled the trigger.
Sheila was originally getting 200mg.
Yes they do but crazy reasons.
It is certain that Sheila was menstruating. However, you cannot categorically state that the was no backspatter on the clothes. You just told me it would be a fine spray.
Why would she have injuries? The struggle scenario is highly speculative.
She may well have been wearing socks that were found near the body. Someone had showered and left the shower head off its hook.
There is no evidence that the killer wore gloves.
Properly medicated while at WHF??
With no bleeding from the gouge marks it indicates they were either post mortem or from an earlier episode and then cleaned.
-
I'm with you there,Lebaleb,on the backspatter.It acts like a vacuum when the shot is a contact one,so that persons' blood is bound to be in it. The other shots of the victims weren't made by contact.
Pity common sense didn't prevail within that courtroom !
-
The gun had 11 rounds so not just a full magazine but one in the chamber when the shooting in the master bedroom took place. The gun was emptied on the parents and then Nevill made his way to the kitchen either chansing the killer or with the killer chasing him. If the killer had less than 11 round sin the gun then Nevill would have jumped the killer as he/she tried to relaod or would have fled to the kitchen before the killer coudlreload in which case the 11 shots would not have been fired anyway.
Wrong drawback is where blood is drawn into the weapon and that is when the gun is fired less than 2mm from the body.
Back spatter can occur regardless of the distance the shot is fired. When the shooter is within severla feet of the victim that is when such spatter can hit the shooter.
Distance determines whether the spatter will land on the shooter.
Back spatter also occurs during the course of beatings, stabbings, bludgeonings. Gunshots cause high velocity spatter the drops are finer. Medium velociy spatter results in larger drops.
Because she didn't shoot herself. Had she hugged the rifle and shot herself then there would have been GSR on her nightgown. Her nightgown would have been right next to the firing mechanism where the GSR cloud forms. The lack of such is evidence she didn't shoot herself. The killer held the gun so the firing mechansim was not adjacent to her body rather the rifle was far awy form her body because the moderator was touching her not the rifle.
She had the coordination problems long term that is why she coudl not drive her hand eye coordination and depth perception rpoblems. The medicide would have mad eit worse though. 100MG is a full dose. Haldol causes tremors and the like as well as sedates. Procyclidine was the counter that was supposed to give her energy and to counter the tremors. She never refilled that prescription and was not tkaing it. That could very well be why she was over sedated. Ferguson made that diagnosis based on what every stated they obversed: Freddie and everyone else who saw her after she was on Haldol said she was vacant, talked very slow and was hard to talk to was often tired... He noted the physical abilities of such person would be limited.
Even crazy people have a reason for doing the things they do. I was waiting for someone to claim she did it nude and then took a shower. It is not enough to say that is a theoretical possiiblity you need to establish it is reasonably likely to have occurred. Of course you can't do that because you have no evidence and simply made up that claim. If she did it nude then for sure she would have had injuries and would have left her prints in blood as well. The killer wore gloves and no such gloves were found at WHF the killer left with them.
The items in the buckets were all female clothing worn on the lower half of the body with large stains in the crotch area. No felames were wounded in an are of the body that could have resulted to heavy bleeding to the crotch area of the clothing- 2 pairs of panties and 1 pair of leggings.
The evidence indicating it was menstrual is overwhelming and in fact SHeila was menstrauting when she was killed...
so? He was scared that she would become violent during the course of a long psychotic episode but she didn't. That is evidence that even during a long psychotic episode caused by her not taking her medicaiton that she had not become violent. Worse for you, though she recognized no one else during her delusions she recognzed Nevill as soon as she saw him and she instantly became calm, stopped having delusions and became totally rational. SO if she were having delusions at WHF upon seeing Nevill she likely would have calmed down not become worse. She was properly medicated while at WHF no scratch that over medicated as opposed to not tkaing her medication which Freddie experienced.
Far from helping you his testimony harms your claims a great deal.
Jeremy did such. He did such with the butt of the rifle. The very end of the butt had a "knob" that would do nicely in causing those gouges and dragging the linaer butt againt the arm will cause the linear wounds. Vanezis believes the stock caused the skull fractures and the evidence bears that out.
There were stress fractures to the stock and a peice even broke off along one of those fracture lines. Such fractures are caused by the force of the stock being compressed by someone forcing the rifle butt into something hard. Jeremy was holding the rifle with one hand on the narrow portion of the stock and the other on the foregrip. The stock broke exactly where it was being held so it would have curt or at minimum left a scratch on the hand of the killer unless the killer had gloves on. This could very well be what ripped off Jeremy's glove. He described a glove being torn off during the struggle.
When the killer was busy bashing the butt of the rifle into Nevill's face and head he didn't just let the killer do it. He raised his arm to block the blows. His arm was horixzonal in front of him blocked the blows. His forearm and elbow were thus damaged and his wristwatch that was on such arm ripped off.
His arm blocked blows fromt eh butt getting defensive wounds int he proces sbut eventually the killer got through and did breka his nose, give him black eyes and bash his skull in.
A nude Sheila would have been covered in blood and woudl have been wounded when the stock broke plus have cut her feet. Jeremy was protected from such because he had on gloves though he would have been covere din blood and thus washed up and changed his clothes before he called the police.
I believe none of the shots were from that close. None apparently were contact shots. Vanesis was surprised to hear that there was blood on the inside of the silencer. He expected blood to be on the outside.
Also concerning eleven cartridges in the magazine and one in the chamber? How is that possible. Also no one knows how many bullets were loaded in the gun at any given time. The only witness we have is Jeremy where he said that he loaded the magazine.
Again if there was one bullet in the chamber surely that answers your question on how did Sheila know how to chamber a bullet? Answer from your own comment. She didn't have to, because there was one already in the chamber? You said it remember and not me. ;)
-
I believe none of the shots were from that close. None apparently were contact shots. Vanesis was surprised to hear that there was blood on the inside of the silencer. He expected blood to be on the outside.
Also concerning eleven cartridges in the magazine and one in the chamber? How is that possible. Also no one knows how many bullets were loaded in the gun at any given time. The only witness we have is Jeremy where he said that he loaded the magazine.
Again if there was one bullet in the chamber surely that answers your question on how did Sheila know how to chamber a bullet? Answer from your own comment. She didn't have to, because there was one already in the chamber? You said it remember and not me. ;)
Jeremy says he removed the loaded magazine before he left WHF. Surely he would also remove the bullet from the chamber at the same time if he was disarming the rifle to make it safe.
Jeremy was clearly aware of safety issues with weapons because when the police arrived at WHF early the following morning Jeremy was concerned about having potentially committed an offence by having left the magazine out and not having secured it away properly.
-
Jeremy says he removed the loaded magazine before he left WHF. Surely he would also remove the bullet from the chamber at the same time if he was disarming the rifle to make it safe.
