Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on July 26, 2014, 09:10:AM
-
The color of menstrual blood
There could be a wide range of normal menstruation blood color. Usually, it
is bright or light red in color, looking like the bleeding from a cut
finger especially at the onset of menstruation
-
The color of menstrual blood
There could be a wide range of normal menstruation blood color. Usually, it
is bright or light red in color, looking like the bleeding from a cut
finger especially at the onset of menstruation
I also doubt it would smell if it had been soaking in a bucket.
Anne said she had been wearing a dress in the day and unless these clothes appear in any police report I guess we only have her word for what state the tracksuit bottoms were in . But I am guessing the police did know about them because did they not ask Jeremy if he had grey track suit bottoms that he had left at the farm. So that would have been a bit of a co-incidence if they were not aware of them being in the bucket.
-
Is there verification, other than Ann's, of the items in the buckets? I just find it HUGELY strange that, in 1985, ANY soiled items were soaked in buckets, especially when there were sinks available, although I recognize it was a method favoured by mothers to soak toweling nappies.
-
Is there verification, other than Ann's, of the items in the buckets? I just find it HUGELY strange that, in 1985, ANY soiled items were soaked in buckets, especially when there were sinks available, although I recognize it was a method favoured by mothers to soak toweling nappies.
The sink in the utility area (next to the back door) is used for people Washing their hands after coming in off the farm, maybe that was also the case back then.
Would you soak things in the main kitchen sink? I have to admit, it's not a subject I know much about. :-[
-
I rather feel that they were items which were used to mop up excess blood from the surrounding areas ( but by whom ?),as the scene was first described as being sheer savagery.
-
The sink in the utility area (next to the back door) is used for people Washing their hands after coming in off the farm, maybe that was also the case back then.
Would you soak things in the main kitchen sink? I have to admit, it's not a subject I know much about. :-[
There is another sink in the back kitchen/store.
-
There is another sink in the back kitchen/store.
I would probably hold any freshly soiled item under cold running water then put them straight into the washing machine. Are you saying that there were three available sinks?
-
I would probably hold any freshly soiled item under cold running water then put them straight into the washing machine. Are you saying that there were three available sinks?
Yeah, there is one near the back door, one in the kitchen (where Nevill was found), one in the back kitchen (I think they used to call it the dairy) and then there is also a small wash hand basin in the downstairs toilet (where Pargeters shotguns lived).
-
Yeah, there is one near the back door, one in the kitchen (where Nevill was found), one in the back kitchen (I think they used to call it the dairy) and then there is also a small wash hand basin in the downstairs toilet (where Pargeters shotguns lived).
Which makes it even MORE surprising that the outdated method of bucket-soaking soiled items was used........................unless, of course the buckets were simply a means of transporting the contents from A to B. We all -including Scipio who demands evidence for everything- have accepted what we've been TOLD those buckets contained, but did anyone check the contents? If not, we only have one person's word for it.
-
Which makes it even MORE surprising that the outdated method of bucket-soaking soiled items was used........................unless, of course the buckets were simply a means of transporting the contents from A to B. We all -including Scipio who demands evidence for everything- have accepted what we've been TOLD those buckets contained, but did anyone check the contents? If not, we only have one person's word for it.
Where were the buckets found? I forget, in the main kicked on in the utility area near the back door?
Soaking in buckets stops the sink from being out of action I suppose. :-\
I don't know, I understand what you are getting at though.
-
Well if all that was in the buckets were Sheilas' drawers,then she must have had a haemorrhage !?
-
Where were the buckets found? I forget, in the main kicked on in the utility area near the back door?
Soaking in buckets stops the sink from being out of action I suppose. :-\
I don't know, I understand what you are getting at though.
Thanks for that, Harters. Please understand that this isn't directed at you -how could you know- but it's this kind of laissez faire attitude, from those who were supposed to be in control, which makes me SO angry. It seems that Ann may have been given carte blanche to take away, without restriction or even check, whatever she wanted, and her word for it was accepted. What, IMO, makes her explanation worse, is that it was virtually unchallengeable in that who would be likely to challenge a menstrual accident OR ask for proof of it? OK, so Sheila WAS menstruating but if she hadn't been it could simply have been said that she'd finished and the items had been in soak from the previous day. There was no one who could challenge it other than Jeremy and why would he even notice a bucket amid the general untidiness of the general kitchen area?
-
How could Ann say with confidence she knew the difference between normal blood and menstruating blood?
-
That's just it,Jackie-------she couldn't. Why weren't these busybodies reprimanded for obstruction ?
Thing is,because the police didn't come under fire for destroying vital evidence ( a cause for a MOJ ) they weren't bothered.
-
How could Ann say with confidence she knew the difference between normal blood and menstruating blood?
I don't think she could - but if she looked at the clothes and the blood was in a certain area and together with the tampon box - then it is perfectly possible it is true . - in those days there was probably /maybe an old twin tub and if they were left in the "back kitchen" in cold water before washing the next day it could all be quite logical. However I am surprised that Sheila left things like the tampon box around - its not the sort of thing you would do in your parents house.
However I agree the police should have checked more carefully because we only have her word for that.
Also can anyone remember seeing Sheilas dress in any of the pictures ? Anne says she took the dress she was wearing that day and kept it. Was it lying on the bed , hanging up? And how did she specifically know it was the dress she was wearing that day? Just wondering really as if say it was in the bathroom and Sheila had a shower before getting changed into her nightie - it would sort of give us a bit more of a picture about the sequence of events .
-
Is there verification, other than Ann's, of the items in the buckets? I just find it HUGELY strange that, in 1985, ANY soiled items were soaked in buckets, especially when there were sinks available, although I recognize it was a method favoured by mothers to soak toweling nappies.
why did she bother soaking them at all. why dident she just throw them away i mean its not like anyone was going to wear those clothes agian.
-
How could Ann say with confidence she knew the difference between normal blood and menstruating blood?
Because she said it smelled different. However, having soaked for several days, I very much doubt that there would be any smell.
-
Hello jansus
it is said on the forum that AE said the smell was different between the two ??? Sorry Caroline had not got to your post :'(
-
Blood is blood and the smell would be of a metallic nature because of the iron.
-
Thanks for that, Harters. Please understand that this isn't directed at you -how could you know- but it's this kind of laissez faire attitude, from those who were supposed to be in control, which makes me SO angry. It seems that Ann may have been given carte blanche to take away, without restriction or even check, whatever she wanted, and her word for it was accepted. What, IMO, makes her explanation worse, is that it was virtually unchallengeable in that who would be likely to challenge a menstrual accident OR ask for proof of it? OK, so Sheila WAS menstruating but if she hadn't been it could simply have been said that she'd finished and the items had been in soak from the previous day. There was no one who could challenge it other than Jeremy and why would he even notice a bucket amid the general untidiness of the general kitchen area?
I think because the house had been handed over and was no longer a crime scene, they were simply clearing up, it's not that the relatives were allowed or not allowed to take things away, they were just doing what was expected and asked of them.
I think the buckets were in the utility area. Going on from my theory regarding order of shots if you have read it (which I am now absolutely convinced about, more than anything else), I think the sound moderator was returned to the gun cupboard, the back door key left in the lock, the office door at the top of the stairs locked and chairs put against the kitchen door, all gave the impression that nothing in that area of the house was associated with the murders, so the police didn't give much more than a cursory observation in that area.
Whilst I obviously don't know (I wasn't there), I suspect it is all as described by Ann and is of little or no evidential value as far as the murders are concerned.
I'm not sure I can relate to your anger, but that probably just makes me a psychopath. :-\
-
I think because the house had been handed over and was no longer a crime scene, they were simply clearing up, it's not that the relatives were allowed or not allowed to take things away, they were just doing what was expected and asked of them.
I think the buckets were in the utility area. Going on from my theory regarding order of shots if you have read it (which I am now absolutely convinced about, more than anything else), I think the sound moderator was returned to the gun cupboard, the back door key left in the lock, the office door at the top of the stairs locked and chairs put against the kitchen door, all gave the impression that nothing in that area of the house was associated with the murders, so the police didn't give much more than a cursory observation in that area.
