Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on October 06, 2014, 12:22:PM
-
He said he was experienced with guns. And had no difficulty using the murder weapon.
Sheila had limited experience with guns.
There were fostering conversations on the night. Sheila was silent and not paying attention.
He denied cycling to WHF to commit the massacre.
He had been unfair in using Julie for emotional support and bringing her to WHF on the massacre morning.
His relationship with June was poor. They would antagonise each other. There was a lack of understanding.
When his phone was answered 'it was dad'. Jeremy started crying.
He said the call to Chelmsford police station lasted 5 minutes.
He said he rang Julie at 3am for 'a friendly ear'.
He drove so slowly to WHF as he did not want to arrive before the police.
He said he knew how to get in and out of the bathroom window at WHF.
He said he saw Sheila punch the twins. Once.
He robbed the caravan site to show security problems. But admitted he should not have spent the money. He did so out of greed.
He agreed with Mary Mugfords testimony about his poor relationship with June.
He said James Richards and everyone lied about him. Because of the way the media had portrayed him.
He liked the good things in life. And had read the wills which tied him to the farm to inherit.
He should not have left the gun lying around and it would have taken seconds to put away. He had been 'lackadaisical' saying 'I didn't know what was going to happen, did I ?'.
Accused of lying he said 'that is what you have to establish'.
As more pressure was put on, his answers became shorter - don't know, can't pin myself, I can't answer.
It did not enter his head to dial 999.
The relationship with Julie had been in decline since Xmas 84. He had been unfaithful before, which Julie knew about. He ended the relationship in a restaraunt.
He had spent freely after the massacre and drank champagne on the funeral evening.
-
Oh God,more propaganda !
Though no more a propagandist than Scipio. I just think he's dangerous--------not clever !!
Doesn't work for me though,thankfully.
-
Oh God,more propaganda !
Though no more a propagandist than Scipio. I just think he's dangerous--------not clever !!
Doesn't work for me though,thankfully.
Not a 'thank you' ?
That took 15 minutes to compile.
-
Not a 'thank you' ?
That took 15 minutes to compile.
And I feel certain that every one of them gave you enormous gratification.
-
Not a 'thank you' ?
That took 15 minutes to compile.
Are you for real ?? What do want---------a medal ?
-
He said he was experienced with guns. And had no difficulty using the murder weapon.
Sheila had limited experience with guns.
There were fostering conversations on the night. Sheila was silent and not paying attention.
He denied cycling to WHF to commit the massacre.
He had been unfair in using Julie for emotional support and bringing her to WHF on the massacre morning.
His relationship with June was poor. They would antagonise each other. There was a lack of understanding.
When his phone was answered 'it was dad'. Jeremy started crying.
He said the call to Chelmsford police station lasted 5 minutes.
He said he rang Julie at 3am for 'a friendly ear'.
He drove so slowly to WHF as he did not want to arrive before the police.
He said he knew how to get in and out of the bathroom window at WHF.
He said he saw Sheila punch the twins. Once.
He robbed the caravan site to show security problems. But admitted he should not have spent the money. He did so out of greed.
He agreed with Mary Mugfords testimony about his poor relationship with June.
He said James Richards and everyone lied about him. Because of the way the media had portrayed him.
He liked the good things in life. And had read the wills which tied him to the farm to inherit.
He should not have left the gun lying around and it would have taken seconds to put away. He had been 'lackadaisical' saying 'I didn't know what was going to happen, did I ?'.
Accused of lying he said 'that is what you have to establish'.
As more pressure was put on, his answers became shorter - don't know, can't pin myself, I can't answer.
It did not enter his head to dial 999.
The relationship with Julie had been in decline since Xmas 84. He had been unfaithful before, which Julie knew about. He ended the relationship in a restaraunt.
He had spent freely after the massacre and drank champagne on the funeral evening.
show us the actual court testimony -because I don't believe that is on this site? I have never seen the proof of all of what you have posted.
-
show us the actual court testimony -because I don't believe that is on this site? I have never seen the proof of all of what you have posted.
It is in Wilkes's book.
-
He said he was experienced with guns. And had no difficulty using the murder weapon.
Sheila had limited experience with guns.
There were fostering conversations on the night. Sheila was silent and not paying attention.
He denied cycling to WHF to commit the massacre.
He had been unfair in using Julie for emotional support and bringing her to WHF on the massacre morning.
His relationship with June was poor. They would antagonise each other. There was a lack of understanding.
When his phone was answered 'it was dad'. Jeremy started crying.
He said the call to Chelmsford police station lasted 5 minutes.
He said he rang Julie at 3am for 'a friendly ear'.
He drove so slowly to WHF as he did not want to arrive before the police.
He said he knew how to get in and out of the bathroom window at WHF.
He said he saw Sheila punch the twins. Once.
He robbed the caravan site to show security problems. But admitted he should not have spent the money. He did so out of greed.
He agreed with Mary Mugfords testimony about his poor relationship with June.
He said James Richards and everyone lied about him. Because of the way the media had portrayed him.
He liked the good things in life. And had read the wills which tied him to the farm to inherit.
He should not have left the gun lying around and it would have taken seconds to put away. He had been 'lackadaisical' saying 'I didn't know what was going to happen, did I ?'.
Accused of lying he said 'that is what you have to establish'.
As more pressure was put on, his answers became shorter - don't know, can't pin myself, I can't answer.
It did not enter his head to dial 999.
The relationship with Julie had been in decline since Xmas 84. He had been unfaithful before, which Julie knew about. He ended the relationship in a restaraunt.
He had spent freely after the massacre and drank champagne on the funeral evening.
What, more whistling in the dark whilst stopping your ears? ;D
-
It is in Wilkes's book.
is this "word for word" or have you shortened ? Also is the full testimony in the book or has the author picked and chosen bits?
-
Not a 'thank you' ?
That took 15 minutes to compile.
LOL.........................
-
He said he was experienced with guns. And had no difficulty using the murder weapon.
One years experience, I think?
Sheila had limited experience with guns.
We are unsure of that, for she lived on farm where guns were kept and attended a shoot in Scotland as a beater with her husband Colin
There were fostering conversations on the night. Sheila was silent and not paying attention.
So Jeremy has said in his statement
He denied cycling to WHF to commit the massacre.
There is no solid proof the bike was used at all. There are no witnesses.
He had been unfair in using Julie for emotional support and bringing her to WHF on the massacre morning.
Julie did not go to WHF on the morning of the tragedies. Not sure where you got that from Adam?
His relationship with June was poor. They would antagonise each other. There was a lack of understanding.
We are not privy to know for sure this is true. However,Jeremy does state in his statement that their had been a lack of understanding over the last few years due to his mother turning to religion.
When his phone was answered 'it was dad'. Jeremy started crying.
What?
He said the call to Chelmsford police station lasted 5 minutes.
I don't think anyone had a stop watch and timed any call its an estimated guess?
He said he rang Julie at 3am for 'a friendly ear'.
We don't know the exact time of that call either Adam.
He drove so slowly to WHF as he did not want to arrive before the police.
He was told to wait for the police and not to go there alone. I don't see anything out of the ordinary about this.
He said he knew how to get in and out of the bathroom window at WHF.
Yes he did, he told the police there were many ways to get in and out.
He said he saw Sheila punch the twins. Once.
I have no seen where he said that?
He robbed the caravan site to show security problems. But admitted he should not have spent the money. He did so out of greed.
Along with Julie.
He agreed with Mary Mugfords testimony about his poor relationship with June.
He said James Richards and everyone lied about him. Because of the way the media had portrayed him.
He liked the good things in life. And had read the wills which tied him to the farm to inherit.
He should not have left the gun lying around and it would have taken seconds to put away. He had been 'lackadaisical' saying 'I didn't know what was going to happen, did I ?'.
Accused of lying he said 'that is what you have to establish'.
As more pressure was put on, his answers became shorter - don't know, can't pin myself, I can't answer.
It did not enter his head to dial 999.
The relationship with Julie had been in decline since Xmas 84. He had been unfaithful before, which Julie knew about. He ended the relationship in a restaraunt.
He had spent freely after the massacre and drank champagne on the funeral evening.
I could go on Adam but I have to nip to the dentist....'I'll be back ;)
-
He said he was experienced with guns. And had no difficulty using the rifle murder weapon. True -he had experience with guns
Sheila had limited experience with guns. - He thought she had gone shooting with her father and in Scotland - so true
There were fostering conversations on the night. Sheila was silent and not paying attention.- True he would have said that and the possibility of that conversation is backed up by other evidence
He denied cycling to WHF to commit the massacre. ::)
He had been unfair in using Julie for emotional support and bringing her to WHF on the massacre morning. WHY - What was the question behind that answer?
His relationship with June was poor. They would antagonise each other. There was a lack of understanding. In the [past - I don't think this is the FULL answer
When his phone was answered 'it was dad'. Jeremy started crying. ?? Explain this bit does not make sense
He said the call to Chelmsford police station lasted 5 minutes. - and?
He said he rang Julie at 3am for 'a friendly ear'. - So?
He drove so slowly to WHF as he did not want to arrive before the police. so?
He said he knew how to get in and out of the bathroom window at WHF. YEs we know that - but he said it was NOT possible to lock it from the outside
He said he saw Sheila punch the twins. Once. - yes in his statements
He robbed the caravan site to show security problems. But admitted he should not have spent the money. He did so out of greed. Wow
He agreed with Mary Mugfords testimony about his poor relationship with June. see above in the past
He said James Richards and everyone lied about him. Because of the way the media had portrayed him. -like to see those exact words in testimony - but I expect that was his perception
He liked the good things in life. And had read the wills which tied him to the farm to inherit. - I think this is an extract not the full wording -- if he was tied to the farm than he would not have to red the full wills, plus he had access to the family safe so he must have been trusted
He should not have left the gun lying around and it would have taken seconds to put away. He had been 'lackadaisical' saying 'I didn't know what was going to happen, did I ?'. so ???
Accused of lying he said 'that is what you have to establish'. - If you read the full transcript of questioning its pretty obvious why he said that
As more pressure was put on, his answers became shorter - don't know, can't pin myself, I can't answer. ?? That happens a lot when the police are telling you lies and twisting you in circles- its why interviews are taped now
It did not enter his head to dial 999. - Yes - his family liked to keep Sheilas illness private and he did not know that any shots would be fired - so???
The relationship with Julie had been in decline since Xmas 84. He had been unfaithful before, which Julie knew about. He ended the relationship in a restaraunt. - I thought you said she was not jilted - several times ::) and if it was in decline why on earth would he tell her about his plans?
He had spent freely after the massacre and drank champagne on the funeral evening. - And? that happens at a lot of funerals/wakes - my FIL went to one recently where they drank a whole bottle of Jack Daniels between two
So your point of the thread is ? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D great minds think alike
I think Adam has just shown that Jeremys testimony was very honest
-
He's just posting Jeremy's court testimony, don't think he is saying if it makes Jeremy look guilty or innocent, but just that this is what he said in court.
-
He's just posting Jeremy's court testimony, don't think he is saying if it makes Jeremy look guilty or innocent, but just that this is what he said in court.
I would still say they are extracts of sentences out of context - I would be interested to see more of his testimony though. And the questions he was asked in court by prosecution and defence.
-
I would still say they are extracts of sentences out of context - I would be interested to see more of his testimony though. And the questions he was asked in court by prosecution and defence.
You have repeatedly said you want to see the court testimony. So here are extracts from it. From a book. Not all of it. But the main points.
You can work out what the questions were from what he says.
Even Jeremy's testimony is damning. Along with his WS. Thread already created.
-
Mat said you were not showing it was damning?
So what is damning ? And I still point out taking sentences out of context is pretty pointless.
He may have said he did not get on with June - but if he said "I did not get on with her . But that was in the past , in the last 18 months it had improved "- then that is out of context .
So you tell me what is so damning?
-
I doubt that he said he rang Julie at 3am. In 1986, he probably thought that Nevill called him at 3:10am, so he would have said he rang Julie later, possibly 3:20am or the 3:25am time he gave in his statement.
His website was still using that 3:10am time until around 2003 (very approximately). After March 2004, both telephone logs were available for comparison, and so the emphasis changed completely, but the latest article still contains errors.
-
Mat said you were not showing it was damning?
So what is damning ? And I still point out taking sentences out of context is pretty pointless.
He may have said he did not get on with June - but if he said "I did not get on with her . But that was in the past , in the last 18 months it had improved "- then that is out of context .
So you tell me what is so damning?
He agreed with MM testimony. I will find it before going out for some food. Nearly all the points are damning and you know it.
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
-
I doubt that he said he rang Julie at 3am. In 1986, he probably thought that Nevill called him at 3:10am, so he would have said he rang Julie later, possibly 3:20am or the 3:25am time he gave in his statement.
His website was still using that 3:10am time until around 2003 (very approximately). After March 2004, both telephone logs were available for comparison, and so the emphasis changed completely, but the latest article still contains errors.
The change was in order to make up the lie that Nevill phoned police too. That is what required adjusting the timetable Jeremy gave up to tha tpoint.
You well know this though after all your horsecrap regarding trying to pretend Nevill called police thoughthe evidence proves otherwise and you have nothing at all to suggest such a call happened.
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
I m sorry but I get the feeling she was backing up Julies "story" because otherwise Julie would have been in real trouble. I have a feeling bits of it are true and bits are embellished. She did not put her daughter off that awful photoshoot and article so I am not quite sure of her moral standards I am afraid.
And I am not denying there may have been some family discord - show me a family where there is not. But he said it was in the past. June wrote that letter saying how much she loved both Jeremy and Sheila so that does not add up either.
If the picture was as black as you paint it there is NO way Neville would let him have shares in two businesses and tell the Estate manager he was ready for more responsibility. He would have chucked him out.
Also you are always pointing out how they bankrolled Jeremy - so why would they have done that and given him a cottage , good salary and expenses if he hated them so much . I don't think Neville was that weak . He was a magistrate and canny businessman - he was no fool.
-
I m sorry but I get the feeling she was backing up Julies "story" because otherwise Julie would have been in real trouble. I have a feeling bits of it are true and bits are embellished. She did not put her daughter off that awful photoshoot and article so I am not quite sure of her moral standards I am afraid.
And I am not denying there may have been some family discord - show me a family where there is not. But he said it was in the past. June wrote that letter saying how much she loved both Jeremy and Sheila so that does not add up either.
If the picture was as black as you paint it there is NO way Neville would let him have shares in two businesses and tell the Estate manager he was ready for more responsibility. He would have chucked him out.
Also you are always pointing out how they bankrolled Jeremy - so why would they have done that and given him a cottage , good salary and expenses if he hated them so much . I don't think Neville was that weak . He was a magistrate and canny businessman - he was no fool.
Jeremy was right in his testimony. Everyone was lying.
Wait there. He testified that he agreed with MM testimony.
-
Jeremy was right in his testimony. Everyone was lying.
Wait there. He testified that he agreed with MM testimony.
He agreed with JM's statement before she changed it. If it was the truth to start with then she would not need to change it. And if she changed it that immediately throws doubt upon her second statement. What I can comprehend is why the jury believed her at all. I will stand by the judge on that one. They were both liars so why believe the one over the other. Of course that also begs the question why would Bamber lie?
-
The change was in order to make up the lie that Nevill phoned police too.
Pc West: I again related the details of my conversation and the officer [Pc Saxby] told me that he would go direct to White House Farm with his Sergeant."
Either the above is deliberately misleading or it was Pc West who got Pc Saxby to go to WHF, not Malcolm Bonnett.
-
Jeremy was right in his testimony. Everyone was lying.
Wait there. He testified that he agreed with MM testimony.
Adam -I don't see the point in sarcasm and I am not going to argue you when I have not seen the full testimony and questions. There is no point.
I did say some of it could be true - but embellished
And if he is innocent of course some people lied. But you are also missing the point that some things that were true and used against him - do not actually make him a murderer. If everyone who had arguments or said they hated their parents became murderers the prisons would be in collapse.If every burglar became a murderer then the prisons would have no places . etc etc,
-
He agreed with JM's statement before she changed it. If it was the truth to start with then she would not need to change it. And if she changed it that immediately throws doubt upon her second statement. What I can comprehend is why the jury believed her at all. I will stand by the judge on that one. They were both liars so why believe the one over the other. Of course that also begs the question why would Bamber lie?
Are you talking about the first statement done just after the massacre. When she was in shock and in love with Jeremy. Refusing to believe he had done it ?
Poor young woman. Jeremy dragging her into it.
-
Are you talking about the first statement done just after the massacre. When she was in shock and in love with Jeremy. Refusing to believe he had done it ?
Poor young woman. Jeremy dragging her into it.
Have you actually read her statements?
-
Are you talking about the first statement done just after the massacre. When she was in shock and in love with Jeremy. Refusing to believe he had done it ?
Poor young woman. Jeremy dragging her into it.
Have you considered that she MAY have stood by him and supported him simply in the hope that he'd reward her with marriage? Where does love come into it?
-
Have you considered that she MAY have stood by him and supported him simply in the hope that he'd reward her with marriage? Where does love come into it?
I don't think that was realistic at the time. Jeremy testified he was seeing less of Julie. Travelling to London less. Two young people were probably getting bored after a long relationship.
Marriage was even more unlikely after it looked like Jeremy was going to be a rich man. Brett it seemed was going to be his new buddy after the inevitable breakup with Julie happened.
-
I don't think that was realistic at the time. Jeremy testified he was seeing less of Julie. Travelling to London less. Two young people were probably getting bored after a long relationship.
Marriage was even more unlikely after it looked like Jeremy was going to be a rich man. Brett it seemed was going to be his new buddy after the inevitable breakup with Julie happened.
It may have seemed totally unrealistic..................to JEREMY. But it Julie may have seen it VERY differently. I doubt it was discussed.
-
Pc West: I again related the details of my conversation and the officer [Pc Saxby] told me that he would go direct to White House Farm with his Sergeant."
Either the above is deliberately misleading or it was Pc West who got Pc Saxby to go to WHF, not Malcolm Bonnett.
PC West made numerous mistakes, it doesn't have to be a lie but can be an error. He even could have contacted the after Bonnett did with them telling him they were going and him considering that counting to him doing the dispatching.
Such semantics are of little consequence.
In contrast Jeremy outright lied and his lies are of great significance.
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
Barbara wilson saw everyone everyday and certainly never said this
We are talking about the mother of a crook who used to kite cheques
-
Yes,it looks as though those who were quick to lay blame on Jeremy,weren't without blame themselves. Every damn one of them. This is usually the way though,isn't it ? You'll find it's those who have an axe to grind,will always blame someone else,to justify their own shortcomings.
-
PC West made numerous mistakes
What were they?
-
PC West made numerous mistakes, it doesn't have to be a lie but can be an error. He even could have contacted the after Bonnett did with them telling him they were going and him considering that counting to him doing the dispatching.
Such semantics are of little consequence.
In contrast Jeremy outright lied and his lies are of great significance.
Yes they are of huge consequence.
Timings / recordings of conversations / mistakes about bodies being male or female/ gun being found in the kitchen with no moderator etc - are according to you just errors of no consequence.
We must be able to rely on the police for accuracy and not excuse their mistakes when a mans freedom is at stake.
-
It may have seemed totally unrealistic..................to JEREMY. But it Julie may have seen it VERY differently. I doubt it was discussed.
Some women are content with just having fun and not worrying about marriage. After he proposed to her yet later broke their engagement that seemed to change things. That created an expectation in her things were more serious beween them and yet instead settling down he became more carefree after the murders. Once you make someone (male or female) think it is extremely serious it is hard to go back to the way you were. They usually won't stand for it.
Between that and the guilt about the murders it became too much to tolerate. He thought that despite brekaing up she would always love him too much to turn on him and that police would nto believe her anyway because he would just chalk it up to the breakup. The major evidence the lab developed had not yet come to light. That evidence corroborated much of her claims and is much more powerful than just hearing her account. Combined they were quite a game changer. Jeremy predicted neither and still didn't seem to appreciate the strength of such evidence even at trial.
-
What were they?
He didn't record the correct time Jeremy's call was received on his log. Then he didn't prepare to testify at trial so wasn't exactly sure what he did and had to read from his log to try to detail the events. He botched how long he was on the phone with Jeremy and wasn't entirely sure of how everything went down with Bonnett and the dispatching of the police. He made it sound like he just asked Bonnet for the station and cars avaialble for him to contact himself he failed to mention telling Bonnett all about Jeremy's call though his notes and statements admitted he did so. He didn't provide details he should have at trial because he didn't prepare to testify and was criticized by his superiors for such.
-
Yes they are of huge consequence.
Timings / recordings of conversations / mistakes about bodies being male or female/ gun being found in the kitchen with no moderator etc - are according to you just errors of no consequence.
We must be able to rely on the police for accuracy and not excuse their mistakes when a mans freedom is at stake.
There is no evidence that West was responsible for the error asserting there were 2 bodies in the kitchen.
In the meantime a log maintained by someone far from the scene is immaterial with regard to the bodies found and where. You have the peopel who found and saw the bodies testify and provide statements as to what they witnessed.
The statements are all consistent and supported by physical evidence and photos. Jeremy supporters have no evidence at all to try pretending there were 2 bodies in the kitchen, not even a plausible motive for moving a body from the kitchen let alone any evidence such occurred.
If all the myths are set aside Jeremy supporters have nothing at all so far as arguments that can be made to suggest Jerem yis inncoent. All supporters can do is say they refuse to believe he is guily and thus refuse to believe the evidence though they can't refute it.
-
Some women are content with just having fun and not worrying about marriage. After he proposed to her yet later broke their engagement that seemed to change things. That created an expectation in her things were more serious beween them and yet instead settling down he became more carefree after the murders. Once you make someone (male or female) think it is extremely serious it is hard to go back to the way you were. They usually won't stand for it.
Between that and the guilt about the murders it became too much to tolerate. He thought that despite brekaing up she would always love him too much to turn on him and that police would nto believe her anyway because he would just chalk it up to the breakup. The major evidence the lab developed had not yet come to light. That evidence corroborated much of her claims and is much more powerful than just hearing her account. Combined they were quite a game changer. Jeremy predicted neither and still didn't seem to appreciate the strength of such evidence even at trial.
How on earth do you become such an expert on what Jeremy thought. You are calling us biased - but your interpretation of being able to read his mind is coming from your bias , because you can have no way of KNOWING what his thoughts were.
-
How come you think Pc West made mistakes, but Jeremy told lies? Why can't Jeremy have simply made some mistakes when he was incorrect?
-
they were also ( two officers) allowed to make "mistakes" about how they thought the bodies/gun/bible had been moved - but of course that is unimportant as well.
you would think after seeing such a horrific scene the images would unfortunately be ingrained in their memories
-
Some women are content with just having fun and not worrying about marriage. After he proposed to her yet later broke their engagement that seemed to change things. That created an expectation in her things were more serious beween them and yet instead settling down he became more carefree after the murders. Once you make someone (male or female) think it is extremely serious it is hard to go back to the way you were. They usually won't stand for it.
Between that and the guilt about the murders it became too much to tolerate. He thought that despite brekaing up she would always love him too much to turn on him and that police would nto believe her anyway because he would just chalk it up to the breakup. The major evidence the lab developed had not yet come to light. That evidence corroborated much of her claims and is much more powerful than just hearing her account. Combined they were quite a game changer. Jeremy predicted neither and still didn't seem to appreciate the strength of such evidence even at trial.
Skippy the rubbish just rolls off your tongue
What guilty???
You are actually trying to make out Julie felt guilty??
Are you bonkers???
She was annoyed with Jeremy because he wouldn't hand over money for her and her mate to go abroad on a jolly
Do you think she felt guilty flicking through the holiday between popping into the mortuary??
-
Skippy the rubbish just rolls off your tongue
What guilty???
You are actually trying to make out Julie felt guilty??
Are you bonkers???
She was annoyed with Jeremy because he wouldn't hand over money for her and her mate to go abroad on a jolly
Do you think she felt guilty flicking through the holiday between popping into the mortuary??
Have you got a source that Julie wanted to to go on a jolly up with her friend ?
She was being whisked everywhere by Jeremy. So not really desperate for another jolly up.
-
How on earth do you become such an expert on what Jeremy thought. You are calling us biased - but your interpretation of being able to read his mind is coming from your bias , because you can have no way of KNOWING what his thoughts were.
It takes an expert to figure out Jeremy changed his mind about marriage and was only interested in living it up and not settling down? He broke off their engagement allegedly because it pleased his parents and then after they were gone spent more time with Brett than Julie and made no effort at all to settle down?
It takes an expert to figure out he didn't think she would rat him out or that police would believe her if he did? It takes an expert to figure out he expected to be acquitted and was shocked when he was convicted because he had no appreciation of how potent the evidence was?
All one has to do is look at the evidence tha tinfomrs about these matters.
Because I am not biased I actually look at all the available evidence fully I don't look through blinders.
-
How come you think Pc West made mistakes, but Jeremy told lies? Why can't Jeremy have simply made some mistakes when he was incorrect?
Jeremy can't have accidentally told police that he taught sSHeila to fire the murder wepaon and that she fired all wepaons in th ehouse, he clearly lied intentionally.
Jeremy can't have accidentally told police he got the gun out to shoot rabbits and left it and the bullets out when in fact she staged the bullets afterwards and made thw whole story up.
Jeremy can't have made a mistake in claiming Nevill called him, he knew it didn't happen.
Jeremy didn't make a mistake claiming he called police immediately after being unable to get through to Nevill he knew he never tried to reach Nevill and that he called Julie before calling police an dran out the door as soon as he was done with the police. He claimed he called police first because he knew how bad it would look to have called Julie first and figured police would never figure out the truth..
I cna continue but it is all the same, he said things he knew were untrue and said them on purpose to conceal the truth. There are no possible ways for him to have just erred by accident on these matters.
-
Those are your mistakes, not Jeremy's.
-
Those are your mistakes, not Jeremy's.
No they are lies Jeremy told which you refuse to face because you are so biased you are busy routinely lying for him yourself including making up that he said he called Julie after calling Witham but before calling Chelmsford.
-
Have you got a source that Julie wanted to to go on a jolly up with her friend ?
She was being whisked everywhere by Jeremy. So not really desperate for another jolly up.
It's in her witness statement but you obviously couldn't be bothered to read them
-
No they are lies Jeremy told
You have no confidence in that or you would be able to suggest what exactly Pc West told Bonnett. However, you never have, giving feeble excuses for failing to do so.
-
You have no confidence in that or you would be able to suggest what exactly Pc West told Bonnett. However, you never have, giving feeble excuses for failing to do so.
I have no need to. I already proved your claims to be lies and you to be thoroughly dishonest and to be making claims tha thave no merit at all.
You did most of the work for me especially when you started ignoring Jeremy's claims that he called police before Julie which he maintains to this day and making up out of no where that he called Julie after he phoned Witham but before he called Chelsford just to try to pretend he was telling the truth about calling police before calling her though you well know he was referring to calling West before Julie. He considered calling Witham inconsequential since he did not get through to anyone so didn't bother to write about it in his witness statement he only mentioned such verbally.
You have lied from start to finish to try to pretend Nevill phoned and to change the times of everything to fit a call from Nevill in. You demolished your crediiblity in the process.
-
You have no confidence in that or you would be able to suggest what exactly Pc West told Bonnett. However, you never have, giving feeble excuses for failing to do so.
I believe you started this debate re phone calls some three weeks ago. I really don't believe it to be any further forward, or your belief to be any more credible now, than it was then.
-
Jeremy can't have accidentally told police that he taught sSHeila to fire the murder wepaon and that she fired all wepaons in th ehouse, he clearly lied intentionally.
Jeremy can't have accidentally told police he got the gun out to shoot rabbits and left it and the bullets out when in fact she staged the bullets afterwards and made thw whole story up.
Jeremy can't have made a mistake in claiming Nevill called him, he knew it didn't happen.
Jeremy didn't make a mistake claiming he called police immediately after being unable to get through to Nevill he knew he never tried to reach Nevill and that he called Julie before calling police an dran out the door as soon as he was done with the police. He claimed he called police first because he knew how bad it would look to have called Julie first and figured police would never figure out the truth..
I cna continue but it is all the same, he said things he knew were untrue and said them on purpose to conceal the truth. There are no possible ways for him to have just erred by accident on these matters.
Maybe she did know how to fire all the weapons in the house? There were only 3 types of weapons. There's no proof that she did of course, but I would like to rummage through the family photos. Remember it took DB long enough to remember reluctantly Sheila going to Scotland on a shooting expedition? ;)
-
Morning Mr. Gee think Colin states in his book Sheila knew nothing about guns I will check and confirm or otherwise.
-
Morning Mr. Gee think Colin states in his book Sheila knew nothing about guns I will check and confirm or otherwise.
Hi Susan. She of course may not have given that impression since as she was living with him there was no need to tell him that she knew about guns? But I am curious as to why it took so long for DB to confess that Sheila had actually been on a shooting expedition to Scotland?
-
Mr.Gee again I will have to check as my brain will not absorb too much at once Colin mace a comment that when he was looking through Sheila's stuff he found one photo of Sheila on the shoot torn in half :'( will go back to the book today and check all this stuff out will get back to you.
-
It's in her witness statement but you obviously couldn't be bothered to read them
I have read it.
There is no mention of Julie being ' angry because Jeremy would not pay for a jolly up abroad for her and her friend'.
-
Hi Susan. She of course may not have given that impression since as she was living with him there was no need to tell him that she knew about guns? But I am curious as to why it took so long for DB to confess that Sheila had actually been on a shooting expedition to Scotland?
We have to go by what Jeremy testified in court - ' Sheila had limited knowledge of guns'.
She certainly could not re load. Twice. Anyway she had no gun residue, oil or broken finger nails. So certainly did not fire the gun.
Wait there, people claim she had a nice radox shower afterwards. But she still had to shoot herself afterwards. Twice. Without getting any gun fire residue on her.
-
I have read it.
There is no mention of Julie being ' angry because Jeremy would not pay for a jolly up abroad for her and her friend'.
-
that's a very convenient statement to make to explain Jeremys behaviour :)
"He told me he had a mental problem and felt no guilt at all".
I may be wrong but it does sound like that may have been "fed" to her.
-
Waiting for your reply Adam she was so 'guilty' about the murders she decided she would go for a jolly with her mate but was annoyed that Jeremy wouldn't cough up with the his dead parents cash
-
We have to go by what Jeremy testified in court - ' Sheila had limited knowledge of guns'.
She certainly could not re load. Twice. Anyway she had no gun residue, oil or broken finger nails. So certainly did not fire the gun.
Wait there, people claim she had a nice radox shower afterwards. But she still had to shoot herself afterwards. Twice. Without getting any gun fire residue on her.
Adam
The swabs that were sent of Sheilas hands were refused by the lab and sent back because of possible contamination - when they were re-submitted were they the same swabs or new ones taken later?
Another question - how long were Sheilas fingernails at the time of the murder? - she normally wore false nails but they are removable - so how long were her nails - that is relevant because if they were short they could not have been broken.
Also apparently there is more than one way to load the bullets into the magazine.
Have you seen any evidence to suggest that a person who was bought up with guns around her all her life could not just by watching very easily pick up how to load such guns. She may have gone out with her father on lots of occasions - she may or may not have shot the gun ( only they would know)but she would have watched him do it. Its not rocket science.
-
Maybe she did know how to fire all the weapons in the house? There were only 3 types of weapons. There's no proof that she did of course, but I would like to rummage through the family photos. Remember it took DB long enough to remember reluctantly Sheila going to Scotland on a shooting expedition? ;)
He admitted she might have gone to Scotland with them. He still was not certain she went let alone whether she attended the shooting event. She could have simply gone to Scotland and not actually gone to the event. He was certain that if she did attend the shooting event she did not shoot.
The family all said she didn't have an interest in guns so didn't make an attempt to learn how to operate them and then try to operate them. Nor did any farm workers ever see her handle weapons.
Ann Eaton said she could not even be taught to drive because of her poor hand eye coordination let alone would they be able to teach her to shoot.
There was evidence offered that June saw Jeremy try to teach her how to load the magazine to the murder weapon but that she rebuffed his efforts and didn't want to touch it or learn. If she would not even want to learn that then there is little hope she would want to learn how o insert it into the weapon, chamber a round and then shoot.
Why did Jeremy lie to police at the scene by telling them he taught her how to fire the murder weapon and that she fired it and all the other weapons? He later admitted he had never seen her fire a weapon so clearly lied to them. Steadfast Jeremy supporters say the police lied and he never told them such but why would they lie in their notes and such to indicate he told the such? There is nothing to support the police all lying about this.
Why didn't Jeremy tell these same police how easy it was to get in through the locked windows? They asked if he knew a way to get in. He consistently used the windows to get in. It was either practice or a game to him. He didn't tell them about the extra key kept in the barn either.
It is quite obvious he was both lying to police at the scene and the only reason for such is because he was responsible for the deaths.
Since this is about his court testimony one of the things I found so striking was his claim at trial he did not initially think it an emergency situation. This was his excuse for not immediately trying to go there or dialing 999. He said he didn't think there was any urgency or anything to worry about.
Ok so he gets a call from his father saying come quick Sheila has gone crazy and has a gun and the call gets disconnected. He tries to call back to speak more to his father to get more information but can't get through. He doesn't see a major problem by his sister being in a crazy rage with a gun but decides to call police to have them go check it out anyway. Since he sees no major problem he doesn't think time is of the essence and doesn't dial 999 but rather looks up numbers. Then while talking to police he realized it was more serious than he realized. That was his story.
The prosecution demonstrated he called Julie before police. Why woud he call Julie if he wasn't worried or that concerned like he claimed? It makes little sense to wake Julie up if you don't see any emergency or major problem.
I personally think this testimony hurts as opposed to helping. Is it credible you would not consider it an emeregency situation if a relative told you someone with mental problems is having a psychotic episode and has a gun? Did she ever grab a gun before and menace with it but not fire? No no only did she never grab a gun during an episode before she had no interest in handling guns before.
To say he didn't think it was an emergency situation in such circumstances is not credible. His lack of concern demontrates no such call from Nevill happened, that is the only rational explanation why he would no be overly concerned at the time in question.
Saying he didn't go there or call 999 because he didn't think there was a major problem makes it hard to believe him that such a call happened. He would have been better off saying he was panicked and not thinking clearly and thus totally forgot about 999 and grabbed the phone book to immediately call the police.
