Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on November 18, 2014, 12:46:AM
-
The 'Behind Mansion Walls' video suggested Jeremy wore a wet suit when committing the massacre. This is not implausible. Robert Boutflour also suggested this.
He was a keen diver and wanted to be a commercial diver, rather than a farmer after hearing about the money they earn. So no doubt had a wet suit or two available.
He will still be mobile in a wet suit, after all divers and surfers wear them.
A black wet suit will make him harder to spot in the dark. Although it was likely to be underneath other clothes.
A wetsuit is also good body protection. As the rubber is quite thick.
It will also be easy to wash any incriminating evidence off after committing the massacre. Although as he was gallivanting around Europe for a month after the massacre, had plenty of time to dispose of incriminating evidence.
The police commented how smart Jeremy looked upon arrival at WHF. With several layers of clothing. Certainly not as if he had just got out of bed & rushed over. So it can't be ruled out that he wore these same clothes for the massacre.
I don't believe he also wore swimming goggles & flippers on the night. But may well have had a balaclava & gloves on to protect his face and hands from potential injuries.
Do other people believe Jeremy wore a wet suit on the night ?
-
The 'Behind Mansion Walls' video suggested Jeremy wore a wet suit when committing the massacre. This is not implausible.
He was a keen diver and wanted to be a commercial diver, rather than a farmer after hearing about the money they earn. So no doubt had a wet suit or two available.
He will still be mobile in a wet suit, after all divers and surfers wear them.
A black wet suit will make him harder to spot in the dark.
It will also be easy to wash any incriminating evidence off after committing the massacre. Although as he was gallivanting around Europe for a month after the massacre so had plenty of time to dispose of incriminating evidence.
The police commented how smart Jeremy looked upon arrival at WHF. With several layers of clothing. Certainly not as if he had just got out of bed & rushed over. So it can't be ruled out that he wore these same clothes for the massacre.
I don't believe he wore swimming goggles & flippers on the night. But may well have had a balaclava & gloves on to protect his face from potential injuries.
Do other people believe Jeremy wore a wet suit on the night ?
I'm still waiting for you to use the common sense you were born with Adam. Why would he wear a wetsuit? I think perhaps you need to understand the difference between a wet suit and a dry suit. I dry suit is completely impervious to water. A wet suit on the other hand is what its name suggests, a "wet" suit.
The idea of wearing a wet suit is so that when it gets wet it creates a warm layer of water between the body and the wet suit. This is why surfers use them, so they won't get cold and get hypothermia.
Now in order to operate as it is supposed to it must therefore be absorbent. That means that any liquid whether it be water or blood can easily be absorbed.
So imagine if Jeremy put on a wetsuit to do the murders, what protection would he have gotten if he was splashed with blood? None whatsoever, because it would soak straight through and stain whateve was underneath. So from logical point of view I would be quite confident in stating, no he would not have worn a wetsuit if he were to commit murder that night.
-
No I do not believe he did. I think Grahame has some valid points in the differences between a dry suit and a wet suit.
I think Jeremy had two and both were forensically tested and produced nothing. I am sure Aunt Agatha has still got one of them.
I was going to tell you a short story about my wetsuit.....but change me mind. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm still waiting for you to use the common sense you were born with Adam. Why would he wear a wetsuit? I think perhaps you need to understand the difference between a wet suit and a dry suit. I dry suit is completely impervious to water. A wet suit on the other hand is what its name suggests, a "wet" suit.
The idea of wearing a wet suit is so that when it gets wet it creates a warm layer of water between the body and the wet suit. This is why surfers use them, so they won't get cold and get hypothermia.
Now in order to operate as it is supposed to it must therefore be absorbent. That means that any liquid whether it be water or blood can easily be absorbed.
So imagine if Jeremy put on a wetsuit to do the murders, what protection would he have gotten if he was splashed with blood? None whatsoever, because it would soak straight through and stain whateve was underneath. So from logical point of view I would be quite confident in stating, no he would not have worn a wetsuit if he were to commit murder that night.