Whilst I obviously don't know (I wasn't there), I suspect it is all as described by Ann and is of little or no evidential value as far as the murders are concerned.
I'm not sure I can relate to your anger, but that probably just makes me a psychopath. :-\
I'd say there was a strong possibility ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello jansus
it is said on the forum that AE said the smell was different between the two ??? Sorry Caroline had not got to your post :'(
1) I don't think it would smell if had been soaking
2) if it was just in the obvious place there would be no need to smell it so that sounds like a very odd comment to me.
-
This issue is on of those which demonstrates the desperation and absurdity of Jeremy supporters.
1) Water sitting in a buck for days stinks let alone contmainated water
2) Stained clothes are soaked in a bucket before washing to try to keep the stain from setting
3) How many soak clothes in a sink and thus prevent the sink from being used for any other purpose as opposed to selecting a bucket?
4) What other explanation is there for sizable blood stains in the crotch area of female panties and leggings than menstraul blood where no women were wounded in any manner that could result in stuck stains int he crotch areas of their clothing? Particularly when 1 was menstruating and found with a tampon in her?
To anyone who is reasonably intelligent and objective the clothing is menstrual stained and of no relevance to the murders.
But some desperate, unreasonable Jeremy supporters insist this is proof that Sheila changed and washed her clothes after committing the murders.
They assert she did the ASS backwards thing of preserving tampons by not using one and wearing 2 pairs of panties and leggings to bed instead of a nightdress. She menstruated in them, killed everyone then washed, changed, soaked the stained clothing in buckets, inserted a tampon and put on a nightdress to kill herself.
So to go to sleep with the intention of waking up in the morning and carrying on her life as normal she wears regular clothes with no tampon knowing they will get bloodstained. But after deciding to kill herself she washes, inserts a tampon, soaks her stained clothes knowing she won't need them, and puts on a nightdress.
Aside from being so obvious that this fairytale is not being driven by evidence but rather being crafted to try to get around the evidence and the sheer stupidiy of these claims it still fails to achieve the intended objective. The key clothing of the killer would be the clothing covering the top half. That would have GSR and the most blood spatter fromt he victims. No such clothing was found nor any gloves though the killer clearly used gloves.
This mestrual stained clothing BS is a red herring to try to get peopel to forget about the nonexistent GSR/ blood spatter stained clothing and for some a fable of why she would get up. In fact one of my favorate fables from a Jeremy Supporter was one claiming his proves she w oke up, saw the blood in her pants and this made her go crazy and decide to kill everyone.
When someone dares to point out how much of a leap all these claims are then some of Jeremy's women come rushing in claiming a man can't address this and women know better and even spouting bogus religious claims of how Sheila would need to hide that she was on her period from June.
All this nonsense does is make clear how far Jeremy supporters will stretch things to try to find a way to pretend there is evidence to support his innocence.
-
it has great relavence to the murders there was no reason for ann Eaton to wash those clothes in the first place.
-
Negative words about other members in ONE of scipio´s posts:
desperation
absurdity
reasonably intelligent (implying JB "supporters" are NOT)
desperate
unreasonable
stupidiy
spouting bogus religious claims
nonsense
Such a nice person..... NOT! Can´t you just say what you want to say without being such a potty mouth? It is quite an unpleasant read, and one can´t help feeling disgusted by you. >:(
-
it has great relavence to the murders there was no reason for ann Eaton to wash those clothes in the first place.
Explain the relevance. Not one intelligent perosn has managed to come up with any tie to the murders only people with absurd ideas trying to pretend there was a tie.
-
Negative words about other members in ONE of scipio´s posts:
desperation
absurdity
reasonably intelligent (implying JB "supporters" are NOT)
desperate
unreasonable
stupidiy
spouting bogus religious claims
nonsense
Such a nice person..... NOT! Can´t you just say what you want to say without being such a potty mouth? It is quite an unpleasant read, and one can´t help feeling disgusted by you. >:(
sighn of despration.
-
Explain the relevance. Not one intelligent perosn has managed to come up with any tie to the murders only people with absurd ideas trying to pretend there was a tie.
well don't you think its a bit weird to wash a dead persons clothes.
what possble reason would there be to do somthing like that.
-
More of a sign of pig ignorance !
-
well don't you think its a bit weird to wash a dead persons clothes.
what possble reason would there be to do somthing like that.
Her job was to help clean out the place. No one else wanted to take care of the bloody panties so even though she said no way at first she was forced to do so.
All she did was rinse them out to empty the water from the buckets and then threw them in the garbage bin. The bin by the dishwaster was a garbage bin. She didn't put them in the washing machine and wash them she simply rinsed them out because they were wet, dumped out the water and threw them away.
-
Her job was to help clean out the place. No one else wanted to take care of the bloody panties so even though she said no way at first she was forced to do so.
All she did was rinse them out to empty the water from the buckets and then threw them in the garbage bin. The bin by the dishwaster was a garbage bin. She didn't put them in the washing machine and wash them she simply rinsed them out because they were wet, dumped out the water and threw them away.
why was them at all they were not going to be worn agian.
-
I have just read her 1991 statement -it says the two buckets had clothes soaking then she washed them out and left them in a bin. And yet I thought she took them away?.
But the most strange bit is she , in 1991, still had sheilas dress in her linen basket , unwashed.
Why? If she thought it was relevant then surely she should have handed it to the police?
If not , why keep it , unwashed in your linen basket for all those years?
-
Alias Ditto x
-
i could swear in one staement she said she did take them away.
-
why was them at all they were not going to be worn agian.
They were wet because they were in a bucket. She squeezed the water out of them and then threw them in the trash. Do you throw water in your trash? Most people don't put liquids int heir trash but rather try to dry out things instead.
-
I have just read her 1991 statement -it says the two buckets had clothes soaking then she washed them out and left them in a bin. And yet I thought she took them away?.
But the most strange bit is she , in 1991, still had sheilas dress in her linen basket , unwashed.
Why? If she thought it was relevant then surely she should have handed it to the police?
If not , why keep it , unwashed in your linen basket for all those years?
The police didn´t want it - she tried to convince them to forensically test the dress, but they refused. I don´t know why she wanted them to test the dress, and I don´t know why she didn´t think the clothes in the buckets were of interest when she so obviously for some reason thought the dress was.
I don´t know what went on in Ann´s head!
-
I have just read her 1991 statement -it says the two buckets had clothes soaking then she washed them out and left them in a bin. And yet I thought she took them away?.
But the most strange bit is she , in 1991, still had sheilas dress in her linen basket , unwashed.
Why? If she thought it was relevant then surely she should have handed it to the police?
If not , why keep it , unwashed in your linen basket for all those years?
She threw the clothing from the buckets away.
She kept the clothing that was in the bedrooms which she thought might harbor evidence of some kind and retained it in case police ever wanted it but police left it because such clothes were of no value to the case and no one asked for them- not the defense or the prosecution to test because there was nothing the clothing could offer. Both sides knew she kept such clothing but saw no use for them.
-
The police didn´t want it - she tried to convince them to forensically test the dress, but they refused. I don´t know why she wanted them to test the dress, and I don´t know why she didn´t think the clothes in the buckets were of interest when she so obviously for some reason thought the dress was.
I don´t know what went on in Ann´s head!
Maybe she wanted them to test it to prove there was no GSR on it. Aisde from proving a negative that was already known since it would have been stained in blood had she worn it, it offers no value.
She was right about the panties and leggings having no value but wrong about the clothing from the bedrooms having potential value.
-
Do you know all this time I thought the track suit bottoms were adults - now I have re-read it it says childrens clothes were in the other bucket . And in court testimony it says she washed them out and then threw them away.
So to me that does explain it all a bit more.
-
The police didn´t want it - she tried to convince them to forensically test the dress, but they refused. I don´t know why she wanted them to test the dress, and I don´t know why she didn´t think the clothes in the buckets were of interest when she so obviously for some reason thought the dress was.