That still doesn't explain calling Julie before police though. That is a harder one to try to figure out what to make up. He could say he called her because he wasn't sure what to do and needed her advice but why would he be unsure what to do wince he didn't view it as a pressing emergency and why wake her up to ask her for advice? It doesn't really make sense.
So he stuck with saying he called her after police despite the call to her after police not fitting the timetable. His lawyers got one roomate to say the call could have come as late as 3:30 though he did not think so. But Jeremy was on the phone with police at that time still so the call to police effectively ended after 3:30 and thus he could not have called Julie at 3:30 or after 3:30. He had to have called prior to 3:30 and that means prior to calling police.
He hs a year in jail to think about what he could make up to support his claims. What he came up with was pretty crappy. But I can't think up much to help him either. I can't think of a good reason why he would call Julie at all let alone before police. If you receive such a call you either rush over there or call police.
His initial story is that he did that- he immediately called police. He told that lie because that is what someone would do. Because calling Julie first makes no sense he lied and claimed he called police first. He maintained that lie even at trial in the face of evidence tha the called Julie first becaus ehe had no good excuse and hoped the jury would not believe the timetable police gave which established he called Julie first. He and his lawyers felt that was better than trying to make up an excuse for calling Julie first.
I don't understand why he said that at first he was not that concerned so took his time in calling police. That is not what he said initially. He initially said he was panicked so called police immediately. That is wha someone in his place receiving the alleged call would do so is a good lie. Ruining this by saying you didn't see any urgency makes no sense to be it was a bonehead play.
Saying that undermines his claim he received a call from Nevill.
-
Adam
The swabs that were sent of Sheilas hands were refused by the lab and sent back because of possible contamination - when they were re-submitted were they the same swabs or new ones taken later?
Another question - how long were Sheilas fingernails at the time of the murder? - she normally wore false nails but they are removable - so how long were her nails - that is relevant because if they were short they could not have been broken.
Also apparently there is more than one way to load the bullets into the magazine.
Have you seen any evidence to suggest that a person who was bought up with guns around her all her life could not just by watching very easily pick up how to load such guns. She may have gone out with her father on lots of occasions - she may or may not have shot the gun ( only they would know)but she would have watched him do it. Its not rocket science.
The same swabs were resubmitted there was only 1 set of swabs taken. The bodies were buried os how coudl new swabs be taken at that point? They were rejected for a stupid reason and all rejection means is the lab refused to accept them and forced the police to take them back with them to the evidence storage room. They were logged out of the evidence room to be taken to the lab, logged back into the evidence room when the lab rejected them then logged back out to be submitted to the lab yet again this time being accepted.
Photos show how long her nails are they are long enough that while bashing Nevill some likely would have broken and loading the magazine in would chip some unless loaded very slowly and carefully.
There is only one way to load the magazine. You have to hold the magazine in one hand and take the bullet in the other and push the bullet from the front of the magazine to the back. If you do it slwoly you can avoid chipping nails of the finger pushing it. Otherwise it will likely slip and chip against it. The last few bullets need to be pushed veyr hard especially the last round. It is especially likely to result in slipping at that point. She already had dexterity problems and her medicine caused tremors so she was even more likely to accidentally hit her nail against it before tkaing into acount her alleged crazy state of mind that would result in her rushing not loading the rounds slowly and very carefully.
No matter how fast she loaded them she needed to push the front of the bullet and thus to get lead on her hands. The bullet was unjacketed, the lead was exposed thus touched directly by handling the bullet.
-
He admitted she might have gone to Scotland with them. He still was not certain she went let alone whether she attended the shooting event. She could have simply gone to Scotland and not actually gone to the event. He was certain that if she did attend the shooting event she did not shoot.
The family all said she didn't have an interest in guns so didn't make an attempt to learn how to operate them and then try to operate them. Nor did any farm workers ever see her handle weapons.
Ann Eaton said she could not even be taught to drive because of her poor hand eye coordination let alone would they be able to teach her to shoot.
There was evidence offered that June saw Jeremy try to teach her how to load the magazine to the murder weapon but that she rebuffed his efforts and didn't want to touch it or learn. If she would not even want to learn that then there is little hope she would want to learn how o insert it into the weapon, chamber a round and then shoot.
Why did Jeremy lie to police at the scene by telling them he taught her how to fire the murder weapon and that she fired it and all the other weapons? He later admitted he had never seen her fire a weapon so clearly lied to them. Steadfast Jeremy supporters say the police lied and he never told them such but why would they lie in their notes and such to indicate he told the such? There is nothing to support the police all lying about this.
Why didn't Jeremy tell these same police how easy it was to get in through the locked windows? They asked if he knew a way to get in. He consistently used the windows to get in. It was either practice or a game to him. He didn't tell them about the extra key kept in the barn either.
It is quite obvious he was both lying to police at the scene and the only reason for such is because he was responsible for the deaths.
Since this is about his court testimony one of the things I found so striking was his claim at trial he did not initially think it an emergency situation. This was his excuse for not immediately trying to go there or dialing 999. He said he didn't think there was any urgency or anything to worry about.
Ok so he gets a call from his father saying come quick Sheila has gone crazy and has a gun and the call gets disconnected. He tries to call back to speak more to his father to get more information but can't get through. He doesn't see a major problem by his sister being in a crazy rage with a gun but decides to call police to have them go check it out anyway. Since he sees no major problem he doesn't think time is of the essence and doesn't dial 999 but rather looks up numbers. Then while talking to police he realized it was more serious than he realized. That was his story.
The prosecution demonstrated he called Julie before police. Why woud he call Julie if he wasn't worried or that concerned like he claimed? It makes little sense to wake Julie up if you don't see any emergency or major problem.
I personally think this testimony hurts as opposed to helping. Is it credible you would not consider it an emeregency situation if a relative told you someone with mental problems is having a psychotic episode and has a gun? Did she ever grab a gun before and menace with it but not fire? No no only did she never grab a gun during an episode before she had no interest in handling guns before.
To say he didn't think it was an emergency situation in such circumstances is not credible. His lack of concern demontrates no such call from Nevill happened, that is the only rational explanation why he would no be overly concerned at the time in question.
Saying he didn't go there or call 999 because he didn't think there was a major problem makes it hard to believe him that such a call happened. He would have been better off saying he was panicked and not thinking clearly and thus totally forgot about 999 and grabbed the phone book to immediately call the police.
That still doesn't explain calling Julie before police though. That is a harder one to try to figure out what to make up. He could say he called her because he wasn't sure what to do and needed her advice but why would he be unsure what to do wince he didn't view it as a pressing emergency and why wake her up to ask her for advice? It doesn't really make sense.
So he stuck with saying he called her after police despite the call to her after police not fitting the timetable. His lawyers got one roomate to say the call could have come as late as 3:30 though he did not think so. But Jeremy was on the phone with police at that time still so the call to police effectively ended after 3:30 and thus he could not have called Julie at 3:30 or after 3:30. He had to have called prior to 3:30 and that means prior to calling police.
He hs a year in jail to think about what he could make up to support his claims. What he came up with was pretty crappy. But I can't think up much to help him either. I can't think of a good reason why he would call Julie at all let alone before police. If you receive such a call you either rush over there or call police.
His initial story is that he did that- he immediately called police. He told that lie because that is what someone would do. Because calling Julie first makes no sense he lied and claimed he called police first. He maintained that lie even at trial in the face of evidence tha the called Julie first becaus ehe had no good excuse and hoped the jury would not believe the timetable police gave which established he called Julie first. He and his lawyers felt that was better than trying to make up an excuse for calling Julie first.
I don't understand why he said that at first he was not that concerned so took his time in calling police. That is not what he said initially. He initially said he was panicked so called police immediately. That is wha someone in his place receiving the alleged call would do so is a good lie. Ruining this by saying you didn't see any urgency makes no sense to be it was a bonehead play.
Saying that undermines his claim he received a call from Nevill.
Scipio, I really don't think that TOO much credence can be put on what AE says. MOST girls like Sheila are driving LONG before they're legally allowed to drive -in fact, my then husband passed his test on his 17th birthday because he'd had access to private land- so to say she couldn't because of poor hand/eye coordination suggests that her "problems" started MUCH sooner than has previously been thought. There is also the point that Ann was considerably older than Sheila and when Sheila was in her teens and stunningly beautiful, Ann was, what the county publications such as The Tatler referred to as, "a young matron."
-
The swabs were rejected on 9th August
here is a list of swabs taken :
(6) Hand swabs taker, at 1120hrs on Sheila Caffell’s right hand
(7) Hand swabs taken at 1120hrs on Sheila Caffell’s left hand
Hand swabs taken at 0230 pm on Sheila Caffell’s right hand
(9) Hand swabs taken at 0230 pm on Sheila Caffell’s left hand
(10) Hand swabs taken at 0315 pm on Sheila Caffell’s right hand
(11) Hand swabs taken at 0315 pm on Sheila Caffell’s left hand
When were they re-submitted to the lab under the new reference number? Did they have a full explanation about why they could be re-submitted when the lab had rejected them?
-
Morning Mr. Gee think Colin states in his book Sheila knew nothing about guns I will check and confirm or otherwise.
Susan, Colin didn´t even know whether Sheila was left- or right-handed.
-
Alias how sad is that but funny you should say that as I am both ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias how sad is that but funny you should say that as I am both ;D ;D ;D
I am too! We would make excellent drummers, susan, should we start a band? ;D
-
Well if Sheila was left-handed,whoever arranged the rifle got it wrong.
-
Well if Sheila was left-handed,whoever arranged the rifle got it wrong.
We don´t know whether she was left or right handed (I believe?)
-
Scipio, I really don't think that TOO much credence can be put on what AE says. MOST girls like Sheila are driving LONG before they're legally allowed to drive -in fact, my then husband passed his test on his 17th birthday because he'd had access to private land- so to say she couldn't because of poor hand/eye coordination suggests that her "problems" started MUCH sooner than has previously been thought. There is also the point that Ann was considerably older than Sheila and when Sheila was in her teens and stunningly beautiful, Ann was, what the county publications such as The Tatler referred to as, "a young matron."
Others confirmed she couldn't drive though and was clumsy.
-
Alias hahaha good idea always thought we had loads in common ;D ;D ;D we are quite unique ;D
-
Alias how sad is that but funny you should say that as I am both ;D ;D ;D
My old boss could write forwards with his right hand whilst writing backwards with his left hand.
-
Mr. Gee I can write with my left foot whilst writing with my right hand not backwards though just forward ;D ;D ;D
-
The swabs were rejected on 9th August
here is a list of swabs taken :
(6) Hand swabs taker, at 1120hrs on Sheila Caffell’s right hand
(7) Hand swabs taken at 1120hrs on Sheila Caffell’s left hand
(8) Hand swabs taken at 0230 pm on Sheila Caffell’s right hand
(9) Hand swabs taken at 0230 pm on Sheila Caffell’s left hand
(10) Hand swabs taken at 0315 pm on Sheila Caffell’s right hand
(11) Hand swabs taken at 0315 pm on Sheila Caffell’s left hand
When were they re-submitted to the lab under the new reference number? Did they have a full explanation about why they could be re-submitted when the lab had rejected them?
The clerk at the lab refused to take them because he felt there was a risk that the firearms they had been conveyed with could have transferred GSR onto the swabs.
There is an absolute right to resubmit them anytime police want and they did so on September 13.
The COLP investigation fully explored it as did the 2002 the Appeal Court which rejected the complaints related to it as meritless. Given the claims were already rejected on appeal and can't be raised again I wonder why people keep bringing it up.
Here is the most important part of the appeal decision relating to it:
"Mr Wingard explained that the rejection of the item would be made by the police liaison officer acting upon standing instructions that where swabs were submitted having been in the vicinity of firearms they should be rejected. The liaison officer would not necessarily consult a scientist before making such a decision. He rejected the suggestion that once rejected in this way, there would be no way in which the laboratory would examine such items thereafter if it was aware that they had been resubmitted. He explained that there was a significant difference between an examination of the swabs required to provide evidence that a person had discharged a firearm where the testing could as a result of the contamination produce a false result suggesting that the person had had contact with guns, and a test the purpose of which was to provide evidence that a person had not been in contact with a gun. In the latter case the issue of contamination ceased to be a factor since it could never decrease any findings only add to them.
Mr Wingard was asked whether in any event he would expect to see a record of the rejection in the statements provided by the scientists. He said that it would very much depend on the reason for the rejection and its possible effect on the outcome of the tests. It was not normal to recount the history unless it had a bearing on the evidential value of the conclusions. If rejection might in any way invalidate conclusions that might be drawn from the evidence of the tests, then he would expect that it would be recorded. However, that was not the situation here since there was no way in which contamination by proximity to firearms could have decreased the quantity of lead found on the swabs from Sheila Caffell's hands. The rejection, and the reasons for it were, therefore, not relevant to the inference suggested from the testing that Sheila Caffell had not been responsible for the repeated handling of the bullets. He made clear that the testing was for the presence of lead, and was not testing for firearms residue as such.
Mr Wingard said that it was commonly the case that items were resubmitted to the laboratory with a different serial number to the original submission, and scientists paid little regard to this number. The identifying feature upon which they relied was the Identifying Mark. This would first and foremost be on an exhibit label which would be attached to the item itself on submission, and would also appear on the HOLAB 3 accompanying the submission.
The next witness called by the court was DS Lovell, the liaison officer at the laboratory involved with the August rejection. He explained that no item would be submitted to the laboratory without first being seen by him or one of the other liaison officers. Where a scientist received an item directly as had happened with the swabs on resubmission, the scientist would come to the reception area and collect the item directly but the liaison officer would still be responsible for checking it in. It would simply avoid the item going through the normal internal process of delivery to the scientist but it would not avoid the liaison officer being involved in checking it in. He had played such a part on the resubmission because his writing was on one of the copies of the HOLAB 3 form. Thus the suggestion that the swabs had gone directly to the scientist to avoid DS Lovell so that he would not notice that it was a resubmission was clearly wrong.
DS Lovell explained that three copies of the HOLAB 3 would accompany the item to the laboratory. The laboratory would retain two copies and the third would be endorsed by the receiving officer and handed back to the person delivering the item by way of receipt. A part of his responsibility would be to check the items received by the laboratory against the HOLAB 3 form by reference to the identifying mark that they bore. He had not noticed a discrepancy in this regard on this occasion either between the item and the HOLAB 3 forms or between the three copies of the forms. He looked at the three copies of the form that have been traced. Each had been stamped by him with his personal stamp and with the laboratory date stamp. Examination showed that two of the copies of the form gave the identifying mark as DRH/33 and one gave it as DRH/44. He could be sure that he had received each from the stamps. The DRH/44 was one of the two copies retained by the laboratory since it bore hand-written notes that he had made.
In relation to the rejection in August, DS Lovell explained that he would have consulted a scientist before rejecting the item. He could not remember the circumstances of its resubmission because it was so many years after the event but because of the nature of the case and the contact that there had been between the police and the laboratory relating to it, he thought that he may well have been expecting it back when it arrived
Having received the explanations given by the witness, Mr Turner completed his cross-examination without suggesting to the witness any impropriety on his part and without challenging the explanations that had been given. Mr Temple, on behalf of the prosecution, queried whether this was inadvertence on the part of Mr Turner or whether in the light of the evidence given, Mr Turner now accepted that the allegations of improper conduct could not be sustained. Mr Turner told the court that it was not through inadvertence. The court was not surprised by Mr Turner's altered position because the evidence appeared to us to be manifestly truthful. Thus the calling of the witnesses far from supporting the conspiracy had caused the appellant's counsel to see that it could not be maintained.
Mr Turner asked the court to call one further witness in this regard, the scientist who had examined the items. We queried what he hoped to achieve by cross-examination of the witness and he indicated that he wanted to establish that the witness was unaware of the earlier rejection of the swabs when he examined them. That evidence was available in statement form and we were prepared to accept that proposition without the need to hear oral evidence. However, it has to be said that any proper examination of the file by the scientist would have revealed that fact because it is clear from the laboratory notes that the scientist had checked the identifying labels of the item and was fully aware that he was dealing with DRH/33 in respect of which there was information on file about its earlier rejection.
The allegations made in opening that there was evidence to show gross criminal misconduct by the police in respect of the swabs have thus turned out to be wholly groundless to the point where the appellant's counsel felt no longer able to maintain them. Quite apart from the evidence of DS Davidson, there were a number of reasons why these allegations were patently wrong:
i) The evidence of the contamination was not in any way damaging to the prosecution case. As Mr Wingard pointed out, it could not, even if known, adversely affect the inference that the prosecution sought to draw from the tests. If the swabs had become contaminated that would point towards Sheila Caffell having had contact with the gun rather than away from it. Any results, therefore, might give an increased reading that might favour the defence but could not adversely affect the defence. Whilst we accept that a corrupt police officer might go to extreme lengths to cover up evidence helpful to the defence, it makes no sort of sense for such an officer to commit serious criminal offences to hide evidence that which is either neutral or favours the prosecution.
ii) The suggestion that Detective Superintendent Ainsley sought to conceal the fact of the rejection in his final report cannot be right. He had raised it with the laboratory staff at the meeting on 18 September requiring a statement to be made to explain why the hand swabs had not been examined. Since the hand swabs were at the laboratory awaiting examination at the time, this is inconsistent with the allegation that he was trying to hide the earlier rejection from the scientists.
iii) There would be no point in submitting a HOLAB 3 form with the false reference to DRH/44, whilst at the same time submitting another copy with its true identifying mark recorded and with the item labelled with the correct mark, as it clearly was from the scientist's note. A moment's thought would have caused any police officer to realise that the examining scientist would inevitably look at the exhibit label, not least to sign it so that he could later identify the item that he had examined.
iv) The documentary evidence about the keeping of the swabs did not lead to the suggested inference. It did not record the return of DRH/33 after the initial rejection and DS Davidson said that he had not seen the item again after it was sent to headquarters in August. Between August and resubmission, it must, therefore, have been at headquarters and as such would not have appeared on the documents produced.
We have not the slightest doubt that the only failing by the police revealed in their dealings with the swabs are some relatively minor form completing mistakes by DS Davidson. On these relatively minor failings the whole edifice of a conspiracy theory was constructed and unsurprisingly when tested it came crashing down.
Thus the only true complaint that can be made is that the defence were not told at trial that the initial submission of the hand swabs had been rejected. We have to ask ourselves whether this in any way invalidates the jury's findings. We ask ourselves what possible use could have been made of that fact if it had been known to the defence. They could not have used it to challenge the findings from the test of the swabs because, as already explained, it could not have affected the results in any way adverse to the interests of the appellant. They could not have used it to make any collateral attack on the care taken by the officers in the case because the sending of the item at the same time as other items unconnected with the case was in no way the failing of the officers involved in the inquiry but rather that of the officers dealing with the onward transmission at headquarters. Thus we are satisfied that even if this information should technically have been disclosed, the failure to do so can have had no impact upon the jury's verdicts."
-
I'd like a flop emocian :'(
-
The clerk at the lab refused to take them because he felt there was a risk that the firearms they had been conveyed with could have transferred GSR onto the swabs.
There is an absolute right to resubmit them anytime police want and they did so on September 13.
The COLP investigation fully explored it as did the 2002 the Appeal Court which rejected the complaints related to it as meritless. Given the claims were already rejected on appeal and can't be raised again I wonder why people keep bringing it up.
Here is the most important part of the appeal decision relating to it:
"Mr Wingard explained that the rejection of the item would be made by the police liaison officer acting upon standing instructions that where swabs were submitted having been in the vicinity of firearms they should be rejected. The liaison officer would not necessarily consult a scientist before making such a decision. He rejected the suggestion that once rejected in this way, there would be no way in which the laboratory would examine such items thereafter if it was aware that they had been resubmitted. He explained that there was a significant difference between an examination of the swabs required to provide evidence that a person had discharged a firearm where the testing could as a result of the contamination produce a false result suggesting that the person had had contact with guns, and a test the purpose of which was to provide evidence that a person had not been in contact with a gun. In the latter case the issue of contamination ceased to be a factor since it could never decrease any findings only add to them.
Mr Wingard was asked whether in any event he would expect to see a record of the rejection in the statements provided by the scientists. He said that it would very much depend on the reason for the rejection and its possible effect on the outcome of the tests. It was not normal to recount the history unless it had a bearing on the evidential value of the conclusions. If rejection might in any way invalidate conclusions that might be drawn from the evidence of the tests, then he would expect that it would be recorded. However, that was not the situation here since there was no way in which contamination by proximity to firearms could have decreased the quantity of lead found on the swabs from Sheila Caffell's hands. The rejection, and the reasons for it were, therefore, not relevant to the inference suggested from the testing that Sheila Caffell had not been responsible for the repeated handling of the bullets. He made clear that the testing was for the presence of lead, and was not testing for firearms residue as such.
Mr Wingard said that it was commonly the case that items were resubmitted to the laboratory with a different serial number to the original submission, and scientists paid little regard to this number. The identifying feature upon which they relied was the Identifying Mark. This would first and foremost be on an exhibit label which would be attached to the item itself on submission, and would also appear on the HOLAB 3 accompanying the submission.
The next witness called by the court was DS Lovell, the liaison officer at the laboratory involved with the August rejection. He explained that no item would be submitted to the laboratory without first being seen by him or one of the other liaison officers. Where a scientist received an item directly as had happened with the swabs on resubmission, the scientist would come to the reception area and collect the item directly but the liaison officer would still be responsible for checking it in. It would simply avoid the item going through the normal internal process of delivery to the scientist but it would not avoid the liaison officer being involved in checking it in. He had played such a part on the resubmission because his writing was on one of the copies of the HOLAB 3 form. Thus the suggestion that the swabs had gone directly to the scientist to avoid DS Lovell so that he would not notice that it was a resubmission was clearly wrong.
DS Lovell explained that three copies of the HOLAB 3 would accompany the item to the laboratory. The laboratory would retain two copies and the third would be endorsed by the receiving officer and handed back to the person delivering the item by way of receipt. A part of his responsibility would be to check the items received by the laboratory against the HOLAB 3 form by reference to the identifying mark that they bore. He had not noticed a discrepancy in this regard on this occasion either between the item and the HOLAB 3 forms or between the three copies of the forms. He looked at the three copies of the form that have been traced. Each had been stamped by him with his personal stamp and with the laboratory date stamp. Examination showed that two of the copies of the form gave the identifying mark as DRH/33 and one gave it as DRH/44. He could be sure that he had received each from the stamps. The DRH/44 was one of the two copies retained by the laboratory since it bore hand-written notes that he had made.
In relation to the rejection in August, DS Lovell explained that he would have consulted a scientist before rejecting the item. He could not remember the circumstances of its resubmission because it was so many years after the event but because of the nature of the case and the contact that there had been between the police and the laboratory relating to it, he thought that he may well have been expecting it back when it arrived
Having received the explanations given by the witness, Mr Turner completed his cross-examination without suggesting to the witness any impropriety on his part and without challenging the explanations that had been given. Mr Temple, on behalf of the prosecution, queried whether this was inadvertence on the part of Mr Turner or whether in the light of the evidence given, Mr Turner now accepted that the allegations of improper conduct could not be sustained. Mr Turner told the court that it was not through inadvertence. The court was not surprised by Mr Turner's altered position because the evidence appeared to us to be manifestly truthful. Thus the calling of the witnesses far from supporting the conspiracy had caused the appellant's counsel to see that it could not be maintained.
Mr Turner asked the court to call one further witness in this regard, the scientist who had examined the items. We queried what he hoped to achieve by cross-examination of the witness and he indicated that he wanted to establish that the witness was unaware of the earlier rejection of the swabs when he examined them. That evidence was available in statement form and we were prepared to accept that proposition without the need to hear oral evidence. However, it has to be said that any proper examination of the file by the scientist would have revealed that fact because it is clear from the laboratory notes that the scientist had checked the identifying labels of the item and was fully aware that he was dealing with DRH/33 in respect of which there was information on file about its earlier rejection.
The allegations made in opening that there was evidence to show gross criminal misconduct by the police in respect of the swabs have thus turned out to be wholly groundless to the point where the appellant's counsel felt no longer able to maintain them. Quite apart from the evidence of DS Davidson, there were a number of reasons why these allegations were patently wrong:
i) The evidence of the contamination was not in any way damaging to the prosecution case. As Mr Wingard pointed out, it could not, even if known, adversely affect the inference that the prosecution sought to draw from the tests. If the swabs had become contaminated that would point towards Sheila Caffell having had contact with the gun rather than away from it. Any results, therefore, might give an increased reading that might favour the defence but could not adversely affect the defence. Whilst we accept that a corrupt police officer might go to extreme lengths to cover up evidence helpful to the defence, it makes no sort of sense for such an officer to commit serious criminal offences to hide evidence that which is either neutral or favours the prosecution.
ii) The suggestion that Detective Superintendent Ainsley sought to conceal the fact of the rejection in his final report cannot be right. He had raised it with the laboratory staff at the meeting on 18 September requiring a statement to be made to explain why the hand swabs had not been examined. Since the hand swabs were at the laboratory awaiting examination at the time, this is inconsistent with the allegation that he was trying to hide the earlier rejection from the scientists.
iii) There would be no point in submitting a HOLAB 3 form with the false reference to DRH/44, whilst at the same time submitting another copy with its true identifying mark recorded and with the item labelled with the correct mark, as it clearly was from the scientist's note. A moment's thought would have caused any police officer to realise that the examining scientist would inevitably look at the exhibit label, not least to sign it so that he could later identify the item that he had examined.
iv) The documentary evidence about the keeping of the swabs did not lead to the suggested inference. It did not record the return of DRH/33 after the initial rejection and DS Davidson said that he had not seen the item again after it was sent to headquarters in August. Between August and resubmission, it must, therefore, have been at headquarters and as such would not have appeared on the documents produced.
We have not the slightest doubt that the only failing by the police revealed in their dealings with the swabs are some relatively minor form completing mistakes by DS Davidson. On these relatively minor failings the whole edifice of a conspiracy theory was constructed and unsurprisingly when tested it came crashing down.
Thus the only true complaint that can be made is that the defence were not told at trial that the initial submission of the hand swabs had been rejected. We have to ask ourselves whether this in any way invalidates the jury's findings. We ask ourselves what possible use could have been made of that fact if it had been known to the defence. They could not have used it to challenge the findings from the test of the swabs because, as already explained, it could not have affected the results in any way adverse to the interests of the appellant. They could not have used it to make any collateral attack on the care taken by the officers in the case because the sending of the item at the same time as other items unconnected with the case was in no way the failing of the officers involved in the inquiry but rather that of the officers dealing with the onward transmission at headquarters. Thus we are satisfied that even if this information should technically have been disclosed, the failure to do so can have had no impact upon the jury's verdicts."
That was a long post Scipio.
-
That was a long post Scipio.
You mean you've only just noticed his long posts? ;D
-
Plenty of copying and pasting !
-
You mean you've only just noticed his long posts? ;D
In this instance though most of it was a quote from the 2002 decision not original content from me.
-
I'd like a flop emocian :'(
:) :) :)
-
I'd like a flop emocian :'(
I don't know what that means but what I would like bullet point 8 to stop showing up at an emoticon.
-
if there were three hand swabs noted at different times would the later swabs be "weaker" than the first done at 11 am?
-
if there were three hand swabs noted at different times would the later swabs be "weaker" than the first done at 11 am?
If there were lead or GSR present the first swabs would remove some of that thus leaving less to be found in a subsequent swab. So each subsequent swab would have less material to find.
The same way that after the prosecution swabbed the moderator and reoved all visible blood that left less blood for the defense expert to remove and after he removed all the microscopic blood tha tleft no blood to be found by subsequent testers. That is why no blood was found period in 1999 and why the DNA found in the moderator could not be blood based.
So the first swabs would detect the largest amount while other swabs lesser volumes though in this case none was found at all in any.
-
I don't know what that means but what I would like bullet point 8 to stop showing up at an emoticon.
Just put a space before you close the bracket. This should disrupt the emoticon code which is 8)
-
:) :) :)
8)
-
Why did Jeremy lie to police at the scene by telling them he taught her how to fire the murder weapon and that she fired it and all the other weapons?
Jeremy didn't tell them that. You are misquoting as usual.
-
Jeremy didn't tell them that. You are misquoting as usual.
No you are ignoring facts and evidence as usual. You are the one who makes things up not me.
Saxby said he only overheard a portion of Jeremy's conversation with Bews and Myall but heard his say she had fired a gun while target shooting.
(http://s21.postimg.org/vb2j99rfr/saxbyshooting.jpg)
Myall said he told them she went target shooting with him and had fired all the guns in the house.
(http://s10.postimg.org/scqghjwy1/myallguns.jpg)
Bews said the same thing
(http://s2.postimg.org/sphme2yzd/bewsguns.jpg)
He told Mercer that he showed her how to use the murder weapon
(http://s1.postimg.org/6h7rusdnj/mercerguns.jpg)
Manners stated the police were briefed as to a call from Jeremy starting everything (nothing about a call from Nevill starting it) and that Sheila was trained to fire the weapon Jerey left in th ekitchen and that she could use all the other guns as well:
(http://s29.postimg.org/3v7q13iuv/mannersguns.jpg)
I can continue but I made my point sufficiently I don't need to keep beating a dead horse.
I don't make things up that is your department.
-
No you are ignoring facts and evidence as usual. You are the one who makes things up not me.
Saxby said he only overheard a portion of Jeremy's conversation with Bews and Myall but heard his say she had fired a gun while target shooting.
(http://s21.postimg.org/vb2j99rfr/saxbyshooting.jpg)
Myall said he told them she went target shooting with him and had fired all the guns in the house.
(http://s10.postimg.org/scqghjwy1/myallguns.jpg)
Bews said the same thing
(http://s2.postimg.org/sphme2yzd/bewsguns.jpg)
He told Mercer that he showed her how to use the murder weapon
(http://s1.postimg.org/6h7rusdnj/mercerguns.jpg)
Manners stated the police were briefed as to a call from Jeremy starting everything (nothing about a call from Nevill starting it) and that Sheila was trained to fire the weapon Jerey left in th ekitchen and that she could use all the other guns as well:
(http://s29.postimg.org/3v7q13iuv/mannersguns.jpg)
I can continue but I made my point sufficiently I don't need to keep beating a dead horse.
I don't make things up that is your department.
Why do you think Jeremy lied? He could have been telling the truth its a possibility that he was.
I think saying that Sheila could not handle a gun is an insult to her intelligence. She was a bright, beautiful 5ft 7 woman. Sheila lived on a farm where guns were probably used everyday of her life that she lived there. Are you saying that Sheila never accompanied her father during the day when he had a gun? NB held shoots at the farm.
To use a gun is not rocket science.
OK Colin said that Sheila did not like guns and would not let the children play with guns. The latter not being the case because a toy gun was found at the farm in the living room.
I find it impossible to except that she could not use a rifle or gun. If I was to give my daughter a rifle and some ammunition and asked her to load the rifle and shoot at a target, I would feel very confident that she would be able to do it.
When I used my fathers rifle I did not go on a course to learn how to use it. It became natural to me, to pick the rifle up. load it and use it.
All I am saying is that it is possible that she could use a gun, its not beyond possibility. :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Colin Caffell said Sheila knew 'nothing' about guns. Not that she didn't like guns.
There is no way she would have had the knowledge, composure co ordination to re load. AE saying this in her WS.
-
Colin Caffell said Sheila knew 'nothing' about guns. Not that she didn't like guns.
There is no way she would have had the knowledge, composure co ordination to re load. AE saying this in her WS.
I disagree Adam, it is not beyond possibility that she could have used a rifle or a gun....
Sheila's co-ordination was fine that weekend. Sheila, unbeknown to AE had treatment to correct her co-ordination. Sheila put her makeup on and made sandwiches with Colin that weekend, so to say that her co-ordination was all over the place is a little bit unfair. :-\
-
I disagree Adam, it is not beyond possibility that she could have used a rifle or a gun....
Sheila's co-ordination was fine that weekend. Sheila, unbeknown to AE had treatment to correct her co-ordination. Sheila put her makeup on and made sandwiches with Colin that weekend, so to say that her co-ordination was all over the place is a little bit unfair. :-\
Was it a cheese and pickle sandwich ?
Treatment to correct her co ordination ? Will they do treatment to improve my leg co ordination ? I always wanted to be a footballer.
-
The medication that Sheila didn't take would have made her dopey and lack co-ordination,but as it happened,she hadn't taken any,so was in complete control. The cannabis would have counteracted what bit of Haldol she had left in her system. So,in effect,Sheila was as " normal " as she could have been and was fully aware of her surrounds and everything else.
-
Colin Caffell said Sheila knew 'nothing' about guns. Not that she didn't like guns.
There is no way she would have had the knowledge, composure co ordination to re load. AE saying this in her WS.
Adam - as AE made the statement about her co-ordination - how long before the murders had she seen her? I understood in was 6-8 months ? So how could she have judged her co-ordination at the time of the murders?
-
Colin Caffell said Sheila knew 'nothing' about guns. Not that she didn't like guns.
There is no way she would have had the knowledge, composure co ordination to re load. AE saying this in her WS.
you dont need to if your firing from that distance and i dont recall him saying that anyway.
as ive said 1 thousand colin cadfiel never mentioned her having bad coordination.
-
you dont need to if your firing from that distance and i dont recall him saying that anyway.
as ive said 1 thousand colin cadfiel never mentioned her having bad coordination.
it would be quite a simple test to let someone watch another person load that type of rifle a couple of times. then see if they could do it. Then it would close the whole argument down once and for all.
Sheila had guns round her all her life and I would be willing to bet she had fired more than one of them at various times.Like I said before - if you asked my father - he would say I had never loaded or fired a gun. But that would not actually be true.
-
you dont need to if your firing from that distance and i dont recall him saying that anyway.
as ive said 1 thousand colin cadfiel never mentioned her having bad coordination.
Whether a person is experienced in using a firearm or not,there wouldn't be any difficulty in aiming a foot or two away. You wouldn't need experience to do that,surely ? You couldn't miss !!
-
Hello nugnug just been reading Colin's book and he did say she knew nothing about guns and she could not even make a cup of coffee without spilling the coffee everywhere and making a mess. Must add his words not mine.
-
Making a mess while preparing a drink isn't unusual.Teenagers are the messiest,especially boys. ;D ;D
It strikes me that Colin was clutching at straws at times,as he didn't know his own wife.