I have reported this post to the moderators. The first sentence is very rude and offensive. This is a discussion forum, not an abuse site.
You may have joined this site a long time ago when everyone agreed with the pro Jeremy stance. But now you are in the minority, most people believing Bamber is guilty. So don't know why you think you have the right to insult people.
I will continue doing this whenever you make offensive comments. Either to me or anyone else.
-
Other comments made yesterday by Grahame in just three pages.
'Gullible'
'Break out of you're tiny world'.
'Black & white minstrel'.
'Free yourself of self delusion'.
'Slave to you're own thoughts'.
'Blinded by predjudice'.
'You still haven't got it'.
'Polarised brain'.
'Inability to think rational thoughts'.
'Impotent'
'Shallow thought pattern'.
'Losing the plot'.
'A fool already'
Ban the bugger.
'Not worthy to be in a civilised society'.
-
I will investigate wet suits & their benefits. Rather than just go by Grahame's say so. Unless he's a surfer or an expert in what to wear for crimes.
I don't know why a well known reporter would say on a TV programme Jeremy would wear a wet suit to commit the massacre, if it was of no use.
-
No I do not believe he did. I think Grahame has some valid points in the differences between a dry suit and a wet suit.
I think Jeremy had two and both were forensically tested and produced nothing. I am sure Aunt Agatha has still got one of them.
I was going to tell you a short story about my wetsuit.....but change me mind. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Have you got a source that his wet suits were tested ?
-
I have reported this post to the moderators. The first sentence is very rude and offensive. This is a discussion forum, not an abuse site.
You may have joined this site a long time ago when everyone agreed with the pro Jeremy stance. But now you are in the minority, most people believing Bamber is guilty. So don't know why you think you have the right to insult people.
I will continue doing this whenever you make offensive comments. Either to me or anyone else.
Best to be in a minority and right rather than stand with fools whilst the world burns. I suggest you look to your own morals before self righteously dictating to me lad. You and your owner scipio get away with far too much for my liking. I am just balancing the books.
-
I have reported this post to the moderators. The first sentence is very rude and offensive. This is a discussion forum, not an abuse site.
You may have joined this site a long time ago when everyone agreed with the pro Jeremy stance. But now you are in the minority, most people believing Bamber is guilty. So don't know why you think you have the right to insult people.
I will continue doing this whenever you make offensive comments. Either to me or anyone else.
I trust that you will also include scipio's insting comments as well, or is your little scheme just dedicated to my insults?
-
I will investigate wet suits & their benefits. Rather than just go by Grahame's say so. Unless he's a surfer or an expert in what to wear for crimes.
I don't know why a well known reporter would say on a TV programme Jeremy would wear a wet suit to commit the massacre, if it was of no use.
Perhaps it is because he is an idiot and is just writing so gullible people believe him. If you do not believe me who used to go diving then ask Bridget as she used to go diving as well. In fact ask any other expert, unless of course you want to remain wallowing in your ignorance?
-
Perhaps it is because he is an idiot and is just writing so gullible people believe him. If you do not believe me who used to go diving then ask Bridget as she used to go diving as well. In fact ask any other expert, unless of course you want to remain wallowing in your ignorance?
Best leave people like Adam in his ignorance-------------it's bliss !
-
Best leave people like Adam in his ignorance-------------it's bliss !
Like a number of guilters he refuses to believe that we have various experts on the forum. But prefers to believe that just because someone is a stranger and says their an expert that their word must carry more weight than any expert on the forum.
-
Like a number of guilters he refuses to believe that we have various experts on the forum. But prefers to believe that just because someone is a stranger and says their an expert that their word must carry mopre weight than any expert on the forum.
It's the sheer non-acceptance that Sheila was a possibility in causing the deaths of her family that doesn't seem to register with the guilters. Of course had the jury been offered the full diagnosis of Sheila,etc,then maybe there'd have been a pause for thought on how it would have been possible to have murdered 4 people.