I don´t know what went on in Ann´s head!
thanks for that info .
I could not find any mention of the dress previous to 1991 - but her statements are very long.
-
Maybe she wanted them to test it to prove there was no GSR on it. Aisde from proving a negative that was already known since it would have been stained in blood had she worn it, it offers no value.
She was right about the panties and leggings having no value but wrong about the clothing from the bedrooms having potential value.
You forgot to throw in an insult.
-
how many people could wash there dead relatives clothes its rather strange.
i dont think i could bear to do that.
imean if there going in the bin anyway whats the point in washing them.
-
They were wet because they were in a bucket. She squeezed the water out of them and then threw them in the trash. Do you throw water in your trash? Most people don't put liquids int heir trash but rather try to dry out things instead.
she said she "washed" them and then threw them out .
And yes it is relevant if posters were insinuating the "blood" could have "contaminated other evidence.
I was under the impression she had taken those clothes away with her as well .
And if we want to discuss this matter that's our business .
No skin off your nose as we like to say.
So as my father used to say . If you cant say something nice , then DONT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL!
-
Do you know all this time I thought the track suit bottoms were adults - now I have re-read it it says childrens clothes were in the other bucket . And in court testimony it says she washed them out and then threw them away.
So to me that does explain it all a bit more.
Can you link to that?
-
Do you know all this time I thought the track suit bottoms were adults - now I have re-read it it says childrens clothes were in the other bucket . And in court testimony it says she washed them out and then threw them away.
So to me that does explain it all a bit more.
They could still have been used to mop up surplus blood regardless of whose clothes they were.
-
i dont know about the rest of you but ive never washed anything and then thrown it in the bin.
-
here it is
-
i dont know about the rest of you but ive never washed anything and then thrown it in the bin.
nope me neither .
I have never kept any thing in my linen basket for 6 years either.
-
Me neither.Don't see the point if it's no good to start with.
If it was bloodied water,why put childrens clothes in it ?
-
i mean surely you only wash somthing if you planing to keep it or give it to to somone else.
-
Thank you for that, jansus.
-
is it possble the blood on the silencer could be Menstrual blood.
-
is it possble the blood on the silencer could be Menstrual blood.
How?
How would menstrual blood get on it?
The blood inside is what matters anyway and that could not have been menstrual blood.
-
Me neither.Don't see the point if it's no good to start with.
If it was bloodied water,why put childrens clothes in it ?
yes thats pretty strange as well i mean thats hardly likely to get them clean.
-
Me neither.Don't see the point if it's no good to start with.
If it was bloodied water,why put childrens clothes in it ?
Was the water possibly only bloodied in one of the buckets? I don´t know, but that would make sense.
-
Me neither.Don't see the point if it's no good to start with.
If it was bloodied water,why put childrens clothes in it ?
This goes back to an argument I had in the past over this issue with supporters. Her September 1985 statement references only bloody panties.
Her 1991 statement references panties and track suit bottoms but doesn't specify anything beyond the panties were bloody. I said how do you know the others were bloody and never got a satisfactory answer but didn't care because tracksuit bottoms with a bloody crotch is meaningless even if true.
The testimony is what makes clear the other clothes were children's clothes and simply dirty not bloody. So all the wild tales about Sheila wearing the leggings goes out the window.
Interesting how the testimony about the clothes being thrown out was not posted:
(http://s29.postimg.org/ghvonmhuf/annt.jpg)
I never saw her testimony before I knew she threw the clothes out because of her 1991 statement:
(http://s23.postimg.org/py7hlgj4r/ann1.jpg)
(http://s29.postimg.org/xbsnxytef/ann2.jpg)
(http://s16.postimg.org/eu14shi3p/ann3.jpg)
Note the first passage makes clear the bin in question near the dish washer is a rubbish bin.
Note also that when Ann was thoroughly cross examined the defense did not ask her a thing about the bloody panties or dirty kid's clothing. That shows you how insignifcant such are.
-
They were wet because they were in a bucket. She squeezed the water out of them and then threw them in the trash. Do you throw water in your trash? Most people don't put liquids int heir trash but rather try to dry out things instead.
Actually, that's not true, she didn't just rinse them to throw away. She asked RWB what she should do with them and he said throw them away. Later, she took the bin that contained the knickers back to Oak farm.
-
why would they want the bin.
-
why would they want the bin.
Ann probably went through the contents minutely - she was nicknamed "miss Marple" by the Essex Police.
-
i mean surely you only wash somthing if you planing to keep it or give it to to somone else.
They just rinsed it out, they didn't know what was in the buckets. It's as simple as that.
-
Ann probably went through the contents minutely - she was nicknamed "miss Marple" by the Essex Police.
but what possble incrimating evedence did they think they could get from the clothes.
-
Actually, that's not true, she didn't just rinse them to throw away. She asked RWB what she should do with them and he said throw them away. Later, she took the bin that contained the knickers back to Oak farm.
And the testimony makes clear that rubbish bin was not saved because she stated they no longer existed at the time of the trial.
Panties with dried blood stains- even wet panties will not tranfer blood to a moderator let alone inside and certianly not enough to result in a flake of blood drying in tbweteen the 1st and 2nd baffles and a siazble quantiy of blood drying on the first 8 baffles with the amount of blood decreasing as the baffles are further from the opening. At any rate the moderator was not inside that rubbish bin
That is why the defense did not bother asking any questions about these panties.
-
in her original statement ( sheet 45) she just says there were three buckets with clothes soaking.
she locked up and went home.
No mention of touching them at all.
-
but what possble incrimating evedence did they think they could get from the clothes.
Who is they?
Ann decided all on her own to save the items including broken crockery. She got rid of the garbage bin but save clothing that SHE thought might be useful for evidence not multiple people. Whether she still has them now who knows the statement was from 1991 where she still had talked about having saved some things to that day. Whatever evidentiary use she erroneously thought they could hold was obviously not shared by police or the defense because no one ever asked her for such items and Jeremy and police left such items behind which is how she ended up with them in the first place.
-
And the testimony makes clear that rubbish bin was not saved because she stated they no longer existed at the time of the trial.
Panties with dried blood stains- even wet panties will not tranfer blood to a moderator let alone inside and certianly not enough to result in a flake of blood drying in tbweteen the 1st and 2nd baffles and a siazble quantiy of blood drying on the first 8 baffles with the amount of blood decreasing as the baffles are further from the opening. At any rate the moderator was not inside that rubbish bin
That is why the defense did not bother asking any questions about these panties.
I didn't say they would but if you like accuracy from others, then you should use it yourself. Your last post suggested she simply squeezed out the water in order to put them in the bin, but that's not what happened but even if it did - the bin went with them.
-
And the testimony makes clear that rubbish bin was not saved because she stated they no longer existed at the time of the trial.
Panties with dried blood stains- even wet panties will not tranfer blood to a moderator let alone inside and certianly not enough to result in a flake of blood drying in tbweteen the 1st and 2nd baffles and a siazble quantiy of blood drying on the first 8 baffles with the amount of blood decreasing as the baffles are further from the opening. At any rate the moderator was not inside that rubbish bin
That is why the defense did not bother asking any questions about these panties.
we are not disagreeing with you.
I think a lot of us - for whatever reason were under the impression she took those clothes away with her
So if we want to be still asking questions then we are perfectly entitled to do so.
Annes statements are very long and detailed - but do contain some discrepancies - and considering she was making notes every day that is quite surprising.
I don't personally have a problem doing that ( when involved in two crimes , I was not the perpetrator :), I did exactly the same ).
However I am surprised that she started so early and that she was not in shock or emotional herself , at least for the first few days.
-
in her original statement ( sheet 45) she just says there were three buckets with clothes soaking.
she locked up and went home.
No mention of touching them at all.
and? She didn't mention alot of things in that statement which she later expounded upon in more detail later when actually asked for greater detail.
The only clothes she bothered to mention in it were the bloody panties. She didn't mention what the other clothes were but makes no claim that anything else was bloody.
-
and? She didn't mention alot of things in that statement which she later expounded upon in more detail later when actually asked for greater detail.