-
Making a mess while preparing a drink isn't unusual.Teenagers are the messiest,especially boys. ;D ;D
It strikes me that Colin was clutching at straws at times,as he didn't know his own wife.
We're not talking about teenagers or boys - we're talking abut Sheila.
What's with the attempt to discredit everything Susan posts from CC's book? Maybe CC should have interviewed you about Sheila? Since you seem to think you know more than him? :-\
-
Hello nugnug just been reading Colin's book and he did say she knew nothing about guns and she could not even make a cup of coffee without spilling the coffee everywhere and making a mess. Must add his words not mine.
well at the time of murder he dident think it impossble she could of used a gun he thought she had.
-
Making a mess while preparing a drink isn't unusual.Teenagers are the messiest,especially boys. ;D ;D
It strikes me that Colin was clutching at straws at times,as he didn't know his own wife.
Perhaps her inability to do even the simplest tasks MAY have contributed to Colin leaving her and perhaps she wasn't wired for domesticity
-
well for 6 weeks he not only belived she could use a gun but belived she had so that does not really make sense.
-
We're not talking about teenagers or boys - we're talking abut Sheila.
What's with the attempt to discredit everything Susan posts from CC's book? Maybe CC should have interviewed you about Sheila? Since you seem to think you know more than him? :-\
Excuse me, I HAVEN'T discredited Susans' posts from CC's book.You just can't resist causing trouble for me can you ?
-
Excuse me,I HAVEN'T discredited Susans' posts from CC's book.You just can't resist causing trouble for me can you ?
I'm sure she'd disagree.
-
Perhaps her inability to do even the simplest tasks MAY have contributed to Colin leaving her and perhaps she wasn't wired for domesticity
A somewhat feeble excuse in which to leave your wife,April. Good Lord. Where was the help coming forthwith from him ? What happened to the " in sickness and in health ?".
-
well that wasn't the excuse he gave that's just speculation.
-
Excuse me,,I HAVEN'T discredited Susans' posts from CC's book.You just can't resist causing trouble for me can you ? /quote]
LOOKOUT!!!!! I can't believe what youre suggesting. :)
-
I'm sure she'd disagree.
Susan has got a tongue in her head that if she disagrees,she'll tell me herself.
-
LOOKOUT!!!!! I can't believe that youre suggesting that we have a gossiping old hag amongst us. SURELY not :)
You'd be surprised,April. :o
-
A somewhat feeble excuse in which to leave your wife,April. Good Lord. Where was the help coming forthwith from him ? What happened to the " in sickness and in health ?".
Lookout, I did say CONTRIBUTED. Which of us knows what happens in other peoples' marriages.
-
Lookout, I did say CONTRIBUTED. Which of us knows what happens in other peoples' marriages.
We don't,April,,but to leave a marriage at the drop of a hat doesn't bode well with me at all.
-
nugnug I cannot answer for Colin Caffell I just read what he says and cannot see why he should not be truthful. He states that Jeremy's Headmaster said Jeremy was an arrogant bully at school and always picked on pupils younger than himself. Even in primary school he did show signs of arrogance. Some of these people must be telling the truth about him. Think CC would know his wife better than anyone of us and he did remark on how whilst they were married she could not make coffee without spilling most of it thus showing lack of co-ordination. We have all made excuses for Jeremy's behaviour after the murders with regard to his grief and so forth let us allow Colin the same after the tragedy he did start to think more deeply about what was supposed to have happened and he realised that Jeremy was not the person he thought he was in fact he describes Jeremy as totally mad. His words not mine.
-
We don't,April,,but to leave a marriage at the drop of a hat doesn't bode well with me at all.
Lookout, I'm not arguing for argument's sake but do we know categorically that it was "at the drop of a hat" or was it that, after years of putting up with erratic behaviour, he'd reached the end of his, OK, perhaps NOT very long, tether.
-
lookout Mat is a man and quite young I suspect ;D
-
lookout Mat is not a gossiping old hag he is a man and quite young I suspect ;D
Thank YOU!!
nicer than some of the things I've been called. ;D ;D
-
That's your opinion,Susan. ;D
-
nugnug I cannot answer for Colin Caffell I just read what he says and cannot see why he should not be truthful. He states that Jeremy's Headmaster said Jeremy was an arrogant bully at school and always picked on pupils younger than himself. Even in primary school he did show signs of arrogance. Some of these people must be telling the truth about him. Think CC would know his wife better than anyone of us and he did remark on how whilst they were married she could not make coffee without spilling most of it thus showing lack of co-ordination. We have all made excuses for Jeremy's behaviour after the murders with regard to his grief and so forth let us allow Colin the same after the tragedy he did start to think more deeply about what was supposed to have happened and he realised that Jeremy was not the person he thought he was in fact he describes Jeremy as totally mad. His words not mine.
but why he said shes finally done it.
if this is true surely he would of been suspicious in the first place.
but he belived she had done it untill he was told otherwise.
her doctor hasnt she suffered from any sort of disorder that would of made her clumsy.
-
nugnug I cannot answer for Colin Caffell I just read what he says and cannot see why he should not be truthful. He states that Jeremy's Headmaster said Jeremy was an arrogant bully at school and always picked on pupils younger than himself. Even in primary school he did show signs of arrogance. Some of these people must be telling the truth about him. Think CC would know his wife better than anyone of us and he did remark on how whilst they were married she could not make coffee without spilling most of it thus showing lack of co-ordination. We have all made excuses for Jeremy's behaviour after the murders with regard to his grief and so forth let us allow Colin the same after the tragedy he did start to think more deeply about what was supposed to have happened and he realised that Jeremy was not the person he thought he was in fact he describes Jeremy as totally mad. His words not mine.
Susan, you're right. When we believed that Jeremy was innocent we excused him just about EVERYTHING. I feel that now, where possible, the same leniency should be granted others and, again where possible, we should try to give them the benefit of the doubt.
-
the fact is he never questioned sheilas guilt untill Jeremy was arrested.
so he certainly believed sheila could of used a gun.
-
Lookout, I'm not arguing for argument's sake but do we know categorically that it was "at the drop of a hat" or was it that, after years of putting up with erratic behaviour, he'd reached the end of his, OK, perhaps NOT very long, tether.
I do personally think that the marriage was rather short-lived and I haben't read anything to the effect that they were trying to solve their differences for the sake of the twins,if nothing else.
He must have known prior to marrying Sheila that she could be a handful,as her depression was already lying dormant.
I noticed that he hadn't got a good word to say about June,but she wasn't the one he married,so I'd have said he should have sorted things out better than he did. " For better,for Worse " ?
-
Hello nugnug just been reading Colin's book and he did say she knew nothing about guns and she could not even make a cup of coffee without spilling the coffee everywhere and making a mess. Must add his words not mine.
Sounds like my daughter. ;D
-
Susan, you're right. When we believed that Jeremy was innocent we excused him just about EVERYTHING. I feel that now, where possible, the same leniency should be granted others and, again where possible, we should try to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I didn't. I knew what he was like. I know quite a few people like him and they are not murderers. Personally I can't see the point of this character assassination only to make him look like the typical murderer.
-
the fact is he never questioned sheilas guilt untill Jeremy was arrested.
so he certainly believed sheila could of used a gun.
Yes he certainly did or he wouldn't have remarked, "She's finally done it". But then I should think if someone really wanted to use a gun it wouldn't take much to figure it out?
-
I do personally think that the marriage was rather short-lived and I haben't read anything to the effect that they were trying to solve their differences for the sake of the twins,if nothing else.
He must have known prior to marrying Sheila that she could be a handful,as her depression was already lying dormant.
I noticed that he hadn't got a good word to say about June,but she wasn't the one he married,so I'd have said he should have sorted things out better than he did. " For better,for Worse " ?
Lookout, I've said on MANY previous occasions that theirs was a marriage which should NEVER have happened. IMO, it was a divorce in the making from the start. He appears to have been "nudged" into it by "circumstances". She appears not to have known what domesticity was about and neither appears to have understood compromise OR that relationships have to be worked at. I think it's an old chestnut that daughters' husbands DON'T like their ma's in law but I think Colin's resentment of June went somewhat deeper. Maybe it was she who insisted on their marriage and she who orchestrated it...................having said that, whether he liked it or not he seems to have done very well financially out of June so maybe he got the "For richer" bit right.
-
Mr. Gee Since I posted information from Colin's book the poor man has been challenged to the effect how would he know he was always drunk and he had affairs etc.,he was not a good husband. Colin is the first to admit all of these things but I think the book shows a different side to Jeremy Bamber and I think that as this is a forum for debate I am not making any assassination on Jeremy Bambers character but just repeating what a man who knew him has said and he is not the first person to talk to me about him in this way. As I said earlier every post I have made from the book has been discredited by forum members. I am sure when Colin heard of the horrendous deaths at WHF his thinking would not have been very clear and he may be just believed everything the police told him.
-
I didn't. I knew what he was like. I know quite a few people like him and they are not murderers. Personally I can't see the point of this character assassination only to make him look like the typical murderer.
As do I, which COULD be why some of us felt such a need to defend him. I can accept that I was wrong and that he's probably guilty but I DON'T see the need to make him OVER guilty.
-
Susan,buy Claire Powells' book and read what she says about Sheila---------it's an eye-opener and I don't know where her information on her came from.
I wouldn't dare say some of the things,and it's not like me ;D ;D,,but it's rather disrespectful too.
-
HaHaHa is that the moth eaten old book you told me about earlier that I could get for 2p from Amazon. Will go and look and see if I can buy it without a mortgage. ;D ;D ;D
-
Susan,buy Claire Powells' book and read what she says about Sheila---------it's an eye-opener and I don't know where her information on her came from.
I wouldn't dare say some of the things,and it's not like me ;D ;D,,but it's rather disrespectful too.
Lookout, I would never have had you down as being one of those who accepts, lock, stock and barrel, what flows from the pens of authors. Unless they had known personally the person of whom they write, they would have had to get information from others, ALL of whom will have had agendas.
-
lookout forgot to ask the title of the book :)
-
Mr. Gee Since I posted information from Colin's book the poor man has been challenged to the effect how would he know he was always drunk and he had affairs etc.,he was not a good husband. Colin is the first to admit all of these things but I think the book shows a different side to Jeremy Bamber and I think that as this is a forum for debate I am not making any assassination on Jeremy Bambers character but just repeating what a man who knew him has said and he is not the first person to talk to me about him in this way. As I said earlier every post I have made from the book has been discredited by forum members. I am sure when Colin heard of the horrendous deaths at WHF his thinking would not have been very clear and he may be just believed everything the police told him.
Hi Susan. The thrust of my post was that I knew what he was like from the beginning. I've always said that I didn't like him because of the way he treats people I know. But supporters of him still didn't think he was as bad as some say. But it wasn't the character of Bamber I was defending it was his innocence. Personally I can't think why some keep going on about his character as it has nothing to do with the fact of his being guilty?
-
Lookout, I would never have had you down as being one of those who accepts, lock, stock and barrel, what flows from the pens of authors. Unless they had known personally the person of whom they write, they would have had to get information from others, ALL of whom will have had agendas.
I take it with a large pinch of salt,April, though I often wonder where,or who these people have gathered their information from when it is said that they've done their " research ?".
It would have seemed that Claire Powell had known the relatives as she described DB as being and upright,honest,salt of the earth character,and you can only speak like that when you actually know someone personally,and not of them.
-
Hi Susan. The thrust of my post was that I knew what he was like from the beginning. I've always said that I didn't like him because of the way he treats people I know. But supporters of him still didn't think he was as bad as some say. But it wasn't the character of Bamber I was defending it was his innocence. Personally I can't think why some keep going on about his character as it has nothing to do with the fact of his being guilty?
Mr Gee :) I can go along with the last statement ONLY as far as being a sweetie pie who loves children, animal and old ladies, is an abstainer who gives a % of his income to charity, doesn't NECESSARILY mean he COULDN'T murder OR being an obnoxiously arrogant swine who kicked animals, screwed around faithlessly, took pennies from children, didn't tip waiters or hairdressers, doesn't NECESSARILY mean he COULD murder.
-
lookout forgot to ask the title of the book :)
Hi Susan,the title is " Murder at White House Farm ",and you takes your chances with the state of the books as it's a 1988 publication. You'll be okay if you wear a pair of those thin latex gloves, ;D ;D ;D
The one I have was an old library book,but I confess at not having read it as reading goes. I actually did a Steve and skim read it.
-
Hi Susan. The thrust of my post was that I knew what he was like from the beginning. I've always said that I didn't like him because of the way he treats people I know. But supporters of him still didn't think he was as bad as some say. But it wasn't the character of Bamber I was defending it was his innocence. Personally I can't think why some keep going on about his character as it has nothing to do with the fact of his being guilty?
I've said many a time,he wouldn't have suited me one bit. I wouldn't have gone for anyone like that at all. Not my type. I'm more the Neil Oliver type off the " Coast " programme,not ponces thanks.
I mentioned about a poster on another link/forum who'd described him as an odious person,but at the same time didn't think him guilty.
-
Yes he certainly did or he wouldn't have remarked, "She's finally done it". But then I should think if someone really wanted to use a gun it wouldn't take much to figure it out?
finnaly done it implys that he had allways had worried that she was going to do it.
-
finnaly done implys that he had allways had worrys that she was going to do it.
That's the way I see it too,nugs,but it's never going to be admitted !!
-
lookout thanks for that will go and check the price. Lots of gel on my hands and up my nose ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello april
would I be correct in saying when one of your local friends when he heard of the murders at WHF said she has finally done it then meaning June or am I having a moment ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
That's the way I see it too,nugs,but it's never going to be admitted !!
and wonder why would be woried though had she threatend to do it before.
-
Now that would be even more interesting if it referred to June. ;) What an opener.
-
Hi Mr. Gee/lookout I agree Jeremy Bamber could be the most arrogant nasty human being on this earth but does not make him a murderer. The reason I mentioned the stuff out of the book is I thought some on the forum may be interested in how Colin perceived him yet I know others who see him so differently. Yet every post I have made from Colin's book has been discredited on this forum now that is not fair as I am sure Colin knew Sheila and Jeremy better than any of us and I think he may have been biased but some truth I am sure in his words. I rest my case ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
nugnug I cannot answer for Colin Caffell I just read what he says and cannot see why he should not be truthful. He states that Jeremy's Headmaster said Jeremy was an arrogant bully at school and always picked on pupils younger than himself. Even in primary school he did show signs of arrogance. Some of these people must be telling the truth about him. Think CC would know his wife better than anyone of us and he did remark on how whilst they were married she could not make coffee without spilling most of it thus showing lack of co-ordination. We have all made excuses for Jeremy's behaviour after the murders with regard to his grief and so forth let us allow Colin the same after the tragedy he did start to think more deeply about what was supposed to have happened and he realised that Jeremy was not the person he thought he was in fact he describes Jeremy as totally mad. His words not mine.
It's very easy for Colin to decide to go along with the fact Jeremy was 'guilty' because then the spotlight would not on him because no doubt when everyone believed sheila had committed suicide the finger must have been pointed at him as a bad husband
I still find it unbelievable that Colin KNEW Sheila was suicidal but let her have the children
Sheila had a very serious condition, Colin was fully aware, his children were in danger
Colin has NO proof Jeremy is responsible for the murders
As for Susan's comments about Colin and Jeremy at school
It's a lie because I have put myself out to speak to people Jeremy went to school with and they say the opposite
A mummy's boy
-
Lookout, I'm not arguing for argument's sake but do we know categorically that it was "at the drop of a hat" or was it that, after years of putting up with erratic behaviour, he'd reached the end of his, OK, perhaps NOT very long, tether.
How many 'years' April did Colin have to 'put up' with Sheila before she became suicidal
-
and wonder why would be woried though had she threatend to do it before.
You never know what had been discussed behind closed doors,thogh Sheila didn't cover up the fact to everyone she met that she disliked her mother intensely. I think the feeling was mutual between the two. Not a good basis when it came to staying at WHF,as the fireworks began the moment they met.
-
Hi lookout ordered the book 49p hahaha hope it is worth it. Back to Sheila she wanted June to show her love and affection and June was not capable and was not a good basis for a happy daughter relationship. Hope the book is not too mucky and covered in stains and full of moths :'( :'( :'(
-
Hi Mr. Gee/lookout I agree Jeremy Bamber could be the most arrogant nasty human being on this earth but does not make him a murderer. The reason I mentioned the stuff out of the book is I thought some on the forum may be interested in how Colin perceived him yet I know others who see him so differently. Yet every post I have made from Colin's book has been discredited on this forum now that is not fair as I am sure Colin knew Sheila and Jeremy better than any of us and I think he may have been biased but some truth I am sure in his words. I rest my case ;D ;D ;D ;D
Susan
I am waiting for you to post details of Colin's drink problems
And affairs
As much information and detail as you can
Soon as possible please so we can balance the scales
-
Jackie you need to contact Colin Caffell I am sure you can locate him and tell him he should not be printing lies about Jeremy Bamber not me as I have repeated what he has said I did not know Jeremy Bamber have never had contact with him so I can only form my opinion of him from speaking to people who do know him and they paint a different picture than you Jackie. But I respect that you have spoken to people who knew him and they say he was a nice guy so I would never try and say they are telling lies good Lord they have a right to an opinion.
-
Jackie keep up with the forum it has been stated on here that Colin had affairs by your goodself I believe and lookout said today he was not a good husband and I believe she said earlier he was a drunk not my words Jackie I am defending Colin. Goodness knows why you have a need to attack all the time you cannot expect the whole forum to agree with you.
-
but why he said shes finally done it.
if this is true surely he would of been suspicious in the first place.
but he belived she had done it untill he was told otherwise.
her doctor hasnt she suffered from any sort of disorder that would of made her clumsy.
I suspect she was clumsy due to massive (from what I can see, over the top massive) dosis´ of Haldol. The dose was cut down because Sheila complained of the side effects - but it was cut down too fast, much too fast....
-
I think Colin destroyed Sheila.
She deserved so much more.
I don't believe what Colin has said about Sheila and Jeremy's relationship, that's not what Freddie said
I have put myself out to research Jeremy's background and relieved to find out the truth
I don't read the books because people write books to make money and authors bend the truth to make money
I fully expect the next book out will be rubbish from what I have heard
-
Jackie you need to contact Colin Caffell I am sure you can locate him and tell him he should not be printing lies about Jeremy Bamber not me as I have repeated what he has said I did not know Jeremy Bamber have never had contact with him so I can only form my opinion of him from speaking to people who do know him and they paint a different picture than you Jackie. But I respect that you have spoken to people who knew him and they say he was a nice guy so I would never try and say they are telling lies good Lord they have a right to an opinion.
What people have you spoken to that know him?
How many people exactly?
You have constantly gone into great detail showing Jeremy in a bad light
I am asking you to post as much detail showing how Colin destroyed Sheila
Can you imagine having twin babies with someone like him
That poor delicate young girl
-
Jackie I have heard that Carol Ann Lees book will be excellent sorry you think it will be rubbish. She has written some good books and after all is a Yorkshire girl ;D we will wait and see.
-
I am talking about the other book, I have done my research
-
Why I believe Jeremy Bamber is Innocent
L A Coles
I first knew Jeremy a long time ago, in fact many years before the tragedies at White House Farm. Jeremy is a kind person who helped me considerably during a period in my life that was very difficult. He always proved to be a shoulder to cry on all too often. I was shocked that he had been found guilty of murdering his family as this was not the man that I knew so well.
Over the years we drifted apart but managed to send the odd card or letter. But in later years we came into regular contact again and even my son and daughter, who are now fully grown write to Jeremy and have got to know him. I would trust Jeremy with my life and the lives of my children and grandchildren. Our lives move on, all of us, but sadly Jeremy’s has not, he has been unlawfully denied the right to relationships and family that we all have with our liberty. This is why I urge everyone who reads this to campaign and fight for Jeremy.
I long to see my friend released to the freedom he so richly deserves. I often feel that I owe him something for his loyalty to me during those years when we should have both been young and carefree but the burdens of life sometimes take over us. I didn’t need to see any evidence of Jeremy’s innocence, I knew him well and I always knew he couldn’t kill or raise his hand to anyone in violence. Jeremy always was, and always will be the perfect gentleman and the warmest of my friends.
I had always known that something wasn’t right about the evidence in his conviction and having met his relatives I could see they were greedy, grasping creatures and so it comes as no surprise that the so called ‘evidence’ they found has turned out to be fabricated which Peter Sutherst outlines in his interviews. I urge the people who were involved in this wrongdoing to come forward to the police, hand yourself in and tell the truth because you will be facing a long jail term for this crime and the courts will view you more leniently if you make the approach to put matters right.
-
Jackie I have spoken to several people as it happens but would be very unfair of me to disclose their names on the forum as they are not members. I know nothing about Colin and Sheila only what I am reading just now and you will find it is only recently I have changed my stance to one of guilty and up to that time I spoke very highly of him as do you and I do not attack you for doing that.
-
Jackie would I be right thinking I read that on the Official Bamber Site. As I said earlier we are all entitled to think differently about him and we should respect each others views and you will have noticed I have never attacked your posts with regard to what type of man Jeremy Bamber is and I will remain that way.
-
Jackie I am sure you have and I thought Andrew Hunter was bringing out a book.
-
Why I believe Jeremy Bamber is Innocent
L A Coles
I first knew Jeremy a long time ago, in fact many years before the tragedies at White House Farm. Jeremy is a kind person who helped me considerably during a period in my life that was very difficult. He always proved to be a shoulder to cry on all too often. I was shocked that he had been found guilty of murdering his family as this was not the man that I knew so well.
Over the years we drifted apart but managed to send the odd card or letter. But in later years we came into regular contact again and even my son and daughter, who are now fully grown write to Jeremy and have got to know him. I would trust Jeremy with my life and the lives of my children and grandchildren. Our lives move on, all of us, but sadly Jeremy’s has not, he has been unlawfully denied the right to relationships and family that we all have with our liberty. This is why I urge everyone who reads this to campaign and fight for Jeremy.
I long to see my friend released to the freedom he so richly deserves. I often feel that I owe him something for his loyalty to me during those years when we should have both been young and carefree but the burdens of life sometimes take over us. I didn’t need to see any evidence of Jeremy’s innocence, I knew him well and I always knew he couldn’t kill or raise his hand to anyone in violence. Jeremy always was, and always will be the perfect gentleman and the warmest of my friends.
I had always known that something wasn’t right about the evidence in his conviction and having met his relatives I could see they were greedy, grasping creatures and so it comes as no surprise that the so called ‘evidence’ they found has turned out to be fabricated which Peter Sutherst outlines in his interviews. I urge the people who were involved in this wrongdoing to come forward to the police, hand yourself in and tell the truth because you will be facing a long jail term for this crime and the courts will view you more leniently if you make the approach to put matters right.
It would be interesting to know a little about the author of the above.
-
You never know what had been discussed behind closed doors,thogh Sheila didn't cover up the fact to everyone she met that she disliked her mother intensely. I think the feeling was mutual between the two. Not a good basis when it came to staying at WHF,as the fireworks began the moment they met.
In his book, Colin writes (more than once) that Sheila´s condition deteriorated significantly every time she had been to WHF. Every time.
The last visit was something June "forced" (she apparently had her ways of making people do what she wanted, the family did what she commanded, and Nevill went along with it passively.)
Sheila didn´t want to go, the twins didn´t want to go - in fact the twins were desperate not to go, clinging to Colin and crying inconsolably, when he was about to leave. He writes that they had never clung to him so fiercely as that last time he saw them.
Very sad to think about.
-
i wonder why her condition deterated.
-
Jackie I have spoken to several people as it happens but would be very unfair of me to disclose their names on the forum as they are not members. I know nothing about Colin and Sheila only what I am reading just now and you will find it is only recently I have changed my stance to one of guilty and up to that time I spoke very highly of him as do you and I do not attack you for doing that.
Have you spoke to people he went to school with?
-
as colin dident go to school with him i dont see how he could know that anyway it must of been somthing he was told secound or third hand.
-
In his book, Colin writes (more than once) that Sheila´s condition deteriorated significantly every time she had been to WHF. Every time.
The last visit was something June "forced" (she apparently had her ways of making people do what she wanted, the family did what she commanded, and Nevill went along with it passively.)
Sheila didn´t want to go, the twins didn´t want to go - in fact the twins were desperate not to go, clinging to Colin and crying inconsolably, when he was about to leave. He writes that they had never clung to him so fiercely as that last time he saw them.
Very sad to think about.
Alias - have you got to the end of the book? Do you think it is worth reading- to give a broader picture?
-
Hi Mr. Gee/lookout I agree Jeremy Bamber could be the most arrogant nasty human being on this earth but does not make him a murderer. The reason I mentioned the stuff out of the book is I thought some on the forum may be interested in how Colin perceived him yet I know others who see him so differently. Yet every post I have made from Colin's book has been discredited on this forum now that is not fair as I am sure Colin knew Sheila and Jeremy better than any of us and I think he may have been biased but some truth I am sure in his words. I rest my case ;D ;D ;D ;D
I don't think that I have discredited anything he said Susan? Except when he mentioned that a robin had led them to the window Jeremy was supposed to have used. Personally I believe the relatives had plenty of opportunity to work on him on many things. I know he wrote the book years after the events, but at the time his mind was open to suggestions by them because of the grief he was suffering?
-
i wonder why her condition deterated.
This is my own personal belief, but I don´t think that Sheila was in fact mentally ill.
I think that Sheila "carried" June´s illness for the whole family (I have said this before, sorry, I know.... :P).
It seems that Colin is of the same opinion.
June and Sheila together: a very unhealthy cocktail.
-
Alias - have you got to the end of the book? Do you think it is worth reading- to give a broader picture?
No, I haven´t read it all, have to pull myself together - will though! ;D
It is worth reading, because you get some insight into the Bamber family dynamics; it is not all that well written, and Colin has some strange perspetives sometimes, but he knew all the persons involved well, unlike other authors who are outsiders.
Absolutely read it, jansus.
BTW, this is the only book I have (almost) read about the case.
-
Hi Mr Gee I did not mean you sorry. I had not heard about the robin and I am sure people did have time to work on Colin's mind which I suspect was fragile and think Colin was a tad weak.
-
Hi Mr Gee I did not mean you sorry. I had not heard about the robin and I am sure people did have time to work on Colin's mind which I suspect was fragile and think Colin was a tad weak.
Hi Susan, no I know you didn't mean me. ;D
-
This is my own personal belief, but I don´t think that Sheila was in fact mentally ill.
I think that Sheila "carried" June´s illness for the whole family (I have said this before, sorry, I know.... :P).
It seems that Colin is of the same opinion.
June and Sheila together: a very unhealthy cocktail.
maybe she had some sort of bad memory of whf.
-
Alias I agree with every word you have said about the book and it is well worth a read as he knew the family and Jeremy so may be we are getting a more accurate picture of them and their behaviour.
-
Mr. Gee ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jackie indeed I have not but then again I have said nothing wrong about Jeremy Bamber and his school days Colin repeated what the Headmaster had to say.How can I comment on Jeremy Bamber's school days I had never heard of him until 4 years ago.
-
did colin get this from the headmaster derectly or did somone else tell him.
-
maybe she had some sort of bad memory of whf.
Yes, that is probably very true.
Also, she apparently, again according to Colin, had an ongoing very toxic relationship with June. Actually Colin is specific about it being because of June mainly.
-
did colin get this from the headmaster derectly or did somone else tell him.
I can´t imagine Colin talking to Jeremy´s former headmaster!
-
This is my own personal belief, but I don´t think that Sheila was in fact mentally ill.
I think that Sheila "carried" June´s illness for the whole family (I have said this before, sorry, I know.... :P).
It seems that Colin is of the same opinion.
June and Sheila together: a very unhealthy cocktail.
I agree with you Alias,as I had always thought that it was June who was the " sick " one.
-
Yes, that is probably very true.
Also, she apparently, again according to Colin, had an ongoing very toxic relationship with June. Actually Colin is specific about it being because of June mainly.
Colin seems to be blaming a lot of people
As lookout said what about in sickness and health
Would Colin have been more supportive if she had cancer?
Instead of mental health problems
You read about all Sheila's problems and yet she seemed to have no one
Look at the happy smiling Sheila in family photos we have seen to the later photo
It was an absolute tragedy
-
Susan has kindly posted some very interesting things from CC's book. Highlighting Jeremy's guilt further.
The letters Jeremy sent to CC were also very interesting. Written in capitals, which is the written form of shouting.
-
He tends to write all his letters in captials. Still though the actual content is awful.
-
Susan has kindly posted some very interesting things from CC's book. Highlighting Jeremy's guilt further.
The letters Jeremy sent to CC were also very interesting. Written in capitals, which is the written form of shouting.
Are those letters you mention, on the forum anywhere? If not, do you suppose there's any chance of getting them on here?
-
Are those letters you mention, on the forum anywhere? If not, do you suppose there's any chance of getting them on here?
There were some letters copied onto here a few days ago. I have forgotten which thread.
-
Are those letters you mention, on the forum anywhere? If not, do you suppose there's any chance of getting them on here?
Neil, I have to go now, but you can go to my profile and look at my posts (I posted the letters) - it isn´t far back, so not too much work finding them. :)
-
Neil, I have to go now, but you can go to my profile and look at my posts (I posted the letters) - it isn´t far back, so not too much work finding them. :)
That's great. Many thanks Alias.
-
There were some letters copied onto here a few days ago. I have forgotten which thread.
Thanks Adam.
-
Thanks Adam.
Hi Neil there were extracts from Colin's book...
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5894.msg262856.html#msg262856
-
Why do you think Jeremy lied? He could have been telling the truth its a possibility that he was.
I think saying that Sheila could not handle a gun is an insult to her intelligence. She was a bright, beautiful 5ft 7 woman. Sheila lived on a farm where guns were probably used everyday of her life that she lived there. Are you saying that Sheila never accompanied her father during the day when he had a gun? NB held shoots at the farm.
To use a gun is not rocket science.
OK Colin said that Sheila did not like guns and would not let the children play with guns. The latter not being the case because a toy gun was found at the farm in the living room.
I find it impossible to except that she could not use a rifle or gun. If I was to give my daughter a rifle and some ammunition and asked her to load the rifle and shoot at a target, I would feel very confident that she would be able to do it.
When I used my fathers rifle I did not go on a course to learn how to use it. It became natural to me, to pick the rifle up. load it and use it.
All I am saying is that it is possible that she could use a gun, its not beyond possibility. :-\ :-\ :-\
Jeremy put in his written statement and admitted in court he never saw Sheila fire a gun and to his knowledge had not done so.
That means he lied when he told police at the scene that he taught her how to operate the murder weapon and that she had fired it with him and all other guns in the house.
To say he never knew her to fire any weapons and to say he taughter her and she used them all are mutually exclusive claims.
He also clearly lied about taking the gun out to shoot rabbits and leaving it out. To support such made up tale he staged bullets by the phone. Too many bullets though so he ended up revelaing they were staged. His claim the gun had no moderaor when he left it out also betrays it was false because the gun was used with the moderator attached and there is no way Sheila went to the closet just to get th emoderator let alone took it off to put away after killing everyone. It quite clearly was used to kill her as well though which is why no blood was in the rifle muzzle though she suffered a contact wound. The moderator was attached so her blood went in there instead of the muzzle of the rifle.
You and others are too biased to face facts. You make excuses for Jeremy becaus eof your bias and those excuses are not based on any evidence just bias.
You are too biased to face that just because someone keeps guns around a house doesn't mean everyone int he house knows how to use them. You have to be instructed to know how to use them. There is no guarantee you will see someone operate a gun just because they are kept and seeing someone use it from a distance is not the same thing as being instucted by any measure.
Time and time again you ignore that they did not own semi-autos while Sheila was living on the farm. The first semi-auto the family owned was not purchased until the end of 1984. It was not owned very long before the murders occurred and aside from Anthony using it during his visit to try it out, there is no evidence of anyone else using it except Jeremy when he used it a couple of times for target practice. Nevill was no longer interested in target shooting at the time the gun was purchased he purchased it for Jeremy. Nevill used 410s to shoot vermin there is no evidence he ever used it to shoot them. Anthony said the gun looked ot be in brand new condition. That is because apart from Jeremy trying to become a good shot with it through some target practice sessions it wasn't used.
Sheila would have no way to know she needed to chamber a round manually let alone how to do so. Even if she managed to figure out how to insert the magazine she would have then pulled the trigger heard a click but it owuld not have fired.
Squeaky Fromme was around guns all her life too but not semi-autos and she didn't know she needed to manully chamber a round first so she pulled the trigger and nothing happened when she tried to kill US President Ford.
"As Ford drew near, Fromme pulled a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol, aimed it at the president and pulled the trigger. Witnesses nearby heard the "click" of the hammer dropping. Secret Service agents later found that the pistol had four rounds in its magazine, but the chamber was empty.
Agents swarmed Fromme and wrestled the weapon from her hand as she shouted, "Don't get excited! It didn't go off! It didn't go off!"
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Would-be-assassin-Squeaky-Fromme-is-paroled-3221893.php
You want so badly to believe that Sheila did it instead of Jeremy that you are willing to ignore evidence and common sense in order to believe what you want to instead of what the evidence and logic dictate.
-
I can´t imagine Colin talking to Jeremy´s former headmaster!
so somone must of told him the headmater said that i wonder who that could be.
-
Hi Neil there were extracts from Colin's book...
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5894.msg262856.html#msg262856
That's great, thanks Patti. I have just read them. Powerful stuff.
-
Jeremy put in his written statement and admitted in court he never saw Sheila fire a gun and to his knowledge had not done so.
That means he lied when he told police at the scene that he taught her how to operate the murder weapon and that she had fired it with him and all other guns in the house.
To say he never knew her to fire any weapons and to say he taughter her and she used them all are mutually exclusive claims.
He also clearly lied about taking the gun out to shoot rabbits and leaving it out. To support such made up tale he staged bullets by the phone. Too many bullets though so he ended up revelaing they were staged. His claim the gun had no moderaor when he left it out also betrays it was false because the gun was used with the moderator attached and there is no way Sheila went to the closet just to get th emoderator let alone took it off to put away after killing everyone. It quite clearly was used to kill her as well though which is why no blood was in the rifle muzzle though she suffered a contact wound. The moderator was attached so her blood went in there instead of the muzzle of the rifle.
Where is the source please that he admitted in court that he had never seen Sheila fire a gun?