Jeremy was clearly aware of safety issues with weapons because when the police arrived at WHF early the following morning Jeremy was concerned about having potentially committed an offence by having left the magazine out and not having secured it away properly.
Hi curious. I was answering scipio, who said right from the start that Sheila would not have known how to chamber a bullet. This I thought was a very good point and I agreed with him on that. But now he says that the magazine was full (11 bullets) PLUS one in the chamber.
Now that he's said that he has actually negated his former assertion that Sheila didn't know how to chamber a bullet. That is why I said to his latest assertion that she didn't have to know how to chamber a bullet, because there was already one in the chamber. In effect he answered his own dilemma. ;D
-
Hi curious. I was answering scipio, who said right from the start that Sheila would not have known how to chamber a bullet. This I thought was a very good point and I agreed with him on that. But now he says that the magazine was full (11 bullets) PLUS one in the chamber.
Now that he's said that he has actually negated his former assertion that Sheila didn't know how to chamber a bullet. That is why I said to his latest assertion that she didn't have to know how to chamber a bullet, because there was already one in the chamber. In effect he answered his own dilemma. ;D
One thinks one is taking thy pish :P ;D
-
One thinks one is taking thy pish :P ;D
How am I doing that Hartley? I'm just repeating what he wrote. Look back on his posts and you will see.
-
Caroline,
Did you reply re scratches on the mantlepiece from the silencer
If as you state the silencer was not used what were they?
-
I think it's possible that Sheila attached the silencer to shoot the boys. She wouldn't want them to wake up. Further shots to June and Neville after that, bludgeoning Neville some more even though he was probably already dead. Speculation... yes, I know.
-
I think it's possible that Sheila attached the silencer to shoot the boys. She wouldn't want them to wake up. Further shots to June and Neville after that, bludgeoning Neville some more even though he was probably already dead. Speculation... yes, I know.
If she did that I can't really see her putting it back in the gun cupboard?
-
If she did that I can't really see her putting it back in the gun cupboard?
There is no logic with people having psychotic episodes. Voices tell them to do things.
-
There is no logic with people having psychotic episodes. Voices tell them to do things.
Yes that's right. Mine do. :-X
-
I have nugs and Maggie on ignore - you're right that it gives you a good break, I wish it would removed the posts completely though instead of you having to still scroll past it.
I have the whole lot of yas on ignore and just scroll past everything, write posts sometimes out of the blue and read those! ;D What a bliss!
Just kidding.
-
Jeremy says he removed the loaded magazine before he left WHF. Surely he would also remove the bullet from the chamber at the same time if he was disarming the rifle to make it safe.
Jeremy was clearly aware of safety issues with weapons because when the police arrived at WHF early the following morning Jeremy was concerned about having potentially committed an offence by having left the magazine out and not having secured it away properly.
Yes he did. I was just dismissing scipio's post as wrong. He was obviously ahem!..."misled" again. ::)
-
I believe none of the shots were from that close. None apparently were contact shots. Vanesis was surprised to hear that there was blood on the inside of the silencer. He expected blood to be on the outside.
Amazing how you just make up anything you feel like as Mike does no wonder you both are best buds:
(http://s12.postimg.org/myahkzpm5/van.jpg)
He was not surprised that Sheila's blood was found inside. He determined her wounds were contact or near contact wounds.
Also concerning eleven cartridges in the magazine and one in the chamber? How is that possible.
How did you get 12 rounds including 11 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber from this quote?
"The gun had 11 rounds so not just a full magazine but one in the chamber when the shooting in the master bedroom took place."
As plain as day it says 11 rounds total a full magazine and 1 in the chamber. That is indeed possible.
Also no one knows how many bullets were loaded in the gun at any given time. The only witness we have is Jeremy where he said that he loaded the magazine.
Again if there was one bullet in the chamber surely that answers your question on how did Sheila know how to chamber a bullet? Answer from your own comment. She didn't have to, because there was one already in the chamber? You said it remember and not me. ;)
It is a safe bet that the killer fired all 11 shots into June and Nevill at the same time as opposed to having a lesser amount of bullets and returning later with more. The more loadings that take place the less things make sense.
The gun had to be empty when the struggle took place in the kitchen or the killer would have shot Nevill instead of beating him. The killer had to knock him out to be able to reload and then deliver those 4 shots to his head.
Alternative scenarios:
A)10 shots fired in the bedroom, gun empty
B) 10 shots reloaded in the kitchen- 4 into Nevill, 6 shots remaining
C1) Go upstairs with 6 rounds in the gun, shoot June with 1 and Daniel with 5, gun empty
C2) reload fully and go upstairs with 10 bullets, shoot June with 1, Daniel with 5 and Nicholas with 3, 1 bullet still left in gun.
C3) load 11 rounds and go upstairs, shoot June with 1, Daniel with 5 and Nicholas with 3, 2 bullets still left in gun.
D1) load 2 more bullets to kill Sheila, instead of just 1 bullet load a spare
D2) even though have 1 round left to kill Sheila with stop to load an extra round before killing her
D3) 2 remaining bullets used to kill Sheila
So the only one that makes any sense is if 11 rounds had been loaded before the shooting ever began or if 11 rounds had been loaded before the final slaughter. Shooting 1 twin and then reloading before shooting the other makes no sense. Loading an extra bullet to kill Sheila with makes no sense.
At one point or another 11 bullets had been loaded in the gun.
Since either of the 2 shots to June's head would have killed her before the killer returned from the kitchen after the battle with Nevill it would have been pointless to then fire another shot into her dead body. Moroever the most likely time to fill the gun to capacity (11 rounds) is before the shooting ever starts. So the scenario I go by is the one most likely to have occurred based on the totality of the circumstances.
The gun had to be empty when the struggle took place in the kitchen or the killer would have shot Nevill instead of beating him. The killer had to knock him out to be able to reload and then deliver those 4 shots to his head.
In his statements on 8/7/85 and 8/8/85 Jeremy stated he removed the bullet from the chamber:
While you make up things as you go along I have already considered the relevant issues in advance before coming to any conclusions.
(http://s17.postimg.org/sm2bj823z/jer.jpg)
(http://s28.postimg.org/c0o7qyjfx/jer2.jpg)
Could Jeremy have lied? It is clear that he lied and that the entire fable about taking the gun out to shoot rabbits and leaving it out afterwards along with the bullets is a lie. He removed the scope and loaded and hid the gun where he could gian easy access when he returned. he didn't leave it out risking someone putting it away someplace where he would not find it.
-
Amazing how you just make up anything you feel like as Mike does no wonder you both are best buds:
(http://s12.postimg.org/myahkzpm5/van.jpg)
He was not surprised that Sheila's blood was found inside. He determined her wounds were contact or near contact wounds.
How did you get 12 rounds including 11 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber from this quote?