The only clothes she bothered to mention in it were the bloody panties. She didn't mention what the other clothes were but makes no claim that anything else was bloody.
AND?
I just said why I was surprised - because she made notes about everything as she went along!
you are even arguing when we are agreeing - Do you have a control problem?
-
AND?
I just said why I was surprised - because she made notes about everything as she went along!
you are even arguing when we are agreeing - Do you have a control problem?
Laughed a little bit here....
-
AND?
I just said why I was surprised - because she made notes about everything as she went along!
you are even arguing when we are agreeing - Do you have a control problem?
Jansus, are you suggesting that Scipio is incontinent?
-
AND?
I just said why I was surprised - because she made notes about everything as she went along!
you are even arguing when we are agreeing - Do you have a control problem?
But she didn't write down every single detail or it would have been 10 times as long. Just mentioning the panties was more than was needed. She provided more detail about such at the trial because she was asked and more in the 1991 statement because she was asked for the greater detail.
SHe was interviewed by police after the statement and also presecution attorneys. That is how they orulated what they would ask her at trial. Statements are for such purposes. You question witnesses at trial you doin' just present statements. The defense has the right to cross examine anyone giving evidence. You can't cross examine someone not present who is just submitting a statement.
-
we are not disagreeing with you.
I think a lot of us - for whatever reason were under the impression she took those clothes away with her
So if we want to be still asking questions then we are perfectly entitled to do so.
Annes statements are very long and detailed - but do contain some discrepancies - and considering she was making notes every day that is quite surprising.
I don't personally have a problem doing that ( when involved in two crimes , I was not the perpetrator :), I did exactly the same ).
However I am surprised that she started so early and that she was not in shock or emotional herself , at least for the first few days.
I remember reading somewhere that Ann and David went to WHF precisely to look for evidence?
-
Jansus, are you suggesting that Scipio is incontinent?
verbally yes ;D
-
But she didn't write down every single detail or it would have been 10 times as long. Just mentioning the panties was more than was needed. She provided more detail about such at the trial because she was asked and more in the 1991 statement because she was asked for the greater detail.
SHe was interviewed by police after the statement and also presecution attorneys. That is how they orulated what they would ask her at trial. Statements are for such purposes. You question witnesses at trial you doin' just present statements. The defense has the right to cross examine anyone giving evidence. You can't cross examine someone not present who is just submitting a statement.
ARE YOU DEAF!
I was agreeing with you .
However now I would like to add she was writing everything down from day one in detail so she could have made her statements even longer by filling in the bits she added later . She did not have to be asked - she was writing cards.
No doubt you will want to have the last word though . You just don't feel complete unless you have .
-
Why did AE not give those items in the bucket to the police? After all they had blood on them for goodness sake. Yet the silencer with what looked like a blob of jam on the end was handed in...
Egap did a test on the smell of blood and she said it smelled the same... :-\ ;D ;D ;D
-
I think it has been established here on this forum that clothes in the bucket could have had blood on them from the victims
Ann Eaton had no right to dispose of such important items especially as she made it very clear from the outset that she believed Jeremy was responsible
-
Well if she just washed them through and then destroyed them she would not have sniffed them - would she?
Personally I am not sure that these buckets were at all relevant - but we have only got her word now for what was in the buckets. So considering she made herself out as some kind of sleuth she has laid herself open to criticism . But I guess at the early stage the police were dismissing all their protestations anyway.
I really thought she had taken those clothes and I really thought they had looked at the silencer in MORE detail whilst they were still at the house , but it takes a lot of reading to get through all their statements .
-
Well if she just washed them through and then destroyed them she would not have sniffed them - would she?
Personally I am not sure that these buckets were at all relevant - but we have only got her word now for what was in the buckets. So considering she made herself out as some kind of sleuth she has laid herself open to criticism . But I guess at the early stage the police were dismissing all their protestations anyway.
I really thought she had taken those clothes and I really thought they had looked at the silencer in MORE detail whilst they were still at the house , but it takes a lot of reading to get through all their statements .
Jansus, I have to confess that, whilst there seems to be little in Ann that I find endearing, in those first few days, I imagine she'd have felt a strong need to be useful as opposed to just sitting, doing nothing and feeling helpless and useless.
-
The strong urge to do something came a little too late I'm afraid,April.
Thinking back,nobody came forward to give June a hand with Sheila. Come to think of it,the relatives only made an appearance perhaps at Easter or Christmas. Altogether,they weren't so helpful when the family were alive,which to me,is all about families.
-
The strong urge to do something came a little too late I'm afraid,April.
Thinking back,nobody came forward to give June a hand with Sheila. Come to think of it,the relatives only made an appearance perhaps at Easter or Christmas. Altogether,they weren't so helpful when the family were alive,which to me,is all about families.
I hear this said SO frequently, Lookout, but there are two sides to every story. To those who tell me that "No one offers to help me" I wonder if they have ever ASKED for help. People aren't mind readers. Maybe one didn't just turn up at WHF without a prior invitation. June may haver seen it as a slur on her ability as a mother if help had been offered, and surely if it HAD been the offer would have been more appropriate coming from her sister than her niece. The giving and receiving of help is a two way thing.
-
I hear this said SO frequently, Lookout, but there are two sides to every story. To those who tell me that "No one offers to help me" I wonder if they have ever ASKED for help. People aren't mind readers. Maybe one didn't just turn up at WHF without a prior invitation. June may haver seen it as a slur on her ability as a mother if help had been offered, and surely if it HAD been the offer would have been more appropriate coming from her sister than her niece. The giving and receiving of help is a two way thing.
Yes,I agree with that side of it,April. We'll never get to know if Pam offered her services either,or asked if any of the family could help,as Pam knew how things were. I would love to have known how the rest of the family would have reacted,though RWB and the rest of the relatives,denied there was anything amiss at WHF,or else they genuinely didn't know.
Though I'd have been surprised if Pam hadn't told any of them anything.
Maybe it was that June was no stranger when it came to young drug addicts, so knew how to cope, as she had her nephew stay at WHF so that she could help wean him off them and improve his outlook on life and thought she could help Sheila the same way.
I just wonder what it was that distanced them all ?
-
The family had no idea how ill Sheila was, so why would they have offered to help? That said, you made some good points about help being a two way thing.
-
The family had no idea how ill Sheila was, so why would they have offered to help? That said, you made some good points about help being a two way thing.
How do you know? I'm not saying that they did (I have no idea).
-
How do you know? I'm not saying that they did (I have no idea).
Colin Caffell says that in his book. I suppose he is telling the truth. COULD be that the family downplayed their knowledge about Sheila towards him though, I cannot know that.
He says something very strange, actually, upside-down lpgic in my view:
"One of the most striking things about that day (day of funeral of Sheila, June and Nevill) , although not altogether surprising to me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill´s relations (not even Colin call them Sheila and Jeremy´s relations.....how sad is that!), the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June´s sister Pam. Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden. Why hadn´t I contacted them and told them all about it? I couldn´t believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn´t feel it had been my business to betray the Bambers´ confidence. They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether they were right or wrong. These people could have no idea how much I´d needed them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bambs´ treatment should have been changed.
Their lack of awareness was probably a tremendous blessing, because without a full appreciation of her illness - which, for me, had acted like a smoke-screen to the truth - they were absolutely convinced Bambs couldn´t have done it and, unbeknown to me then, were already pressing the police into further investigations, albeit with little initial success."
-
Colin Caffell says that in his book. I suppose he is telling the truth. COULD be that the famioly downplayed their knowledge about Sheila towards him though, I cannot know that.
He says something very strange, actually, upside-down lpgic in my view:
"One of the most striking things about that day (day of funeral of Sheila, June and Nevill) , although not altogether surprising to me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill´s relations (not even Colin call them Sheila and Jeremy´s relations.....how sad is that!), the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June´s sister Pam. Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden. Why hadn´t I contacted them and told them all about it? I couldn´t believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn´t feel it had been my business to betray the Bambers´ confidence. They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether they were right or wrong. These people could have no idea how much I´d needed them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bambs´ treatment should have been changed.