I think you will find that he said he had taken her target shooting, he does not say she fired a rifle at any target. Remember he was asked if she could fire a weapon...OK his answer was yes, he obviously thought she could. Its not beyond possibility, in fact it is likely that she could have. Whether Sheila did is debatable, that is why we are here today.
.
The point of whether she could or could not fire a weapon is a possibility whether you like it or not. There is absolutely no proof that she could not, just like there is no proof that she could, but it is very likely that she did know how to use one.
Not firing a weapon does not mean that it is impossible to use one. Ruth Ellis had never fired a gun before but she used one to kill her cheating lover and did not miss.
How many people buy guns in America that have never fired a weapon before in their lives then suddenly one day they have shot someone...I'd say that could be a very high percentage. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
That's great, thanks Patti. I have just read them. Powerful stuff.
It is Neil. I remember when I first read it. I was shocked. :o
-
Hi Neil there were extracts from Colin's book...
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5894.msg262856.html#msg262856
I don't know why there is so much talk about Collins book in this thread it is way off topic. There is one aspect related though to the topic.
Jeremy lied to Collin and told him that June and Nevill told Sheila they were going to make her give up her children for adoption, that things got heated over such and the discussion wa scontinuing as he left. This lie was to convince Collin that Sheila did it.
Jeremy well knew police would have a field day picking apart the claim they coudl single handedly force her to give up the kids for adoption and told the police that the discussio ended before he left. Furthermore he said it was not heated Sheila was very calm. He admitted the discussion wa sonly about part time foster care so that is why it did not get heated and Sheila didn't mind.
This is a perfect exaple of how Jeremy intentionally told different people different things at different times. He lied to various people to get them on his side. He did the same thing with police. He told police at the scene one thing but later admitted in his statment Sheila had not fired any guns to his knowledge. He seemed to think no one would compare notes and figure out he lied to them.
-
He tends to write all his letters in captials. Still though the actual content is awful.
Yes, he does Mat and he does so 'only' because he thinks it might be easier for people to read - which is fair enough.
-
Where is the source please that he admitted in court that he had never seen Sheila fire a gun?
I think you will find that he said he had taken her target shooting, he does not say she fired a rifle at any target. Remember he was asked if she could fire a weapon...OK his answer was yes, he obviously thought she could. Its not beyond possibility, in fact it is likely that she could have. Whether Sheila did is debatable, that is why we are here today.
.
The point of whether she could or could not fire a weapon is a possibility whether you like it or not. There is absolutely no proof that she could not, just like there is no proof that she could, but it is very likely that she did know how to use one.
Not firing a weapon does not mean that it is impossible to use one. Ruth Ellis had never fired a gun before but she used one to kill her cheating lover and did not miss.
How many people buy guns in America that have never fired a weapon before in their lives then suddenly one day they have shot someone...I'd say that could be a very high percentage. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Re loading is more of an issue. Scipio said it is hard to re load the rifle.
AE said she could imagine Sheila firing the gun. But not re load.
Jeremy testified that Sheila had limited experience with guns. If he said 'no' experience he would have been dead in the water.
-
Re loading is more of an issue. Scipio said it is hard to re load the rifle.
AE said she could imagine firing the gun. But not re load.
Jeremy testified that Sheila had limited experience with guns. If he said 'no' experience he would have been dead in the water.
Yes, that is an issue Adam because it has been said that it is more difficult to load the magazine after the 7th bullet, but who is to say that the rifle was loaded with 10 at a time, it could have been 5 6 or 7... ;D
-
well colin thought she had done and he had feared she was going to for some time why would he think that.
suggests he knew she could load and shoot a gun.
-
When was Sheila supposed to get this gun experience ?
She was sent off to boarding school. Then lived in London, got married, had children. Got a career, got sick.
She showed no interest in the farm or guns.
-
sowhy did her husband think she did it then.
if she really couldent colin should of been suspicios straght away but he wasnt.
-
When was Sheila supposed to get this gun experience ?
She was sent off to boarding school. Then lived in London, got married, had children. Got a career, got sick.
She showed no interest in the farm or guns.
Same applied to Jeremy though Adam? He was sent to boarding school, left home to live with Sue, shacked up with friends, went to Australia, got his own place.
Brother and sister both having left home early and not wanting to live on the farm...There has to be more to this....
What are the real chances.?
Both adopted and come from good families.
One suffers mental illness
One turns out to be a convicted murderer.
Something isnt right.. ???
-
so did her husband think she did it then.
if she really couldent colin should of been suspicios straght away but he wasnt.
Nail on the head there Nugs. His thoughts were she has finally done it then. :-\
-
Same applied to Jeremy though Adam? He was sent to boarding school, left home to live with Sue, shacked up with friends, went to Australia, got his own place.
Brother and sister both having left home early and not wanting to live on the farm...There has to be more to this....
What are the real chances.?
Both adopted and come from good families.
One suffers mental illness
One turns out to be a convicted murderer.
Something isnt right.. ???
I agree, however, that goes against the notion that Jeremy loved farming.
-
Same applied to Jeremy though Adam? He was sent to boarding school, left home to live with Sue, shacked up with friends, went to Australia, got his own place.
Brother and sister both having left home early and not wanting to live on the farm...There has to be more to this....
What are the real chances.?
Both adopted and come from good families.
One suffers mental illness
One turns out to be a convicted murderer.
Something isnt right.. ???
Jeremy testified he could easily use the murder weapon. And was experienced with guns. See page 1.
-
I agree, however, that goes against the notion that Jeremy loved farming.
It does, but according to those he worked with on the farm he was OK with them. I hate to say this but Jeremy and Sheila got out of something they did not like and it was home life., IMO.
-
Jeremy testified he could easily use the murder weapon. And was experienced with guns. See page 1.
Adam do you mean he or she?????
-
It does, but according to those he worked with on the farm he was OK with them. I hate to say this but Jeremy and Sheila got out of something they did not like and it was home life., IMO.
From this statement, it doesn't seem as thought Jeremy had much to do with those that worked on the farm - they didn't mix socially and this man suggests that Jeremy had no interest in farming.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1935.0.html
-
Adam do you mean he or she?????
'He'.
He testified Sheila had 'limited' gun experience. Which could just mean she once put a gun in the gun cupboard.
Saying 'no' gun experience would mean he is dead in the water.
Jeremy was experienced with guns and the murder weapon.
-
Where is the source please that he admitted in court that he had never seen Sheila fire a gun?
I think you will find that he said he had taken her target shooting, he does not say she fired a rifle at any target. Remember he was asked if she could fire a weapon...OK his answer was yes, he obviously thought she could. Its not beyond possibility, in fact it is likely that she could have. Whether Sheila did is debatable, that is why we are here today.
.
The point of whether she could or could not fire a weapon is a possibility whether you like it or not. There is absolutely no proof that she could not, just like there is no proof that she could, but it is very likely that she did know how to use one.
Not firing a weapon does not mean that it is impossible to use one. Ruth Ellis had never fired a gun before but she used one to kill her cheating lover and did not miss.
How many people buy guns in America that have never fired a weapon before in their lives then suddenly one day they have shot someone...I'd say that could be a very high percentage. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
The first shot Ruth Ellis fired missed. Moreover the gun she used was a double action revolver, all she had to do was pull the trigger to operate it. Single action means you have to cock the gun before calling the trigger. Double action means the trigger operates the hammer without it needing to be cocked. She didn't even need to know how to open the gun to unload the shell casings and load more rounds in because she only expended the rounds that had been inside the gun.
In contrast the Sheila needed to learn how to insert the magazine, chamber a round, remove the magazine and to reload it in order to have committed the murders..
When you buy a gun you get a manual that tells you how to clean and operate it and also get instructions from gun dealers as to how it works. Even if you buy it off the street you likely would ask how to use it if you don't know how it works. Sheila didn't buy any guns though.
Jeremy's words are unambiguous:
(http://s15.postimg.org/b1sf65r0r/jeremyshooting2.jpg)
She never fired the rifle before.
Yet he told police at the scene the day prior that she had fired it and all other weapons in the house. Even the most biased defender in the world had no way to refute tha the lied when he told police she fired the weapon. Why did he lie?
Because he wanted those at the scene to think she was a threat to them and also so that they would believe she did it when they found the bodies.
After hearing his relatives talk to police about her having no interest in guns and so forth he decided to go along with their claims and changed things to her just walking as he shot. But he didn't go walking around to shoot with the rifle he only used it for target practice so that was a lie too.
You are doing exactly what April said Jeremy defenders do, including her when she was one, ignore facts and evidence and excuse all his lies and claims that make no sense for no reason other than bias.
-
From this statement, it doesn't seem as thought Jeremy had much to do with those that worked on the farm - they didn't mix socially and this man suggests that Jeremy had no interest in farming.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1935.0.html
That was very interesting. Thank you.
-
Susan has kindly posted some very interesting things from CC's book. Highlighting Jeremy's guilt further.
The letters Jeremy sent to CC were also very interesting. Written in capitals, which is the written form of shouting.
He always writes like that Adam. Every letter I got from him were all in capitals and everyone here will testify the same. It is just his style and is not to be considered as shouting.
-
That was very interesting. Thank you.
You're welcome! :)
-
The first shot Ruth Ellis fired missed. Moreover the gun she used was a double action revolver, all she had to do was pull the trigger to operate it. Single action means you have to cock the gun before calling the trigger. Double action means the trigger operates the hammer without it needing to be cocked. She didn't even need to know how to open the gun to unload the shell casings and load more rounds in because she only expended the rounds that had been inside the gun.
In contrast the Sheila needed to learn how to insert the magazine, chamber a round, remove the magazine and to reload it in order to have committed the murders..
When you buy a gun you get a manual that tells you how to clean and operate it and also get instructions from gun dealers as to how it works. Even if you buy it off the street you likely would ask how to use it if you don't know how it works. Sheila didn't buy any guns though.
Jeremy's words are unambiguous:
(http://s15.postimg.org/b1sf65r0r/jeremyshooting2.jpg)
She never fired the rifle before.
Yet he told police at the scene the day prior that she had fired it and all other weapons in the house. Even the most biased defender in the world had no way to refute tha the lied when he told police she fired the weapon. Why did he lie?
Because he wanted those at the scene to think she was a threat to them and also so that they would believe she did it when they found the bodies.
After hearing his relatives talk to police about her having no interest in guns and so forth he decided to go along with their claims and changed things to her just walking as he shot. But he didn't go walking around to shoot with the rifle he only used it for target practice so that was a lie too.
You are doing exactly what April said Jeremy defenders do, including her when she was one, ignore facts and evidence and excuse all his lies and claims that make no sense for no reason other than bias.
That's right his WS says about Sheila's zero knowledge of guns.
He was keen to tell the police differently on the night.
And was keen to tell the police why Neville would not ring the police. Not bothering to ask them if they had heard from Neville.
-
He always writes like that Adam. Every letter I got from him were all in capitals and everyone here will testify the same. It is just his style and is not to be considered as shouting.
He said he writes in caps because it's easier for people to understand. I see nothing sinister in the way he writes.
-
He always writes like that Adam. Every letter I got from him were all in capitals and everyone here will testify the same. It is just his style and is not to be considered as shouting.
its only considered shouting on the internet.
-
The first shot Ruth Ellis fired missed. Moreover the gun she used was a double action revolver, all she had to do was pull the trigger to operate it. Single action means you have to cock the gun before calling the trigger. Double action means the trigger operates the hammer without it needing to be cocked. She didn't even need to know how to open the gun to unload the shell casings and load more rounds in because she only expended the rounds that had been inside the gun.
In contrast the Sheila needed to learn how to insert the magazine, chamber a round, remove the magazine and to reload it in order to have committed the murders..
When you buy a gun you get a manual that tells you how to clean and operate it and also get instructions from gun dealers as to how it works. Even if you buy it off the street you likely would ask how to use it if you don't know how it works. Sheila didn't buy any guns though.
Jeremy's words are unambiguous:
(http://s15.postimg.org/b1sf65r0r/jeremyshooting2.jpg)
She never fired the rifle before.
Yet he told police at the scene the day prior that she had fired it and all other weapons in the house. Even the most biased defender in the world had no way to refute tha the lied when he told police she fired the weapon. Why did he lie?
Because he wanted those at the scene to think she was a threat to them and also so that they would believe she did it when they found the bodies.
After hearing his relatives talk to police about her having no interest in guns and so forth he decided to go along with their claims and changed things to her just walking as he shot. But he didn't go walking around to shoot with the rifle he only used it for target practice so that was a lie too.
You are doing exactly what April said Jeremy defenders do, including her when she was one, ignore facts and evidence and excuse all his lies and claims that make no sense for no reason other than bias.
Scopio can you remind who he said this too please. :)
-
That's right his WS says about Sheila's zero knowledge of guns.
He was keen to tell the police differently on the night.
And was keen to tell the police why Neville would not ring the police. Not bothering to ask them if they had heard from Neville.
so why dident her husband qustion her guilt straght away then.
surely he would of done if it was true she couldent use guns.
-
Scopio can you remind who he said this too please. :)
It's from his witness statement.
-
He always writes like that Adam. Every letter I got from him were all in capitals and everyone here will testify the same. It is just his style and is not to be considered as shouting.
He has written to you. Tell me more.
-
It is Neil. I remember when I first read it. I was shocked. :o
I'll tell you what. If I had gone to prison on a trumped up charge for a murder I did not commit that is exactly the kind of thing I would write.
-
It's from his witness statement.
No I mean which police officer did he tell that Sheila could fire guns?
-
so why dident her husband qustion her guilt straght away then.
surely he would of done if it was true she couldent use guns.
Don't forget everyone was saying it was murder/suicide. Police, Jeremy, the family. Why would CC think Jeremy would massacre his own family.
-
When was Sheila supposed to get this gun experience ?
She was sent off to boarding school. Then lived in London, got married, had children. Got a career, got sick.
She showed no interest in the farm or guns.
Well I wonder where the picture came from of her working on the farm then? She spent her childhood there. I still think it quite possible she knew about guns and it didn't take Jeremy to teach her. She was brought up on a farm for goodness sake.
-
I agree, however, that goes against the notion that Jeremy loved farming.
Well campion jnr said he knew an great deal about tractors if that indicates anything?
-
I'll tell you what. If I had gone to prison on a trumped up charge for a murder I did not commit that is exactly the kind of thing I would write.
I forgot to say that when I had read it several times I realised that Jeremy was angry that Colin had left Sheila to cope knowing that she would not be able to,. What we don't see of course is the letters Colin write to Jeremy and what might have inflamed him. :) :) :)
-
its only considered shouting on the internet.
what? ;D
-
Well campion jnr said he knew an great deal about tractors if that indicates anything?
He still has the farming monthly too, so there is another indication. I don't think his problem was farming, it goes deeper than that. Home life must have been a problem. :(
-
He has written to you. Tell me more.
Yes I have received two letters from him. I have written to him once about just general stuff. The next letter I wrote to him was to tell him off for treating his friends like s***.
-
Don't forget everyone was saying it was murder/suicide. Police, Jeremy, the family. Why would CC think Jeremy would massacre his own family.
but because he knew her better than anyone who was still alive.
if he knew she couldn't shoot alarm bellls should of started ringing straight away but they dident.
-
No I mean which police officer did he tell that Sheila could fire guns?
Bews and Myall
-
Well I wonder where the picture came from of her working on the farm then? She spent her childhood there. I still think it quite possible she knew about guns and it didn't take Jeremy to teach her. She was brought up on a farm for goodness sake.
I said this morning that everyone has to go by what Jeremy & CC said/testified in books, at court and in WS's.
Basically Sheila had 'no'/'limited' experience with guns. Jeremy had never seen Sheila fire a gun. CC said Sheila knew 'nothing about guns'.
-
:)
what? ;D
I SAID ITS ONLY CONSIDERED SHOUTING ON THE INTERNET.
-
Bews and Myall
Thanks.
-
I SAID ITS ONLY CONSIDERED SHOUTING ON THE INTERNET.
OK ;D
-
OK ;D
BLINKIN HECK!
-
but because he knew her better than anyone who was still alive.
if he knew she couldn't shoot alarm bellls should of started ringing straight away but they dident.
Just like the family and some of the police, alarm bells did start ringing after the shock of the massacre had reduced.
CC would not have known about Neville's brutal beating, June being shot while asleep, Neville abandoning his family, Sheila reloading twice & the lockable from outside window.
-
so hes never seen her use thinks she has no intrest in guns and thinks she would not be capable.
but he never qustions the oficail verson of events. that does not really make any sense at all.
-
Pro or anti Bamber we all have to accept that -
Sheila had absolutely no experience with guns. Who said so ? Jeremy and CC.
Jeremy was experienced with guns and the murder weapon. Who said so ? Jeremy.
-
if she really had no experence with guns colins hardly likely to have said shes finnaly done it.
-
Jeremy also lied to the police on the night. Saying Sheila was proficient with all the guns inside WHF.
Only retracting weeks later.
-
Jeremy also lied to the police on the night. Saying Sheila was proficient with all the guns inside WHF.
Only retracting weeks later.
Why do you think he retracted that?
-
No I mean which police officer did he tell that Sheila could fire guns?
I provided images from the statements of some of the police he told such to. You even responded to my post quoting the snippets.
-
if you had a friend or relative accused of shooting 4 people and you had never seen them handle a gun before and to your knowledge they had never used a gun dident like guns wouldn't you question there guilt straight away.
-
Bews and Myall
and Mercer, and Adams and perhaps others as well.
-
if you had a friend or relative accused of shooting 4 people and you had never seen them handle a gun before and to your knowledge they had never used a gun dident like guns wouldn't you question there guilt straight away.
Naturally and to overcome such knowledge would require solid evidence they did in fact do it nonethless such as having blood of the victims and GSR on them and there not being a way to say it happened just by being a witness to the murders.
To an extent it could also be overcome with reliable evidence that they did in fact like guns and use them you just were unaware of it. Though you woudl still want proof they did it not just that they had in fact used guns without your knowledge.
-
I provided images from the statements of some of the police he told such to. You even responded to my post quoting the snippets.
I know.....but I can't remember what has been said two or 3 days ago. I can't see that Bews or Mayall could either and there are a lot of holes in those statements and could be cross examined to the point of being slightly exaggerated or misinterpretated.
The classic example is that it was reported that Jeremy was well dressed. He wore trainers, jeans, sweater and an open neck shirt with a blue short jacket. Hardly well dressed.
Anyway I am exhausted and off up the apples and pairs....
One last question. How do you know so much about the case? I never see you in the archives. Is it that you might be an old poster who has come back to haunt us? lol
Night Sciop... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I know.....but I can't remember what has been said two or 3 days ago. I can't see that Bews or Mayall could either and there are a lot of holes in those statements and could be cross examined to the point of being slightly exaggerated or misinterpretated.
The classic example is that it was reported that Jeremy was well dressed. He wore trainers, jeans, sweater and an open neck shirt with a blue short jacket. Hardly well dressed.
Anyway I am exhausted and off up the apples and pairs....
One last question. How do you know so much about the case? I never see you in the archives. Is it that you might be an old poster who has come back to haunt us? lol
Night Sciop... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
It was their job not to forget and they have pocket books.
-
Why do you think he retracted that?
First of all he retracted it one day later. Teh day of the murders he siad he taught her to shoot the murde rwepaon and she had fired all the guns in the house. The next day he put in his statement he wasn't aware of her using it.
There are several reaosns why he would change it:
1) The family said she wasn't known to take any interest in guns and hadn't fired any to their knowledge. He didn't want his claims to conflict with the family because it might look like he was lying to frame Sheila
2) His lie already served its purpose the day of the murders which was to convice those at the scene that she was a threat to them and was responsible for the bodies they found
3) In retrospect it looks suspicious to say he decided to train someone he considered a nut and by his own admission did not get along with how to use a gun and thus sounds like a lie aimed to frame her or even suggests he was using her and they might have done it together. Indeed one of the pieces of evidence used against hism was that June said he tried to teach Sheila how to load the magazine of the gun but she didn't want to know. The part about not wanting to know how is damaging but so is the fact he wanted to teach her at all. Was he just trying to get her fingerprints on it or was he trying to get her to shoot so peopel would know she could shoot?
Admitting he never saw her shoot prevented them from catching him in a lie. He assumed his claims the day before verbally at the scene would not be compared to the written statement. It is also possible he forgot that he lied and told cops he took her shooting and that she had fired all weapons in the house before the raid took place. It is a common thing for liars not being able to rememebr the lie they told last and thus either telling a new contradictory lie or admitting the turth forgetting they lied earlier.
Jeremy's story would change defending upon what he needed at any given time. When he gave his first 2 statements he had no reaosn to lie and say he used the gun the weeke before the murders. When he was being interrogated he was told how Anthony was the last known user of the gun and had found the gun with the moderator and scope attached and put it away with the moderator and scope attached. Thus it should have had the scope and moderator when Jeremy took it out o shoot the rabbits. He then changed his story saying he used it repeatedly the week before the murders. Teh change was to prevent Anthony from being the last known user. He claimed Nevill also kept using it the week prior and he sometimes removed the scope and moderator before putting it away but other times did not. This change was to make it seem possible to have found the gun without the moderator and scope. He told the truth when he didn't think it mattered or when he felt that was the best thing to do but when it a lie would help him better he would lie and make up things he felt was favorable to his position.
-
I know.....but I can't remember what has been said two or 3 days ago. I can't see that Bews or Mayall could either and there are a lot of holes in those statements and could be cross examined to the point of being slightly exaggerated or misinterpretated.
The classic example is that it was reported that Jeremy was well dressed. He wore trainers, jeans, sweater and an open neck shirt with a blue short jacket. Hardly well dressed.
Anyway I am exhausted and off up the apples and pairs....
It was this morning not 2-3 days ago! Every single person who asked Jeremy is Sheila could use the weapons did so to find out if she posed a threat to them. They didn't just ask the question for idle chat. So they had reason to take note of the anser and remember it. The fact they all have the same acocunt and that he had a reason to want them to believe she had used the weapon before supports that he did in fact tell them what they attribute to him. All of them making the same msitake is not very credible.
In the meantime well dressed meant he had a lot of clothes on- so many that it would have taken him a while to get dressed. Rather unusual to be panicked about your family and take time to put on a lot more than just a shirt and jeans or short and shorts. Moreover it was aimed at supporting Julie's assertion that he told her he had never been to bed so he was fully dressed when he called her and police.
One last question. How do you know so much about the case? I never see you in the archives. Is it that you might be an old poster who has come back to haunt us? lol
Night Sciop... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Do you mean you never see me posting material in the archives? I read extensively what is available in the archives. Some sections largely contain links to materials presented in other sections and thus merely act as in index. I don't have any material to post in the archives I am limited ot the mateirals provided by others. The statement sposted her and on the red forum were provided by others who had access to them.
My extensive knowledge is attributatel to actually reading the mateirals as well as the claims of all sides. If you want to understand the arguments of both sides you have to make the effort to try. I read the available evidence and then followed that evidence where it leads.
It's been many months now that I have been posting on red and then here. It's not as if I learned everything there is to know in one day. I learned things I did not know from other posters as well. I read Lomax's book but not too many others so don't know too much about what others assert.
The combination of an open mind, good memory, attention to detail and fact I read the documents more recently than most people here, who probably read them years ago, means I have a good handle on what is in the statements. I also can follow the legalese easier in the court decisions and from them can understand the issues easier so far as what each side argued and why claims were rejected.
I have only posted her under one name and only found out about this site after someone else suggested looking into this case earlier in the year. It was someone with a pro-Jeremy stance and I kept an open mind to Jeremy being innocent based on what sounde dliek serious allegations of impropriety. The allegations though didn't hold up to scrutiny the usual myths are the ones that were lobbed at me and after looking at everything I see no way Jeremy is inncoent. Too many lies and railroading from police would have to have occurred and there would be evidence to establish such if it had happened.
Minor things like typos and misrecording time on a log and other such things don't demonstrate rairoading. The moderator could only have been successfully doctored by the lab which also would have to have erased all evidence of blood being in the muzzle of the weapon. No evidence they did so or had a motive to do so has been found. In the meantime the blood was found early on and determined to be human. Police were notified of such on the 14th but they didn't have it type tested until September because they didn't appreciate the significance and thought the value was in fingerprints. If they planted the blood instead of wasting time on fingerprints they would have had the blood type tested and not bothered with fingerprints till later. That is the kind of stuff that shows it was not planted. There is no evidence to support them dcotoring evidence of Sheila being free of foreign blood or GSR either. Police thought she did it early on so quite clearly had no reaosn to hide evidence that supported their position. If the detials are looked at carefully nothing tha thelps Jeremy can be found.
That is why the appeals flopped, the defense found nothing to establish his innocence or any legal errors in the trial process warranting a new trial.
-
It was their job not to forget and they have pocket books.
I think scipio has just recounted in another thread how that pocket books are usually made up at the end of the day and that he found it very difficult to recount everything accurately. He even pointed out discrepancies in the pocket book of Myall.
-
I think scipio has just recounted in another thread how that pocket books are usually made up at the end of the day and that he found it very difficult to recount everything accurately. He even pointed out discrepancies in the pocket book of Myall.
Maybe he has but that's a generalisation - at the time of the WHF siege, no one had any reason to make anything up.
-
Maybe he has but that's a generalisation - at the time of the WHF siege, no one had any reason to make anything up.
No I'm not talking about making things up. I was thinking rather of their memories. They would probably have put their heads together and said something like, "I remember him saying this, what have you got?" etc.
-
First of all he retracted it one day later. Teh day of the murders he siad he taught her to shoot the murde rwepaon and she had fired all the guns in the house. The next day he put in his statement he wasn't aware of her using it.
There are several reaosns why he would change it:
1) The family said she wasn't known to take any interest in guns and hadn't fired any to their knowledge. He didn't want his claims to conflict with the family because it might look like he was lying to frame Sheila
2) His lie already served its purpose the day of the murders which was to convice those at the scene that she was a threat to them and was responsible for the bodies they found
3) In retrospect it looks suspicious to say he decided to train someone he considered a nut and by his own admission did not get along with how to use a gun and thus sounds like a lie aimed to frame her or even suggests he was using her and they might have done it together. Indeed one of the pieces of evidence used against hism was that June said he tried to teach Sheila how to load the magazine of the gun but she didn't want to know. The part about not wanting to know how is damaging but so is the fact he wanted to teach her at all. Was he just trying to get her fingerprints on it or was he trying to get her to shoot so peopel would know she could shoot?
Admitting he never saw her shoot prevented them from catching him in a lie. He assumed his claims the day before verbally at the scene would not be compared to the written statement. It is also possible he forgot that he lied and told cops he took her shooting and that she had fired all weapons in the house before the raid took place. It is a common thing for liars not being able to rememebr the lie they told last and thus either telling a new contradictory lie or admitting the turth forgetting they lied earlier.
Jeremy's story would change defending upon what he needed at any given time. When he gave his first 2 statements he had no reaosn to lie and say he used the gun the weeke before the murders. When he was being interrogated he was told how Anthony was the last known user of the gun and had found the gun with the moderator and scope attached and put it away with the moderator and scope attached. Thus it should have had the scope and moderator when Jeremy took it out o shoot the rabbits. He then changed his story saying he used it repeatedly the week before the murders. Teh change was to prevent Anthony from being the last known user. He claimed Nevill also kept using it the week prior and he sometimes removed the scope and moderator before putting it away but other times did not. This change was to make it seem possible to have found the gun without the moderator and scope. He told the truth when he didn't think it mattered or when he felt that was the best thing to do but when it a lie would help him better he would lie and make up things he felt was favorable to his position.
Jeremy was lucky when testifying.
He said Sheila had 'limited' experience with guns.
The prosecution should have challenged him and made him admit that Sheila had 'no' experience with guns. And that he had 'never seen her fire a gun'. That may have resulted in a 12 - 0 verdict.
Mind you I am sure the relatives may have testified on this. Did CC testify ?
-
why do you think they dident challenge him.
-
Naturally and to overcome such knowledge would require solid evidence they did in fact do it nonethless such as having blood of the victims and GSR on them and there not being a way to say it happened just by being a witness to the murders.
To an extent it could also be overcome with reliable evidence that they did in fact like guns and use them you just were unaware of it. Though you woudl still want proof they did it not just that they had in fact used guns without your knowledge.
but colin dident thats the thing.
-
No I'm not talking about making things up. I was thinking rather of their memories. They would probably have put their heads together and said something like, "I remember him saying this, what have you got?" etc.
Yes, I agree.
-
I think scipio has just recounted in another thread how that pocket books are usually made up at the end of the day and that he found it very difficult to recount everything accurately. He even pointed out discrepancies in the pocket book of Myall.
Indeed at the end of their day is when they would record what they did that day. They would try to recall the times they did things and what they did. Obviously they would not remember conversations to the letter but rather the conversations they had in general including what stood out to them as the most significant aspects. They would remember asking him about the guns in the house, whether SHeila coudl use them and whether Sheila would be more likely to shoot the police or Jeremy but not recall every single word used during such conversation they would recall the main points.
The answers affected how they behaved and what course of action they took so they had a reaosn to remember. They considered having Jeremy go with them to the door with them. But upon Jeremy saying she knew how to use all the guns in the house, while in a crazy rage could potentially shoot people she encounters and they didn't get along well together and thus she be even more apt to shooting at the police and him if he accompanied them, the hope of using him to help talk her down faded and they instead decided to call armed help.
Times contained are most likely to be approximate times because it is difficult to remember to the minute. There are occasions you look at a clock or your watch and recall having done so and recalling the ime to the minute but such is rare. You usually just remember appoximate times.
You can't expect a pockebook to be too the letter or to the minute. In turn you can't expect statements wtitted subsequently to be to the letter or minute unless th epolice actually went to look at official records detailing times and includes them. Just going by memory with refreshing from a notebook is not likely to result in being able to recall everything to the letter.
Jeremy supporters do one of 2 things. Either they attack for not being to the letter, Reader for instance, and try to suggest that means they are making hings up or lying because everything should be to the letter with no paraphrasing or the like otherwise they attack police for lying in their notebooks and statements based on nothing more than such supporter needing the claims to be untrue in order for Jeremy to be innocent or for their arguments in favor of Jeremy's innocence to be true.
Reader insists Nevill called and that West destroyed the log he made of the call and when filling out his pocketbook omitted including any reference to the call in order to pretend it never happened. Reader can't come up with any rational reason why he would do such though. Police did not suspect Jeremy at the time he fille dout his pocketbook. Worse though Reader suggests that as soon as jeremy called him that West decided to conceal Nevill's call and destory the log relating to it. He decided to use Jeremy's call as a tool to enable him to erase all record of Nevill's call and thus he didn't tell Jeremy that Nevill called and asked Jeremy for information he already obtained from Nevill, placed Jeremy on hold to pretend he was dispatching police as a result of Jeremy's call and contacted bonnett to tell Bonnett to also ommit all references to a call from nevill and to pretend they dispatche dpolcie because of a call fro Jeremy.
Jeremy supporters have wild tales that make no snese and are totally unsupported by any evidence. Instead of following the evidence they claim the evidence was all fabricated down to their pocketbook entries except in those rare instances where they feel they can twist the meaning of a pocketbook entry and try to pretend it supports their claims. In that instance they say the pocketbook entry is true and just mischaracterize what it means.
-
I'd believe Jeremy before I'd ever believe you !!
-
I'd believe Jeremy before I'd ever believe you !!
You also believe any claim that supports Jeremy no matter how much evidence exists that proves such claim to be untrue. When you do such all it deomonstrates is you are biased and irrational nothing more. Choosing to believe proven lies doesn't somehow transform those lies to the truth it just makes you a sad character.
-
There's NO evidence that he murdered anyone.!
Okay,I'm a sad character----------what's it got to do with you ? Just because you can't manipulate and control my thoughts ? You're the saddo !
-
The only original notes I have seen on here from an officer that was with Jeremy does not say that he said Sheila was proficient with guns.
The only time I can see that EP started attributing the very strong indication that Sheila was some kind of crack shot was in September. By that time they had changed their focus plus had been under pressure for their handling of the case.
If anyone believes that they are not above "embellishing " their statements in order to cover why they did not go in sooner - or to make it look like Jeremy was retracting things he said at the scene - then I think you are not aware of the history of the police force in the 80s. I am not saying they did but I think they is a very strong possibility that they were trying to cover themselves because of the way events had unfurled on the night. And I make that comment irrelevant of whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent.
Why would Jeremy say something at the scene and then immediately retract it - that would have flagged up a problem immediately if the police had any wits about them at all.
All he had to do in his call was say he thought he had heard a shot being fired and he would have set the "siege situation" immediately .
When We see ( if ever ) the police statements / notes from the day of the incident I would be willing to change my mind.
-
The only original notes I have seen on here from an officer that was with Jeremy does not say that he said Sheila was proficient with guns.
The only time I can see that EP started attributing the very strong indication that Sheila was some kind of crack shot was in September. By that time they had changed their focus plus had been under pressure for their handling of the case.
If anyone believes that they are not above "embellishing " their statements in order to cover why they did not go in sooner - or to make it look like Jeremy was retracting things he said at the scene - then I think you are not aware of the history of the police force in the 80s. I am not saying they did but I think they is a very strong possibility that they were trying to cover themselves because of the way events had unfurled on the night. And I make that comment irrelevant of whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent.
Why would Jeremy say something at the scene and then immediately retract it - that would have flagged up a problem immediately if the police had any wits about them at all.
All he had to do in his call was say he thought he had heard a shot being fired and he would have set the "siege situation" immediately .
When We see ( if ever ) the police statements / notes from the day of the incident I would be willing to change my mind.
But Jeremy has never denied saying it Jansus.
-
There's NO evidence that he murdered anyone.!
Okay,I'm a sad character----------what's it got to do with you ? Just because you can't manipulate and control my thoughts ? You're the saddo !
I don't care one bit that you are too biased to eve rbe rational about this case. I do care when you post lies and assert your pathetic beliefs as facts.
I continually post the evidence that proves Jeremy's guilt. Anytime I do you post the childish response, "that doesn't prove his guilt"
You can't refute any of the evidence you just post the whopper of a lie that the evidence listed doesn't prove anything.
It is irratoonal to claim that evidence which proves Sheila could not have killed herself or anyone else and that Jeremy tried to frame Sheila doesn't prove Jeremy did it. It clearly does.