"The gun had 11 rounds so not just a full magazine but one in the chamber when the shooting in the master bedroom took place."
As plain as day it says 11 rounds total a full magazine and 1 in the chamber. That is indeed possible.
It is a safe bet that the killer fired all 11 shots into June and Nevill at the same time as opposed to having a lesser amount of bullets and returning later with more. The more loadings that take place the less things make sense.
The gun had to be empty when the struggle took place in the kitchen or the killer would have shot Nevill instead of beating him. The killer had to knock him out to be able to reload and then deliver those 4 shots to his head.
Alternative scenarios:
A)10 shots fired in the bedroom, gun empty
B) 10 shots reloaded in the kitchen- 4 into Nevill, 6 shots remaining
C1) Go upstairs with 6 rounds in the gun, shoot June with 1 and Daniel with 5, gun empty
C2) reload fully and go upstairs with 10 bullets, shoot June with 1, Daniel with 5 and Nicholas with 3, 1 bullet still left in gun.
C3) load 11 rounds and go upstairs, shoot June with 1, Daniel with 5 and Nicholas with 3, 2 bullets still left in gun.
D1) load 2 more bullets to kill Sheila, instead of just 1 bullet load a spare
D2) even though have 1 round left to kill Sheila with stop to load an extra round before killing her
D3) 2 remaining bullets used to kill Sheila
So the only one that makes any sense is if 11 rounds had been loaded before the shooting ever began or if 11 rounds had been loaded before the final slaughter. Shooting 1 twin and then reloading before shooting the other makes no sense. Loading an extra bullet to kill Sheila with makes no sense.
At one point or another 11 bullets had been loaded in the gun.
Since either of the 2 shots to June's head would have killed her before the killer returned from the kitchen after the battle with Nevill it would have been pointless to then fire another shot into her dead body. Moroever the most likely time to fill the gun to capacity (11 rounds) is before the shooting ever starts. So the scenario I go by is the one most likely to have occurred based on the totality of the circumstances.
The gun had to be empty when the struggle took place in the kitchen or the killer would have shot Nevill instead of beating him. The killer had to knock him out to be able to reload and then deliver those 4 shots to his head.
In his statements on 8/7/85 and 8/8/85 Jeremy stated he removed the bullet from the chamber:
While you make up things as you go along I have already considered the relevant issues in advance before coming to any conclusions.
(http://s17.postimg.org/sm2bj823z/jer.jpg)
(http://s28.postimg.org/c0o7qyjfx/jer2.jpg)
Could Jeremy have lied? It is clear that he lied and that the entire fable about taking the gun out to shoot rabbits and leaving it out afterwards along with the bullets is a lie. He removed the scope and loaded and hid the gun where he could gian easy access when he returned. he didn't leave it out risking someone putting it away someplace where he would not find it.
Erm I don't know? You're the one who said it. "The gun had 11 rounds so not just a full magazine but one in the chamber
-
Yes he did. I was just dismissing scipio's post as wrong. He was obviously ahem!..."misled" again. ::)
Mislead about what?
All you did was demonstrate you can't read because you thought I said there were 12 rounds inthe gun and worse your supposed arguments were nonsense as always.
Worse you made up that Vanezis was surprised that Sheila's blood coudl be inside because he did not think the wounds were so close.
Your choice of the word "dismssed" in the post above is the only accurate thing you have stated in weeks. You dismiss arguments you don't refute them with evidence. I refute arguments I don't simply dismiss them.
You seem to have no grasp of this case at all. You Don't even know what Jeremy stated let alone Vanezis.
You operate form a very basic premise which you admitted yesterday, you refuse to believe that Jeremy could have done it and believe a crazy person had to have committed the murders and you will dismiss any and all evidence that proves you wrong.
That is not a rational argument or position but you get even more ludicrous than that by constantly telling us you are objective and unbiased and not a Jeremy supporter.
-
Scipio please keep up lad. IF you had been reading my posts with your good eye then you would have seen that I also queried the rabbit story and said that the story didn't sit well with me, why didn't he use a shotgun? You didn't need to repeat all that for my benefit.
By the way Vanesis was referring to the barrel of the gun when he said in his opinion he would have expected to have found more blood on the outside of the weapon rather than inside. It was I who suggested that if the silencer was attached then the same would obviously have applied to that as well?
He also said that he was informed that it was a suicide and that he found nothing to contradict that.
ps: It appears that I was wrong about the contact shots? I was "misinformed" just like you were aoncerning the telephone engineer. ;)
-
Mislead about what?
All you did was demonstrate you can't read because you thought I said there were 12 rounds inthe gun and worse your supposed arguments were nonsense as always.
Worse you made up that Vanezis was surprised that Sheila's blood coudl be inside because he did not think the wounds were so close.
Your choice of the word "dismssed" in the post above is the only accurate thing you have stated in weeks. You dismiss arguments you don't refute them with evidence. I refute arguments I don't simply dismiss them.
You seem to have no grasp of this case at all. You Don't even know what Jeremy stated let alone Vanezis.
You operate form a very basic premise which you admitted yesterday, you refuse to believe that Jeremy could have done it and believe a crazy person had to have committed the murders and you will dismiss any and all evidence that proves you wrong.
That is not a rational argument or position but you get even more ludicrous than that by constantly telling us you are objective and unbiased and not a Jeremy supporter.
Short memory again have we scipio, concerning your "mistakes"? Hint: the telephone engineer who said that one call was made from WHF that morning? You were "misled" I think you said? ::)
-
Mislead about what?
All you did was demonstrate you can't read because you thought I said there were 12 rounds inthe gun and worse your supposed arguments were nonsense as always.
Worse you made up that Vanezis was surprised that Sheila's blood coudl be inside because he did not think the wounds were so close.
Your choice of the word "dismssed" in the post above is the only accurate thing you have stated in weeks. You dismiss arguments you don't refute them with evidence. I refute arguments I don't simply dismiss them.
You seem to have no grasp of this case at all. You Don't even know what Jeremy stated let alone Vanezis.
You operate form a very basic premise which you admitted yesterday, you refuse to believe that Jeremy could have done it and believe a crazy person had to have committed the murders and you will dismiss any and all evidence that proves you wrong.
That is not a rational argument or position but you get even more ludicrous than that by constantly telling us you are objective and unbiased and not a Jeremy supporter.
Now now no need to be rude sunny jim. Please control your crazy outbursts that you are prone to.
-
Erm I don't know? You're the one who said it.
"The gun had 11 rounds so not just a full magazine but one in the chamber"
Yes I did say that. It says the gun had a full magazine and one in the chamber so 11 rounds total. Even if one did not know a full magazine is 10 rounds one can calculate the number by deducting the round in the chamber from 11 to arrive at 10.
You wrote:
"Also concerning eleven cartridges in the magazine and one in the chamber? How is that possible."
