Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on August 10, 2014, 02:38:PM
-
...
-
What is this document? A report, statement. Date?
Any ideas? ???
-
17/9/85
-
17/9/85
Oh yeah, didn't see that. :-[
-
What is noteworthy is that Jeremy was put on notice of the bullet discrepancy right away and yet was not able to think up a lie by the trial either or even after the trial to acocunt for the extra bullets.
It is quite obvious that he staged these bullets after committing the murders. He didn't keep track of how many shots he fired and thus didn't try to make the number of bullets missing match. It wound up being one of the mistakes he could have avoided had he planned better.
-
What is noteworthy is that Jeremy was put on notice of the bullet discrepancy right away and yet was not able to think up a lie by the trial either or even after the trial to acocunt for the extra bullets.
It is quite obvious that he staged these bullets after committing the murders. He didn't keep track of how many shots he fired and thus didn't try to make the number of bullets missing match. It wound up being one of the mistakes he could have avoided had he planned better.
It's a great point that sticks out like a sore thumb, the bullets were undoubtedbly staged.
-
It's a great point that sticks out like a sore thumb, the bullets were undoubtedbly staged.
Which means his story about taking the gun out along with these bullets to shoot rabbits and leaving it out along with the bullets was also entirely made up. Why was it mad eup? To frame Sheila and how could he have staged these bullets unless he was the killer?
The funny thing is that despite needing to make up a lie to account for this he was never able to.
-
So even on the 17th of September Julie tells Jones that Jeremy rang her at 3:30..... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
This has now been added to the library.
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1119.msg34476.html#msg34476 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1119.msg34476.html#msg34476)
-
So even on the 17th of September Julie tells Jones that Jeremy rang her at 3:30..... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
No when came clean to police she changed the time and noted 3:12 but attributed such to a roomate:
"I have since spoken to Susan and I feel sure that she told me the time that Jeremy phoned was 3:12am."
The part of the interview you are referring to was simply using the times already written in the past not saying she was reaffirming such times. The actual section where she discussed the time had the above quote.
She left out that Susan kept her clock 10 minutes fast which required an adjustment to 10 minutes earlier. So that is why it was changed again subsequently. She subsequently spoke to her other roomates as well one of who said the hour was 2 and she did not recall the minutes though presumably it had to be close to 3 and another who said 3:15. Julie didn't remember the time so she deferred to her roomates that is the clear implication of referencing them over and over again in her various statements and police spoke to them as well of course and confrimed the clock was 10 minutes fast.
-
No when came clean to police she changed the time and noted 3:12 but attributed such to a roomate:
"I have since spoken to Susan and I feel sure that she told me the time that Jeremy phoned was 3:12am."
The part of the interview you are referring to was simply using the times already written in the past not saying she was reaffirming such times. The actual section where she discussed the time had the above quote.
She left out that Susan kept her clock 10 minutes fast which required an adjustment to 10 minutes earlier. So that is why it was changed again subsequently. She subsequently spoke to her other roomates as well one of who said the hour was 2 and she did not recall the minutes though presumably it had to be close to 3 and another who said 3:15. Julie didn't remember the time so she deferred to her roomates that is the clear implication of referencing them over and over again in her various statements and police spoke to them as well of course and confrimed the clock was 10 minutes fast.
Unfortunately the times are so mixed up and even one of the tenents in JM's flat said 3.30 that it appears that the timing cannot really be trusted?
-
Unfortunately the times are so mixed up and even one of the tenents in JM's flat said 3.30 that it appears that the timing cannot really be trusted?
None of them said 3:30. Upon being badgered one said it could have been as late as 3:30 but thought it was 3:15. One was adamant the hour began with a 2 and another insisted it was 3:12 which meant 3:02. The last said 3:15 though it could have been as late as 3:30.
Jerey was on phone with police at 3:30 and the call began prior to 3:26 so quite obviously his call to Julie predated his call to police as she asserted.