You wish Jeremy were innocent and want to pretend he is but can't refute the evidence so you just childishly dismiss it instead.
Then worse you shout from the rafters that anyone posting such evidence is lying and manipulating though the one lying and manipulating is you.
You go beyond just sayig it is your opinion he is innocent because you biased opinion doesn't mean a hill of beans. You insist he is innocent and attack those who post evidence to prove his guilt. You either post lies to try to establish he is innocent or no support whatsoever or say, "that is not evidence there is no evidence he did anything".
You are an ineffective advocate who largely acts as a troll here not one who ever has added something substantive to the debate.
-
The only original notes I have seen on here from an officer that was with Jeremy does not say that he said Sheila was proficient with guns.
The only time I can see that EP started attributing the very strong indication that Sheila was some kind of crack shot was in September. By that time they had changed their focus plus had been under pressure for their handling of the case.
If anyone believes that they are not above "embellishing " their statements in order to cover why they did not go in sooner - or to make it look like Jeremy was retracting things he said at the scene - then I think you are not aware of the history of the police force in the 80s. I am not saying they did but I think they is a very strong possibility that they were trying to cover themselves because of the way events had unfurled on the night. And I make that comment irrelevant of whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent.
Why would Jeremy say something at the scene and then immediately retract it - that would have flagged up a problem immediately if the police had any wits about them at all.
All he had to do in his call was say he thought he had heard a shot being fired and he would have set the "siege situation" immediately .
When We see ( if ever ) the police statements / notes from the day of the incident I would be willing to change my mind.
You mean pockebook entries that detail in general what they did during the day and times but don't contain reocunting every conversation they had with everyone throughout the day?
You seem to be suggesting any details not in their pocketbooks that are later asserted in a statement can't be true and must be lies.
I presented statements from 5 different cops who say Jeremy told them Sheila fied the wepaons before an dknew how to use them. The specifically asked Jeremy if she knew how to find out if they were in danger of being shot by her. he knew that is why they asked and he said yes. They also asked about his relaitionship with Sheila to see if she would be scared to shoot at police with Jeremy among them and whether Jeremy could help them try to talk her down. He responded they di dnot liek eachother and did not get on well.
This left the police with no choice but to call for armed help because she was armed with wepaons she ocudl use while they had none to use to defend themselves with and Jeremy was wholly worthless in keeping her from shooting them or knocking at the door to tlak to her and try to talk her into surrendering.
You are so busy trying to defend Jeremy that you ignore facts and dispaly no common sense or logic at all when looking at the situation.
-
But Jeremy has never denied saying it Jansus.
I did not want to read his statements again but this is what I was referring to .
-
at his trial i belive he said limited knowledge of guns.
-
But Jeremy has never denied saying it Jansus.
but acording to the police statement he dident.
-
I did not want to read his statements again but this is what I was referring to .
That sounds like someone trapped and not knowing how to get out of it - "No comment" Personally if someone was telling me I'd said something I hadn't, the air would be blue and far from not commenting, I'd have plenty to say! :)
-
"To threaten the dog..." ::)
-
That sounds like someone trapped and not knowing how to get out of it - "No comment" Personally if someone was telling me I'd said something I hadn't, the air would be blue and far from not commenting, I'd have plenty to say! :)
All I was saying is that he did deny some words the police had attributed to him regarding Sheila and her handling of the guns.
I agree he came across as looking down at the police in the interviews and far to cocky.
Considering if he murdered them all he knew about the two shots to Sheila I don't think he would come across as he did - it looked like he thought they were joking , trying to wind him up - hence the stupid remark about the dog. He did not do himself any favours.
-
That sounds like someone trapped and not knowing how to get out of it - "No comment" Personally if someone was telling me I'd said something I hadn't, the air would be blue and far from not commenting, I'd have plenty to say! :)
Sounds like someone in the shit and not wanting to say anything else that may get them into further bother - hence "no comment"
-
All I was saying is that he did deny some words the police had attributed to him regarding Sheila and her handling of the guns.
I agree he came across as looking down at the police in the interviews and far to cocky.
Considering if he murdered them all he knew about the two shots to Sheila I don't think he would come across as he did - it looked like he thought they were joking , trying to wind him up - hence the stupid remark about the dog. He did not do himself any favours.
I guess, had I been in that interview room, I'd have found it very difficult, given his attitude and responses, to think of him as being innocent.
-
I see it as follows: if he was guilty, he would have been polite and cooperative, not snotty and ironic like here!
Like in, he wouldn´t have said to the police outside the WHF on the tragic night, that he didn´t particularly like Sheila.
Would you do that if you had just shot your entire family, and you were setting up a scenario to make yourself look innocent, then blurt out: I didn´t like them much....? I don´t think so.
-
ha anoyone comenting actully been been qustioned by the police as a suspect.
if your innocent and the police acusing you of murdering family who your still grieving for how much respect are you going to show them abslutly zero.
-
he said sheila had limited knowledge of guns.
-
I guess, had I been in that interview room, I'd have found it very difficult, given his attitude and responses, to think of him as being innocent.
April if you had been in that interview room you would probably have your eyes open to the different tactics that the police use in order to get the "truth" they want to hear.
-
I see it as follows: if he was guilty, he would have been polite and cooperative, not snotty and ironic like here!
Like in, he wouldn´t have said to the police outside the WHF on the tragic night, that he didn´t particularly like Sheila.
Would you do that if you had just shot your entire family, and you were setting up a scenario to make yourself look innocent, then blurt out: I didn´t like them much....? I don´t think so.
I wouldn't no, but that doesn't mean Jeremy didn't.
-
I see it as follows: if he was guilty, he would have been polite and cooperative, not snotty and ironic like here!
Like in, he wouldn´t have said to the police outside the WHF on the tragic night, that he didn´t particularly like Sheila.
Would you do that if you had just shot your entire family, and you were setting up a scenario to make yourself look innocent, then blurt out: I didn´t like them much....? I don´t think so.
there is a new programme on here called 24 hours in custody. Some interviewees say nothing but - No comment.
I don't think we can assume too much from the interviews .
It could be taken that he was cocky and arrogant because he was guilty and thought he had got away with it - or in a similar vein because he was innocent he though the police were totally stupid even thinking it was him and thought they had nothing to go on. If I thought the police were trying to entrap me by confusion on some aspects that I could not entirely remember I too would use the no comment angle - after all it is your right to do so.
-
there is a new programme on here called 24 hours in custody. Some interviewees say nothing but - No comment.
I don't think we can assume too much from the interviews .
It could be taken that he was cocky and arrogant because he was guilty and thought he had got away with it - or in a similar vein because he was innocent he though the police were totally stupid even thinking it was him and thought they had nothing to go on. If I thought the police were trying to entrap me by confusion on some aspects that I could not entirely remember I too would use the no comment angle - after all it is your right to do so.
Do we know for how long Jeremy had been interviewed here? If he had been asked the same questions over and over, that might explain his snotty answers.
-
April if you had been in that interview room you would probably have your eyes open to the different tactics that the police use in order to get the "truth" they want to hear.
Grahame, I've been intimately involved with police for most of my life, both through friends and family, so I do know what methods CAN be employed and I'm FULLY aware that SOME, given half a chance, will cross the line.
-
Do we know for how long Jeremy had been interviewed here? If he had been asked the same questions over and over, that might explain his snotty answers.
how many times had they interviwed him before was this his first interview.
-
Grahame, I've been intimately involved with police for most of my life, both through friends and family, so I do know what methods CAN be employed and I'm FULLY aware that SOME, given half a chance, will cross the line.
So then you are fully aware of their practices then? And you still think that Bamber was interviewed with kid gloves?
-
All I was saying is that he did deny some words the police had attributed to him regarding Sheila and her handling of the guns.
I agree he came across as looking down at the police in the interviews and far to cocky.
Considering if he murdered them all he knew about the two shots to Sheila I don't think he would come across as he did - it looked like he thought they were joking , trying to wind him up - hence the stupid remark about the dog. He did not do himself any favours.
His interrogation featured a common pattern. He first told police he could not remember what he said in his conversations with them. He could not recall what he told West over the phone, he could not recall what he told Julie in the 3 calls he had with her, he could not recall what he told police later.
Despite saying he could not remember in detail the conversations he subsequently had no problem denying he told people certian things. He coudl not rememebr their discussions but he known he didn't tehm them things that were harmful. So he knows he didn't tell Julie he had not been to bed yet though he could not recall the substance of their discussion.
He told police he had never seen Sheila shoot. Not only in his first written statement he told them such 2 times during his interrogation. He also listed those people who saw him shoot and Shela was not among them.
He already previously said he didn't remember the substance of his discussion with police. But they asked anyway if he told police Sheila had used all the guns in the house. He said no he didn't. How could he be sure he didn't say that since he didn't remember the conversation? Well he told police earlier in his interrogation he had not seen her shoot and didn't want to admit he told a contradictory lie to the officers at the scene so he denied it simply. They asked then what did he tell police about Sheila and guns and he answered "no comment" and would not discuss it further.
He drastically changed his story about something else. He repatedly said he could not recall when he last used the gun prior to getting it out to shoot rabbits but it was a least a week to fortnight prior.
Yet once it became clear the last known user of the gun was Anthony and that he said it was put away with the moderator and scope attached Jeremy changed his claims drastically and claimed he repeatedly used it the week before the murders. He said that Nevill also constantly used it that week and had sometimes put it away with the scope and moderator attached other times he removed them. Thus many times that week Jeremy found the gun with the moderator and scope unattached not just when he took it out to shoot rabbits. Jeremy's memory would all of a sudden improve when a famaging claim surfaced. He would suddenly remember something to refute a claim but when challenged and pressed further on the point he would say no comment and refuse to talk anymore on it.
These are th emost damaging things form the interview it shows lies and deception.
-
So then you are fully aware of their practices then? And you still think that Bamber was interviewed with kid gloves?
I didn't apply it ALL police, Grahame and whilst, not for a moment would I condone ANY improper behaviours, I can UNDERSTAND that when children are involved, emotions run high, and here was this guy appearing to make very light of the situation........................
-
His interrogation featured a common pattern. He first told police he could not remember what he said in his conversations with them. He could not recall what he told West over the phone, he could not recall what he told Julie in the 3 calls he had with her, he could not recall what he told police later.
Despite saying he could not remember in detail the conversations he subsequently had no problem denying he told people certian things. He coudl not rememebr their discussions but he known he didn't tehm them things that were harmful. So he knows he didn't tell Julie he had not been to bed yet though he could not recall the substance of their discussion.
He told police he had never seen Sheila shoot. Not only in his first written statement he told them such 2 times during his interrogation. He also listed those people who saw him shoot and Shela was not among them.
He already previously said he didn't remember the substance of his discussion with police. But they asked anyway if he told police Sheila had used all the guns in the house. He said no he didn't. How could he be sure he didn't say that since he didn't remember the conversation? Well he told police earlier in his interrogation he had not seen her shoot and didn't want to admit he told a contradictory lie to the officers at the scene so he denied it simply. They asked then what did he tell police about Sheila and guns and he answered "no comment" and would not discuss it further.
He drastically changed his story about something else. He repatedly said he could not recall when he last used the gun prior to getting it out to shoot rabbits but it was a least a week to fortnight prior.
Yet once it became clear the last known user of the gun was Anthony and that he said it was put away with the moderator and scope attached Jeremy changed his claims drastically and claimed he repeatedly used it the week before the murders. He said that Nevill also constantly used it that week and had sometimes put it away with the scope and moderator attached other times he removed them. Thus many times that week Jeremy found the gun with the moderator and scope unattached not just when he took it out to shoot rabbits. Jeremy's memory would all of a sudden improve when a famaging claim surfaced. He would suddenly remember something to refute a claim but when challenged and pressed further on the point he would say no comment and refuse to talk anymore on it.
These are th emost damaging things form the interview it shows lies and deception.
So why do you think he changed his story to one where he said that he had never seen Sheila use a gun?
-
there is a new programme on here called 24 hours in custody. Some interviewees say nothing but - No comment.
I don't think we can assume too much from the interviews .
It could be taken that he was cocky and arrogant because he was guilty and thought he had got away with it - or in a similar vein because he was innocent he though the police were totally stupid even thinking it was him and thought they had nothing to go on. If I thought the police were trying to entrap me by confusion on some aspects that I could not entirely remember I too would use the no comment angle - after all it is your right to do so.
But Jeremy didn't simply say no comment and refuse to discuss things. In contrast he went on record and made claims that were established to be false. He contradicted himself a number of times thus in the process setting up the question "were you lying then or are you lying now". They never asked that directly they just implied it and anytime he was caught in a lie or contradiciton he would clam up and say no comment. The context of the no comment is critical.
He went on record saying he coudl not recall the last time he used the gun it had been at least a week to fortnight prior. Hours later he forgot he said that and made up using it repeatedly to prevent Anthony from being the last known user of the gun and making up the nonsense that Nevill and him both used it daily with Nevill taking the moderator and scope off frequently.
You are biased in favor of Jeremy so pretend he didn't lie or contradict himself but to an objective party his contradictions and lies were obvious and quite harmful.
-
Just imagine it. You've worked a full day in the fields,go home,put dozens of jumpers on,pedal like mad to WHF via the sea-wall/fields,break into the farmhouse,grab the rifle,struggle with your father,pump him and everyone else with bullets,coax Sheila to lie down and be shot,job done,go out via the window,pedal like Hell back,phone the police ( who thankfully at that stage tell Jeremy not to get to WHF before them,drive slowly behind them while you're getting your breath back ),no signs of exhaustion,nerves,tiredness at this stage because he's Superman,then face hours of questioning without falling asleep.
I bet he drinks Carling Black Label !!
Too good to be true ? Because that's exactly what it is !
BTW,was the bicycle seat highered after June or Julie had used it ? Was it checked for that too as well as mud and blood ?
-
So why do you think he changed his story to one where he said that he had never seen Sheila use a gun?
As I said before because either (or a combination) of the following:
1) he forgot the lie he told previously which was directed at the police at the scene to make them scared of Sheila and to believe she did it when they found the bodies and thus told the truth
2) he knew what the family said and decided to tell the truth to comport with their claims so police would not get suspicious and relaize he was lying to them
Why did he say he called Julie first during his interrogation? He forgot the lie he told previously. Once police seized upon it and he though about it he relaized it was harmful to his posiiton to admit he called Sheila first so he could not remember well and made a mistake and said he was deferring to whatever he wrote in his original statement because he could not remmber the order.
That is the problem when you lie. You usually can't remember the lies you told unless you carefully plot out your lies and decide to memorize such as your position.
I will give an example take 2 fake miliary vets.
On one hand you have peopel who make up claims as they go and they keep contradicting themselves in the porcess. A guy on the history channel told stories about being part of an elite Navy helicoper unit tha tperformed search and rescue missions. He previously said he did medevac and other operations. Such operations were not performed by the elite unit he claimed ot be part of.
He also made up stories about being shot down 4 times. The unit didn't lose 4 helicopters though to hostile fire. He also gave breakdowns of when and where he supposedly trained and served. He would forget the lies he told previously and make up contradictory claims. So he simultaneously was laid up in a hospital, hunted subs in the Pacific, was performing medevac and performing S&R missions. '
Contrast that with someone who instead crafted a tale which was consistent. He made up a story and stuck by it and he used the same story. The same story, the same dates. It took extremely specialized military knowledge of where units were stationed and operating in Iraq to prove some of his claims to be inaccurate.
Usually you catch people in lies both as a result of establishing their claims are false as well as because they tell so many stories they contradict themselves. It is rare to come across a liar who takes the time to truly make up a story they stick to even after much scrutiny because it takes really good planning to make up a story that doesn't need to change and discipline to stay in character always with everyone.
-
^ I'd go with number two. He realised that the family were of course going to tell the truth and his story wouldn't fit in with that so he changed to fit in with them.
-
Just imagine it. You've worked a full day in the fields,go home,put dozens of jumpers on,pedal like mad to WHF via the sea-wall/fields,break into the farmhouse,grab the rifle,struggle with your father,pump him and everyone else with bullets,coax Sheila to lie down and be shot,job done,go out via the window,pedal like Hell back,phone the police ( who thankfully at that stage tell Jeremy not to get to WHF before them,drive slowly behind them while you're getting your breath back ),no signs of exhaustion,nerves,tiredness at this stage because he's Superman,then face hours of questioning without falling asleep.
I bet he drinks Carling Black Label !!
Too good to be true ? Because that's exactly what it is !
BTW,was the bicycle seat highered after June or Julie had used it ? Was it checked for that too as well as mud and blood ?
Hi lookout we must remember that with all of the statements presented to the court we are dealing with people's "memories". Some interpret these "inconsistences" as lies. But in the absence of full knowledge of the facts, which do appear the be few and far between in regard to everybody's statements (this is common sense as I doubt very much that any of us could remember every single thing that we did yesterday, let alone several weeks back) we cannot really put together a clearcut story. That and the fact that none of us were there that night, so the knowledge that we do have is I should think largely assumption? Added to that the fact that people do actually lie under oath and we have no way of knowing who has lied? We must very largely rely upon a gut feeling, even those who whilst they are adamant that they rely "only" upon the facts also do I suspect?
-
well nobodys story completly adds up but then nobodys would.
-
Hi lookout we must remember that with all of the statements presented to the court we are dealing with people's "memories". Some interpret these "inconsistences" as lies. But in the absence of full knowledge of the facts, which do appear the be few and far between in regard to everybody's statements (this is common sense as I doubt very much that any of us could remember every single thing that we did yesterday, let alone several weeks back) we cannot really put together a clearcut story. That and the fact that none of us were there that night, so the knowledge that we do have is I should think largely assumption? Added to that the fact that people do actually lie under oath and we have no way of knowing who has lied? We must very largely rely upon a gut feeling, even those who whilst they are adamant that they rely "only" upon the facts also do I suspect?
I rely on facts.
Fact Jeremy claimed He called Julie after claling police.
Fact Jerey slipped during his interrogation and admitted he called Julie first but then said he made a mistake and could not rememebr the order in which things happened or times and deferred to the times in his original statement.
Fact there is evidence that proves Jeremy called Julie first and thus lied to police in the day of the murders. Things shoudl have been fresh to him the same day they happened.
The fact he called Julie first and in fact as all is evne more damaging than the fact he later lied about the order. He had no valid reason for calling her at all let alone first.
There is a tremendous amount of evidence against Jeremy some peopel biase din his favor jsut don't want to face it but can't refute it so simply pretend it doesn't exist or deny it proves anything though they can't actually establish it doesn't prove anything.
-
But Jeremy didn't simply say no comment and refuse to discuss things. In contrast he went on record and made claims that were established to be false. He contradicted himself a number of times thus in the process setting up the question "were you lying then or are you lying now". They never asked that directly they just implied it and anytime he was caught in a lie or contradiciton he would clam up and say no comment. The context of the no comment is critical.
He went on record saying he coudl not recall the last time he used the gun it had been at least a week to fortnight prior. Hours later he forgot he said that and made up using it repeatedly to prevent Anthony from being the last known user of the gun and making up the nonsense that Nevill and him both used it daily with Nevill taking the moderator and scope off frequently.
You are biased in favor of Jeremy so pretend he didn't lie or contradict himself but to an objective party his contradictions and lies were obvious and quite harmful.
Ok I am biased -get over it.
You are biased to his guilt and wont even accept the possibility that policemen tell lies sometimes.
it happens!
-
Hi lookout we must remember that with all of the statements presented to the court we are dealing with people's "memories". Some interpret these "inconsistences" as lies. But in the absence of full knowledge of the facts, which do appear the be few and far between in regard to everybody's statements (this is common sense as I doubt very much that any of us could remember every single thing that we did yesterday, let alone several weeks back) we cannot really put together a clearcut story. That and the fact that none of us were there that night, so the knowledge that we do have is I should think largely assumption? Added to that the fact that people do actually lie under oath and we have no way of knowing who has lied? We must very largely rely upon a gut feeling, even those who whilst they are adamant that they rely "only" upon the facts also do I suspect?
a lot of people dont take memory into acount nobody has perfect memory.
-
I rely on facts.
No, you usually rely on your opinions. Often based on statements considered out of context, misquoted statements, etc.
Fact Jeremy claimed he called Julie after calling police.
In his initial statement, he said called Julie at about 3:25, which meant before calling the police, not after.
Fact Jeremy slipped during his interrogation and admitted he called Julie first
No, he said he called Julie first, but then admitted he wasn't sure, but that his initial statement would have been correct. In that statement, he said he called her at 3:25, which meant before calling the police.
Fact there is evidence that proves Jeremy called Julie first and thus lied to police in the day of the murders.
He called Julie first and didn't contradict that on the day of the murders.
he later lied about the order
No, he didn't.
He had no valid reason for calling her at all let alone first.
So he couldn't have been trying to establish an alibi, as that would have been a valid reason. Another valid reason was to obtain advice as to what to do.
There is a tremendous amount of evidence against Jeremy/quote]
You seem to think it couldn't have been Sheila due to lack of GSR (amongst other things). How come no GSR was left on her or her nightie related to the contact or near-contact shots that killed her?
-
Ok I am biased -get over it.
You are biased to his guilt and wont even accept the possibility that policemen tell lies sometimes.
it happens!
I am not biased to his guilt. I followed the evidence where it leads.
You in contrast decided you want to believe him no matter how ridiculous his claims might be and to reject all evidence proving his guilt not because you can refute such evidence but rather for the simple reason you want to believe he is innocent.
As for police lying they occasionally do but in documented cases of that happening we have evidence to estbalish it. It is not enough to say we should not believe the police because they potentially could lie and ludicrous to suggest they all lied and not only lied but doctored evidence.
Doctoring evidence requires proof as well but there is not a shred of evidence to establish doctoring occurred.
You reject the evidence not because there is any valid reason to reject it. You just don't want to face it because you don't want to believe Jerey is guilty. That is denial.
-
Jeremy's supporters do just seem to be fire fighting all the time.
Making excuses for him and trying to show everything which shows certain guilt is wrong, or lies. Or that Jeremy was confused, mis quoted or the police deliberately wrote down wrong information.
Nothing new has come up from the Jeremy camp for months. Showing how Sheila actually committed this massacre. But if it wasn't Sheila....
-
Even this thread Jansus and Patti immediately set about justifying what Jeremy testified in court on page 1.
What he says doesn't do him any favours. But does not make him a murderer. Everyone just has to accept he said it, so it is true.
-
He said he was experienced with guns. And had no difficulty using the murder weapon.
Sheila had limited experience with guns.
There were fostering conversations on the night. Sheila was silent and not paying attention.
He denied cycling to WHF to commit the massacre.
He had been unfair in using Julie for emotional support and bringing her to WHF on the massacre morning.
His relationship with June was poor. They would antagonise each other. There was a lack of understanding.
When his phone was answered 'it was dad'. Jeremy started crying.
He said the call to Chelmsford police station lasted 5 minutes.
He said he rang Julie at 3am for 'a friendly ear'.
He drove so slowly to WHF as he did not want to arrive before the police.
He said he knew how to get in and out of the bathroom window at WHF.
He said he saw Sheila punch the twins. Once.
He robbed the caravan site to show security problems. But admitted he should not have spent the money. He did so out of greed.
He agreed with Mary Mugfords testimony about his poor relationship with June.
He said James Richards and everyone lied about him. Because of the way the media had portrayed him.
He liked the good things in life. And had read the wills which tied him to the farm to inherit.
He should not have left the gun lying around and it would have taken seconds to put away. He had been 'lackadaisical' saying 'I didn't know what was going to happen, did I ?'.
Accused of lying he said 'that is what you have to establish'.
As more pressure was put on, his answers became shorter - don't know, can't pin myself, I can't answer.
It did not enter his head to dial 999.
The relationship with Julie had been in decline since Xmas 84. He had been unfaithful before, which Julie knew about. He ended the relationship in a restaraunt.
He had spent freely after the massacre and drank champagne on the funeral evening.
-
Oh dear. Where shall I start ?
-
Drinking champagne on the murder of the murder ?
-
Oh dear. Where shall I start ?
Anadin anyone? lol
I'll put me false teeth back in shall I? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh dear. Where shall I start ?
If I were you Adam I should just go to bed like I am now. Tomorrow is the last day of your weeks holiday and you've wasted most of it on here. :)
-
If I were you Adam I should just go to bed like I am now. Tomorrow is the last day of your weeks holiday and you've wasted most of it on here. :)
Some of it on here. But I bought a Nutra bullet to.
-
Some of it on here. But I bought a Nutra bullet to.
What's that Adam?
-
The relationship with Julie in decline since Xmas 84. That is 9 months before the massacre.
However he had been telling Julie of his feelings for over 9 months. So had to whisk her over straight away and keep an eye on her.
But with Jeremy wanting to be a playboy, & telling Julie he was involved, it was always going to be over soon after the massacre night.
-
It did not enter his head to dial 999.
The police must hear this said a million times - Father rings son at 3.10am, daughter has gun & is going crazy. Why an earth should the numbers 999 go into someone's head ?
-
It did not enter his head to dial 999.
The police must hear this said a million times - Father rings son at 3.10am, daughter has gun & is going crazy. Why an earth should the numbers 999 go into someone's head ?
I think his comments were he did not think the police would get here any quicker and I was not sure what the procedure was. :-\
-
He went into 'interview transcript' mode later on.
Becoming evasive with short answers. And cocky answers - ' that is what you have to establish'.
He got quite aggressive as well saying 'did I'.
-
He 'liked the good things in life'.
He had read the wills which - 'tied him to the farm in order to inherit'.
2 + 2 = ?
-
He went into 'interview transcript' mode later on.
Becoming evasive with short answers. And cocky answers - ' that is what you have to establish'.
He got quite aggressive as well saying 'did I'.
What you don't see of the interview though is that they probably got very aggressive with him as well? I've seen it on here tonight, one person gets aggressive and winds them up. The other person responds with equal aggression then that person gets the blame instead of the one who instigated it. Then some old stuff is brought up to show that they are the real aggressors.
When I apologise to someone I usually mean it and forget all past transgressions. But there are some on the forum who simply relish the opportunity to bring up past offenses. These people are the ones that I detest and will no longer communicate with them.
-
'Everyone lied because of the way the media portrayed him'.
The media focused on Sheila at first. Then published on the front page of the Sun how he had tried to sell pictures. But wasn't their a media ban during the trial ?
-
No, you usually rely on your opinions. Often based on statements considered out of context, misquoted statements, etc.
You are decribing your own MO not mine. You are the one always distorting and taking things out of context to intentionally try to pretend the stupid crap you say is possible.
Your claims are always as dumb as dishonest. You outright lie by denying Jeremy was asked things that we know for a fact was he was asked which would have been asked of Nevill such as Nevill's name, age, address, phone, number, who was staying at WHF, Sheila's name, age, the weapons at WHF etc. and evne more ridiculously suggest that time was saved by not telling Jeremy about Nevill's call and instead pretending no call was received from Nevill so asking him for the information again.
Who do you think you are fooling with such lies? Aside from people who are too biased to know which way is up, (who a living in denial to pretend Jeremy is innocent) you are not fooling a soul with your antics. All you have done is demolish your repuation.
Each time you accuse me of lying I produce countless quotes proving you to be completely wrong and then you refuse to respond because you are too much of a coward. You change the subject rather than address the evidence that backed up my claims and made you a joke for calling me a liar. Often you get saved because your posts claling me a liar are deleted and so are my responses that tore you apart.
Most recently you accused me of making up that Jeremy told police Sheila fired all weapons in the house. I responded with snapshots of statements from 5 cops he told it to and a Court of Appeal quote noting same. You hid like the coward you are until the post was deleted.
You seem to use your mod status to delete posts where you accuse me of lying then get your aarse kicked in by me demonstrating I was correct.
In his initial statement, he said called Julie at about 3:25, which meant before calling the police, not after.
This is a perfect example to prove you are a hypocrite engaging in projeciton. You project your flaws onto others. You accused me of taking statements out of tconext in order to distort the meaning but that is precisely what you are doing.
Jeremy asserted this call to Julie came after claling police. He claimed he received Nevill's call at 3:10Am and then immediately tried to call Nevill back but the phone was busy so immediatley called police and after calling police is when he called Julie.
Your claim that by suggesting his call to Julie was at 3:25 means he was suggesting it was prior to his call by police is an out and out lie. During his interrogation he changed the order at first but then deferred to his oriignal claim of calling police before Julie and then maintained same at trial and msot recently so far as we know reiterated it to Caroline.
The one distorting is you. The claim Jeremy called police at 3:36AM was rejected by the defense at trial. They even cross examined West to stress he was wrong about the time Jeremy called.
That is another thing you accused me of lying about you denied West admitted he made a mistake. You said I made it up. Oops you were wrong again:
(http://s2.postimg.org/6iep01dqh/westmistake.jpg)
All you are accomplishing with your lies and distortions is harming your repuation and proving you lack integrity.
No, he said he called Julie first, but then admitted he wasn't sure, but that his initial statement would have been correct. In that statement, he said he called her at 3:25, which meant before calling the police.
More worthless games.
Jeremy called police prior to 3:26. At 3:26 West placed Jeremy on hold and called Bonnett. That means at 3:25 he was on the phone with West and could not have called Julie at that time.
Moreover, in his statement he gave the timetable of Nevill phoning him at 3:10, trying to call Nevill back, then immediately calling police and after getting off the phone with police finally calling Julie at 3:25. he was representing that he was alreayd off the phone with police by the time he called Julie. you are trying to avoid the context and ignore th emeaning of his words to pretend he said said he called Julie first though he didn't.
Again all you are demonstrating is your dishonesty. You are engaging in the garbage you fasely accuse me of doing.
He called Julie first and didn't contradict that on the day of the murders.
He did indeed call Julie before police but he lied and said otherwise to the police, in court and even now. You intentionally ignore that Jeremy to this day maintains he called police first. You ignore such not because the evidece proves he called Julie first but rather because there already is no time for him to have gotten ahead of police for them to pass if he caleld at 3:36 but especially no time to do that and also call Julie. So by necessity to try to pretend your lie of a call by Nevill is possible you admit he called Julie before police but rather than be honest and admit Jeremy maintians the opposite you lie and falsely suggest Jeremy maintains he called Julie first.
No, he didn't.
He did indeed lie. You admit he called Julie first. If he called julie first then his claim that after trying to call his father back he imediately called police is a lie. He can't call Julie before police without his claim (that he immediately called police and called Julie later at 3:25) being a lie. The only way for such not to be a lie is if he called Julie after police as claimed.
Your claim he said he called Julie and then police after is a big fat lie. You twist his words beyond recognition to try to pretend he wrote the complete opposite of what he wrote.
So he couldn't have been trying to establish an alibi, as that would have been a valid reason. Another valid reason was to obtain advice as to what to do.
Trying to establish an alibi is not a valid reason to call her before calling police. It is the true reason he did it but far from being valid it helps prove his guilt. An innocent person receiving the call claimed to have been received from Nevill would not call someone to establish an alibi they would call 999 or would rush over. His actions deonstrate he received no such call from Nevill he made it up.
Waking her up to ask for advice is not something that someone in his place receiving such a call from Nevill would do either. Someone receiving such a call would either rush over to help or call 999 not call their girlfriend and ask whether they should do anything or just go back to bed.
You seem to think it couldn't have been Sheila due to lack of GSR (amongst other things). How come no GSR was left on her or her nightie related to the contact or near-contact shots that killed her?
The GSR would land on the hands and clothing of the shooter.
That is the whole point. If she were the shooter and thus had killed herself then she would have to have hugged the weapon in order to do it and the area where GSR is expelled would have been against her gown. Thus she would have gotten even more GSR on her than would someone just holding it in ordinary fashion to shoot someone else.
In contrast with someone else holding the gun and shooting her with it would result in the area where the GSR is expelled being not near her gown. It would be near the killer. The moderator results in the gun being even further from her body han would be the case without it.
-
He agreed with Mary Mugford's testimony !
That was so damning of Jeremy I created a thread on it.
-
The GSR would land on the hands and clothing of the shooter.
That is the whole point. If she were the shooter and thus had killed herself then she would have to have hugged the weapon in order to do it and the area where GSR is expelled would have been against her gown. Thus she would have gotten even more GSR on her than would someone just holding it in ordinary fashion to shoot someone else.
In contrast with someone else holding the gun and shooting her with it would result in the area where the GSR is expelled being not near her gown. It would be near the killer. The moderator results in the gun being even further from her body han would be the case without it.
I would have thought that the weapon being a long gun as opposed to a pistol that the GSR would be expelled from the barrel towards her thus landing on her neck rather than her gown. The same thing happening when shooting the others. Therefore if she was shot even by another person she must have had GSR on her person somewhere?
-
Robbed the caravan site to show security problems.
I thought he used a key to get in ? So it shows nothing. Apart from anyone with a key can get in. And he did not inform anyone of this. Otherwise they would have asked for the money back.
'He should not have spent the money. And did so out of greed'.
Honest. But he could not really say anything else.
-
He rang Julie for a 'friendly ear'.
Yes people are often friendly when being woken at 3am.
-
He drove slowly to WHF so he would arrive after the police.
But why ?
-
What you don't see of the interview though is that they probably got very aggressive with him as well? I've seen it on here tonight, one person gets aggressive and winds them up. The other person responds with equal aggression then that person gets the blame instead of the one who instigated it. Then some old stuff is brought up to show that they are the real aggressors.
When I apologise to someone I usually mean it and forget all past transgressions. But there are some on the forum who simply relish the opportunity to bring up past offenses. These people are the ones that I detest and will no longer communicate with them.
It was not very aggressive and they didn't ask him many quesitons they should have and could have. They are questions that could have caused him got him to say even mor eincrimianting things.
For instance to ask how he knew how much money was in his fathers wallet. To ask why he said the rifle could not fit in the closet with the moderator and scope attached. to ask why no one saw him hunt vermit ever if he routinly did it. To point out he earlier in the interrogation said he had not used the gun the week prior to themurders and ask if he change dhis story to prevent Anythng from being th elast to use it. To press him on why Nevill would remove the scope and remind him he earlier verbally told police he removed it prior to the murders.Also to note the phone had nothing wrong with it and ask why he hid it and replaced it with the bedroom phone. There are plenty of things they could have asked to really get him going that they didn't. The main area it got heated what when he didn't want to give a definite answer of whether he called Julie or police first. He said he stuck by his ealrier statement instead of wanting to commit to a poistion at that point in time.