Your comprehension skills or your math skills are atrocious.
-
Yes I did say that. It says the gun had a full magazine and one in the chamber so 11 rounds total. Even if one did not know a full magazine is 10 rounds one can calculate the number by deducting the round in the chamber from 11 to arrive at 10.
You wrote:
"Also concerning eleven cartridges in the magazine and one in the chamber? How is that possible."
Your comprehension skills or your math skills are atrocious.
Oh I see. It was the cockeyed way you said it. But you still said there was one in the chamber and if there was one in the chamber that cocks up your theory that Sheila didn't know how to chamber a bullet. Answer: If there was already one in the chamber then she didn't need to.
But of course there was no bullet in the chamber was there? Because Jeremy said he unloaded the gun, took off the magazine and made the gun safe.
Now it is your job to prove he wasn't lying.
But of course having said all that he could be lying in that he perhaps didn't leave a gun there at all? But there really is no proof either way? It's all very well counting bullets. But for all we know it may all have happened in an entirely different way altogether?
-
Scipio please keep up lad. IF you had been reading my posts with your good eye then you would have seen that I also queried the rabbit story and said that the story didn't sit well with me, why didn't he use a shotgun? You didn't need to repeat all that for my benefit.
By the way Vanesis was referring to the barrel of the gun when he said in his opinion he would have expected to have found more blood on the outside of the weapon rather than inside. It was I who suggested that if the silencer was attached then the same would obviously have applied to that as well?
He also said that he was informed that it was a suicide and that he found nothing to contradict that.
ps: It appears that I was wrong about the contact shots? I was "misinformed" just like you were aoncerning the telephone engineer. ;)
A scoped 22 (unless you are not a skilled shot) is superior to a shotgun because you can fire from further away. A shotgun is better for the obvious reaosn that the shot spreads and even if the rabbit starts to move you have a chance of hitting.
Either way that is a matter of choice moreso than anything else. Nevill had been using shotguns a long time and he thus most likely woudl prefer shotguns to the new rifle which Jeremy insisted had to be a semi-auto and to have a magazine that held a good number of rounds.
What is suspect is that he was not know to ever shoot rabbits and was against such. That makes it suspicious that he suddenly decided to do such. For the weapon to be found with the moderator and scope removed makes little sense and is suspicious. Claiming in September that he and Nevill used this gun multiple times each weekly and that the scope and moderator kept being removed made little sense especially in light of how little wear the gun had when Anthony used it. You scratch the area where the scope screws on if you keep taking it on and off and you have to rezero the rifle each time. There is simply no reaosn to remove them except close quarter shooting like the murders.
Those are the reasons you should be suspicious.
Being suspicious about simply a judgment call doesn't cut it and even if you are saying that since the gun had no scope he would have been better off with the shotgun which is true but still a judgment call. If you have evidence he did use a shotgun when shooting animals that would be different because habit evidence is vlaid and powerful but in this case the habit evidence suggests he would not have been shooting rabbits at all let alone at that hour of night that he managed to "hear" from the kitchen.
-
A scoped 22 (unless you are not a skilled shot) is superior to a shotgun because you can fire from further away. A shotgun is better for the obvious reaosn that the shot spreads and even if the rabbit starts to move you have a chance of hitting.
Either way that is a matter of choice moreso than anything else. Nevill had been using shotguns a long time and he thus most likely woudl prefer shotguns to the new rifle which Jeremy insisted had to be a semi-auto and to have a magazine that held a good number of rounds.
What is suspect is that he was not know to ever shoot rabbits and was against such. That makes it suspicious that he suddenly decided to do such. For the weapon to be found with the moderator and scope removed makes little sense and is suspicious. Claiming in September that he and Nevill used this gun multiple times each weekly and that the scope and moderator kept being removed made little sense especially in light of how little wear the gun had when Anthony used it. You scratch the area where the scope screws on if you keep taking it on and off and you have to rezero the rifle each time. There is simply no reaosn to remove them except close quarter shooting like the murders.
Those are the reasons you should be suspicious.
Being suspicious about simply a judgment call doesn't cut it and even if you are saying that since the gun had no scope he would have been better off with the shotgun which is true but still a judgment call. If you have evidence he did use a shotgun when shooting animals that would be different because habit evidence is vlaid and powerful but in this case the habit evidence suggests he would not have been shooting rabbits at all let alone at that hour of night that he managed to "hear" from the kitchen.
I must admit the story doesn't ring true to me? I can't see the point if shooting the rabbit in the evening either? I shouldn't think there was much damage they could do around the house anyway?
-
Oh I see. It was the cockeyed way you said it. But you still said there was one in the chamber and if there was one in the chamber that cocks up your theory that Sheila didn't know how to chamber a bullet. Answer: If there was already one in the chamber then she didn't need to.
But of course there was no bullet in the chamber was there? Because Jeremy said he unloaded the gun, took off the magazine and made the gun safe.
Now it is your job to prove he wasn't lying.
But of course having said all that he could be lying in that he perhaps didn't leave a gun there at all? But there really is no proof either way? It's all very well counting bullets. But for all we know it may all have happened in an entirely different way altogether?
1) There was no gun at all sitting in the kitchen for Sheila to find Jeremy clearly made that claim up and staged the 30 rounds to support it. Those 30 rounds are 5 too many thus proving they were staged. For them not to be staged requires the killer to have used 20 rounds from that pile and then gone to the closet to get 5 more which makes no sense. Sheila also would have to have gone to the closet to get the moderator and attach it, again making little sense if she just grabbed a weapon of opportunity in a rage.
2) If we pretend Jeremy's claims are true and that he left the gun out with no bullets in it and 10 in the magazine then that fails to explain how 11 could have been in the gun by simply loading the magazine.
If we pretend he was wrong and he left one in the chamber and simply removed the magazine that means 9 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber, still only 10 rounds total.
3) Each time a new magazine is loaded the first round from that magazine must be manually chambered. So even if we pretend Jeremy did leave the gun out as claimed but was wrong and did leave a round in the chamber that would only enable Sheila to fire the initial 10 round batch off. To fire additional magazines she still would have to know she needed to chamber a round and how.
4) A) the shots in the boys were closely grouped and it was determined they were fired in succession not a round in each and then the killer returned later to add more. So 5 were dumped in Daniel in succession and 3 in Nicholas in succession. It is not reasonable to believe the killer would kill 1 and then leave, reload and return to kill the other. The killer would have made sure to have had enough rounds to kill both in rapid succession so the other would not have time to wake up and run away. So the killer had at least 8 rounds in the gun in the twins' room and either ran out of bullets after killing both or had 1-3 bullets remaining. So after killing them there were 0-3 bullets remaining.