Only today in the paper,it's been reported that the woman suffering from depression--------not schizophrenia or anything akin to that, who suffocated her 3 children and then attempted suicide,has been ordered to a mental hospital until such times as she's " cured ".
Sheila not only had depression,but other problems with her mental health plus drug-taking which exacerbated her overall condition and counteracted the effects of her prescription medication thus making her treatment null and void.
-
I have reported this post to the moderators. The first sentence is very rude and offensive. This is a discussion forum, not an abuse site.
You may have joined this site a long time ago when everyone agreed with the pro Jeremy stance. But now you are in the minority, most people believing Bamber is guilty. So don't know why you think you have the right to insult people.
I will continue doing this whenever you make offensive comments. Either to me or anyone else.
Thats fair enough Adam and we will in turn report your posts when they get offensive as well.
-
"He will still be mobile in a wet suit, after all divers and surfers wear them".
they wear them under water ! not cycling across a field.
Oh no forgot - no forensics on the bike either
-
I have reported this post to the moderators. The first sentence is very rude and offensive. This is a discussion forum, not an abuse site.
You may have joined this site a long time ago when everyone agreed with the pro Jeremy stance. But now you are in the minority, most people believing Bamber is guilty. So don't know why you think you have the right to insult people.
I will continue doing this whenever you make offensive comments. Either to me or anyone else.
Carry on reporting-------------so will we ! Short memory syndrome when you insulted Grahame yesterday about " retirement time ? " Not long ago it was me and a wheelchair. Think on !!
-
Thats fair enough Adam and we will in turn report your posts when they get offensive as well.
Doing such will make it abundantly clear just HOW offensive many find Adam's posts to be. When many complain about one person as opposed to one person complaining about many it usually transpires that the MANY are correct.
-
Will poster refrain from getting personal and this applies to both sides.
Come on guys please try to monitor yourselves more and think about what you are saying before you post it.
I would appreciate help on this from everyone.
Thanks. ;D
-
"He will still be mobile in a wet suit, after all divers and surfers wear them".
they wear them under water ! not cycling across a field.
Oh no forgot - no forensics on the bike either
Or the wetsuit either strangely enough. So this just goes to show what a stupid thread this is.
-
Carry on reporting-------------so will we ! Short memory syndrome when you insulted Grahame yesterday about " retirement time ? " Not long ago it was me and a wheelchair. Think on !!
I'd forgotten that lookout? I don't really keep count on the insults thrown at me though.
-
Will poster refrain from getting personal and this applies to both sides.
Come on guys please try to monitor yourselves more and think about what you are saying before you post it.
I would appreciate help on this from everyone.
Thanks. ;D
I just reply in like fashion Patti. Otherwise it becomes rather one sided.
-
Will poster refrain from getting personal and this applies to both sides.
Come on guys please try to monitor yourselves more and think about what you are saying before you post it.
I would appreciate help on this from everyone.
Thanks. ;D
THAT only works if EVERYONE is willing to play nicely and I think we BOTH know that ONE will take no notice and exercise no restraint, which is probably why we are where we are now with this person.
-
THAT only works if EVERYONE is willing to play nicely and I think we BOTH know that ONE will take no notice and exercise no restraint, which is probably why we are where we are now with this person.
True. We are dealing with people here who have no common decency or etiquette at all.
-
Personally I think that Adam has a nerve demanding apologies from people! He accused Jan of writing the threatening letter to PH. Jan, naturally, asked for an apology - repeatedly, but it never materialized.
Adam mocks people for their age, "old dears", wheelchairs, "retirement boredom" and on and on!
Seems he wants one set of rules for himself and another for the rest. This is ridiculous! Until that man comes forward with apologies to people he has verbally abused and falsely accused, I will not refrain from calling him out!
-
Personally I think that Adam has a nerve demanding apologies from people! He accused Jan of writing the threatening letter to PH. Jan, naturally, asked for an apology - repeatedly, but it never materialized.
Adam mocks people for their age, "old dears", wheelchairs, "retirement boredom" and on and on!