Their lack of awareness was probably a tremendous blessing, because without a full appreciation of her illness - which, for me, had acted like a smoke-screen to the truth - they were absolutely convinced Bambs couldn´t have done it and, unbeknown to me then, were already pressing the police into further investigations, albeit with little initial success."
Fair enough. :-X
-
I think it has been established here on this forum that clothes in the bucket could have had blood on them from the victims
Ann Eaton had no right to dispose of such important items especially as she made it very clear from the outset that she believed Jeremy was responsible
Established how?
The only clothes established to have blood were panties with blood stains in the crotch area. How could that have been blood from the victims? You are embarrassing yourself with such silly claims.
Eaton took the garbage home with her and police didn't want it so she ended up getitng rid of it.
Police did not want the bloody panties they saw no significance at all because it is as plain as day the blood was menstrual and unrelated to the murders.
-
Established how?
The only clothes established to have blood were panties with blood stains in the crotch area. How could that have been blood from the victims? You are embarrassing yourself with such silly claims.
Eaton took the garbage home with her and police didn't want it so she ended up getitng rid of it.
Police did not want the bloody panties they saw no significance at all because it is as plain as day the blood was menstrual and unrelated to the murders.
So the EP simply took Ann Eaton´s word for it and didn´t give a toss anyway. They never looked at the contents themselves.
Probably Ann Eaton was correct about what was in the buckets, but that doesn´t change the fact that this was extremely bad police work!
-
So the EP simply took Ann Eaton´s word for it and didn´t give a toss anyway. They never looked at the contents themselves.
Probably Ann Eaton was correct about what was in the buckets, but that doesn´t change the fact that this was extremely bad police work!
The house was no longer a crime scene, it's not as if Ann broke in and took something away. She was asked to go in and clean up the house. What would you expect her to have done differently?
-
So the EP simply took Ann Eaton´s word for it and didn´t give a toss anyway. They never looked at the contents themselves.
Probably Ann Eaton was correct about what was in the buckets, but that doesn´t change the fact that this was extremely bad police work!
How do you know EP didn't look through the buckets?
The logical assumption is that police left the clothes after fidnign them because they contained nothing of value. You instead are assuming they didn't look at the buckets. Based on what? Based on leaving them though they would have left them after looking because they woudl have been deemed unrelated ot the murders?
Use your head for a change.
-
So the EP simply took Ann Eaton´s word for it and didn´t give a toss anyway. They never looked at the contents themselves.
Probably Ann Eaton was correct about what was in the buckets, but that doesn´t change the fact that this was extremely bad police work!
that is true - if they did not look at the clothes at all.
Say for example IF it had been her clothes worn that day and she had showered and changed after the shootings it could have been VITAL evidence .
This is only an IF and I don't think it was - just saying .
If there are photos around to show they knew what the clothes were then that is different .
Cant really understand soaking the childrens clothes BTW . The underwear then yes that's different.
-
The house was no longer a crime scene, it's not as if Ann broke in and took something away. She was asked to go in and clean up the house. What would you expect her to have done differently?
In which case there must be a reasonable possibility that until Ann told them about it, the police didn't notice the pails with the soiled items.
-
The house was no longer a crime scene, it's not as if Ann broke in and took something away. She was asked to go in and clean up the house. What would you expect her to have done differently?
I wasn´t blaming AE for anything at all - I am blaming the Essex Police. It seems that Ann may even have thought along the lines I do: that the police should have forensically tested the material and therefore brought it home.
Otherwise she would just have emptied the trash at whf, wouldn´t she?
-
In which case there must be a reasonable possibility that until Ann told them about it, the police didn't notice the pails with the soiled items.
The police handed over the house, she doesn't know police procedures, they were asked to clean it up. They as u med the police were thorough. It's not as if the buckets were hidden.
So what anyway? Is it really being suggested that blood on soaking clothes was somehow added to the silencer?
Is that the play here? ???
-
The house was no longer a crime scene, it's not as if Ann broke in and took something away. She was asked to go in and clean up the house. What would you expect her to have done differently?
yes clean the house when most people are asked they dont genral asume that involves washing the underwear of dead people.
-
I wasn´t blaming AE for anything at all - I am blaming the Essex Police. It seems that Ann may even have thought along the lines I do: that the police should have forensically tested the material and therefore brought it home.
Otherwise she would just have emptied the trash at whf, wouldn´t she?
Sorry Alias, if you have misinterpreted me, I didn't mean to suggest that you were casting blame on Ann.
-
yes clean the house when most people are asked they dont genral asume that involves washing the underwear of dead people.
A bucket of water with some items of clothes in them? What would you do with them instead? ???
-
The police handed over the house, she doesn't know police procedures, they were asked to clean it up. They as u med the police were thorough. It's not as if the buckets were hidden.
So what anyway? Is it really being suggested that blood on soaking clothes was somehow added to the silencer?
Is that the play here? ???
It has been suggested several times, hasn´t it?
ANYWAY, and I am not saying that ANYBODY did ANYTHING to the silencer (apart from scraping off blood with a razor blade), the mere fact that the silencer was handled by people who stood to gain from a guilty verdict is problematic. That there were items from WHF in the house where the silencer was handled is additionally problematic.
I don´t think that silencer would be allowed into evidence in this day and age.
-
well the knickers i would of binned the rest of the clothes i would of left where they were,
-
The police handed over the house, she doesn't know police procedures, they were asked to clean it up. They as u med the police were thorough. It's not as if the buckets were hidden.
So what anyway? Is it really being suggested that blood on soaking clothes was somehow added to the silencer?
Is that the play here? ???
Noooooooo!! I'm suggesting that the pails COULD have contained ANY items of clothing. If the police didn't examine them there is only Ann's word for what was in them. So let's suppose that there was an item that had been part of a teeny weeny menstrual accident PLUS an item/items whic h MAY have been used to stem a different blood flow and MAYBE Ann thought it MAY have pointed to Sheila and would have preferred the police didn't know. Before you say it for me, yes, I know it's pure speculation but no worse than other which has been put forward.
-
It has been suggested several times, hasn´t it?
ANYWAY, and I am not saying that ANYBODY did ANYTHING to the silencer (apart from scraping off blood with a razor blade), the mere fact that the silencer was handled by people who stood to gain from a guilty verdict is problematic. That there were items from WHF in the house where the silencer was handled is additionally problematic.
I don´t think that silencer would be allowed into evidence in this day and age.
They didn't stand to gain though, that is one of the myths, the only reason anybody other than Pamela benefitted, is because Pamela refused to accept her portion of the Bamber estate and it filtered down.
-
Noooooooo!! I'm suggesting that the pails COULD have contained ANY items of clothing. If the police didn't examine them there is only Ann's word for what was in them. So let's suppose that there was an item that had been part of a teeny weeny menstrual accident PLUS an item/items whic h MAY have been used to stem a different blood flow and MAYBE Ann thought it MAY have pointed to Sheila and would have preferred the police didn't know. Before you say it for me, yes, I know it's pure speculation but no worse than other which has been put forward.
I just think the criticism towards Ann is ridiculous on this point.
And I think those who are honest would say the same.
-
They didn't stand to gain though, that is one of the myths, the only reason anybody other than Pamela benefitted, is because Pamela refused to accept her portion of the Bamber estate and it filtered down.
It occurs to me that there may be a tiny bit of hair splitting here because if Pam had accepted the inheritance, save the very remote possibility of her leaving it all to charity, in all liklihood, it would have ended up with her children/grandchildren.
-
They didn't stand to gain though, that is one of the myths, the only reason anybody other than Pamela benefitted, is because Pamela refused to accept her portion of the Bamber estate and it filtered down.
They would eventually`in any case, wouldn´t they?
I am a bit uncomfortable with this discussion, to be honest; but even Bewes admitted in his interview that this fact WAS a bit problematic.
-
I just think the criticism towards Ann is ridiculous on this point.
And I think those who are honest would say the same.