The roomate who said it was 3:15 but could have been as late as 3:30 was less certain than the other 2 who insist they looked at ther clocks.
The timing of those 2 place the call well before calling police and even more damning before the time he claims Nevill called him.
-
How long do you think that Sheila had been dead for before she was found ?
-
How long do you think that Sheila had been dead for before she was found ?
If Jeremy called Julie around 3 instead of 3:15 that obviously means he had to get home sooner. He would have left WHF by 2:40 to be able to call around 3. So her death would have been 2:20-2:30 presumably and then he took time to stage the bullets and think about what else he wanted to do.
While it is possible Jeremy started the murders earlier than 2AM I seriously doubt it. That would have required him wasting too much time before calling Julie and police. The more time he wasted the better the chance of police figuring out they died before the time Nevill allegedly called him.
So I think all the murders happened sometime between between 2AM and 2:30Am and that Jeremy left by 2:40AM. He either got home and changed and washed up some more then called Julie or called Julie then changed and finally called police. He also likely practiced what he would tell police before he called thus resulting in more of a gap between calling Julie and police.
-
If Jeremy called Julie around 3 instead of 3:15 that obviously means he had to get home sooner. He would have left WHF by 2:40 to be able to call around 3. So her death would have been 2:20-2:30 presumably and then he took time to stage the bullets and think about what else he wanted to do.
While it is possible Jeremy started the murders earlier than 2AM I seriously doubt it. That would have required him wasting too much time before calling Julie and police. The more time he wasted the better the chance of police figuring out they died before the time Nevill allegedly called him.
So I think all the murders happened sometime between between 2AM and 2:30Am and that Jeremy left by 2:40AM. He either got home and changed and washed up some more then called Julie or called Julie then changed and finally called police. He also likely practiced what he would tell police before he called thus resulting in more of a gap between calling Julie and police.
I disagree that Sheila had been dead for 6/7 ? hours before being found. Have you ever seen a body that has lain dead for this length of time ? Especially a once active one ?
-
I disagree that Sheila had been dead for 6/7 ? hours before being found. Have you ever seen a body that has lain dead for this length of time ? Especially a once active one ?
Yes I have seen a body after 7 hours. I saw the same body around 4 hours after death. I saw no difference at all. If you actually touch the body and know what you are doing you will probably be able to tell differences but there was nothing obvious just from looking. The skilled can tell if rigor set in by looking at the face and neck but the changes are so subtle that you need to be skilled ot tell just from sight.
It takes a long time before you physically see something extremely noticable. When a body is dead a long time it bloats- that is something visually obvious. The skin changed color as well. That is when the body stinks. Decomposition does these things. Decomp doesn't set in that fast. The only decomp I have seen were in corpses days old, I don't know when decomp began on said corpses but it sure as hell wasn't the first 12 hours after death.
Dr Craig saw her in person and had no problem with police saying she died before police arrived on the scene. Full rigor sets in after 8-12 hours. She was in full rigor by 3:30PM and probably before so that alone means at least 8-12 hours passed by the time of the autopsy. 8-12 hours earlier means she died at minimum 3:30AM-7:30AM and could have died even earlier because she could have been in full rigor sooner than this. That means she had to have died before police even entered the building.
She had to have been dead more than 3 hours before the photos were taken. Trying to say that one could tell by looking at a photo whether she was dead 3 hours or 8 hours at the time of the photo is sheer fantasy.
-
Yes I have seen a body after 7 hours. I saw the same body around 4 hours after death. I saw no difference at all. If you actually touch the body and know what you are doing you will probably be able to tell differences but there was nothing obvious just from looking. The skilled can tell if rigor set in by looking at the face and neck but the changes are so subtle that you need to be skilled ot tell just from sight.
It takes a long time before you physically see something extremely noticable. When a body is dead a long time it bloats- that is something visually obvious. The skin changed color as well. That is when the body stinks. Decomposition does these things. Decomp doesn't set in that fast. The only decomp I have seen were in corpses days old, I don't know when decomp began on said corpses but it sure as hell wasn't the first 12 hours after death.