B) the shots into Sheila were fired seconds apart so the gun had at least 2 bullets in it when she was shot. If she killed herself the gun had only 2 when she was shot and then was empty. If she was not the killer then in theory the gun could have had up to 11 bullets, 2 used on her and then anywhere from 0 to 9 remaining to be used on others but if she was the last victim then it had zero left.
C) Nevill and June were shot together in the bedroom. Nevill was shot 4 times and June up to 7 times in this sitting. June was shot at minimum enough times that she was incapacitated and could not make it out of the room. Nevill was not incapacitated by those 4 shots and he managed to reach the kitchen. The gun was empty for Nevill to make it to the kitchen and for the struggle to occur. Had the gun not been empty upon the killer leaving the bedroom then the killer would have shot Nevill instead of beating him unconscious in order to shoot him. He was beaten unconscious and the gun was then reloaded with enough rounds to fire 4 into his head killing him.
D) The gun when found was empty, 25 bullets had been loaded into the gun and all 25 fired.
So those are the things we have to work with in assessing the order of the shots and trying to take into account the reloading issues and maximum capacity of the weapon.
I. Which bedroom did the shootings start in?
It is not conceivable that Jeremy would march Sheila into the bedroom and shoot her first with his parents looking on nor is it possible she could have shot herself at the outset. So the shootings would have to have either started by shooting the parents or the twins.
Why would Jeremy shoot the twins first and risk his parents waking up? His parents would be the greatest threat so he would shoot them first. If Sheila were raging she would likely also shoot her parents first but if either instead shot the twins first then what? Well depending on whether the gun had 11 or 10 rounds that would mean only 2 or 3 shots left to use on the parents before needing to reload. If the killer fired only 2-3 shots at the parents then the killer would not have been able to fire 4 rounds at Nevill before he could leave the bedroom let alone enought to shoot him 4 times and also enough to incapactiate June.
So that tells us the parents were definitely the ones shot first.
II. How did the first shooting go down?
The killer would have had either 10 or 11 rounds upon entering the master bedroom. The gun was empty when the shooting stopped. 11 rounds were fired into Nevill and June. That is strong evidence the gun had 11 rounds not 10. If it had 10 that means the killer only fired 6 into June. 2 different bullets would have rapidly killed June and if she was shot 6 times then 1 of those bullets was fired into her before the struggle in the kitchen.
III. Kitchen
The gun was empty in the kitchen at first hence the struggle. Upon knocking out Nevill the killer was able to load the gun with at least 4 rounds and fired them killing him. If the killer only loaded 4 roudns the killer definitely had to reload again. If the killer loaded more than 4 rounds the killer could choose to either reload the magazine in full, to take extra time to load an 11th round or to not reload at all and just go upstairs to kill the twins and Sheial with the rounds remaining after having killed Nevill which means 6 rounds max (or 7 if the killer actually bothered to load 11 rounds before killing Nevill though the killer would have been in a rush to kill him before he could wake up so highly unlikely)
IV. Going back upstairs after the kitchen murder
The most likely thing would be for the killer to reload a full magazine not go upstairs with only 6 or 7 rounds to kill 3-4 people. The killer needed to make sure June was dead, kill the twins and either murder Sheila or commit suicide. So the killer would want a full magazine not want to go up there with a partially loaded magazine.
If 11 rounds were in the gun at the outset then 10 subsequent shots were fired upstairs: 5 into Daniel, 3 into Nicholas and 2 into Sheila
Going upstairs with a full 10 round magazine would be sufficient to result in 10 shots being fired and the gun being empty.
Alternatively if 10 rounds were in the gun at the outset then 11 subsequent shots were fired upstairs: 1 into June, 5 into Daniel, 3 into Nicholas and 2 into Sheila
Going upstairs with a full 10 round magazine and one in the chamber (gun loaded ot capacity of 11 rounds total) would be sufficient to result in 11 shots being fired and the gun being empty.
Why would the killer shoot June a 7th time though if they walked in the room and found her dead as she would surely be at that point? It makes little sense so that cations against 11 shots being fired in the last batch but rather being firsed in the first batch. Also, one is much mor eliekly to load the gun to capacity the first time and from that point forward load the magazine to capacity not both to load an extra 11th round. The time it takes for the 11th round is not worth it when actively shooting you do it beforehand when time is not of the essence. Someone who took the effort in the kitchen to load 11 surely would also have done so before the outset. But that would mean there would still have been a bullet left in the gun so clearly that didn't happen either. So much more likely for a whole host of reasons is 11 loaded at the outset only.
Going upstairs with 6 or 7 rounds does not add up. Either 10 or 11 rounds were fired. If 1 were fired into June to finish her (which still makes no sense since she was already dead) that leaves 5 or 6 rounds left on the boys. Even going into the boys room with 7 and shooting June after them would not add up because 8 were fired at the boys. Here are all the possiiblities:
1) If 11 bullets were fired after the kitchen murder
A) If there were 6 bullets in the gun when going upstairs
i) 1 in June, 5 in Nicholas then have to reload 5 more rounds to kill Nicholas and Sheila
ii) 1 in June, 3 in Nicholas, 2 in Sheila then reload 5 more rounds to kill Daniel
iii) 1 in June, 5 left in the gun but load another 5 to kill Nicholas, Daniel and Sheila
B) If there were 7 bullets in the gun when going upstairs
i) 1 in June, 5 in Nicholas, 1 round still in gun but load 4 more rounds to kill Nicholas and Sheila
ii) 1 in June, 3 in Nicholas, 2 in Sheila, 1 round still in gun but load 4 more rounds to kill Daniel
iii) 1 in June, 5 left in the gun but load another 5 to kill Nicholas, Daniel and Sheila
2) If 10 bullets were fired after the kitchen murder
A) If there were 6 bullets in the gun when going upstairs
i) 5 in Nicholas, 1 bullet still in the gun but load 4 more rounds to kill Nicholas and Sheila
ii) 3 in Nicholas, 2 in Sheila, 1 round still in gun but load 4 more rounds to kill Daniel
B) If there were 7 bullets in the gun when going upstairs
i) 5 in Nicholas, 2 still left in gun but load 3 more rounds to kill Nicholas and Sheila
ii) 5 in Nicholas, 2 in Sheila then reload 3 more rounds to kill Daniel
iii) 3 in Nicholas, 2 in Sheila, 2 bullets still left in gun but load 3 more rounds to kill Daniel
It is rather obvious how it is wanting to say the killer had rounds still in the gun but went to get more bullets instead of emptying the gun or that the killer shot the twins in different batches reloading in between shooting 1 and then the other. After the kitchen episode the killer would have gone upstairs with a full magazine. If the killer went upstairs with a full magazine and used them all that tells us 10 shots were fired after the kitchen so 11 were fired before the kitchen.
That adds up to the gun having 11 at the outset.
If you want to try coming up with different suggestions be my guest to try explaining such but nothing else adds up.