OK Let's leave Ann out of it. It sounds as if the police allowed POTENTIAL evidence to leave the SOC without doing a thorough check.
-
It occurs to me that there may be a tiny bit of hair splitting here because if Pam had accepted the inheritance, save the very remote possibility of her leaving it all to charity, in all liklihood, it would have ended up with her children/grandchildren.
In 25-30 years time.
Really? They frame Jeremy so they might get an inheritance nearly three decades later?
If that is your opinion, then I'm astonished. :o
-
They didn't stand to gain though, that is one of the myths, the only reason anybody other than Pamela benefitted, is because Pamela refused to accept her portion of the Bamber estate and it filtered down.
they had a lot to gain they had a chance to get out of debt for start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YppVCocVbI
-
they had a lot to gain they had a chance to get out of debt for start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YppVCocVbI
Propaganda nonsense.
Jeremy had a hearty meal. ::)
-
OK Let's leave Ann out of it. It sounds as if the police allowed POTENTIAL evidence to leave the SOC without doing a thorough check.
The police had control of the scene, they handed it over. As I mentioned to you a day or two ago, I think the buckets were located in a part of the house which appeared isolated from the events that night/morning, but it's also possible and even likely that they were acknowledged and dismissed as no evidential value.
-
Ann had some very strong feelings about some land deal business, so strong that she tore down all wallpaper in a bathroom. Her words. She wasn´t indifferent exactly.
-
Propaganda nonsense.
Jeremy had a hearty meal. ::)
So said two dodgy cops. ;)
-
So said two dodgy cops. ;)
In any case many people act in very unusual ways after the death of someone close to them. I remember when my stepfather died in the middle of the night and my mother was alone I turned up in the morning and wanted to appear very strong and confident for my mother. I did and said many things that did not match my normal character. The police on the other hand judge every move and every word that "suspects" make. It is not far from a bite to eat to a hearty meal in their eyes. Then crime writers get hold of it and it becomes a banquet. Before you know where you are the "suspect" starts pinching stuff and selling it. And so the stories grow.
-
In any case many people act in very unusual ways after the death of someone close to them. I remember when my stepfather died in the middle of the night and my mother was alone I turned up in the morning and wanted to appear very strong and confident for my mother. I did and said many things that did not match my normal character. The police on the other hand judge every move and every word that "suspects" make. It is not far from a bite to eat to a hearty meal in their eyes. Then crime writers get hold of it and it becomes a banquet. Before you know where you are the "suspect" starts pinching stuff and selling it. And so the stories grow.
There is all this talk about Jeremy going out for meals and travelling in the aftermath of the murders. Well, Colin did the exact same things: went out with friends, even to a jazz club shortly before the funeral of his sons. He also travelled.
In Jeremy´s case, it is a big deal and very negative. In Colin´s? No one even bothers to respond when I have mentioed that.
I think it is normal behaviour - both for Jeremy and for Colin, just want to make that clear.
-
There is all this talk about Jeremy going out for meals and travelling in the aftermath of the murders. Well, Colin did the exact same things: went out with friends, even to a jazz club shortly before the funeral of his sons. He also travelled.
In Jeremy´s case, it is a big deal and very negative. In Colin´s? No one even bothers to respond when I have mentioed that.
I think it is normal behaviour - both for Jeremy and for Colin, just want to make that clear.
The truth is people after they have lost loved ones do not know what to do to get them out of their minds. One should never use the strange ways of Bamber just after the murder of his family in order to bash him with it. To do so is cruel and unfeeling.
-
It has been suggested several times, hasn´t it?
ANYWAY, and I am not saying that ANYBODY did ANYTHING to the silencer (apart from scraping off blood with a razor blade), the mere fact that the silencer was handled by people who stood to gain from a guilty verdict is problematic. That there were items from WHF in the house where the silencer was handled is additionally problematic.
I don´t think that silencer would be allowed into evidence in this day and age.
There are no rules of evidence in existence today that would prevent the moderator from reaching the jury. No matte rhow many times you make the claim it will not transform your claim to magically true.
That argument is simply a copout since you have no way to actually challenge the evidence found in it.
There is no way to argue with a straight face that the family had a source of Sheila's blood they could plant before turing it in to police on 8/12/85, would know that the fatal shot would result in drawback and thus plant the blood, would have known how to replicate spatter and did so instead of planting it by using a dropper or just pouring it in from a small vial. Since no one can seriously make this argumenet let alone produce any evidenc einstead the copout is used that we shoul djust dismiss it ANYWAY even though such would not have been possible. It doesn't work that way in court and esepcially not in an informal setting like this.
Lots of peopel don't want to believe the moderator hevidence but have ZILCH by way of evidence to refute the moderator so are stuck with crappy arguments and wild unsupported claims to try to acocmplish what they would like to acocmplish which is to avoid the evidence though they have no evidence at all to refute it.
-
The truth is people after they have lost loved ones do not know what to do to get them out of their minds. One should never use the strange ways of Bamber just after the murder of his family in order to bash him with it. To do so is cruel and unfeeling.
Agree Grahame, anyone who has suffered personal loss understands there are many different phases and behaviours during the greiving process. Some people feel they never really grieve properly particularly after the shock of sudden death.
-
The truth is people after they have lost loved ones do not know what to do to get them out of their minds. One should never use the strange ways of Bamber just after the murder of his family in order to bash him with it. To do so is cruel and unfeeling.
There are 3 truths:
1) People try to help their loved ones and need to be stopped by first responders who are more catious and rational
2) people who lose a loved one to murder want to know what happened and how
3) people who survive have survivor's guilt ESPECIALLY if they were partially repsonsible as the claims that Jeremy made woudl in fact make him.
Jeremy exhibited none of these things.
He called police well after he called Julie.
He only went to the scene because police requeste dhim to go
He made sure he drove as slow as dirt so police would reach the scene before him and pulled over upon seeing them coming. It was a mile away yet he took more than 3 minutes to finally pull up behind police.
He then lied and told police Sheila used all arms in the house especially the .22 he had claimed he left out.
He calmly showed no care for them at all.
The only time he showed any emotion was hours later when he forced himself to puke in what he told Julie was an act and Julie had know way to know he puked except because he told her.
He never ever exhibited any sorrow for leaving out the weapon let alone told anyone he felt responsible. That is a big red flag.
The man acted nothing at all like someone in his place would do and when you look at all the key evidence it is obvious why- he did it.
-
There are 3 truths:
1) People try to help their loved ones and need to be stopped by first responders who are more catious and rational
2) people who lose a loved one to murder want to know what happened and how
3) people who survive have survivor's guilt ESPECIALLY if they were partially repsonsible as the claims that Jeremy made woudl in fact make him.
Jeremy exhibited none of these things.
He called police well after he called Julie.
He only went to the scene because police requeste dhim to go
He made sure he drove as slow as dirt so police would reach the scene before him and pulled over upon seeing them coming. It was a mile away yet he took more than 3 minutes to finally pull up behind police.
He then lied and told police Sheila used all arms in the house especially the .22 he had claimed he left out.
He calmly showed no care for them at all.
The only time he showed any emotion was hours later when he forced himself to puke in what he told Julie was an act and Julie had know way to know he puked except because he told her.
He never ever exhibited any sorrow for leaving out the weapon let alone told anyone he felt responsible. That is a big red flag.
The man acted nothing at all like someone in his place would do and when you look at all the key evidence it is obvious why- he did it.
So are you saying that unless someone conforms to your truths, they're guilty?
-
You really cannot know you are right scipio, everyone reacts differently to sudden death and shock can deaden all feeling for varying lengths of time. Many people suffer from PTSD because they never were able to express their grief, we are all different and there are no set rules imo.
-
Julie dyed her hair blonde after the trial so that nobody would recognise her !
How much was plastered everywhere when Jeremy dyed his hair just a shade darker than the norm ?
( made him look sinister and more evil than he was. In fact,in keeping with a " murderer " !
-
Julie dyed her hair blonde after the trial so that nobody would recognise her !
How much was plastered everywhere when Jeremy dyed his hair just a shade darker than the norm ?