He asked a number of times to see his statements because he wasn't sure what he wrote and wanted to read them so that he would not contradict himself but they would not show him.
"Koppers let me see what I wrote so I know what I shoudl tell you now without contradicting myself." Good grief his interrogation did not go well for him at all, the only bright spot for the defense is he didn't end up confessing during it. That's about the only way he could have done worse.
-
Adam please calm down lad. You're beginning to sound a bit like Hitler with these rants. We get your point really we do. ;D
-
He was experienced with guns and the murder weapon. Sheila had limited experience with guns.
2 + 2 = ?
-
It was not very aggressive and they didn't ask him many quesitons they should have and could have. They are questions that could have caused him got him to say even mor eincrimianting things.
For instance to ask how he knew how much money was in his fathers wallet. To ask why he said the rifle could not fit in the closet with the moderator and scope attached. to ask why no one saw him hunt vermit ever if he routinly did it. To point out he earlier in the interrogation said he had not used the gun the week prior to themurders and ask if he change dhis story to prevent Anythng from being th elast to use it. To press him on why Nevill would remove the scope and remind him he earlier verbally told police he removed it prior to the murders.Also to note the phone had nothing wrong with it and ask why he hid it and replaced it with the bedroom phone. There are plenty of things they could have asked to really get him going that they didn't. The main area it got heated what when he didn't want to give a definite answer of whether he called Julie or police first. He said he stuck by his ealrier statement instead of wanting to commit to a poistion at that point in time.
He asked a number of times to see his statements because he wasn't sure what he wrote and wanted to read them so that he would not contradict himself but they would not show him.
"Koppers let me see what I wrote so I know what I shoudl tell you now without contradicting myself." Good grief his interrogation did not go well for him at all, the only bright spot for the defense is he didn't end up confessing during it. That's about the only way he could have done worse.
How do you know that? That is usually the tactics of the cops. But those tactics never get written down. But it happens I can assure you. So you cannot with any certainty say that it wasn't very aggressive.
-
He would 'antagonise' June as there was a lack of understanding.
That must have been when he put rats in her car.
Wilkes's book says they basically stopped communicating from 1978. Obviously Jeremy communicated when he needed financing for trips abroad, and the odd £1,500.00 sent to him.
-
Adam please calm down lad. You're beginning to sound a bit like Hitler with these rants. We get your point really we do. ;D
Not ssure about Hitler, but he is starting to sound like Barney the Dinosuar with his 2 + 2 posts.
-
He would 'antagonise' June as there was a lack of understanding.
That must have been when he put rats in her car.
Wilkes's book says they basically stopped communicating from 1978. Obviously Jeremy communicated when he needed financing for trips abroad, and the odd £1,500.00 sent to him.
Keep it up mate, you're on a roll. Not many people are reading it because you've said it so many times before. We get your point. You think he's guilty. Understood. But please do not keep patronising us.
-
I would have thought that the weapon being a long gun as opposed to a pistol that the GSR would be expelled from the barrel towards her thus landing on her neck rather than her gown. The same thing happening when shooting the others. Therefore if she was shot even by another person she must have had GSR on her person somewhere?
A cloud of GSR forms when the primer is ignoted. The cloud is formed near the area where the firing pin ignites the primer so near the chamber of the weapon.
If the shooter is holding the rifle eye level it will get mostly on their face, hair, hands and shoulder/neck are of their clothing. If they are firing from the hip then moreso on the middle of their clothing and even upper pants.
If you are hugging the weapon to shoot yourself the main area it will be is again the middle body area. That area was not stained with blood so blood would not have been able to conceal it.
What you are thinking of a scoming out of the muzzle of the weapon is unburned gunpower. You are right that unburned gunpower ill only hit someone at close range. Unburned gunpower will singe the wound of a contact shot. It also can still get in the wound of a close shot. The further away the less concentrated the patter of stippling will be but unburned gunpower will not travel more than a few feet so when firing from a distance none will be observed and if it is present it indicates the killer fired within several feet. Depending on the pattern for the stippling you can try to narrow down the distance more.
The fatal wound had burning that indicated it was a contact wound.
The initial wound not being a contact wound presents a problem as well. The gun was held nearly perpendicular to Sheila's neck. It was not a perfect 90 degree angle but the angle was slight. The bullet went through the front of the nect to her vertebrae at only a slight angle. Holding the gun away from your neck at nearly a 90 degree angle is pretty strange. It is easier to hold and to shoot when you are at contact range. The further from your body the harder it is to pull the trigger. Jamming it under your neck to aim it up would be easier and make more sense then holding it straight out to go from the front to back of your neck.
Jeremy either didn't think about it too well and then thought oh crap I messed up I should have angled it to go into her brain or Sheila moved and screwed up his shot so he had to do it again.
-
How do you know that? That is usually the tactics of the cops. But those tactics never get written down. But it happens I can assure you. So you cannot with any certainty say that it wasn't very aggressive.
Because we have seen the transcript of the episode. They didn't grill him nearly as hard as they could have. I entioned many things they could have grilled him about but didn't. I have seen much more aggressive questioning.
I have more aggressively questioned witnesses than that.
-
It was not very aggressive and they didn't ask him many quesitons they should have and could have. They are questions that could have caused him got him to say even mor eincrimianting things.
For instance to ask how he knew how much money was in his fathers wallet. To ask why he said the rifle could not fit in the closet with the moderator and scope attached. to ask why no one saw him hunt vermit ever if he routinly did it. To point out he earlier in the interrogation said he had not used the gun the week prior to themurders and ask if he change dhis story to prevent Anythng from being th elast to use it. To press him on why Nevill would remove the scope and remind him he earlier verbally told police he removed it prior to the murders.Also to note the phone had nothing wrong with it and ask why he hid it and replaced it with the bedroom phone. There are plenty of things they could have asked to really get him going that they didn't. The main area it got heated what when he didn't want to give a definite answer of whether he called Julie or police first. He said he stuck by his ealrier statement instead of wanting to commit to a poistion at that point in time.
He asked a number of times to see his statements because he wasn't sure what he wrote and wanted to read them so that he would not contradict himself but they would not show him.
"Koppers let me see what I wrote so I know what I shoudl tell you now without contradicting myself." Good grief his interrogation did not go well for him at all, the only bright spot for the defense is he didn't end up confessing during it. That's about the only way he could have done worse.
...a really smart move, nearly as smart as telling the prosecutor in front of the jury that it was his job to prove he was guilty.
-
You outright lie by denying Jeremy was asked things that we know for a fact was he was asked
I haven't denied Jeremy was asked anything. You claimed he wouldn't have been asked for Nevill's details if Nevill had already called. Jeremy also gave information (such as his address in Goldhanger and the fact that Nevill had called him) that Nevill didn't.
Most recently you accused me of making up that Jeremy told police Sheila fired all weapons in the house.
That's in statements by Ps Bews and Pc Myall, but Pc Saxby overheard enough to give a different version of what Jeremy said at the scene (which didn't say Sheila had fired all the weapons). I tend to distrust Ps Bews and Pc Myall because their statements made no mention of the "trick of the light" incident.
You seem to use your mod status to delete posts where you accuse me of lying
I have never deleted a post of that type (or anything you posted). Whenever I've deleted a post of my own, I've reposted it (with minor alteration) almost immediately.
Jeremy asserted this call to Julie came after calling police.
No, that's your deduction from a couple of mistakes that Jeremy made. Making mistakes isn't the same as lying. If he'd wanted to say he called her after calling the police, he could have done so explicitly.
reiterated it to Caroline.
Caroline didn't post the exchange, but I'd guess she didn't point out the significance of the order of the calls.
you denied West admitted he made a mistake.
Pc West was clearly saying that if 3:26 was the correct time, that would mean he had made a mistake. However, if you read the entire exchange on this matter, it's quite clear that Pc West didn't think that 3:26 was the correct time.
The GSR would land on the hands and clothing of the shooter.
Gunshot residue is primarily from the muzzle of the weapon. Thus there would have been some on her neck and the nearby area of her clothing. Was GSR detected anywhere on anything?
-
A cloud of GSR forms when the primer is ignoted. The cloud is formed near the area where the firing pin ignites the primer so near the chamber of the weapon.
If the shooter is holding the rifle eye level it will get mostly on their face, hair, hands and shoulder/neck are of their clothing. If they are firing from the hip then moreso on the middle of their clothing and even upper pants.
If you are hugging the weapon to shoot yourself the main area it will be is again the middle body area. That area was not stained with blood so blood would not have been able to conceal it.
What you are thinking of a scoming out of the muzzle of the weapon is unburned gunpower. You are right that unburned gunpower ill only hit someone at close range. Unburned gunpower will singe the wound of a contact shot. It also can still get in the wound of a close shot. The further away the less concentrated the patter of stippling will be but unburned gunpower will not travel more than a few feet so when firing from a distance none will be observed and if it is present it indicates the killer fired within several feet. Depending on the pattern for the stippling you can try to narrow down the distance more.
The fatal wound had burning that indicated it was a contact wound.
The initial wound not being a contact wound presents a problem as well. The gun was held nearly perpendicular to Sheila's neck. It was not a perfect 90 degree angle but the angle was slight. The bullet went through the front of the nect to her vertebrae at only a slight angle. Holding the gun away from your neck at nearly a 90 degree angle is pretty strange. It is easier to hold and to shoot when you are at contact range. The further from your body the harder it is to pull the trigger. Jamming it under your neck to aim it up would be easier and make more sense then holding it straight out to go from the front to back of your neck.
Jeremy either didn't think about it too well and then thought oh crap I messed up I should have angled it to go into her brain or Sheila moved and screwed up his shot so he had to do it again.
Oh ok thanks.
-
He drove slowly to WHF so he would arrive after the police.
There's no proof that he drove slowly. When he was overtaken, one police officer estimated his speed as 30 mph and another as "up to 30 mph". His earlier speed may well have been 35 mph, say, where the road was suitable for that speed.
-
Jeremy drove slowly behind because he was requested to by the police.The reason being that they'd said they didn't want him arriving before them.
I'll leave it to you,Adam,to fathom that one out. ::)
-
Jeremy drove slowly behind because he was requested to by the police.The reason being that they'd said they didn't want him arriving before them.
I'll leave it to you,Adam,to fathom that one out. ::)
They told him no such thing. West told him police were already en route get moving so they can meet you. Beating him there would result in police standing around with thei rthumbsup their butt which is what happened.
-
There's no proof that he drove slowly. When he was overtaken, one police officer estimated his speed as 30 mph and another as "up to 30 mph". His earlier speed may well have been 35 mph, say, where the road was suitable for that speed.
No more than 20MPH was the estimate
(http://s27.postimg.org/jw1xg95w3/20mph.jpg)/quote]
-
This has devolved into a who's on First routine.
If you don't know the reference it means the Abbott & Constello Routine.
I haven't denied Jeremy was asked anything. You claimed he wouldn't have been asked for Nevill's details if Nevill had already called. Jeremy also gave information (such as his address in Goldhanger and the fact that Nevill had called him) that Nevill didn't.
The point is WHY would West ask Jeremy for information if he had already obtained it from Nevill? It makes no sense to ask Jeremy for informaiton that was already obtained from Nevill.
You claimed it would save time. How woudl it save time to ask Jeremy for not only his name, adress and phone number but also for all the infromation previously obtained form nevill? It would result in extra time not save time.
To save time West would announce that Nevill already called, that police were already dispatched and it was being all taken care of so not to worry.
The fact that didn't happen proves Nevill had not called West prior to Jeremy.
That's in statements by Ps Bews and Pc Myall, but Pc Saxby overheard enough to give a different version of what Jeremy said at the scene (which didn't say Sheila had fired all the weapons). I tend to distrust Ps Bews and Pc Myall because their statements made no mention of the "trick of the light" incident.
I have never deleted a post of that type (or anything you posted). Whenever I've deleted a post of my own, I've reposted it (with minor alteration) almost immediately.
Someone deleted your accusation and my post proving my claims. They included Adams and Mercer not just Myall, Saxby and Bews. Jeremy reiterated the claims to Adams and Mercer he didn't just tell the first cops he saw.
Since you trust Saxby I will repost his which you obviously forgot included the same charge so now I expect you to change course and say you don't trust Saxby either or Mercer and Adams for that matter:
(http://s27.postimg.org/pzvfzw4k3/saxbyshooting.jpg)
(http://s29.postimg.org/71doyhbtj/mercerguns.jpg)
Here is an account of the Briefing Adams gave to the raid team:
(http://s18.postimg.org/qxjowzlih/mannersguns.jpg)
That one is a double whammy because it stresses how police repsonded because of Jeremy's call and not a call from Nevill and how Jeremy taught Sheila to use the murder weapon and she could use all weapons in the house.
No, that's your deduction from a couple of mistakes that Jeremy made. Making mistakes isn't the same as lying. If he'd wanted to say he called her after calling the police, he could have done so explicitly.
Caroline didn't post the exchange, but I'd guess she didn't point out the significance of the order of the calls.
You are just palying worthless games. He said he got the call from Nevill at 3:10Am, he immediatley tried to call Nevill back, immediately called police then finally at 3:25AM called Julie. He did explicitly state he called her after police. He stood by that in his interrogation after he accidentally admitted the truth about calling Julie first. he said he made amsitake and stood by his earlier statement. He reiterated it at trial and even to Caroline when she asked.
Syaing that police should have asked what immediately meant is absurd. Ther eis no way at all to pretend Jeremy claimed he called Julie first he lied and said he didn't call her till 3:25 which he though was after he was done talking to police.
Let's just look at your pathetic games:
Jeremy: Reader
3:10 Nevill calls, Nevill called Jeremy around 3:20
then I immediately tried to call Nevill back, Jeremy got dressed
then I immediately called police Jeremy called Julie
3:25 I called Julie 3:36 Jeremy called police
I got dressed and went to meet police 3:41 Jeremy was out the door and no the road
If he got dressed and called Julie before calling West then he can't have immediately called police. They are mutually exclusive. Your games don't have any traction at all we all see you are distorting it is a waste of time.
Pc West was clearly saying that if 3:26 was the correct time, that would mean he had made a mistake. However, if you read the entire exchange on this matter, it's quite clear that Pc West didn't think that 3:26 was the correct time.
West doesn't make it clear he thinks he was right and Bonnett was wrong. He admitted he likely made a mistake. At any rate if he did what you claim it is just as bad for your claims.
For West to say tha either the 3:26 time or 3:36 time is wrong is fatal to your claim that he didn't deny there was only one call he received from the public and only one call he reported to Bonnett.
If your claims were true then West woudl have denied there was an error in the times and would have said that 3:26 corresponds to the time he reported to Bonnett a call from Nevill while 3:26 is the time of a call from Jeremy. West did not do this he said there was a mistake! That effectively shoots down your claims and they are ended more with him asserting he dispatched police as a result of Jeremy's call. that closes the door to the possibility of him saying he dispatched them as a result of a call from Nevill.
Your nonsense would be equivalent to:
The Center For Disease Control announcing it was going to close off travel from Africa because of the Ebola Epidemic and you asserting that it was because of racism and that the CDC was never asked if the reason was for racism and thus didn't deny it was because of racism and if asked might admit it was because of racism.
Gunshot residue is primarily from the muzzle of the weapon. Thus there would have been some on her neck and the nearby area of her clothing. Was GSR detected anywhere on anything?
Gunshot residue doesn't come form the muzzle it is expelled in a could to the side and rear of the weapon. It is expelled through the holes where the vapors travel out of near the ejection port and the opposing side of the weapon. There are small circular holes specifically for such purpose.
The bolt is open in this photo so you can actually see the 3 small holes on the opposite side
(http://s13.postimg.org/ffyfd37kn/525empty.jpg)
-
West told him police were already en route get moving so they can meet you.
You've invented the words "get moving". You frequently distort what the police said like that.
No more than 20MPH was the estimate
That estimate was made later, but based on erroneous arithmetic. The estimates made either when Jeremy was overtaken or shortly afterwards didn't mention 20 mph at all. In any case, the estimates tell us nothing about Jeremy's average speed prior to being overtaken.
-
They included Adams and Mercer not just Myall, Saxby and Bews. Jeremy reiterated the claims to Adams and Mercer he didn't just tell the first cops he saw.
Adams and Mercer didn't clarify when the police were informed that Jeremy would also go to WHF.
I commented on Pc Saxby's post - it doesn't say that Jeremy told Ps Bews or Pc Myall that Sheila used all of the guns. Nor does the briefing by Ps Adams that you posted.
Jeremy: I got dressed and went to meet police
Jeremy didn't say that. His use of the word "immediately" was a mistake, not a lie.
. . . it is expelled in a could to the side and rear of the weapon.
What's a "could"? If you mean "cloud", the GSR should have been found somewhere on Sheila's nightie as she received two shots from close range.
-
You've invented the words "get moving". You frequently distort what the police said like that.
That estimate was made later, but based on erroneous arithmetic. The estimates made either when Jeremy was overtaken or shortly afterwards didn't mention 20 mph at all. In any case, the estimates tell us nothing about Jeremy's average speed prior to being overtaken.
Adams and Mercer didn't clarify when the police were informed that Jeremy would also go to WHF.
I commented on Pc Saxby's post - it doesn't say that Jeremy told Ps Bews or Pc Myall that Sheila used all of the guns. Nor does the briefing by Ps Adams that you posted.
Jeremy didn't say that. His use of the word "immediately" was a mistake, not a lie.
What's a "could"? If you mean "cloud", the GSR should have been found somewhere on Sheila's nightie as she received two shots from close range.
Oh Dear, Reader :( Time was when I thought your defence of Jeremy was admirable, albeit, misguided. Now however, it's little more than a -IMO- vain attempt to upstage Scipio and,m again, IMO, renders your hard work -and it obviously IS that- pathetic.
You score no points for playing a game of semantics. It makes absolutely NO difference to Jeremy's status if Scipio uses terms like "get moving" as opposed to, perhaps, "leave now" NOR does the argument over what may amount to a differential driving speed of 5 miles per hour.
Is it REALLY of such importance for us to know that Sheila MAY only have used SOME of the guns, as opposed to what? ALL of the guns? It's LAUGHABLE that you insist that Jeremy's use of the word "immediately" was a mistake!!!!! Presumably because it doesn't fit with the calculations you've allowed for him. As for the pettiness of pulling him up on the use of "could" instead of "cloud".....................
-
I wonder why Myall went to all that trouble to prove Bamber travelled no more than 20 mph? Sounds to me like the start of a plan to set him up for some reason? No normal person would do that kind of thing unless he had something sinister in mind?
-
I wonder why Myall went to all that trouble to prove Bamber travelled no more than 20 mph? Sounds to me like the start of a plan to set him up for some reason? No normal person would do that kind of thing unless he had something sinister in mind?
Grahame, I HAVE to ask this question because it was THIS which gave me pause for thought. It's looking more and more as if EVERY faction/unit that had involvement in the case decided to set Jeremy up. WHY? SURELY they can't ALL have decided-individually- he was a class A sh-one-t and deserved to be fitted up even if he was innocent and isn't it just TOO much of a coincidence.
-
Grahame, I HAVE to ask this question because it was THIS which gave me pause for thought. It's looking more and more as if EVERY faction/unit that had involvement in the case decided to set Jeremy up. WHY? SURELY they can't ALL have decided-individually- he was a class A sh-one-t and deserved to be fitted up even if he was innocent and isn't it just TOO much of a coincidence.
Well look at the facts April. Although I do not believe that there was a massive plan to set Jeremy up. Perhaps one or even two high ranking officers may have done so.
But doesn't it seen a bit weird to you that this man Myall would go to so much trouble to prove that Jeremy was going 20mph on the way to the scene? For what purpose unless he had something in mind to implicate Jeremy? It is as if he had something bigger in mind concerning Jeremy at the time. Otherwise why do it, it was such a small matter?
-
Grahame, I HAVE to ask this question because it was THIS which gave me pause for thought. It's looking more and more as if EVERY faction/unit that had involvement in the case decided to set Jeremy up. WHY? SURELY they can't ALL have decided-individually- he was a class A sh-one-t and deserved to be fitted up even if he was innocent and isn't it just TOO much of a coincidence.
April this is a question I have asked as well. To me , and I don't know why, it seems to extend to the timings and errors in timings of the call, as you say Jeremys drive to the scene , the specific attempt to change the original times of Jeremys call to Julie and getting her flat mates involved and even making note of a clock there not telling the correct time either?
I also (IMO) still get the impression that there were words attributed to Jeremy that do not appear in the original logs or statements ( not that we have seen all of them) in order to " justify" their actions.
As we know from the Dickinson report there were certainly meetings that were not minuted which gave them plenty of opportunity to form a plan.
-
April this is a question I have asked as well. To me , and I don't know why, it seems to extend to the timings and errors in timings of the call, as you say Jeremys drive to the scene , the specific attempt to change the original times of Jeremys call to Julie and getting her flat mates involved and even making note of a clock there not telling the correct time either?
I also (IMO) still get the impression that there were words attributed to Jeremy that do not appear in the original logs or statements ( not that we have seen all of them) in order to " justify" their actions.
As we know from the Dickinson report there were certainly meetings that were not minuted which gave them plenty of opportunity to form a plan.
I entirely see your point, Jansus. The whole exercise lacked cohesion and discipline which, of itself doesn't make Jeremy innocent or guilty. It just highlights, IMO, that they cocked up.
-
Why did EP tell Jeremy not to arrive at WHF before them ? This was HIS family and it was only natural he'd have wanted to belt along. Wouldn't anyone else ? Sod what anyone else says.
-
Why did EP tell Jeremy not to arrive at WHF before them ? This was HIS family and it was only natural he'd have wanted to belt along. Wouldn't anyone else ? Sod what anyone else says.
Lookout, why do YOU think EP told Jeremy "Don't get there before we do"?
-
They told him no such thing. West told him police were already en route get moving so they can meet you. Beating him there would result in police standing around with thei rthumbsup their butt which is what happened.
The police DID tell him not to get there before them !!
-
Lookout, why do YOU think EP told Jeremy "Don't get there before we do"?
Because they may well have thought that someone would take a shot at him if they saw his car,as opposed to seeing their cars.
-
The police DID tell him not to get there before them !!
Post proof because to date evertyhing you have claimed ends up being wrong.
-
I entirely see your point, Jansus. The whole exercise lacked cohesion and discipline which, of itself doesn't make Jeremy innocent or guilty. It just highlights, IMO, that they cocked up.
I agree with that - but if you cant rely on police timings and statements and everyone excuses their mistakes ( why should they be excused they are professionals? Not like the police force had just been formed) then we are left with a mess to disentangle.
Join that up with the forensic handing of the case and it makes it even worse.
-
You've invented the words "get moving". You frequently distort what the police said like that.
Let's go to the video tape and see who is distorting.
West:"Yes, I told him a unit from Witham was attending and asked him to wait there [for police]."
(http://s28.postimg.org/46nar7axp/westwait.jpg)
How did I distort? You complain about paraphrasing that doesn't change the meaning of things. You dishonestly suggest I am distorting wha tpolice told him when it is you who keep distorting from start to finish.
You are the one constantly attributing different meaning to statements and even run away from your own claims when they are show to be wrong. You try to revise the meaning of your claims.
A perfect example is as plain as day you said you find Saxby more credible than Myall and Bews and said Saxby didn't put in his statement that Jeremy told them Sheila had used all the guns in the house and as a result of him not including such you believe Bews and Myall lied.
Here are your own words:
"That's in statements by Ps Bews and Pc Myall, but Pc Saxby overheard enough to give a different version of what Jeremy said at the scene (which didn't say Sheila had fired all the weapons)."
Saxby said he could not hear the entire conversation Jeremy had with them but in repsonse to whether she could use the guns in the house he said yes and said she had gone target shooting with them.
(http://s27.postimg.org/pzvfzw4k3/saxbyshooting.jpg)
Your characterization that Saxby contradicted their claims is another lie from you. You are the one intentionally misrepresenting. He clearly stated Jeremy said she could use the guns and taregt shot with them.
Instead of being honest when confronted with evidence you double down and you continue to distort what that evidence says:
"I commented on Pc Saxby's post - it doesn't say that Jeremy told Ps Bews or Pc Myall that Sheila used all of the guns. Nor does the briefing by Ps Adams that you posted."
Saxby said Jeremy told the that she could use the guns and had used the to target shoot. Trying to pretend that doesn't amount to Jeremy saying she used the guns and was proficient with them is a big fat lie.
Adams and Mercer also say they were told such. Manners described a briefing given by Adams in preparation of the raid. Adams told them, "It was understood that Sheila Caffell was capable of using these weapons and that Jeremy taught Sheila how to use the .22 rifle." How would Adams find out Sheial could use all the weapons and Jerey taught her how to use the murder weapon unless Jeremy told such to police? Clearly Adams was asserting to the raid team that Jeremy told them such.
This is evidence that police did not make up the claim he said such later it was said prior to the raid.
Your games just demonstrate you are a liar nothing more.
That estimate was made later, but based on erroneous arithmetic. The estimates made either when Jeremy was overtaken or shortly afterwards didn't mention 20 mph at all. In any case, the estimates tell us nothing about Jeremy's average speed prior to being overtaken.
Prove it was bad math. The math is perfectly laid out in the statement I posted. Prove it is wrong.
You are just ignoring it because it renders your claims impossible. So the same way you ignore Jeremy's real claims and distort them to pretend he said he called didn't claim he called police before getting dressed and calling Julie you are doing so with this issue.
Your dishonesty is not helping you, it undermines you.
-
I agree with that - but if you cant rely on police timings and statements and everyone excuses their mistakes ( why should they be excused they are professionals? Not like the police force had just been formed) then we are left with a mess to disentangle.
Join that up with the forensic handing of the case and it makes it even worse.
You have presented no evidence that the police statements can't be relied on. You just don't want to rely on them because they are so damaging to Jeremy.
The issue of some police being up to 5 minutes off form one another's timings doesn't amount to a hill of beans. it has no significance at all. You have nothing at all to support Jeremy so are making the ABSURD argument tha tbecause police worte down times up to 5 minutes apart that is evidence that they are lying and their entire accounts must be dismissed. Your claims are pathetic.
The only timing off significantly is off by less than 15 minutes. That is a civilian recording the time West claled him as being 3:26 and yet West recording the time of the call he was reporting to West as having been received at 3:36.
West admitted he likely made a mistake in recording the time eithe rby recording the time at the end of the call or simply misreading the clock. That doesn't undermine the various police statements?
There is nothing to underine the forensic evidence either.
You jsut don't want to accept the evidence so you say you don't find it reliable but you have no evidence to underine the evidence and no rational basis to find it unreliable. You just don't accept it because it proves Jeremy is guilty and you wish he were innocent.
You live in denial merely.
-
April this is a question I have asked as well. To me , and I don't know why, it seems to extend to the timings and errors in timings of the call, as you say Jeremys drive to the scene , the specific attempt to change the original times of Jeremys call to Julie and getting her flat mates involved and even making note of a clock there not telling the correct time either?
I also (IMO) still get the impression that there were words attributed to Jeremy that do not appear in the original logs or statements ( not that we have seen all of them) in order to " justify" their actions.
As we know from the Dickinson report there were certainly meetings that were not minuted which gave them plenty of opportunity to form a plan.
This post just proves again your bias and ignorance.
The statements I posted where police assert Jeremy told them Sheial coudl fire all the weapons in the house and taught her how to fire the murder weapon are the orignial statements. They are statements fromt he first couple of days of the investigation.
Your claim they made up these claims in September after they decided he was guilty are sheer nonsense.
You either are too biased to bother to learn the truth or you know the truth but intentionally ignore it and liek reader misrepresent to avoid it.
are the early statements
-
Scipio - Do you agree that Saxby and the other officers involved with Jeremy would have also made statements straight after the murders in August?
Why cant we see those? or their pocket books? ,
because I am sure you will agree that IF and note I am saying IF the police decided to ensure Jeremy was found guilty ( and the Dickinson report said they had nothing to go on except JM and the moderator), then they had plenty of time to agree on their statements and strategy . In other words the noble cause. Jeremy as a liar? After all he had no other witness with him to confirm his version does he?
I think there is one pocket book on here from one of the officers with Jeremy ( not sure which one) that he would have written as his notes in case of any court appearance , and it does not mention any of the above.
And TRY and post without calling posters liars or dishonest - even if you think it, cant you just post your argument without doing it? I have very strong opinions about you - but I don't add it to very post. Its called control.
-
Adams and Mercer didn't clarify when the police were informed that Jeremy would also go to WHF.
The only people who would know that are Myall, Saxby and Bews since they are the ones who were told Jeremy would meet them.
HOWEVER, Adams WOULD be told what transpired and why it transpired when he was sent there. He and his men were told that Jeremy called police and as a result police were dispatched. He was not told anything about a call from nevill commencing the incident nor was anyone else nor are there any recrods to reflect a call from nevill to police starting the incident. Your claims are totally mad eup from thin air.
You calim you trust Saxby more than Bews and Myall. Saxby clearly wrote in his stateent that they were told to go to WHF because a phone call was received from Jeremy. All your games trying to pretend it was because a call from Nevill are for naught you are just establishing you are a liar who lacks integrity.
(http://s29.postimg.org/iykkkzgfr/resultofjeremyscall.jpg)
There is no way to pretend that this leaves the door open to having been sent as a result of Nevill's call and later being informed Jeremy would meet them.
quote author=Reader link=topic=5943.msg265420#msg265420 date=1413005316]
I commented on Pc Saxby's post - it doesn't say that Jeremy told Ps Bews or Pc Myall that Sheila used all of the guns. Nor does the briefing by Ps Adams that you posted.
Jeremy didn't say that. His use of the word "immediately" was a mistake, not a lie.
What's a "could"? If you mean "cloud", the GSR should have been found somewhere on Sheila's nightie as she received two shots from close range.
[/quote]
Saxby said he could not hear the entire conversation Jeremy had with them but in response to whether she could use the guns in the house Jeremy said yes and said she had gone target shooting with them.
(http://s27.postimg.org/pzvfzw4k3/saxbyshooting.jpg)
Your characterization that Saxby didn't say Jeremy told them she could use all guns in the house and contradicted their claims is another lie from you. You are the one intentionally misrepresenting. He clearly stated Jeremy said she could use the guns and target shot with them which means she used them. How do you target shoot with a gun but not fire it?
Instead of being honest when confronted with evidence you double down and you continue to distort what that evidence says.
Adams and Mercer also say they were told such. Manners described a briefing given by Adams in preparation of the raid. Adams told them, "It was understood that Sheila Caffell was capable of using these weapons and that Jeremy taught Sheila how to use the .22 rifle." How would Adams find out Sheial could use all the weapons and Jerey taught her how to use the murder weapon unless Jeremy told such to police? Clearly Adams was asserting to the raid team that Jeremy told them such.
This is evidence that police did not make up the claim he said such later it was said prior to the raid.
Your games just demonstrate you are a liar nothing more
-
Scipio - Do you agree that Saxby and the other officers involved with Jeremy would have also made statements straight after the murders in August?
Why cant we see those? or their pocket books? ,
because I am sure you will agree that IF and note I am saying IF the police decided to ensure Jeremy was found guilty ( and the Dickinson report said they had nothing to go on except JM and the moderator), then they had plenty of time to agree on their statements and strategy . In other words the noble cause. Jeremy as a liar? After all he had no other witness with him to confirm his version does he?
I think there is one pocket book on here from one of the officers with Jeremy ( not sure which one) that he would have written as his notes in case of any court appearance , and it does not mention any of the above.
And TRY and post without calling posters liars or dishonest - even if you think it, cant you just post your argument without doing it? I have very strong opinions about you - but I don't add it to very post. Its called control.
We have seen their pocketbooks and statements they made in August. I am quoting from such statements.
Just because the defense has not chosen to post copies of all documents in their possession on here doesn't mean the defense doesn't have oher documents.
You have no evidence at all to suggest police wrongdoing in this case or that Jeremy is innocent. You just make unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing to justify refusing to believe he is guilty and to reject the evidence.
All that does is explain your basis for refusing to face his guilt it doesn't establish his innocence which is what is required to convince rational objective people and mor eimportantly is required to secure his freedom.
-
We have seen their pocketbooks and statements they made in August. I am quoting from such statements.
Just because the defense has not chosen to post copies of all documents in their possession on here doesn't mean the defense doesn't have oher documents.
You have no evidence at all to suggest police wrongdoing in this case or that Jeremy is innocent. You just make unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing to justify refusing to believe he is guilty and to reject the evidence.
All that does is explain your basis for refusing to face his guilt it doesn't establish his innocence which is what is required to convince rational objective people and mor eimportantly is required to secure his freedom.
I hate to tell you that is my prerogative as it is yours to be biased to his guilt and therefore ignore all other possibilities .
I was asking you a polite question and you could not help being personal in your reply ( as per usual)
You are just incapable of being polite.
-
just read bews note book . nothing about Sheila doing target practice for a start . or calling her a nutter or handling all the guns.
-
I hate to tell you that is my prerogative as it is yours to be biased to his guilt and therefore ignore all other possibilities .
I was asking you a polite question and you could not help being personal in your reply ( as per usual)
You are just incapable of being polite.
I am not biased to his guilt. I rationally follow th eevidence hwer eit leads I have no bias.
You in contrast refuse to follow the evidence and instead reject all evidence estbalishing his guilt for the simply reason you don't want to believe he is guilty not because there is anything to refute it. You also spin the evidence for the same purpose.
-
Jeeze--------listen to Pinocchio." I have no bias ! Not much you don't,it's your middle name.
-
just read bews note book . nothing about Sheila doing target practice for a start . or calling her a nutter or handling all the guns.
His notebook is not to record the minor details in. They write down the basics just. In contrast the statment he wrote out was to record the main details. You change the bar always. You said sia dit was not in his first statement but it was so you now want to only fogo by whatever is in the notebook.
Your pretense as looking a tth ematte rraitonally is no more credible than reader's claim.
You just don't want to accept the evidence do irraitonally refuse to accept it. You have no rational basis to refute the evidence or undermine it.
-
I am not biased to his guilt. I rationally follow th eevidence hwer eit leads I have no bias.
You in contrast refuse to follow the evidence and instead reject all evidence estbalishing his guilt for the simply reason you don't want to believe he is guilty not because there is anything to refute it. You also spin the evidence for the same purpose.
get lost - I don't spin evidence . I just don't take everything at face value . you rude little man.