Dr Craig saw her in person and had no problem with police saying she died before police arrived on the scene. Full rigor sets in after 8-12 hours. She was in full rigor by 3:30PM and probably before so that alone means at least 8-12 hours passed by the time of the autopsy. 8-12 hours earlier means she died at minimum 3:30AM-7:30AM and could have died even earlier because she could have been in full rigor sooner than this. That means she had to have died before police even entered the building.
She had to have been dead more than 3 hours before the photos were taken. Trying to say that one could tell by looking at a photo whether she was dead 3 hours or 8 hours at the time of the photo is sheer fantasy.
I believe you are informing someone who knows already scipio.
-
Nope.Sheila was NOT in full rigor at 03.30 at all. Nobody could have manipulated her arm/hand to the extent that it WAS manipulated if she'd been in full rigor.
There was NO blotchiness that would have indicated Livor and if she'd lain where she was for 6/7 hours,her legs would have been peuce.
Even the blood showed red when it should have been brown,and someone must have closed her eyes,as she wouldn't have done that herself without the reflex action of blinking. They'd have remained open.
-
Nope.Sheila was NOT in full rigor at 03.30 at all. Nobody could have manipulated her arm/hand to the extent that it WAS manipulated if she'd been in full rigor.
There was NO blotchiness that would have indicated Livor and if she'd lain where she was for 6/7 hours,her legs would have been peuce.
Even the blood showed red when it should have been brown,and someone must have closed her eyes,as she wouldn't have done that herself without the reflex action of blinking. They'd have remained open.
You are making contradictory claims, claims that are nonsense and in addition showing you don't even know what the autopsy stated
1) If she had not even been in full rigor at the time of the autopsy then she can't have been in full rigor hours earlier when her arm was moved so your claim makes no sense that it was in full rogr at the time of the photo but not the autopsy. The opposite argument that if she was in full rigor at the time of the autpsy this meant she had to be in full rigor hours earleir doesn't follow either.
2) When someone is in full rigor it is indeed possible to move their joints. Your suggestion such is not possible is not true they do nto harden to the point where they are like stone and can't be moved. Moving joints them causes the rigor to release early. If only partial rigor set in then rigor can set in more and lock it in the new position but might simply stop in that location.
3) At the time her hand was moved for the photo it was 7-8 hours after death so full rigor probably had not set in yet though again it is possible to move an arm that is in full rigor anyway.
4) The autopsy report says she was in full rigor at the time of the autopsy.
-
My posts are always effing nonsense to you,aren't they,to55er ? Is it because I'm RIGHT ??
-
My posts are always effing nonsense to you,aren't they,to55er ? Is it because I'm RIGHT ??
Lookout :) :) :)
-
You are making contradictory claims, claims that are nonsense and in addition showing you don't even know what the autopsy stated
1) If she had not even been in full rigor at the time of the autopsy then she can't have been in full rigor hours earlier when her arm was moved so your claim makes no sense that it was in full rogr at the time of the photo but not the autopsy. The opposite argument that if she was in full rigor at the time of the autpsy this meant she had to be in full rigor hours earleir doesn't follow either.
2) When someone is in full rigor it is indeed possible to move their joints. Your suggestion such is not possible is not true they do nto harden to the point where they are like stone and can't be moved. Moving joints them causes the rigor to release early. If only partial rigor set in then rigor can set in more and lock it in the new position but might simply stop in that location.
3) At the time her hand was moved for the photo it was 7-8 hours after death so full rigor probably had not set in yet though again it is possible to move an arm that is in full rigor anyway.
4) The autopsy report says she was in full rigor at the time of the autopsy.
Unfortunately we shall never know as Dr. Craig only certified her dead and did not estimate the time of death. I don't know, Ducky can do these things in NCIS so why can't they do it in real life. ::)