( made him look sinister and more evil than he was. In fact,in keeping with a " murderer " !
So I am a murderer, I have black hair. :'(
-
So I am a murderer, I have black hair. :'(
No,Alias. I was referring to the nonsense put about by the gossips just for something else to rub Jeremys' nose in.
I couldn't care less if hair is rainbow coloured,it's got nothing to do with anything,but Julies' rarely got a mention. This was the difference.
-
No,Alias. I was referring to the nonsense put about by the gossips just for something else to rub Jeremys' nose in.
I couldn't care less if hair is rainbow coloured,it's got nothing to do with anything,but Julies' rarely got a mention. This was the difference.
I was just kidding.
-
I was just kidding.
Yes,I know. ;D
-
So I am a murderer, I have black hair. :'(
Ah! But do your eyebrows meet in the middle though? That's a sure sign of a murderer. ;)
-
Ah! But do your eyebrows meet in the middle though? That's a sure sign of a murderer. ;)
I´m working on it! :P
-
Ah! But do your eyebrows meet in the middle though? That's a sure sign of a murderer. ;)
You've forgotten deep-set eyes which are close together------and a little nose. ;D Thin lips too.
-
You've forgotten deep-set eyes which are close together------and a little nose. ;D Thin lips too.
Sounds gorgeous. ;D
-
Sounds gorgeous. ;D
An absolute star. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
just a quick note - I know now why I thought Anne had taken the clothes home . When she talks about what the police asked her to say in court in 1991 statement there is also a page where it says she did eventually take the bins home - she does not say the clothes were in them - but I knew I had the "impression" she took them home from somewhere. Probably not important , but you never know :)
-
just a quick note - I know now why I thought Anne had taken the clothes home . When she talks about what the police asked her to say in court in 1991 statement there is also a page where it says she did eventually take the bins home - she does not say the clothes were in them - but I knew I had the "impression" she took them home from somewhere. Probably not important , but you never know :)
She noted in her trial testimony the garbage was thrown away and no longer existed as of the time fo the trial. So the dirty kid's clothing and bloody panties were at a garbage dump.
However, in her COLP testimony she mentions that to that day she still had some of the clothes she took from the bedrooms that she thought could have been relevant. So she still had some of the clothes at that point.
Whether she got rid of them between then and now we don't know and the only way to know would be ot ask her.
-
just a quick note - I know now why I thought Anne had taken the clothes home . When she talks about what the police asked her to say in court in 1991 statement there is also a page where it says she did eventually take the bins home - she does not say the clothes were in them - but I knew I had the "impression" she took them home from somewhere. Probably not important , but you never know :)
If the clothes had nothing to do with anything then why would Ann mention them in her statement. For by mentioning them she immediately throws suspicion on it?
-
Ha,,she mentioned everything but the silencer.
-
Ha,,she mentioned everything but the silencer.
Didn't she in a later statement? I thought I remember her saying that the blood looked like a blob of jam. I know it may sound odd to you, but I actually believe her. Vic said to me (and I believe Vic to be an honest man) that Ann Eaton is a very honest person and I believe him.
-
Didn't she in a later statement? I thought I remember her saying that the blood looked like a blob of jam. I know it may sound odd to you, but I actually believe her. Vic said to me (and I believe Vic to be an honest man) that Ann Eaton is a very honest person and I believe him.
I tend to believe Ann Eaton too - and Vic for that matter.
However, I have a hard time seeing how blood could look like "a match-head sized blob of jam" - or words to that effect. Police planted the silencer? :-\
-
I tend to believe Ann Eaton too - and Vic for that matter.
However, I have a hard time seeing how blood could look like "a match-head sized blob of jam" - or words to that effect. Police planted the silencer? :-\
No I don't think the police would plant the silencer?
-
If the clothes had nothing to do with anything then why would Ann mention them in her statement. For by mentioning them she immediately throws suspicion on it?
She mentioned a whole lot of things that are not that important including that police asked if she ever had an affair with Jeremy. Police let her write anything she wanted thus her statements are the longest and have information not significant.
-
She mentioned a whole lot of things that are not that important including that police asked if she ever had an affair with Jeremy. Police let her write anything she wanted thus her statements are the longest and have information not significant.
That's a point. Why do you think they asked her if she'd ever had an affair with Jeremy?
-
I tend to believe Ann Eaton too - and Vic for that matter.
However, I have a hard time seeing how blood could look like "a match-head sized blob of jam" - or words to that effect. Police planted the silencer? :-\
I find that a strange description of supposedly 3 day old blood. Caroline tested it out and it proved what was suspected that blood as described by Ann Eaton would not survive in that mode. It would shrivel up and dry out. That is why I wonder if AE actually saw it.
-
No I don't think the police would plant the silencer?
They needed glasses though Grahame. How many of them looked in the cupboard ? If it had horns,it would have poked them ::)
-
They needed glasses though Grahame. How many of them looked in the cupboard ? If it had horns,it would have poked them ::)
It may have been in a box and also remember at that stage they weren't looking for a silencer. Neither did they see the sights, or the boxes of ammunition.
-
I find that a strange description of supposedly 3 day old blood. Caroline tested it out and it proved what was suspected that blood as described by Ann Eaton would not survive in that mode. It would shrivel up and dry out. That is why I wonder if AE actually saw it.
SO does dry jam
-
I find that a strange description of supposedly 3 day old blood. Caroline tested it out and it proved what was suspected that blood as described by Ann Eaton would not survive in that mode. It would shrivel up and dry out. That is why I wonder if AE actually saw it.
Yes, I forgot to specify that - it had been there for three days and wouldn´t be jam-like.
-
SO does dry jam
What's that got to do withh it?
AE described it as like jelly or a blob of jam, she didn't say anything about a dried out, flaked off turned brown, blob of jam.
-
What's that got to do withh it?
AE described it as like jelly or a blob of jam, she didn't say anything about a dried out, flaked off turned brown, blob of jam.
She didn't say anything about it being wet either. Team Jeremy is always out trying to find a way to try to discredit the evidence through some stupid way instead of taking it head on as needs to be done to refute it.
-
She didn't say anything about it being wet either. Team Jeremy is always out trying to find a way to try to discredit the evidence through some stupid way instead of taking it head on as needs to be done to refute it.
Not so much of the "stupid" no need to continually insult people especially when they are obviously more intelligent than you.
-
Not so much of the "stupid" no need to continually insult people especially when they are obviously more intelligent than you.
Your ability to recognize intellect is nonexistent which is why you always fall for absurd lies from Mike along with lookout.
The simple truth is that all the claims made by Team Jeremy are absurd because there is no way to actually refute any of the evidence head on. That just makes people on Team Jeremy dishonest or fools.
When you assert a belief that has no rational basis in fact you are either a fool or intentionally supporting a position that you know is a crock.
-
Your ability to recognize intellect is nonexistent which is why you always fall for absurd lies from Mike along with lookout.
The simple truth is that all the claims made by Team Jeremy are absurd because there is no way to actually refute any of the evidence head on. That just makes people on Team Jeremy dishonest or fools.
When you assert a belief that has no rational basis in fact you are either a fool or intentionally supporting a position that you know is a crock.
For your information I don't adhere to everything Mike says. Neither have I ever given that impression. Your comments are both untrue and calculated to belittle my intelligence. My intelligence , which by the way I admit is not that good is not in question here, but rather your integrity and decency towards others. Your comments towards almost every Bamber supporter is disgusting and almost unforgivable and quite frankly I cannot understand why the admin allow you to get away with it all the time? That is the part that puts me in doubt of this forum sometimes.
-
For your information I don't adhere to everything Mike says. Neither have I ever given that impression. Your comments are both untrue and calculated to belittle my intelligence. My intelligence , which by the way I admit is not that good is not in question here, but rather your integrity and decency towards others. Your comments towards almost every Bamber supporter is disgusting and almost unforgivable and quite frankly I cannot understand why the admin allow you to get away with it all the time? That is the part that puts me in doubt of this forum sometimes.