-
Short memory again have we scipio, concerning your "mistakes"? Hint: the telephone engineer who said that one call was made from WHF that morning? You were "misled" I think you said? ::)
What part of "mislead about what" confused you?
What coudl I have been mislead about? My posts were accurate.
-
I must admit the story doesn't ring true to me? I can't see the point if shooting the rabbit in the evening either? I shouldn't think there was much damage they could do around the house anyway?
If one is a sadist known to jump at the chance to shoot any rabbit found anywhere or alternatively absolutely paranoid about rabbits and thus known to shoot any rabbit found anywhere then in that case it would sound more credible.
-
I must admit the story doesn't ring true to me? I can't see the point if shooting the rabbit in the evening either? I shouldn't think there was much damage they could do around the house anyway?
I agree. Even when I believed Bamber likely innocent the story of the loaded gun and the rabbits never felt true to me - it felt concocted and too perfect.
-
What part of "mislead about what" confused you?
What coudl I have been mislead about? My posts were accurate.
Well I'm only using your exact words mate. It was you who said that you hadn't lied about the engineer saying that there was one phone call made from WHF that morning. Caroline said that it was not possible for an engineer to tell if there was a call or not that morning and you said you were "misled" or maybe misinformed about it. Did you want me to try and turn the post up for you?
-
Hi Mat
I felt exactly the same as you over the rabbits and others incidents as well that made me start to change my position and the more I read the more convinced I have been wrong for 2 years about him.
-
Hi Mat
I felt exactly the same as you over the rabbits and others incidents as well that made me start to change my position and the more I read the more convinced I have been wrong for 2 years about him.
Hi Susan. The same happened with me, it was a really slow process but I began to realise a lot of what I had been led to believe about the case hadn't been true.
I think you're brave for saying so openly! :)
-
Hi Mat
I felt exactly the same as you over the rabbits and others incidents as well that made me start to change my position and the more I read the more convinced I have been wrong for 2 years about him.
Traitor! ;D
-
Give Susan her due,she's never been sure one way or the other. Something has been the deciding factor for her.
If I had an indecision,it would have to be the sweat over Jeremys' top lip,but alas,not a criminal offence,but something I'd go for all the same. It's a nervous thing.
-
Happy Birthday my friend ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Give Susan her due,she's never been sure one way or the other. Something has been the deciding factor for her.
If I had an indecision,it would have to be the sweat over Jeremys' top lip,but alas,not a criminal offence,but something I'd go for all the same. It's a nervous thing.
No I'm not sure either now. Yet there are still things that don't seem to fit?
-
Happy Birthday my friend ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thank you Susan. You are a bit far from the Commonwealth Games aren't you? I think Scotland are a great host.
-
Hi lookout I never noticed his sweat on his top lip I have of late discovered from others that he is not really a nice person and is a user of people and I think he puts on an act when he wants something and is the type that could act very smoothly these are not reasons I have changed my stance it is so many different things I have picked up on in my own quiet way that has made me feel he has to be involved somehow in the murders how I am not quite sure yet but will work on it. lookout we all have to follow our own views and feelings and you carry on as I know you believe him to be innocent and he is lucky to have a supporter as loyal as you :-*
-
Hi lookout I never noticed his sweat on his top lip I have of late discovered from others that he is not really a nice person and is a user of people and I think he puts on an act when he wants something and is the type that could act very smoothly these are not reasons I have changed my stance it is so many different things I have picked up on in my own quiet way that has made me feel he has to be involved somehow in the murders how I am not quite sure yet but will work on it. lookout we all have to follow our own views and feelings and you carry on as I know you believe him to be innocent and he is lucky to have a supporter as loyal as you :-*
Susan, I don't think any of us ever saw him as a clone of Aled Jones :D
-
well i dont know ive never heard him sing.
-
Susan, I don't think any of us ever saw him as a clone of Aled Jones :D
Oh gosh no,April. ;D I've called him fit to burn on here at times.
-
april who the heck is he ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
april who the heck is he ;D ;D ;D ;D
Songs of Praise presenter,Susan. He also sang The Snowman.
-
april who the heck is he ;D ;D ;D ;D
Sorry Susan, couldn't think of a suitable Scot ;D ;D ;D
-
lookout it just shows how "holy" we are up here in The Highlands sinners the lot of us ;D yippee
-
You worship the haggis up there. ;D ;D ;D ;D And Famous Grouse.
-
lookout not the grouse that runs through the heather ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ach no,the liquid gold type of grouse.
-
I must admit the story doesn't ring true to me? I can't see the point if shooting the rabbit in the evening either? I shouldn't think there was much damage they could do around the house anyway?
Farmers regard rabbits as vermin in the same way as rats. It is commonplace to shoot them as the opportunity arises. The evening and early morning arte the favourite times as that is when the rabbits tend to emerge from their burrows to feed.
-
Farmers regard rabbits as vermin in the same way as rats. It is commonplace to shoot them as the opportunity arises. The evening and early morning arte the favourite times as that is when the rabbits tend to emerge from their burrows to feed.
exactly.
-
Farmers regard rabbits as vermin in the same way as rats. It is commonplace to shoot them as the opportunity arises. The evening and early morning arte the favourite times as that is when the rabbits tend to emerge from their burrows to feed.
Would you shoot so close to the house, when children were in bed?
Also, Curiousessex seemed to think it would be pointless without the sound moderator attached?
-
Reading an anti-Bamber book even states that Jeremy preferred beating to shooting. In a way,that doesn't bode well with him leaving the kitchen with his rifle " because he heard rabbits ",does it ?. :)
-
Reading an anti-Bamber book even states that Jeremy preferred beating to shooting. In a way,that doesn't bode well with him leaving the kitchen with his rifle " because he heard rabbits ",does it ?. :)
I've never heard of anybody beating rabbits before? :o
-
I've never heard of anybody beating rabbits before? :o
Not the way they run,anyway. Now no breaking into song. ;D
-
Farmers regard rabbits as vermin in the same way as rats. It is commonplace to shoot them as the opportunity arises. The evening and early morning arte the favourite times as that is when the rabbits tend to emerge from their burrows to feed.
Yes I've seen them myself. Commonplace when you live in the countryside as you know yourself. But I wasn't away that there was anything to eat in the farm yard? The like to get into the grass in the fields. I would have thought if Bamber went out with a loaded gun that evening he wouldn't have just half heartedly looked around and then given up. Especially as he had spent all that time loading up the gun. Also how many times have you actually "heard" rabbits? Farmers "look" for them. Rats I can understand, you get them in and around farmyards all the time. How did Jeremy think he heard rabbits in particular? It may even have been a fox? If it was then surely a shotgun would have been a far more appropriate weapon to take out?
-
Would you shoot so close to the house, when children were in bed?
Also, Curiousessex seemed to think it would be pointless without the sound moderator attached?