You want to believe all that EP did - go ahead
you want to believe everything JM said - go ahead
you want to think its right that the moderator was handled by relatives - put in a boot - put in a wardrobe - handled by the police in a cardboard tube and then a bit of tissue and is the main thing that convicted him - then go ahead .
but don't get personal with the rest of us . ooops forgot you cant help it ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
get lost - I don't spin evidence . I just don't take everything at face value . you rude little man.
You want to believe all that EP did - go ahead
you want to believe everything JM said - go ahead
you want to think its right that the moderator was handled by relatives - put in a boot - put in a wardrobe - handled by the police in a cardboard tube and then a bit of tissue and is the main thing that convicted him - then go ahead .
but don't get personal with the rest of us . ooops forgot you cant help it ;D ;D ;D ;D
You do spin evidence and refuse to think rationally because you don't want to face Jeremy is guilty.
I will pose the same quesitons to you I do anytime you post the moronic claim that because relativels found the moderator that means the blood inside was planted.
The moderator was put inside a paper towel tube then inside blankets.
A trash bin contained blood stained panties was placed in the car either the same day or on a different day Ann Eaton was not sure whether she took the garbage bin the same day or not.
How would placing them in the car the same time enable blood stains to jump from the panties inside the garbage bin to the moderator and not only to to jump to it but to coat the first 8 baffles with blood and also deposit a flake of blood in between the first and second baffles?
Your answer is always the same you can't figure out how such could happen which means your claim that such could someohow compromise the blood that was found is baseless. So when you make the claim you know it is frivolous but make it just to go through the motions of saying we should disbeleive the evidence just because you don't like the results and use a frovious reaosn to try to justify ignoring it.
Far from being a little man I am a rational one and that stands in the way of your biased BS.
-
You do spin evidence and refuse to think rationally because you don't want to face Jeremy is guilty.
I will pose the same quesitons to you I do anytime you post the moronic claim that because relativels found the moderator that means the blood inside was planted.
The moderator was put inside a paper towel tube then inside blankets.
A trash bin contained blood stained panties was placed in the car either the same day or on a different day Ann Eaton was not sure whether she took the garbage bin the same day or not.
How would placing them in the car the same time enable blood stains to jump from the panties inside the garbage bin to the moderator and not only to to jump to it but to coat the first 8 baffles with blood and also deposit a flake of blood in between the first and second baffles?
Your answer is always the same you can't figure out how such could happen which means your claim that such could someohow compromise the blood that was found is baseless. So when you make the claim you know it is frivolous but make it just to go through the motions of saying we should disbeleive the evidence just because you don't like the results and use a frovious reaosn to try to justify ignoring it.
Far from being a little man I am a rational one and that stands in the way of your biased BS.
On the issue of deliberate contamination, my money would be on a SOC officer having carried out the process. Though I think you'd get better odds for a relative.
-
On the issue of deliberate contamination, my money would be on a SOC officer having carried out the process. Though I think you'd get better odds for a relative.
Do you mean lab person?
Because the lab personnel would be the only ones with the knowledge and capability.
Neither the police nor the family knew Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound and thus drawback would occur. Nor did either know about drawback. Nor would they have access to Sheila's blood and would not know what her blood characteristics were.
Nor would they know how to mimick drawback since they didn't even know what it was. If they just used a dropper or poured it in with a vial the blood would not have been deposited on the first 8 baffles. It would have hit fewer baffles and pouring it would have gotten it deeper in the moderator- getting it in deeper would have been an indication it was poured and planted.
The police were specifically told the blood was human in 8/14/85 and yet instead of making the lab test for blood type they wasting weeks fignerprinting it ad superglue fuming it. If they planted Sheila's blood they would have made the lab test it immediately to prove it was Sheila's blood.
There was clearly blood on and in it before it was sent to the lab so clearly it was used in some capacity in the murders. The lab can't have planted the blood the family and police saw.
So basically you need:
1) family or police to have planted some blood just to make it look likr he moderator was used hoping Jeremy's fingerprints would be found on it.
2) the lab to have planted more blood to make it look like drawback and to make sure it was Sheila's blood they used so they could say it was from drawback
3) they removed all blood from the rifle (because blood would have been in the rifle if the moderator was not attached during the fatal shot) and lied and claimed no blood was found.
4) the lab waited until police had their fingerprint fun and waited many weeks after planting the blood to finally type test it
Not only is there no evidence any of this happened it is not reaosnably likely to have occurred.
-
Do you mean lab person?
Because the lab personnel would be the only ones with the knowledge and capability.
Neither the police nor the family knew Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound and thus drawback would occur. Nor did either know about drawback. Nor would they have access to Sheila's blood and would not know what her blood characteristics were.
Nor would they know how to mimick drawback since they didn't even know what it was. If they just used a dropper or poured it in with a vial the blood would not have been deposited on the first 8 baffles. It would have hit fewer baffles and pouring it would have gotten it deeper in the moderator- getting it in deeper would have been an indication it was poured and planted.
The police were specifically told the blood was human in 8/14/85 and yet instead of making the lab test for blood type they wasting weeks fignerprinting it ad superglue fuming it. If they planted Sheila's blood they would have made the lab test it immediately to prove it was Sheila's blood.
There was clearly blood on and in it before it was sent to the lab so clearly it was used in some capacity in the murders. The lab can't have planted the blood the family and police saw.
So basically you need:
1) family or police to have planted some blood just to make it look likr he moderator was used hoping Jeremy's fingerprints would be found on it.
2) the lab to have planted more blood to make it look like drawback and to make sure it was Sheila's blood they used so they could say it was from drawback
3) they removed all blood from the rifle (because blood would have been in the rifle if the moderator was not attached during the fatal shot) and lied and claimed no blood was found.
4) the lab waited until police had their fingerprint fun and waited many weeks after planting the blood to finally type test it
Not only is there no evidence any of this happened it is not reaosnably likely to have occurred.
Hi Scip,
Have you ever seen this thread? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2169.0.html The thing is with this silencer (or these silencers) is that the custody trail and provenance is not exactly clear cut.
-
Hi Scip,
Have you ever seen this thread? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2169.0.html The thing is with this silencer (or these silencers) is that the custody trail and provenance is not exactly clear cut.
Mike's claims about a moderator being collected in the day of the murders and then another days later is wrong. he has nothign at all to estbalish it and in out most recent debate he invented a new designation SJ/1 which was never a designation just something Cook planned to use as a designation for the moderator turned over by the family. Since it was never actually used Mike got the bright idea to say it was and made up SJ/1 being collected the day of the murders.
There was only 1 moderator collected from WHF, it was found by Boutflour, taken home by Ann and Peter Eaton and then handed over to police by Eaton.
The family found it the day after the keys were turned over the them. The police had control of the site so no one could get in. The keys were turned over in the evening and then the next day they went through the place and found it. Upon finding it they took control of it till being given to police.
So the custody was established.
If innocent contamination could account for the evidence then it would be open to attack because one could claim the blood got there prior to the murders or after as a reuslt of innocent contamination.
If the blood could have been planted by lay people who had access to Sheila's blood then again it would be open so some sort of attack.
The problem is as I described. The family didn't have access to her blood, didn't have a way to know what her blood type was, had no way to know she died from a contact wound, had no idea about drawback and still would have no way to get the blood out of the barrel of the murder weapon even if they did know all about drawback and that she died from a contact shot.
The family at best would think that planting some sort of blood would make police think it was used and hope and pray Jeremy's prints were on it. So they would just plant blood from one of them in the very tip.
That still would not account for the blood found though.
You would still need the lab to plant Sheila's blood and remove it from the rifle muzzle. Because the defense actually tested the moderator and found microscopic traces on the first 8 baffles that means the lab couldn't have simply lied and pretended they had found her blood it means they actually planted her blood then removed the visible blood leaving miscroscopic drops to be found by the defense.
There is simply no way the blood could have being planted without the lab having done it and either other blood having been planted by the family or alternatively the moderator actually being used to kill June and Nevill, some of their blood gettig inside and then the lab deciding to add some of Sheila's as well. Plus the lab had to remove the blood from the rifle.
In situations like this you need evidence to try arguing planting occurred such evidence are things like:
1) Evidence blood was missing from a sample
2) evidence the blood had a preservative agent (which means it came from a blood sample because preservatives are not natural and are added after blood is taken)
3) the distribution of blood is not consistent with drawback but rather being manully insterted
4) the family or police knew about drawback and how to mimick it, knew she suffered a contact wound and had access to her blood (this still would fail to account for the lack of blood in the rifle though so you would have to suggest someone with access knew about th eblood in the rifle and removed it)
Without any of the above you have no basis to allege to a court the evidence was planted
Only the lab would have the know how to plant the evidence and remove the evidence from the rifle but that alone doesn't permit alleging they did it either. You need more than to alleged it anyway the defense needs to establish it is reasonably likely that the blood was planted. That would help establish reasonable doubt with respect to this particular piece of evidence.
If the blood could have been easily planted or could have accidentally gotten inside it is a far different situation. But that is not the case and that makes things very hard for the defense.
-
Mike's claims about a moderator being collected in the day of the murders and then another days later is wrong. he has nothign at all to estbalish it and in out most recent debate he invented a new designation SJ/1 which was never a designation just something Cook planned to use as a designation for the moderator turned over by the family. Since it was never actually used Mike got the bright idea to say it was and made up SJ/1 being collected the day of the murders.
There was only 1 moderator collected from WHF, it was found by Boutflour, taken home by Ann and Peter Eaton and then handed over to police by Eaton.
The family found it the day after the keys were turned over the them. The police had control of the site so no one could get in. The keys were turned over in the evening and then the next day they went through the place and found it. Upon finding it they took control of it till being given to police.
So the custody was established.
If innocent contamination could account for the evidence then it would be open to attack because one could claim the blood got there prior to the murders or after as a reuslt of innocent contamination.
If the blood could have been planted by lay people who had access to Sheila's blood then again it would be open so some sort of attack.
The problem is as I described. The family didn't have access to her blood, didn't have a way to know what her blood type was, had no way to know she died from a contact wound, had no idea about drawback and still would have no way to get the blood out of the barrel of the murder weapon even if they did know all about drawback and that she died from a contact shot.
The family at best would think that planting some sort of blood would make police think it was used and hope and pray Jeremy's prints were on it. So they would just plant blood from one of them in the very tip.
That still would not account for the blood found though.
You would still need the lab to plant Sheila's blood and remove it from the rifle muzzle. Because the defense actually tested the moderator and found microscopic traces on the first 8 baffles that means the lab couldn't have simply lied and pretended they had found her blood it means they actually planted her blood then removed the visible blood leaving miscroscopic drops to be found by the defense.
There is simply no way the blood could have being planted without the lab having done it and either other blood having been planted by the family or alternatively the moderator actually being used to kill June and Nevill, some of their blood gettig inside and then the lab deciding to add some of Sheila's as well. Plus the lab had to remove the blood from the rifle.
In situations like this you need evidence to try arguing planting occurred such evidence are things like:
1) Evidence blood was missing from a sample
2) evidence the blood had a preservative agent (which means it came from a blood sample because preservatives are not natural and are added after blood is taken)
3) the distribution of blood is not consistent with drawback but rather being manully insterted
4) the family or police knew about drawback and how to mimick it, knew she suffered a contact wound and had access to her blood (this still would fail to account for the lack of blood in the rifle though so you would have to suggest someone with access knew about th eblood in the rifle and removed it)
Without any of the above you have no basis to allege to a court the evidence was planted
Only the lab would have the know how to plant the evidence and remove the evidence from the rifle but that alone doesn't permit alleging they did it either. You need more than to alleged it anyway the defense needs to establish it is reasonably likely that the blood was planted. That would help establish reasonable doubt with respect to this particular piece of evidence.
If the blood could have been easily planted or could have accidentally gotten inside it is a far different situation. But that is not the case and that makes things very hard for the defense.
Thanks for your opinions and advice but I'm not the defence. Even the police themselves issued (then retracted) statements to the press about a silencer having been found on the day of the murders. I'd be amazed if you were proved right about there having only been one silencer as per found by the relatives, in the manner in which they claim etc. Not just amazed - literally stunned. I've not heard about the defence finding microscopic traces of her blood though. That is interesting if true.
Your lab theory is interesting.
-
One other thing that I would add Scip is that Bamber has consistently attacked the silencer evidence. Now if he was involved in the killings and the silencer is a genuine exhibit, used by him during the killings, resulting in 'drawback' or 'back-spatter', it doesn't really make sense to me for him to attack the exhibit in the manner in which he has or the extent to which he has. Now I could envisage him having had involvement and attacking the silencer evidence if he knew it was bogus because he knew it wasn't used.
-
Thanks for your opinions and advice but I'm not the defence. Even the police themselves issued (then retracted) statements to the press about a silencer having been found on the day of the murders. I'd be amazed if you were proved right about there having only been one silencer as per found by the relatives, in the manner in which they claim etc. Not just amazed - literally stunned. I've not heard about the defence finding microscopic traces of her blood though. That is interesting if true.
Your lab theory is interesting.
Why would there be 2 moderators at WHF? Worse yet why would they need to replace one with another?
If they wanted to plant evidence they would have no need to plant it in 2 different moderators.
There are no records at all of a second moderator only the change in designation to DB and then DRB. The same changes took place for the telescopic sights which changed to DB/2 and DRB/2.
The first moderator turned in to the lab was turned in on the 8/13/85 so if they had actually collected a moderator on 8/7/85 what happened to it? Why would they fail to include it on the sheets where they detialed the items they took from the house on 8/7/85? Why do the police insist no moderator was found? If they wanted to doctor one they would have doctored it but again lacked motive and the skill and knowledge to doctor it to the point where it would have reflected the blood ultimately removed.
There are documents on this website from DR. Lincoln which discuss his findings when he tested the moderator. The 2002 Appeal decision also discusses his findings. I will quote from the decision:
"In dealing with this evidence, the defence were limited by the evidence available from their own expert. They called no such evidence at trial but the material that they had obtained pre-trial has been disclosed in the course of this appeal. The defence had instructed Dr Patrick Lincoln, whose expertise in such matters was well known. On 29 April 1986, he visited the forensic science laboratory and examined the relevant material. He carried out tests on all seventeen baffles. The first eight plates all gave weak or very weak positive reactions for blood. There was no blood clearly visible to the naked eye and Dr Lincoln concluded that "such findings could be consistent with an item having been previously swabbed by a forensic scientist to remove blood stains for testing". The other nine plates "did not produce any evidence for the presence of blood". He agreed with Mr Hayward's conclusion that the combination of blood groups revealed in his testing of the inside of the moderator could have come solely from Sheila Caffell but did not come from any one of the other individuals."
So on August 13, 1985 the lab documented the blood on the moderator and tested it to determine if it was human. It was determined to be human and the police were notified of this August 14, 1985. They were also notified that paint was found on it.
They went to WHF the evening of the 14th to see if they could figure out where the paint came form and that is when they took the paint samples from the mantle.
Cook spent the rest of August trying to find prints on it. The fact there was human blood in it suggested it was used in the murders because no other humans were know to be shot with the gun it went to. Since it was in the closet put away that means the killer removed it after use. So the hope was the killer's prints would be found. I was superglue fimed even to try to detect latent prints. After all those efforts failed they finally turned it over to the lab to have the blood type tested.
In addition to the blood that had been previously been tested to determine whether it was human blood or not, the lab found a flake of blood in between baffles 1 and 2 and blood that was dried onto each of the first 5-7 baffles. The lab personnel never wrote down which baffles the blood ceased at. By the time they testified they could not remember the exact amount. They said at least 5 and one thought it extended to the 6th baffle another the 7th. The lab scraped all the visible blood from the baffles and also removed the flake. There was no visible blood left in the moderator.
The tested the flake and some of the blood that was removed from the baffles. What happened to the blood they never tested? Not enough information has been publicly released to know. The flake of blood as well as the blood from the baffles that they tested registered as group A blood. The flake also had an enzyme AK1. June and Sheila both had group A blood but while Sheila had AK1 June had AK2-1. AK2-1 is much hardier than AK1 so if AK1 survived so should AK2-1 have survived. Since no AK2-1 was present that suggests is was only Sheila's blood.
Lincoln found miscropic traces on the 1st 8 baffles. That means either the lab personnel were off by 1 when they tried to remember how far the blood extended or only minute amounts of blood traveled that deep. Lincoln tested the blood and it likewise was group A blood.
Lincoln agreed with the prosecution expert that it could only be Sheila's blood and that there was not a chance of it being blood for more than one person. That resulted in the defense not using him. The prosecution expert admitting it was a remote possiiblity that the blood was June and Nevill's was better than his own expert was willing to say he had written off the chance entirely.
So there was visible blood removed by the prosecution from the first 7 and possibly the first 8 baffles, microscopic blood removed from the first 8 baffles by the defense, a flake of blood trapped between baffles 1 and 2 and a small amout of blood near the opening (which they removed to test whether it was human) plus some blood on the exterior (which was not typed just tested whether it was human).
Drawback is a stream of blood. It sprays inside to a certain point than stops. It won't spray more than several inches inside. Because it is a spray it will project drops onto each successive baffle until it loses momentum. It is a jet spray so is able to get to baffles beyond just the first couple. Nothing but a spray will account for reaching the first 8 baffles. If you pour it then it will fall inside all the way down the middle to the back or until hitting a baffle and and then splash.
In order for the blood that was found inside to have been planted it would require using a device to spray blood inside. I don't know if an atomizer would work or not it might not be able to project it far enough inside. A spray bottle might not either. You would need to test to see what kin dof distribution it would cause inside to use them. Basically it would require testing spray devices until you find one that could deposit blood on the first 8 baffles.
If you can find something that can accomplish it then you have find proof someone
1) knew Sheila died from a contact shot
2) knew all about drawback and the implications of the contact shot resulting in drawback
3) knew how to mimick drawback using the device mentioned and had access to it
4) had access to Sheila's blood or group A blood with AK1 and knew this is what Sheilz had,
5) had motive to plant the blood
6) had opportunity to plant the blood
7) something to suggest the person actually did plant it
8) the person removed the blood from the muzzle of the weapon or was able to get someone else to remove it
Jeremy's trial team was not stupid the above is a tall order and that is why neither his trial lawyers nor even his appellate lawyers were able to assert the blood was planted.
I don't see any way at all that it would be possible to doctor the evidence without the lab orchestrating it and doing most of the work.
For the lab to have planted it on 8/13/85 though it quite far fetched. Yet that is the day it arrived and they detected human blood. While Mike and other like to suggest that in September police doctored the moderator and told the fmaily to lie and pretend it had blood when they found it, clearly it did have blood when turned over because there is documentary evidence proving the police were notified on 8/14/85 of the findings of human blood and paint.
You basically had to have someone plant blood just to try to get someone to think it was used and then someone else to do an adequate planting job in Septmeber and also removing the blood form the rifle and concealing it. That is th eonly way a planting coudl have been acocmplished. Ther eis of course no eivdence to suggest that happened.
-
One other thing that I would add Scip is that Bamber has consistently attacked the silencer evidence. Now if he was involved in the killings and the silencer is a genuine exhibit, used by him during the killings, resulting in 'drawback' or 'back-spatter', it doesn't really make sense to me for him to attack the exhibit in the manner in which he has or the extent to which he has. Now I could envisage him having had involvement and attacking the silencer evidence if he knew it was bogus because he knew it wasn't used.
1) Bamber hasn't attacked it he lacked the skill to know anything about the issues involved. His defense team attacked it.
2) His defense team attacked it out of necessity. If Sheila can't have killed herself it is game over for Jeremy.
How did they attacked it though?
They attacked it by arguing it was June and Nevill's blood mixed together. So they did not deny it was used but rather said it was used on June and Nevill then removed and put away before Sheila killed herself. They had no evidence to say it was June and Nevill's as opposed to Sheila's though. Their own expert denied such so wasn't called. They tried to get the prosecution expert to say such was reasonably likely but all they could get him to say was it was a remote possiiblity that he didn't think to be the case.
The defense argument still sucks. Is it credible Sheila would be in a rage, find the gun and then decide to go to the closet to get the moderator, attach it, use it then remove it to put it away so no one would know it was used before killing herself? This is not very plausible. June and Nevill's blood inside the moderator still implicates Jeremy. He is the one who would remove it before shooting Sheila to kill her without it and then hide it to conceal it had been used. She would not do so. She would not have been worried about trying to make the gun more quiet either so would not have gone to seek it out. Worst of all though if this were the case and the moderator wer enot used SHeial's blood would have been int he rifle. The defense never addressed that problem.
It was this sucky argument though or putting up no argument on this front and thus admitting she could not have killed herself, that someone killed her then left the scene and thus be an admission Jeremy was guilty. That is why the defense was necessity.
As bad as this defense is about her using the moderator then putting it away I think you agree it is better than admitting she could not have killed herself.
The 2002 DNA appeal arguments were just more of this same argument. They claimed June's DNA was found and somone unknown male and suggested that it means it was June and Nevill's blood inside.
The 2009 CCRC submissions were thoroughly rejected and Jeremy's team thus won't release the arguments or how they were shot shown. So we don't know what was argued exactly in those proceedings.
-
It makes absolutely NO difference to Jeremy's status if Scipio uses terms like "get moving" as opposed to, perhaps, "leave now" NOR does the argument over what may amount to a differential driving speed of 5 miles per hour.
There's a lot of difference, and scipio_usmc frequently embellishes the evidence like that. As far as we know, Pc West didn't say "get moving" or "leave now" or any other such phrase. These phrases are made up to create contrast with Jeremy's alleged slow driving, but there's no evidence that Jeremy drove slowly. If Jeremy's speed wasn't significant, why were the police so keen on trying to show it was less than the 30 mph estimate in their statements?
-
For the 100th time,Jeremy was asked not to get to WHF before them !! Hence the slower drive.
-
Morning Roch IMO Jeremy Bamber attacks the silencer evidence because he knows he did not use it when he murdered his family. :(
-
There's a lot of difference, and scipio_usmc frequently embellishes the evidence like that. As far as we know, Pc West didn't say "get moving" or "leave now" or any other such phrase. These phrases are made up to create contrast with Jeremy's alleged slow driving, but there's no evidence that Jeremy drove slowly. If Jeremy's speed wasn't significant, why were the police so keen on trying to show it was less than the 30 mph estimate in their statements?
You keep outright lying from start to finish about eveyr issue related to the police being dispatched, their arrival and coversations with Jeremy because the evidence against him is so overwhelming. You defend him by distorting his clais, the police and even making up a call from Nevill.
Eachtime you accuse me of lying you get egg on your face like your pathetic claim I made up police saying Jeremy told them Sheila fired all wepaons in the house and he taught her how to shoot.
Next you said they were all liars and Saxby was the onl trustworthy one and he didn't say such though he did.
Your lies never end.
As for Jeremy's speed is significant to demonstrate his lack of urgency as well as his desire to make sure police beat him there to support his alibi.
His speed is significant to you because it crushes the lies you keep trying to get peopel to believe about Jeremy calling police at 3:36 ending at 3:41 and Jeremy being able to be passed by police at 3:47. His slow speed negates such he would need to average 36PH for your claims to be even remotely possible but there is a mountain of evidence proving the claim Nevill called police to be bunk anyway so it is all for nothing.
-
For the 100th time,Jeremy was asked not to get to WHF before them !! Hence the slower drive.
I challenged you to produce a source. You couldn't though you told me to research myself. I told you I already did research it and that was how I knew you were wrong. I referred you to something I already posted previously proving you were wrong. Here is is a gain do you know how to read English?
(http://s7.postimg.org/6gbz1um3v/westwait.jpg)
"I told him a unit from Witham was attending and asked him to wait there [for police to arrive]".
West told Jeremy to drive there and wait for police. He didn't tell Jeremy to drive slow to make sure police arrive first.
-
from scipio aimed at me
"
I will pose the same quesitons to you I do anytime you post the moronic claim that because relativels found the moderator that means the blood inside was planted"
where in my post did I say the blood was planted?
-
from scipio aimed at me
"
I will pose the same quesitons to you I do anytime you post the moronic claim that because relativels found the moderator that means the blood inside was planted"
where in my post did I say the blood was planted?
This is skippy´s MO: making up lies about other posters so that he can attack them. He seems to thrive on that.
-
This is skippy´s MO: making up lies about other posters so that he can attack them. He seems to thrive on that.
Alias, if you keep knocking your head against that brick wall all you'll do is ruin your looks. You WON'T change Scipio's MO and MORE importantly, you won't make a dent in his ego, either, by approaching him the way you currently are.
-
Alias, if you keep knocking your head against that brick wall all you'll do is ruin your looks. You WON'T change Scipio's MO and MORE importantly, you won't make a dent in his ego, either, by approaching him the way you currently are.
So I should just lean back accepting that a poster makes up lies about me (and others), then attacks with a broad sortiment of insults?
OK, April.
-
well I for one am not going to let him get away with twisting what I posted and then accuse me of making moronic statements.
-
from scipio aimed at me
"
I will pose the same quesitons to you I do anytime you post the moronic claim that because relativels found the moderator that means the blood inside was planted"
where in my post did I say the blood was planted?
The usual strawman argument.
I said your theory that blood stains from the crotch of panties could have jumped off the panties, out of the garbage can and into the moderator to result in blood drying onto the first 8 baffles and leaving a quarter of inch flake between baffle 1 and 2 was stupid.
You said the evidence was not reliable because contamination could have resulted in the blood that was found. But there is no way at all to claim blood stains could transform into wet blood that would be able to to transfer into the moderator and be distributed in the manner the blood was actually deposited in the moderator.
You also said that the simple fact anyone can lie means police should not be trusted. Using that logic no one can be convicted. One needs evidence of lying to disregard police testimony not simply the theoreticla possibility they can lie. But you always bow out when ressed for actual evidence of police lying in this case you just keep saying in the abstract lying is always possible.
You are too biased to think rationally and to try to excuse your irraitonality you accused me of doing the same thing in the opposite direction which is nonsense. I follow evidence where it leads I didn't decide before viewing the evidence that Jerey is guilty no matter what and to disregard the evidence. The evidence overwhelmingly proves Jeremy is guilty you and other supporters of Jeremy have no evidence that suggests his innocence which is why you are forced to resort to denial to pretend he is innocent.
Far form living in denial of evidence supporters raise I refute that evidenc ean dprve it is not evidence at all but rathe rmyths an dlies. It is a lie that Nevill called police the evidence clearly establishes no such thing happened. it is a lie that Sheila was in the kitchen and moved by police to the bedroom. There is no evidence to support someone having answered police when they issued challenges to the house other than a dog that barked. The dog barking in response is the only response they got. The list goes on and on.
When the myths are stripped away there is nothing left for Jeremy supporters to poit to all they ca do is say they don't care they have nothing to refute the evidence that proves Jeremy did it but refuse to accept it anyway. That is an admission there is no raitonal basis to believe he is innocent just blind faith in his despite such. Most Jeremy supporters have no guts to admit that is where they stand so instead hug the myths and cite them to give the appearance they are acting based on something other than blind faith. Some though are hinest and gutsy enough to admit they have no evidence and just are going on blind faith. While Adam tries to win such people over I don't because as long as they are not misrepresenting by posting bogus claims I don't care what they personally believe and it is a waste of time trying to convince someone who operates on blind faith to abandon their blind faith.
-
The usual strawman argument.
I said your theory that blood stains from the crotch of panties could have jumped off the panties, out of the garbage can and into the moderator to result in blood drying onto the first 8 baffles and leaving a quarter of inch flake between baffle 1 and 2 was stupid.
You said the evidence was not reliable because contamination could have resulted in the blood that was found. But there is no way at all to claim blood stains could transform into wet blood that would be able to to transfer into the moderator and be distributed in the manner the blood was actually deposited in the moderator.
You also said that the simple fact anyone can lie means police should not be trusted. Using that logic no one can be convicted. One needs evidence of lying to disregard police testimony not simply the theoreticla possibility they can lie. But you always bow out when ressed for actual evidence of police lying in this case you just keep saying in the abstract lying is always possible.
You are too biased to think rationally and to try to excuse your irraitonality you accused me of doing the same thing in the opposite direction which is nonsense. I follow evidence where it leads I didn't decide before viewing the evidence that Jerey is guilty no matter what and to disregard the evidence. The evidence overwhelmingly proves Jeremy is guilty you and other supporters of Jeremy have no evidence that suggests his innocence which is why you are forced to resort to denial to pretend he is innocent.
Far form living in denial of evidence supporters raise I refute that evidenc ean dprve it is not evidence at all but rathe rmyths an dlies. It is a lie that Nevill called police the evidence clearly establishes no such thing happened. it is a lie that Sheila was in the kitchen and moved by police to the bedroom. There is no evidence to support someone having answered police when they issued challenges to the house other than a dog that barked. The dog barking in response is the only response they got. The list goes on and on.
When the myths are stripped away there is nothing left for Jeremy supporters to poit to all they ca do is say they don't care they have nothing to refute the evidence that proves Jeremy did it but refuse to accept it anyway. That is an admission there is no raitonal basis to believe he is innocent just blind faith in his despite such. Most Jeremy supporters have no guts to admit that is where they stand so instead hug the myths and cite them to give the appearance they are acting based on something other than blind faith. Some though are hinest and gutsy enough to admit they have no evidence and just are going on blind faith. While Adam tries to win such people over I don't because as long as they are not misrepresenting by posting bogus claims I don't care what they personally believe and it is a waste of time trying to convince someone who operates on blind faith to abandon their blind faith.
Don't forget that the sound moderator had a life of its own prior to the 7th August 1985. It could have been on the rifle many times and placed in the kitchen underneath the AGA. In fact it could have been touched by anyone that lived in the house.
AK1 can relate to dead animals in 1985 they only had ABO blood grouping technology. In 2001 they could not determine if any of the LCN DNA came from blood. What if the moderator was handled by anyone who lived there and they sneezed over the moderator, or had a cut finger. Sounds daft, but nonetheless, it could be possible.
Can we also attack the post and not the person posting please. I have asked you to do this many times and its been ignored. :D :D :D :D
-
The usual strawman argument.
I said your theory that blood stains from the crotch of panties could have jumped off the panties, out of the garbage can and into the moderator to result in blood drying onto the first 8 baffles and leaving a quarter of inch flake between baffle 1 and 2 was stupid.
You said the evidence was not reliable because contamination could have resulted in the blood that was found. But there is no way at all to claim blood stains could transform into wet blood that would be able to to transfer into the moderator and be distributed in the manner the blood was actually deposited in the moderator.
You also said that the simple fact anyone can lie means police should not be trusted. Using that logic no one can be convicted. One needs evidence of lying to disregard police testimony not simply the theoreticla possibility they can lie. But you always bow out when ressed for actual evidence of police lying in this case you just keep saying in the abstract lying is always possible.
You are too biased to think rationally and to try to excuse your irraitonality you accused me of doing the same thing in the opposite direction which is nonsense. I follow evidence where it leads I didn't decide before viewing the evidence that Jerey is guilty no matter what and to disregard the evidence. The evidence overwhelmingly proves Jeremy is guilty you and other supporters of Jeremy have no evidence that suggests his innocence which is why you are forced to resort to denial to pretend he is innocent.
Far form living in denial of evidence supporters raise I refute that evidenc ean dprve it is not evidence at all but rathe rmyths an dlies. It is a lie that Nevill called police the evidence clearly establishes no such thing happened. it is a lie that Sheila was in the kitchen and moved by police to the bedroom. There is no evidence to support someone having answered police when they issued challenges to the house other than a dog that barked. The dog barking in response is the only response they got. The list goes on and on.
When the myths are stripped away there is nothing left for Jeremy supporters to poit to all they ca do is say they don't care they have nothing to refute the evidence that proves Jeremy did it but refuse to accept it anyway. That is an admission there is no raitonal basis to believe he is innocent just blind faith in his despite such. Most Jeremy supporters have no guts to admit that is where they stand so instead hug the myths and cite them to give the appearance they are acting based on something other than blind faith. Some though are hinest and gutsy enough to admit they have no evidence and just are going on blind faith. While Adam tries to win such people over I don't because as long as they are not misrepresenting by posting bogus claims I don't care what they personally believe and it is a waste of time trying to convince someone who operates on blind faith to abandon their blind faith.
I have not said any of the above words. You just wasted time accusing ME of words I have never used . And you have NEVER had the good manners to ask me why I am even on the forum.
Again YOU just assume and throw personal insults.
I said that I did not think the moderator should have been accepted as evidence because of the way it was handled . I did not say that any of the above HAD happened .
Btw you said I want Jeremy to be innocent? Why would that be I have no personal association with him ?
-
Don't forget that the sound moderator had a life of its own prior to the 7th August 1985. It could have been on the rifle many times and placed in the kitchen underneath the AGA. In fact it could have been touched by anyone that lived in the house.
AK1 can relate to dead animals in 1985 they only had ABO blood grouping technology. In 2001 they could not determine if any of the LCN DNA came from blood. What if the moderator was handled by anyone who lived there and they sneezed over the moderator, or had a cut finger. Sounds daft, but nonetheless, it could be possible.
Can we also attack the post and not the person posting please. I have asked you to do this many times and its been ignored. :D :D :D :D
A cut finger would not deposit blood on 8 baffles. The blood was sprayed inside. The claim animal blood could have been mixed inside and ended up part of the flake of human blood is ludicrious.
To be sure a number of stupid and frivolous claims were raised on appela but there is still a large disconnect between what was raised on appeal and what is bandied about generally by Jeremy supporters who see fit to just toss out any crap imaginable.
His defense lawyers were not stupid. There was no possiiblity of innocent contamination resulting in the distribution of blood found and it was human not human blood mixed with animal. That is why they never claimed innocent contmaination coudl have occurred.
Nor did they have any basis to allege intentional contamination occurred.
That is why they resorted to the highly undesirable claim the blood inside was June and Sheila's. That still implicates Jeremy because there is no way Sheila would have gone to the closet, got the moderator out attached it, used it then removed it and then bothered to put it away.
But it was either make that claim or just admit it was used to shoot Sheila and that someone else shot her and put it away. Obviously that is even more undesirable.
So they went with what they could even though it wasn't good.