When you yourself are calling me stupid or saying f-you or the like what exactly do you expect admin to do for you? How coudl they sanction me and not do anything to you so maybe you shoudl think twice before the tirades you launch.
In the meantime there is a valid point to be made about people not taking evidence head on and living with pie in the sky attitudes with respect to Jeremy.
Just insisting you don't trust the moderator because the family found it means nothing. People admit that the family would not have had a source of Sheila's blood to plant, would not have known her blood type to have been able to find a source of the same exact blood including same enzymes, would not have known the fatal shot defintely would result in drawback and would not have known how let alone bothered to plant the blood in a way to mimick back spatter they would have just used a dropper ofr the like to deposit it which would nto have resulted in the pattern found.
So that takes away the ability to argue the blood was planted by the family and thus that the family finding it taints it and makes it unrelaible.
Yet that is the common claim used to try to dismiss it so that Team Jeremy is not forced to seriously look into the issue because there is in relaity no way to refute the evidence and this alone is sufficient to prove Sheial could not have killed herself and that someone else did and that had to be Jeremy because of the evidence he gave that Sheila was bogus.
Never is there a well supported position put forth to refute this evidence just claims that peopel choose to discount it for reaosns that amount to littl emore than bias.
The same can be said for every major piece of evidence including the lack of any wounds or evidence on Sheila. It is chalked up as her washing and changing her clothes even though she had no reason to do so and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest she did so. No mater peopel say Jerey is innocent so as a result that means: Sheila either committed the crime nude without getting any injuries and then washed, changed her clothes and nobody ever found those clothes though there was no way for Sheila to get rid of them or police found those clothes but destroyed them even though for about a month the premise they operated under was that Sheila did it and such clothing strongly would have supported their theory.
When you decide to ignore evidence because of an agenda that demosntrates bias. When peopel have an agenda but refuse to admit it they are being dishonest, it is that simple.
If I were hired to defend Jeremy I would have an agenda but that agenda would be crystal clear and doesn't mean I would personally believe in his innocence just because I was being paid for him. What I personally believed would be unrelated ot my job. Nor would I simply try to convince others to believe he is innocent based on blind faith. I would try to look at ALL the evidence that establishes his guilt and try to find a way to refute it, not to ignore it or dismiss it for some irrational reason but to try to refute it.
Refuting it entails at minimum undermining it by presenting an alternative explanation for the evidence that is reasonably likely to have occurred though ideally to prove the evidence to be completely wrong or impossible.
-
She didn't say anything about it being wet either. Team Jeremy is always out trying to find a way to try to discredit the evidence through some stupid way instead of taking it head on as needs to be done to refute it.
It is a fact a blob of jam is jelly like, if it was dry it wouldn't exist .......... fact.
-
When you yourself are calling me stupid or saying f-you or the like what exactly do you expect admin to do for you? How coudl they sanction me and not do anything to you so maybe you shoudl think twice before the tirades you launch.
In the meantime there is a valid point to be made about people not taking evidence head on and living with pie in the sky attitudes with respect to Jeremy.
Just insisting you don't trust the moderator because the family found it means nothing. People admit that the family would not have had a source of Sheila's blood to plant, would not have known her blood type to have been able to find a source of the same exact blood including same enzymes, would not have known the fatal shot defintely would result in drawback and would not have known how let alone bothered to plant the blood in a way to mimick back spatter they would have just used a dropper ofr the like to deposit it which would nto have resulted in the pattern found.
So that takes away the ability to argue the blood was planted by the family and thus that the family finding it taints it and makes it unrelaible.
Yet that is the common claim used to try to dismiss it so that Team Jeremy is not forced to seriously look into the issue because there is in relaity no way to refute the evidence and this alone is sufficient to prove Sheial could not have killed herself and that someone else did and that had to be Jeremy because of the evidence he gave that Sheila was bogus.
Never is there a well supported position put forth to refute this evidence just claims that peopel choose to discount it for reaosns that amount to littl emore than bias.
The same can be said for every major piece of evidence including the lack of any wounds or evidence on Sheila. It is chalked up as her washing and changing her clothes even though she had no reason to do so and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest she did so. No mater peopel say Jerey is innocent so as a result that means: Sheila either committed the crime nude without getting any injuries and then washed, changed her clothes and nobody ever found those clothes though there was no way for Sheila to get rid of them or police found those clothes but destroyed them even though for about a month the premise they operated under was that Sheila did it and such clothing strongly would have supported their theory.
When you decide to ignore evidence because of an agenda that demosntrates bias. When peopel have an agenda but refuse to admit it they are being dishonest, it is that simple.
If I were hired to defend Jeremy I would have an agenda but that agenda would be crystal clear and doesn't mean I would personally believe in his innocence just because I was being paid for him. What I personally believed would be unrelated ot my job. Nor would I simply try to convince others to believe he is innocent based on blind faith. I would try to look at ALL the evidence that establishes his guilt and try to find a way to refute it, not to ignore it or dismiss it for some irrational reason but to try to refute it.
Refuting it entails at minimum undermining it by presenting an alternative explanation for the evidence that is reasonably likely to have occurred though ideally to prove the evidence to be completely wrong or impossible.
I have to in retaliation simply because you are ALWAYS abusive towards other members. It's a joke that the moderators cannot see it? They let you get away with all this abuse, calling them fools and unintelligent and morons etc. You are just one big back of filth. At least I've got the guts that the moderators don't seem to have to stand up to your anti-social behaviour and constant belittling of the members of this forum. You scipio are just a bully towards other members who do not agree with you. You're so full of your own ego that you think that if anyone does not agree with you is either an idiot or brain dead.
-
Your ability to recognize intellect is nonexistent which is why you always fall for absurd lies from Mike along with lookout.
The simple truth is that all the claims made by Team Jeremy are absurd because there is no way to actually refute any of the evidence head on. That just makes people on Team Jeremy dishonest or fools.
When you assert a belief that has no rational basis in fact you are either a fool or intentionally supporting a position that you know is a crock.
I'd rather be unintelligent and honest,rather than a big-mouthed, ill-mannered,obnoxious,arrogant spoof of a lawyer like you !
-
I'd rather be unintelligent and honest,rather than a big-mouthed, ill-mannered,obnoxious,arrogant spoof of a lawyer like you !
He is probably right. I'm certainly not the brain of Britain. I can be stupid ant cannot catch on to things easily. I am slow to understand and am not known for my intelligence. I am also wrong a lot of the time. But I am at least brave enough to acknowledge my faults when I am wrong. His comments therefore do not upset me. I also hate bullying and victimization and will stand against the bullies anywhere, whether it be in the street or on this forum.
-
He is probably right. I'm certainly not the brain of Britain. I can be stupid ant cannot catch on to things easily. I am slow to understand and am not known for my intelligence. I am also wrong a lot of the time. But I am at least brave enough to acknowledge my faults when I am wrong. His comments therefore do not upset me. I also hate bullying and victimization and will stand against the bullies anywhere, whether it be in the street or on this forum.
I quite agree - I work for a bully - and I know the signs.
-
I quite agree - I work for a bully - and I know the signs.
But I like Americans....Because I'm crazy too. ;D
-
But I like Americans....Because I'm crazy too. ;D
I have to like them because I have two ( blood ) cousins who live in New York,one in Long Island and the other in NYC. ::)
-
I have to like them because I have two ( blood ) cousins who live in New York,one in Long Island and the other in NYC. ::)
My cousins live in El Paso. The desert is their back yard they say.
-
My cousins live in El Paso. The desert is their back yard they say.
Like another acquaintance of mine living in Phoenix,where they recently had a huge sandstorm. The guy in question is a sort of a " dog whisperer ",training dogs who've got out of hand. Deserts,like yours.
-
Like another acquaintance of mine living in Phoenix,where they recently had a huge sandstorm. The guy in question is a sort of a " dog whisperer ",training dogs who've got out of hand. Deserts,like yours.
I knew a dog whisperer once. A dog bit him on the ear.
-
I knew a dog whisperer once. A dog bit him on the ear.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You are awful-------but I like you. ;D