If you were pointing it away from the house , yes.
And perhaps because he did not have the moderator on that is why he did not shoot them? Cant remember now whether they had gone by the time he got outside anyway.
Considering the guns that did appear to be round the house you could say the same about Neville . they did not seem to be 100% gun safe did they.
But as said before I don't think that was uncommon in the 80s
-
Yes I've seen them myself. Commonplace when you live in the countryside as you know yourself. But I wasn't away that there was anything to eat in the farm yard? The like to get into the grass in the fields. I would have thought if Bamber went out with a loaded gun that evening he wouldn't have just half heartedly looked around and then given up. Especially as he had spent all that time loading up the gun. Also how many times have you actually "heard" rabbits? Farmers "look" for them. Rats I can understand, you get them in and around farmyards all the time. How did Jeremy think he heard rabbits in particular? It may even have been a fox? If it was then surely a shotgun would have been a far more appropriate weapon to take out?
Sometimes he said he saw rabbits other times he claimed he heard rabbits. That discrepancy alone is suspicious. Why would you ever claim to have heard them you would always says you saw them if that were what happened.
Nevill was known to use a .410 shotgun on rabbits, Jeremy wan't known to shoot animals at all. I don't think he cared about the farm enough to kill vermin in order to protect it. The only thing I think he would protect is his pot plants. So that is yet another problem I have with the story. The staged bullets are perhaps the biggest problem though. The crafyt Jeremy never managed to think up a lie for that one, not even to this day!
There are only 2 possiiblities to that one:
1) Jeremy lied, used a different ammunition source and then staged the 30 bullets after the murders
2) The killer used 20 rounds from that batch thus 30 remained and used 5 rounds from another ammunition source.
I can't see Sheila going to the closet and getting 5 extra bullets either before or during the course of the murders, it doesn't make any sense. So option 1 looks to be the truth. If he staged the bullets after the murders he had ot be the killer. If he staged them at all why should we believe the tale about the rabbits since this in part and parcel of it?
It is like dominoes when one falls you have a problem.
-
Sometimes he said he saw rabbits other times he claimed he heard rabbits. That discrepancy alone is suspicious. Why would you ever claim to have heard them you would always says you saw them if that were what happened.
Nevill was known to use a .410 shotgun on rabbits, Jeremy wan't known to shoot animals at all. I don't think he cared about the farm enough to kill vermin in order to protect it. The only thing I think he would protect is his pot plants. So that is yet another problem I have with the story. The staged bullets are perhaps the biggest problem though. The crafyt Jeremy never managed to think up a lie for that one, not even to this day!
There are only 2 possiiblities to that one:
1) Jeremy lied, used a different ammunition source and then staged the 30 bullets after the murders
2) The killer used 20 rounds from that batch thus 30 remained and used 5 rounds from another ammunition source.
I can't see Sheila going to the closet and getting 5 extra bullets either before or during the course of the murders, it doesn't make any sense. So option 1 looks to be the truth. If he staged the bullets after the murders he had ot be the killer. If he staged them at all why should we believe the tale about the rabbits since this in part and parcel of it?
It is like dominoes when one falls you have a problem.
Why is seeing/hearing rabbits such a problem? As Jeremy was surrounded by them on a daily basis, as are all farmers, I can only think it was a slip of the tongue because it's almost too stupid to be otherwise. Do rabbits bark? Do they sing like birds or miaow like cats? How in God's name can one HEAR rabbits........................unless they wear hobnail boots around WHF? I find it hard to believe that someon e bought up with the little blighters would make such an error.
-
Why is seeing/hearing rabbits such a problem? As Jeremy was surrounded by them on a daily basis, as are all farmers, I can only think it was a slip of the tongue because it's almost too stupid to be otherwise. Do rabbits bark? Do they sing like birds or miaow like cats? How in God's name can one HEAR rabbits........................unless they wear hobnail boots around WHF? I find it hard to believe that someon e bought up with the little blighters would make such an error.
Rabbits chatter, whine and actually cry. I heard one crying when a cat was killing it. But mostly the noise they make is from moving through brush. You hear sticks and the laaves ruffling. To say he could hear them from the distance is rather ridiculous and to sometimes say hear and sometimes see suggests he was making it up. But many other aspects also suggest such.
-
Rabbits chatter, whine and actually cry. I heard one crying when a cat was killing it. But mostly the noise they make is from moving through brush. You hear sticks and the laaves ruffling. To say he could hear them from the distance is rather ridiculous and to sometimes say hear and sometimes see suggests he was making it up. But many other aspects also suggest such.
You heard one cry while a cat was killing it? Didn't you try and stop the cat from killing it?
-
Reading an anti-Bamber book even states that Jeremy preferred beating to shooting. In a way,that doesn't bode well with him leaving the kitchen with his rifle " because he heard rabbits ",does it ?. :)
I know what you mean by beating Lookout. Only a Country bumpkin familiar with shoots will know what this is..... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I know what you mean by beating Lookout. Only a Country bumpkin familiar with shoots will know what this is..... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
It's almost time for a beating - just a few weeks ;D
-
You heard one cry while a cat was killing it? Didn't you try and stop the cat from killing it?
By the time I found out what was making the noise it was headless and the cat was strutting around like Rocky after he beat a tough opponent. It was small too it must have been cute. Cat people seem to love to let their cats go out to kill things instead of keeping them in the house like they should.
I have woods behind my house there are always animals making noise. The raccoons and skunks growl ferociously and I'd like to kill the screaming foxes. I grew up in NY I had no idea WHF the fox screaming was for quite a while. Late at night they sound like they are been killed. The song what does the fox day is totally wrong they are annoying SOBs.
Last night I was walking the dog in the yard and something was in a tree growling at me. I got a flashlight to see what it was after putting the dog back. The tree was not that thick but somehow a fat tubb of lard Racoon had climbed it without the tree brekaing and wanted me to go away so it could go back to eating whatever my wife dumped in the woods for the animals.
Some fights a night are very fercious but I don't know what animals are fighting because the brush is dense. We even have had a couple of bears in my town over the years though luckily not in this batch of woods. This summer there has been some clicking animal making sounds all night. I have not been able to figure out what it is. If you go check on every noise you will be very busy.
-
By the time I found out what was making the noise it was headless and the cat was strutting around like Rocky after he beat a tough opponent. It was small too it must have been cute. Cat people seem to love to let their cats go out to kill things instead of keeping them in the house like they should.
I have woods behind my house there are always animals making noise. The raccoons and skunks growl ferociously and I'd like to kill the screaming foxes. I grew up in NY I had no idea WHF the fox screaming was for quite a while. Late at night they sound like they are been killed. The song what does the fox day is totally wrong they are annoying SOBs.