There was no blood left in the gun in 2002 because it was all removed in 1985 and 1986 by the lab and defense expert Lincoln. What was removed by the prosecution was blood on the outside and the inside hole that was tested only to detemrine whether it wa shuman. Then they removed all remaining visible blood which consited of blood on the first 5-8 baffles and a flake trapped between the first and second baffle. The defense expert removed microscopic blood from the first 8 baffles. After that it was tested for blood and found to contain no more. So the DNA tests were worthless at establishing whose blood was inside. That would require DNA testing the blood that was removed years earlier. But the blood was destroyed during testing. No one predicted DNA testing would come about and thus decided to preserve some for future tesing.
-
I thought Junes DNA was found ? how would that happen if all the blood had been cleared away and there had been no contact shot with June?
-
Wasn't June's shot between the eyes a contact,or near contact shot?
-
I thought Junes DNA was found ? how would that happen if all the blood had been cleared away and there had been no contact shot with June?
What part of "there was no blood left in the moderator after defense expert Lincoln removed the last traces in 1986" confuses you?
After his removal of blood, tests for any remaining prosecne of blood, including in 1999, came up negative.
That means the DNA found subsequent to this was not blood based. Tha tmeans such DNA was deposited from something other than blood.
The moderator was contaminated with June and Sheila's DNA by people handling items containing their DNA, getting their DNA on themselves and then transferring it to the moderator when they had the moderator apart. They no doubt transferred it to other items as well not just the moderator.
LNC DNA testing wa sinvented for use in identifying human remains. For all other applications one has to be very careful in what they try to assess from it because it can detect DNA that was innocently transferred.
So for instance a tiny speck of your DNA in the apartment of someone who you had contact with doesn't prove you were ever there period let alone there when such person was murdered.
If you had no prior contact with that person or anyone else who visited her who coudl have transferred it then in that case it would be evidence you were there yourself.
When contamination is ruled out as being possible that is when there is some significance.
If it is proved to be DNA from a specific source such as blood based or semen based then that also has implicaitons but that wa snot the case we know the DNA was not blood based so it had no probative value at all.
-
oh yes that would explain it then - and I NEVER said it came from blood I asked how it got there you rude man.
So it is excused because of contamination - but anything before that can not be excused by contamination.
How convenient
-
The moderator was contaminated with June and Sheila's DNA by people handling items containing their DNA, getting their DNA on themselves and then transferring it to the moderator when they had the moderator apart. They no doubt transferred it to other items as well not just the moderator.
So lets get this perfectly clear - you are saying that in Lab conditions because the moderator was handled and taken apart it could have been contaminated? Or are you saying it happened after the lab? If so why would Junes DNA have been anywhere near it?
-
The moderator was contaminated with June and Sheila's DNA by people handling items containing their DNA, getting their DNA on themselves and then transferring it to the moderator when they had the moderator apart. They no doubt transferred it to other items as well not just the moderator.
So lets get this perfectly clear - you are saying that in Lab conditions because the moderator was handled and taken apart it could have been contaminated? Or are you saying it happened after the lab? If so why would Junes DNA have been anywhere near it?
Mike said that Taff Jones had the silencer sitting on his desk as a paper weight for a long time and that that was the reason he was taken off the case. For witholding evidence? But where he got that from I don't know?
-
oh yes that would explain it then - and I NEVER said it came from blood I asked how it got there you rude man.
So it is excused because of contamination - but anything before that can not be excused by contamination.
How convenient
They didn't find other DNA prior- DNA wasn't known about at the time. They found blood. There was blood on it and in it. There was blood near the opening that was human. There wa seven more blood that that inside though which ended up being group A blood and it got there by being sprayed inside. There is no way for blood to be innocently sprayed inside a moderator so that it coats the first 8 baffles and leaves a flake trapped between the first 2 baffles. Contamination can't account for such. That is why the defense didn't try arguing such. They found no expert willing to testify to such because there was no way to say someone who had a bloody finger could have picked it up, accidentally bled inside and for it to have resulted in blood on the first 8 baffles. Nor is there any new science that would permit the defense to try arguing such on appeal. It was prayed inside.
The only alternatives are it was sprayed inside to intentionally plant it or someone with group A blood was shot by a gun that had the moderator attached. They had no evidence to support the former so argued the latter. June had group A blood. Unfortunately for them though, Ak1 was detected which was consistent with Sheila (June had AK2-1). They tried suggesting Nevill's blood was in there as well, that the lab messed up and faile dot detect it and esentially June's blood concealed his except it could not conceal the Ak1. Ak2-1 is more hardy than AK1 so should have been there if it were actually June's blood mixed with Nevill's. So they could not get an expert to support their claims. They made them themselves which is why it didn't have much effect.
At best their suggestion alters one thing formt he narrative:
Prosecution narrative:
Killer attached moderator, killed everyone, then after everyone wa skilled removed the moderator and put it away in the closet.
Defense narrative:
Killer attached moderator, killed everyone except Sheila with it, removed the moderator, put it away in the closet and then killed Sheila.
Aside from the fact that had tha tbeen the case SHeila's blood would have been found in the rifle, why would Sheila get the moderator in the first place to attach and why would she bother to put it away to conceal it was used on he others?
It wa sthus not a great argument but they had no ability to allege intentional planting so went with the best they could no matter how weak of an argument it was.
-
Well as has been said many times before Jeremy has pushed for every test possible on that moderator .
Which according to you is the one tangible thing that proves his guilt
so either he is innocent and he has come to the same conclusion that Sheila would not use the silencer take it off and put it is a box before shooting her self ( this is extremely unlikely but not impossible because in a delusional state she could have done anything ) but that would mean the blood would have been a mixture of blood and not hers
OR he is guilty and he did not use the silencer - in which case would indicate it was deliberately contaminated .
-
Well as has been said many times before Jeremy has pushed for every test possible on that moderator .
Which according to you is the one tangible thing that proves his guilt
so either he is innocent and he has come to the same conclusion that Sheila would not use the silencer take it off and put it is a box before shooting her self ( this is extremely unlikely but not impossible because in a delusional state she could have done anything ) but that would mean the blood would have been a mixture of blood and not hers
OR he is guilty and he did not use the silencer - in which case would indicate it was deliberately contaminated .
It is not the only tangible thing that proves his guilt but it is the main one relied on at trial. This sheer necessity resulted in the defense counsel trying to undermine it.
The only tests the defense did on it were to test it for blood- with the defense expert findiing group A blood on the first 8 baffles and then the DNA test.
The defense finding that blood really handcuffed them.
What did they argue because of the blood and even the DNA (which was a worhtless effort sinc eno blood remained in the mdoerator)?
They argued drawback resulted in June and Nevill's blood being deposited in the moderator. They effectively argued that SHeila:
1) got the moderator from the closet and attached it to the gun she found in the kichen
2) used it to kill eveyrone else
3) after killing everyone else removed it and put it in the closet
4) then killed herself.
Why would she bother to go to the closet to get the moderator?
Why would she bother to put it away in the lcoset which is what someone trying to conceal its use during the murders would do?
The moderator being used period points to Jeremy.
The defense didn't argue at trial or the 2002 appeal that the moderator wasn't used. They argued it was used but put away before Sheila was shot.
If someone paid me to act as Jeremy's advocate I would have to try to attack the main things agaisnt him, not because they are weak links but because they are the main evidence.
I would need to try finding a way to undermine the moderator evidence, the evidence proving Sheila was shot while seated propped against something then moved flat, the evidence the bible was placed in a pool of blood that fored after she died and the evidence that Sheila could not have killed eveyrone without getting GSR and their blood on her body and clothing.
There is a lot of other evidence but that is the rock of the case. You have to attack it because it is the rock. If you don't attack such you might as well plead guilty and beg for mercy.
-
We don't know what clothing Sheila had on initially, only when she died. No matter how she was shot, the GSR would have been produced and would have settled somewhere.
-
Well if it was a mixture of Junes and nevillesc blood then there was a remote possibilty she did put it away . It would not seem logical , but then she would not be in a logical frame of mind .
I must admit I always wondered if the police did ask the family to say it was "hidden" when it was not because it had been left somewhere obvious and they did not find it .
-
We don't know what clothing Sheila had on initially, only when she died. No matter how she was shot, the GSR would have been produced and would have settled somewhere.
You mean like the GSR on Nevill? OOps Nevill was shot 7 times but had no GSR on his body or clothing. How can that be? You were completely wrong about GSR going out of the barrel of a weapon and landing on victims when shot by a rifle, that is why Nevill had no GSR on him, he tested negative.
IF SHeila shot herself then in that case she would have to have gotten GSR on her gown and clothing. In contrast if shot then the mechanism of the gun where the GSR was expelled would not have been near her body and the GSR would not have landed on her. I already showed a photo of where that area is- the ejection port and the 3 holes on the left side of the gun opposite the ejection port.
Sheila was definitely shot and killed while wearing the gown she was found in and it was totally free of GSR thus proving she was shot by someone else.
That area of the gun that expels GSR is near the shooter so unless she shot herself it would not be near her body. It would be near her body if she shot others though so she would get GSR on her clothing and body if she shot anyone else or if she shot herself. The complete absence proves she didn't.
Had she changed out of other clothing that was worn while killing the others it would have been found at the site. The only way for such clothing not to have been found would be if she had an accoplice, she washed, changed and then the accomplice double crossed her and took her clothing. An acocmplice though would have double crossed her before she washed and bathed rathe rthan to takes away the clothing that implicated her since the killer would want her to be wearing such clothing to make police think she did it then committed suicied.
So it is clear she never fired a gun but rather was murdered. The fact she didn't fire a gun means she didn't kill anyone else either they were all murdered by her killer.
-
You mean like the GSR on Nevill? OOps Nevill was shot 7 times but had no GSR on his body or clothing. How can that be? You were completely wrong about GSR going out of the barrel of a weapon and landing on victims when shot by a rifle, that is why Nevill had no GSR on him, he tested negative.
IF SHeila shot herself then in that case she would have to have gotten GSR on her gown and clothing. In contrast if shot then the mechanism of the gun where the GSR was expelled would not have been near her body and the GSR would not have landed on her. I already showed a photo of where that area is- the ejection port and the 3 holes on the left side of the gun opposite the ejection port.
Sheila was definitely shot and killed while wearing the gown she was found in and it was totally free of GSR thus proving she was shot by someone else.
That area of the gun that expels GSR is near the shooter so unless she shot herself it would not be near her body. It would be near her body if she shot others though so she would get GSR on her clothing and body if she shot anyone else or if she shot herself. The complete absence proves she didn't.
Had she changed out of other clothing that was worn while killing the others it would have been found at the site. The only way for such clothing not to have been found would be if she had an accoplice, she washed, changed and then the accomplice double crossed her and took her clothing. An acocmplice though would have double crossed her before she washed and bathed rathe rthan to takes away the clothing that implicated her since the killer would want her to be wearing such clothing to make police think she did it then committed suicied.
So it is clear she never fired a gun but rather was murdered. The fact she didn't fire a gun means she didn't kill anyone else either they were all murdered by her killer.
How can that be? Because although I know very little about guns I did look that up and apparently GSR should by default come out of the barrel of the weapon if it is a rifle.
see here: http://www.firearmsid.com/a_distancegsr.htm
Now it would be interesting to know if there was any GSR at all from that weapon. I Ralph had none at all on him or his cloathing and there should be according to the link. Then surely that points to the fact of very little GSR from that weapon at all?
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3448300274.html
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/may_2011/The%20Current%20Status%20of%20GSR%20Examinations
So you can see from these links that the primary source of GSR is from the barrel of the gun and not from the ejection mechanism at the side.
Therefore if absolutely no GSR was detected on Neville then surely we should start questioning concerning the weapon used, for it does appear from the evidence that this particular gun produced very little GSR altogether?
-
Well if it was a mixture of Junes and nevillesc blood then there was a remote possibilty she did put it away . It would not seem logical , but then she would not be in a logical frame of mind .
I must admit I always wondered if the police did ask the family to say it was "hidden" when it was not because it had been left somewhere obvious and they did not find it .
People do things for a reason even crazy people. People with delusions still do things for a reason.
The only reason to get the moderator out to attach to a gun found lacking the moderator is to be quiet so you can hopefully kill everyone while they are in bed asleep.
The only reason to put the moderator away in the closet is to conceal it was used. Removing it and leaving it out before shooting Sheila would indicate it was used on the others.
Why is that a problem? Jeremy knew it would be unlikely for a crazy Sheila to bother with a moderator. He made up the tale of her waking up Nevill and not shooting him at first. Instlaling the moderator to not wake up anyone but then waking them up and letting the move around and even use the phone makes no sense at all. The mdoerator use helped prove his rendition of events to be fictitious. That is why he hid it. Sheila had no reason so hide it.
In any event, quite clearly it was Sheila's blood. She had a contact wound that result in blood getting inside while Nevill and June didn't. Moreover, the whole idea that June's Ak2-1 would disspate but Nevill's less hardy AK1 would survive is not credible. Equally bad if the gun was used without the moderator Sheila's blood would have been found inside of it.
This mind you is if we look at the moderator/drawback issue in isolation only Evne in isolation it sinks Jeremy. But if we look at it with all the other evidence such as the fact Sheila can't have shot herself because she had no GSR on her and can't have moved her body after she was dead- someone had to have moved her, all the evidence regarding Jeremy framing Sheila by staging the gun and evidence Nevill's phone call never happened it just gets even worse for Jeremy.
-
How can that be? Because although I know very little about guns I did look that up and apparently GSR should by default come out of the barrel of the weapon if it is a rifle.
see here: http://www.firearmsid.com/a_distancegsr.htm
Now it would be interesting to know if there was any GSR at all from that weapon. I Ralph had none at all on him or his cloathing and there should be according to the link. Then surely that points to the fact of very little GSR from that weapon at all?
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3448300274.html
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/may_2011/The%20Current%20Status%20of%20GSR%20Examinations
So you can see from these links that the primary source of GSR is from the barrel of the gun and not from the ejection mechanism at the side.
As I already explained to you that site is using imprecise terminology when it calls "unburned gunpower" gunshot residue. It is calling everything expelled anywhere out of the gunshot residues. Technically speaking there is gunshot residue and gunpowder residues. He is describing gunpower residues.
The residue it is describing and picturing on the clothing which it referenced as unburned particulate is unburned gunpowder.
What it is describing with the following passages is unburned gunpower not PGSR (Primer gunshot residue) PGSR is usually shortened to GSR but refer to the same thing.
"The further gunshot residues travel from the muzzle, the broader and less concentrated the pattern becomes. Because the various elements included in gunshot residues are very small and lack mass they lose their energy rapidly.
Gunshot residues emitted from the muzzle will travel out to distances of approximately 3 and 5 feet in most firearms but in some cases can travel even greater distances. At the 3-5 foot range the gunshot residues may only consist of a few trace particles and make determining the firing distance difficult if not impossible.
As the firearm gets closer to its target the residue concentrations increase and the actual size or diameter to the pattern gets smaller. At around 18-24 inches most firearms will start to deposit considerable concentrations of gunshot residues that may or may not be visible to the eye."
The site actually describes in detail at one point what it is referring to:
"Gunpowder residue can contain unburned gunpowder particles, partially burned gunpowder particles or the carbonaceous soot from completely burned gunpowder. The image below show a bullet hole surrounded by gunpowder particulate residue."
So it is referencing unburned/partially burned particulate shooting out of the barrel not PGSR.
In common parlance GSR is used to mean PGSR whereas unburned gunpower or unburned particulate is normally used instead of the more technical gunpowder residue. So if you want to be technical you have gunpowder residue and primer gunshot residue. Since PGSR is normally shortened to GSR it is frowned upon to refer to gunpower residue as gunshot residue as well.
Here is another site that does a similar thing of claling them both gunshot residue however it is acceptable because the site is precise and calls one primer gunshot residue the other powder gunshot residue better known as gunpowder residue.
"In a shooting case there are two types of gunshot residue that occur during the discharge of a firearm. The circumstances and the evidence will dictate if either or both types should be tested.
Primer gunshot residue (pGSR) is comprised of fused particles of the elements lead, barium and antimony. The identification of pGSR can only associate a subject with a firearm. Analysis for pGSR is typically conducted by scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM/EDS)
Powder gunshot residue is pattern evidence that originates from the muzzle of a firearm and is deposited on the target. This residue pattern can be comprised of un-burnt and partially burnt gun powder, particulate metals and nitrites. Pattern comparison and chemical testing can assist in determining muzzle to target distance. Evidence typically includes clothing and photographs of gunshot wounds."
http://www.focossforensics.com/html/gunshot_residue.html
So "powder gunshot residue" is deposited on the victims. It can be deposited in the wounds or outside the wounds. This is what is called stippling or powder tattooning. This is associated with being shot by a gun.
In contrast PGSR is associated with firing a gun or touching a gun that has PGSR on it and the PGSR transferring from the weapon to the person handling it. Much higher levels of PGSR are on a shooter than someone just touching a weapon after it has been fired. In addition, standing directly next to a weapon as it is being fired by someone else will result in PGSR being deposited on someone. SInce a handgun is so short if the gun is fired extremely close to the victim some PGSR can get on the victim too but it doesn't come from the barrel. PGSR forms a cloud of icroscopic particles. That cloud will touch the shooter, people to the sides of the shooter or extremly close to the front of the shooter.
A rifle is too long for PGSR to get on victims unless they are shooting themselves. The PGSR will be deposited near the back of the gun though not near the muzzle. So the proper location to test Sheila for PGSR to see whether she shot herself was the middle and lower regions of her gown. The only blood in those areas was the small amount from her hand so it can't be argued her dress was too stained for the PGSR to be detected. It also would have gotten on her hands though which quite obviously she can't have washed after killing herself.
They used a scan electron microscope to test her clothing for PGSR but found not even a single particle. There was a visual test using a scan electron microcsope available and then a chemical test. PGSR is microscopic so you can't detect it with the naked eye you must use chemicals it reacts with to a miscroscope or the like. The cheminals react with other things so give false positives in adiditon to sometimes doing damage. Once the scan electron microscope method was available it became the preferred mothod. The records show they used the visual test on her clothing, Nevill's clothing and the swabs of her hands and Nevill's hands.
SInce the other 3 victims were for sure shot in bed (even though June managed to stand up for a few seconds before collapsing) that means there is no way they did any shooting so they were not tested for PGSR. Some unscrupulous people take advantage of this and suggest June loaded the gun and did most of the shooting or all of the shooting.
-
Can you explain again when Junes DNA could have got into the moderator? You said by contamination ?
At what stage ? Because it would have not have been in the lab because of the forensic conditions?
-
As I already explained to you that site is using imprecise terminology when it calls "unburned gunpower" gunshot residue. It is calling everything expelled anywhere out of the gunshot residues. Technically speaking there is gunshot residue and gunpowder residues. He is describing gunpower residues.
The residue it is describing and picturing on the clothing which it referenced as unburned particulate is unburned gunpowder.
What it is describing with the following passages is unburned gunpower not PGSR (Primer gunshot residue) PGSR is usually shortened to GSR but refer to the same thing.
"The further gunshot residues travel from the muzzle, the broader and less concentrated the pattern becomes. Because the various elements included in gunshot residues are very small and lack mass they lose their energy rapidly.
Gunshot residues emitted from the muzzle will travel out to distances of approximately 3 and 5 feet in most firearms but in some cases can travel even greater distances. At the 3-5 foot range the gunshot residues may only consist of a few trace particles and make determining the firing distance difficult if not impossible.
As the firearm gets closer to its target the residue concentrations increase and the actual size or diameter to the pattern gets smaller. At around 18-24 inches most firearms will start to deposit considerable concentrations of gunshot residues that may or may not be visible to the eye."
The site actually describes in detail at one point what it is referring to:
"Gunpowder residue can contain unburned gunpowder particles, partially burned gunpowder particles or the carbonaceous soot from completely burned gunpowder. The image below show a bullet hole surrounded by gunpowder particulate residue."
So it is referencing unburned/partially burned particulate shooting out of the barrel not PGSR.
In common parlance GSR is used to mean PGSR whereas unburned gunpower or unburned particulate is normally used instead of the more technical gunpowder residue. So if you want to be technical you have gunpowder residue and primer gunshot residue. Since PGSR is normally shortened to GSR it is frowned upon to refer to gunpower residue as gunshot residue as well.
Here is another site that does a similar thing of claling them both gunshot residue however it is acceptable because the site is precise and calls one primer gunshot residue the other powder gunshot residue better known as gunpowder residue.
"In a shooting case there are two types of gunshot residue that occur during the discharge of a firearm. The circumstances and the evidence will dictate if either or both types should be tested.
Primer gunshot residue (pGSR) is comprised of fused particles of the elements lead, barium and antimony. The identification of pGSR can only associate a subject with a firearm. Analysis for pGSR is typically conducted by scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM/EDS)
Powder gunshot residue is pattern evidence that originates from the muzzle of a firearm and is deposited on the target. This residue pattern can be comprised of un-burnt and partially burnt gun powder, particulate metals and nitrites. Pattern comparison and chemical testing can assist in determining muzzle to target distance. Evidence typically includes clothing and photographs of gunshot wounds."
http://www.focossforensics.com/html/gunshot_residue.html
So "powder gunshot residue" is deposited on the victims. It can be deposited in the wounds or outside the wounds. This is what is called stippling or powder tattooning. This is associated with being shot by a gun.
In contrast PGSR is associated with firing a gun or touching a gun that has PGSR on it and the PGSR transferring from the weapon to the person handling it. Much higher levels of PGSR are on a shooter than someone just touching a weapon after it has been fired. In addition, standing directly next to a weapon as it is being fired by someone else will result in PGSR being deposited on someone. SInce a handgun is so short if the gun is fired extremely close to the victim some PGSR can get on the victim too but it doesn't come from the barrel. PGSR forms a cloud of icroscopic particles. That cloud will touch the shooter, people to the sides of the shooter or extremly close to the front of the shooter.
A rifle is too long for PGSR to get on victims unless they are shooting themselves. The PGSR will be deposited near the back of the gun though not near the muzzle. So the proper location to test Sheila for PGSR to see whether she shot herself was the middle and lower regions of her gown. The only blood in those areas was the small amount from her hand so it can't be argued her dress was too stained for the PGSR to be detected. It also would have gotten on her hands though which quite obviously she can't have washed after killing herself.
They used a scan electron microscope to test her clothing for PGSR but found not even a single particle. There was a visual test using a scan electron microcsope available and then a chemical test. PGSR is microscopic so you can't detect it with the naked eye you must use chemicals it reacts with to a miscroscope or the like. The cheminals react with other things so give false positives in adiditon to sometimes doing damage. Once the scan electron microscope method was available it became the preferred mothod. The records show they used the visual test on her clothing, Nevill's clothing and the swabs of her hands and Nevill's hands.
SInce the other 3 victims were for sure shot in bed (even though June managed to stand up for a few seconds before collapsing) that means there is no way they did any shooting so they were not tested for PGSR. Some unscrupulous people take advantage of this and suggest June loaded the gun and did most of the shooting or all of the shooting.
Well thank you for explaining the mechanics of GSR. But it still doesn't explain the complete absence of GSR on Nevill and most of the shots to his person were close range and according to the links that I posted most of the GSR comes out of the barrel.
-
How long does GSR remain on clothes?
And what method is used to detect it?
-
Apparently,just testing hands isn't good enough,it's clothing that matters most. It's said that because emissions are further away using a rifle or a shotgun,the chances of having gsr on the hands is minimal.
Therefore we were misled on the fact that traces were found and decided it was because of the use of kitchen utensils ( BS )
Tracing for gsr is done with chemicals.
-
Apparently,just testing hands isn't good enough,it's clothing that matters most. It's said that because emissions are further away using a rifle or a shotgun,the chances of having gsr on the hands is minimal.
Therefore we were misled on the fact that traces were found and decided it was because of the use of kitchen utensils ( BS )
Tracing for gsr is done with chemicals.
Sheila we are told had GSR on her but not as much as was expected from someone who had fired 25 rounds. What puzzles me is that she was the only one with GSR on. Nevill had not nor apparently did any of the others. So we are left to draw our own conclusions in regard to those findings?
-
How long does GSR remain on clothes?
And what method is used to detect it?
GSR remains on clothes until you manage to clean them sufficiently to remove all particles. Laundering them will not necessarily remove all particles, it could take numerous washings.
GSR transfers from smooth surfaced much easier than cloth where they get embedded in the fibers.
A scan electron microscope is used to look at the cloth or Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry. The latter is more recent and the preferred method because it analyzes the chemical components using tehcnology instead of a human having to visually look through a microscope to assess whether they see GSR particles which look rather like snowballs to me.
GSR also persists on hair far longer than skin which is why it is a great place to search for GSR.
-
Can you explain again when Junes DNA could have got into the moderator? You said by contamination ?
At what stage ? Because it would have not have been in the lab because of the forensic conditions?
Her DNA could have gotten in before the murders or after as a result of contamination. Someone cleaning the moderator prior to the murders such as Nevill coudl have contaminated it. The jury or others who were allowed to examine the moderator after could have contaminated it. There is no way to know.
It owuld be like examining property of mine using LCN DNA methods to look for DNA of my relatives. Ther eis no way to say when such contamination occurred. A speck of DNA and a lot fo DNA are different things. A speck can be transferred by far too many methods. The only time it is truly reliable is if cross contmaination is not possible liek with a total strange rin which case it means the stranger was at the scene.
-
Well as has been said many times before Jeremy has pushed for every test possible on that moderator .
Which according to you is the one tangible thing that proves his guilt
so either he is innocent and he has come to the same conclusion that Sheila would not use the silencer take it off and put it is a box before shooting her self ( this is extremely unlikely but not impossible because in a delusional state she could have done anything ) but that would mean the blood would have been a mixture of blood and not hers
OR he is guilty and he did not use the silencer - in which case would indicate it was deliberately contaminated .
There is a lot more than one thing that proves his guilt.
A mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence. The fact that there were only two suspects in the first place but him in a precarious position to start with.
A thread has already been created called 'Was there enough evidence without the silencer'.
Agree that the silencer is a big piece of evidence. I mean it had Sheila's, Neville's and June's blood in. Together with June's DNA.
-
It was decided back in 2002 ? after the Stokenchurch investigation that the silencer WASN'T used,so you can discount that as being an " integral " part of Jeremys' guilt. Also,the burn marks on Neville were made by the barrel of the rifle-----------------so the silencer can be put to bed,except for the fact that there happened to be ANOTHER silencer on ANOTHER rifle which was found in ANOTHER room ?
But what about the " phantom " one in the cupboard in which 3 officers missed,but DB found ??
So what else is there within this pack of lies that proves his guilt ?
List this " mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence ". Jeremy WASN'T even a suspect !!
-
It was decided back in 2002 ? after the Stokenchurch investigation that the silencer WASN'T used,so you can discount that as being an " integral " part of Jeremys' guilt. Also,the burn marks on Neville were made by the barrel of the rifle-----------------so the silencer can be put to bed,except for the fact that there happened to be ANOTHER silencer on ANOTHER rifle which was found in ANOTHER room ?
But what about the " phantom " one in the cupboard in which 3 officers missed,but DB found ??
So what else is there within this pack of lies that proves his guilt ?
List this " mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence ". Jeremy WASN'T even a suspect !!
Yes Jeremy has campaigned for more tests on the silencer. He had no choice as it is a big piece of evidence.
However the further tests just proved more convincingly it was used.
There was a thread last week about the Arizona tests and burn marks.
You know what the mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence is. I have created lots of threads for you.
Lookout. It's time.
-
Yes Jeremy has campaigned for more tests on the silencer. He had no choice as it is a big piece of evidence.
However the further tests just proved more convincingly it was used.
There was a thread last week about the Arizona tests and burn marks.
You know what the mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence is. I have created lots of threads for you.
Lookout. It's time.
Time for what ?? What are you on about ? There is NO evidence whatsoever.
-
Regards.
-
Re, the police interviews. I could not find the thread. But have posted this -
Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 don't knows' & 'can't say'. Answers to simple questions about the massacre night and his family.
Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so' & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'
Answers often said in a singing tone while chewing a strand of his expensive jumper. So not exactly outraged and angry at being arrested. Or trying hard to assist the police in confirming it is Sheila.
The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer.
He initially said he phoned Julie before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Julie was phoned after the police phone call. Asked why he phoned Julie, he said 'no comment'.
Now knowing Julie had spoken to the police he said she did it due to 'jilted love'. But did not elaborate.
He even suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila ! Interestingly after they suggested Sheila could not have shot herself twice. Something he did not argue with or demand proof for. Perhaps because he knew she had not shot herself twice.
When struggling further he suggested Neville may have said 'she' rather than 'Sheila'. Suggesting a random women broke in, killed everyone and left the gun on Sheila !
He also admitted he knew lots of ways into WHF through locked or unlocked windows. Something he did not tell the police on the massacre night, or afterwards.
Sadly it seems we will never know about the last conversation between him & Sheila in the fields. He was asked this simple question but said 'no comment'.
His frostiness with the police after becoming a suspect was in stark contrast to the previous few weeks. After first ringing the police at 3.10am/3.26am/3.36am you could hardly stop him talking, as he insinuated Sheila and made them nice cups of tea.
These interviews were several weeks after the deaths. Jeremy seemed to be recovering well & enjoying himself, telling the police how lovely the weather was in St Tropez. So he could not use grief/shock as a reason for his evasiveness.
Stan Jones said having to write questions and answers down, (rather than taped interviews) meant Bamber had time to anticipate the next question and prepare his answer. He believed a taped interview would have got a confession. This I do not believe. Bamber was much too determined.
Although he could not remember a lot he testified at court and didn't say the words 'no comment', 'can't say', 'don't remember' & 'don't know' once. Although his answers in court became more vague the more pressure he was under. He didn't sing either but kept smiling at the jury. How nice.
-
Re, the police interviews. I could not find the thread. But have posted this -
Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 don't knows' & 'can't say'. Answers to simple questions about the massacre night and his family.
Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so' & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'
Answers often said in a singing tone while chewing a strand of his expensive jumper. So not exactly outraged and angry at being arrested. Or trying hard to assist the police in confirming it is Sheila.
The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer.
He initially said he phoned Julie before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Julie was phoned after the police phone call. Asked why he phoned Julie, he said 'no comment'.
Now knowing Julie had spoken to the police he said she did it due to 'jilted love'. But did not elaborate.
He even suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila ! Interestingly after they suggested Sheila could not have shot herself twice. Something he did not argue with or demand proof for. Perhaps because he knew she had not shot herself twice.
When struggling further he suggested Neville may have said 'she' rather than 'Sheila'. Suggesting a random women broke in, killed everyone and left the gun on Sheila !
He also admitted he knew lots of ways into WHF through locked or unlocked windows. Something he did not tell the police on the massacre night, or afterwards.
Sadly it seems we will never know about the last conversation between him & Sheila in the fields. He was asked this simple question but said 'no comment'.
His frostiness with the police after becoming a suspect was in stark contrast to the previous few weeks. After first ringing the police at 3.10am/3.26am/3.36am you could hardly stop him talking, as he insinuated Sheila and made them nice cups of tea.
These interviews were several weeks after the deaths. Jeremy seemed to be recovering well & enjoying himself, telling the police how lovely the weather was in St Tropez. So he could not use grief/shock as a reason for his evasiveness.
Stan Jones said having to write questions and answers down, (rather than taped interviews) meant Bamber had time to anticipate the next question and prepare his answer. He believed a taped interview would have got a confession. This I do not believe. Bamber was much too determined.
Although he could not remember a lot he testified at court and didn't say the words 'no comment', 'can't say', 'don't remember' & 'don't know' once. Although his answers in court became more vague the more pressure he was under. He didn't sing either but kept smiling at the jury. How nice.
So in short in this interview in so many words he confessed to these officers that he did the murders then?
In all truthfulness Adam what he said in that interview question after question on the same thing I too would be answering them in the same way.
Now if this account was true where his very first interview was concerned, then how on earth did they get all the information from him that they did do. For he gave them a tremendous amount of info. My question is if this was his normal way of answering their questions, then how did they get his testimony, which apparently we have?
-
Why is Adam so bitter ? As shown by him resorting to sarcasm?
-
So in short in this interview in so many words he confessed to these officers that he did the murders then?
In all truthfulness Adam what he said in that interview question after question on the same thing I too would be answering them in the same way.
Now if this account was true where his very first interview was concerned, then how on earth did they get all the information from him that they did do. For he gave them a tremendous amount of info. My question is if this was his normal way of answering their questions, then how did they get his testimony, which apparently we have?
I wonder if there are any more of his interviews on any other sites anywhere. I think the ones we have here are the ones where he was not charged at that point? There must have been later ones?
-
Why is Adam so bitter ? As shown by him resorting to sarcasm?
You are right. The sarcasm makes it seem like a personal matter to him.
-
I wonder if there are any more of his interviews on any other sites anywhere. I think the ones we have here are the ones where he was not charged at that point? There must have been later ones?
Indeed Jan this is obviously by its very nature an interview that was published by the police to deliberately turn people's minds against Bamber and was I suggest one of the latest of "many" interviews by them as by this time Bamber was getting really and truly pissed off by their constant intimidating and goading line of questioning.
-
You are right. The sarcasm makes it seem like a personal matter to him.
Unfortunately by constantly thinking negative thoughts against Bamber as Adam is doing alas releases a poison that is so potent that it results in that person becoming very bitter in their very being. We have seen this illustrated many times and if you go over to another forum you will find it running as a leaded thread through nearly every poster on that site.
-
Indeed Jan this is obviously by its very nature an interview that was published by the police to deliberately turn people's minds against Bamber and was I suggest one of the latest of "many" interviews by them as by this time Bamber was getting really and truly pissed off by their constant intimidating and goading line of questioning.
Do they normally at the end actually charge someone at the end of an interview?
The ones on here are about the hitman? And then he was released without charge. Then there must have been others. What date was he actually finally charged with murder?
-
So in short in this interview in so many words he confessed to these officers that he did the murders then?
In all truthfulness Adam what he said in that interview question after question on the same thing I too would be answering them in the same way.
Now if this account was true where his very first interview was concerned, then how on earth did they get all the information from him that they did do. For he gave them a tremendous amount of info. My question is if this was his normal way of answering their questions, then how did they get his testimony, which apparently we have?
He also gave a lot of information before being a suspect but I'm surprised there aren't more statements - he must have been officially questioned about the silencer?
-
yes they must have wanted to make sure what his story was about the silencer. There must have been other interviews.
-
yes they must have wanted to make sure what his story was about the silencer. There must have been other interviews.
I guess Mike would know if he was questioned 'officially' about it. I'll ask him.