Seems he wants one set of rules for himself and another for the rest. This is ridiculous! Until that man comes forward with apologies to people he has verbally abused and falsely accused, I will not refrain from calling him out!
Alias, I'm inclined to agree. I think asking for restraint from a group, MOST of whom would and DO exercise it anyway, feels like emotional blackmail. Our exemplary behaviour won't change another's sly, snide, insulting, abusive, GOADING behaviour one iota. All it means is that no one will complain about it.
-
Alias, I'm inclined to agree. I think asking for restraint from a group, MOST of whom would and DO exercise it anyway, feels like emotional blackmail. Our exemplary behaviour won't change another's sly, snide, insulting, abusive, GOADING behaviour one iota. All it means is that no one will complain about it.
I have had doubts whether Adam had some social impairment and cannot help himself, but I have come to the conclusion that he is doing this on purpose! Not that there isn´t something wrong, it just has more to do with a craving for constant attention, positive or negative, he doesn´t care, as long as people have their eyes fixed on HIM!
-
Hi All
I do agree with you all and would like advice on what I am expected to do about it all. It appears that Adam likes to stir it up a bit and that is why I removed his thread that he made last night.
I am very busy as you can all appreciate as I work from home.
I try to fair and not try to take sides. I'll have a word with NGB and Maggie and between us we will decide on what to do. Please bare with us. :(
-
Hi All
I do agree with you all and would like advice on what I am expected to do about it all. It appears that Adam likes to stir it up a bit and that is why I removed his thread that he made last night.
I am very busy as you can all appreciate as I work from home.
I try to fair and not try to take sides. I'll have a word with NGB and Maggie and between us we will decide on what to do. Please bare with us. :(
I realize this is difficult. You have my sympathy!!!
-
Hi All
I do agree with you all and would like advice on what I am expected to do about it all. It appears that Adam likes to stir it up a bit and that is why I removed his thread that he made last night.
I am very busy as you can all appreciate as I work from home.
I try to fair and not try to take sides. I'll have a word with NGB and Maggie and between us we will decide on what to do. Please bare with us. :(
Hi Patti. I know you are fair minded and have a lot of patience. But you are preaching to the converted really. Because we all agree with you on this. The only trouble is those who ought to hear it are the very ones who don't think it applies to them, being blind deaf and dumb just like the three monkies.
-
Hi All
I do agree with you all and would like advice on what I am expected to do about it all. It appears that Adam likes to stir it up a bit and that is why I removed his thread that he made last night.
I am very busy as you can all appreciate as I work from home.
I try to fair and not try to take sides. I'll have a word with NGB and Maggie and between us we will decide on what to do. Please bare with us. :(
Make no mistake, Patti, I DO appreciate the difficulty here but I also see how Adam has manipulated a situation to his advantage by asking for, and apparently getting it agreed, that his former ban NOT be mentioned on forum. The result was this. The ban hadn't happened ergo there was no longer the need for him to apologize for the bad behaviour which caused it so he simply carried on in the same vein. If mine was the only complaint I'd say the problem was mine but there are now complaints enough to say that posters AREN'T prepared to modify THEIR behaviours in order to let Adam do as he likes.
-
You're right,April. As long as he's seen to be getting away with his " bad attitude ",he'll continue,and so will we,rightly or wrongly.
-
I tell you what - if Adam is touting the bike and wetsuit theory again - then I will tout the idea that it was perfectly possible for
1) Sheila to have showered and changed whilst the police were outside - after all the clothes she wore before changing into her nightdress have never been examined
2) It was possible that the dog licked her hands and feet after she died.
Same theory - prove me wrong.
-
how do you know he wore anything adam maybe he was naked.
-
nugnug watched a true story on tv where a son and his friend killed the sons parents for the money he would receive. Police could find no forensic evidence they had removed all their clothes battered them to death then showered got dressed and went back to their own home. They were found guilty ages later and sentenced to life.
-
dont you think it says somthing about a conviction if your still theorizing about how they might of done it 30 years later.