Last night I was walking the dog in the yard and something was in a tree growling at me. I got a flashlight to see what it was after putting the dog back. The tree was not that thick but somehow a fat tubb of lard Racoon had climbed it without the tree brekaing and wanted me to go away so it could go back to eating whatever my wife dumped in the woods for the animals.
Some fights a night are very fercious but I don't know what animals are fighting because the brush is dense. We even have had a couple of bears in my town over the years though luckily not in this batch of woods. This summer there has been some clicking animal making sounds all night. I have not been able to figure out what it is. If you go check on every noise you will be very busy.
There are quite a few people with cats here and you're right, they're always on the prowl. We have a lot of wild ducks near the river and they have just had little ones. They come into the garden regularly because a neighbour puts out food for them. Just the other day I stopped a cat from picking off a straggler after the dog spotted the it hiding under my partners car waiting to pounce.
I also live in the countryside but the wildlife is a bit more tame. Lots of rabbits and hedgehogs - there must also be lots of foxes but I've never seen one here. Not sure how I'd feel if I heard something up a tree growling at me but I don't think I'd wait to find out what it was.
-
I just think that Jeremy used his departure with the rifle as an excuse that evening,especially if he couldn't get a word in edgeways because of the on-going discussion that was taking place. Rather than butt in,this is what he'd have done while trying to make his exit home. All he could do was hover until there was a break in conversation rather than interrupt,which he'd have been brought up not to do.
-
Scipio "cat people" as you refer to them take no pleasure from cats killing but are not able to stop it at times. Now the toffs who hunt with hounds who tear a fox to pieces when they outrun it is consider a "sport". Maybe they should take up a more humane sport.
-
I just think that Jeremy used his departure with the rifle as an excuse that evening,especially if he couldn't get a word in edgeways because of the on-going discussion that was taking place. Rather than butt in,this is what he'd have done while trying to make his exit home. All he could do was hover until there was a break in conversation rather than interrupt,which he'd have been brought up not to do.
I agree with that - I don't think he wanted to get in a discussion that was probably uncomfortable. And to be honest probably did not involve him that much anyway. We forget he was only 24 and probably not that interested in arguments between his mother and his sister.
-
I agree with that - I don't think he wanted to get in a discussion that was probably uncomfortable. And to be honest probably did not involve him that much anyway. We forget he was only 24 and probably not that interested in arguments between his mother and his sister.
Jeremy just heard snippets of the conversation that night. Firstly about finding foster care for the children 9 which RWB vehemently denied it was ever mentioned,and everyone believed him " ) Then the last words that Jeremy had heard were from Sheila saying " Oh no,I just want to stay in London ",,which is when he left to go home,but took little notice.
This was a snippet of an interview by an author to Jeremy.
-
By the time I found out what was making the noise it was headless and the cat was strutting around like Rocky after he beat a tough opponent. It was small too it must have been cute. Cat people seem to love to let their cats go out to kill things instead of keeping them in the house like they should.
I have woods behind my house there are always animals making noise. The raccoons and skunks growl ferociously and I'd like to kill the screaming foxes. I grew up in NY I had no idea WHF the fox screaming was for quite a while. Late at night they sound like they are been killed. The song what does the fox day is totally wrong they are annoying SOBs.
Last night I was walking the dog in the yard and something was in a tree growling at me. I got a flashlight to see what it was after putting the dog back. The tree was not that thick but somehow a fat tubb of lard Racoon had climbed it without the tree brekaing and wanted me to go away so it could go back to eating whatever my wife dumped in the woods for the animals.
Some fights a night are very fercious but I don't know what animals are fighting because the brush is dense. We even have had a couple of bears in my town over the years though luckily not in this batch of woods. This summer there has been some clicking animal making sounds all night. I have not been able to figure out what it is. If you go check on every noise you will be very busy.
My cat brought a mouse home, still alive it was. I made him drop it and it ran off into the house. :( There I was on an evening watching television and this mouse was peeping out from behind the fire surround and I could swear it was grinning at me. ???
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D It probably was.
-
I agree with that - I don't think he wanted to get in a discussion that was probably uncomfortable. And to be honest probably did not involve him that much anyway. We forget he was only 24 and probably not that interested in arguments between his mother and his sister.
He could have said that in police interviews, but he just said he went outside to shoot rabbits.
-
He could have said that in police interviews, but he just said he went outside to shoot rabbits.
If it wasn't true and he'd been planning this for a year you'd think he would make up a more convincing scenario wouldn't you?
-
Of course. No answers he gave came across as rehearsed
-
If it wasn't true and he'd been planning this for a year you'd think he would make up a more convincing scenario wouldn't you?
If he wanted to give a plausible story about why he left the fully loaded rifle not locked up, what could he come up with other than this rabbit story?
He shouldn´t have said anything.
-
If he wanted to give a plausible story about why he left the fully loaded rifle not locked up, what could he come up with other than this rabbit story?
He shouldn´t have said anything.
If he did it then why mention the gun at all? It seems that everyone has used whatever he says anyway?
-
If he did it then why mention the gun at all? It seems that everyone has used whatever he says anyway?
Yes, whatever he says or does. Even being kind, driving people here and there is turned into something sinister. Helping move Julie´s furniture was sinister, giving her a birthday present was sinister. Sending a birthday card and flowers to Ann Eaton was sinister. Eating was sinister (how dared he?!)
It never ends.
-
Congrats Alias btw. :)
-
If he did it then why mention the gun at all? It seems that everyone has used whatever he says anyway?
The rabbit story served 2 purposes initially:
1) to frame Sheila by saying there was a gun, loade d magazine and ammunition supply all at hand so that in the middle of a rage she could just grab it and use it because going to seek out same from the closet would not be consistent with a crazy rage but rather planning and premedicaiton.
2) so that if any of his prints were on the shell casings or gun there would be an innocent reason for that to be the case.
He initially told police he had taught Sheila how to use the murder weapon he had told them he gave her instructions and she had used it and all the other weapons.
By the time of his statements he abandoned these claims (either because he forgot what he told them or after hearing the relatives say that she never touched guns he decided at that point not to have them contradict him) . So he used the rabbit story at that point to say she saw him load the magazine and would know how to do it.
He didn't think about the family, Julie or farm workers telling police he didn't shoot rabbits. He failed to predict that and thus hadn't made up something better like planning to go target shooting but instead going back out to do more work and then going home and forgetting about it.
-
Congrats Alias btw. :)
Thanks mat, but it is not a big deal - I am not going to monitor other members!
-
Yes, whatever he says or does. Even being kind, driving people here and there is turned into something sinister. Helping move Julie´s furniture was sinister, giving her a birthday present was sinister. Sending a birthday card and flowers to Ann Eaton was sinister. Eating was sinister (how dared he?!)
It never ends.
but what ever weird behavior by other people is just explained away.
-
but what ever weird behavior by other people is just explained away.
Especially Julie´s crimes - by some, I should add.