-
nugnug watched a true story on tv where a son and his friend killed the sons parents for the money he would receive. Police could find no forensic evidence they had removed all their clothes battered them to death then showered got dressed and went back to their own home. They were found guilty ages later and sentenced to life.
did they tell all their friends that they had done it though? I bet if they went to all that planning they did not make that stupid mistake :)
-
Hahaha they told nobody but they thought they were clever but not quite clever enough. Went on a spending spree never went to the Memorial Service and their behaviour was quite odd but they were caught in the end.
-
dont you think it says somthing about a conviction if your still theorizing about how they might of done it 30 years later.
You're telling me. ;D
-
dont you think it says somthing about a conviction if your still theorizing about how they might of done it 30 years later.
Yes - and even more telling that a number of people use so much time hammering on about his guilt. Why? He IS in prison, he GOT the highest sentence possible. What are they trying to obtain that they havent got already?
-
Yes - and even more telling that a number of people use so much time hammering on about his guilt. Why? He IS in prison, he GOT the highest sentence possible. What are they trying to obtain that they havent got already?
I can't help suspecting (probably wrongly?) that the family are saying far more than they profess to say through these over zealous guilters on here? Can't say it is true of JL because Vic made it very clear that they do not like him and even warned him to stay away from the farm. But the almore paranoid others? Perhaps? But then again perhaps not? ::)
-
I can't help suspecting (probably wrongly?) that the family are saying far more than they profess to say through these over zealous guilters on here? Can't say it is true of JL because Vic made it very clear that they do not like him and even warned him to stay away from the farm. But the almore paranoid others? Perhaps? But then again perhaps not? ::)
I think it could just be that there are so many unclear aspects of the case (yeah, yeah, skippy, save your breath, I won´t be reading it). that people are in reality trying to convince themselves.
-
Mr Gee just reading your post who is JL should know but I don't :'(
-
Mr Gee just reading your post who is JL should know but I don't :'(
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D you are funny susie ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
HaHaHa Maggie maybe stupid would be more fitting ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
John Lewis ?
-
There was a Hamish McTavish who dealt in drugs and was checked out in case he supplied Jeremy.
-
Hi lookout who is John Lewis more confused than ever now :'(
-
John Lewis ?
You mean George Henry Lee Lookout? ;D ;D
-
Maggie are you having a laugh who is he :'( ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie are you having a laugh who is he :'( ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Susan, you are not alone, I have no idea either.
8)
-
HaHaHa Alias wish I had never asked ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie are you having a laugh who is he :'( ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Lookout will know ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
He used to be owned by John Lewis ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Susan, you are not alone, I have no idea either.
8)
Apologies Alias and Susie, I am being flippant, John Lewis owned the stores, he was actually born just down the road from where I live in a tiny cottage, he eventually owned a store in Liverpool called George Henry Lee which Lookout should know. 8) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie don't think that is the JL who visited WHF could have been but don't think so ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie don't think that is the JL who visited WHF could have been but don't think so ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
No I agree. 8) Think we went a tad off topic :'(
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
WHO IS JL, goddamnit?? :P
-
WHO IS JL, goddamnit?? :P
No idea Alias ;D ;D ;D
-
John Lewis ?
That reminds me. My overcoat should arrive tomorrow?
-
Who are you lot on about? All I can see are smilies. Which is nice to see. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hopefully Grahame will apologise to me and Scipio for his offensive insults.
It is possible Jeremy wore a wet suit, shoes, gloves and a balaclava.
The other possibility is he wore the same clothes he arrived at WHF to meet the police with. He did have several layers of clothes on which would have protected him, together with a balaclava and gloves.
He may have worn neither for the massacre, wearing something totally different and changed after arriving back at his cottage.
Disposing of the massacre clothes was easy. Either on the night, or during the month later.
-
Hopefully Grahame will apologise to me and Scipio for his offensive insults.
It is possible Jeremy wore a wet suit, shoes, gloves and a balaclava.
The other possibility is he wore the same clothes he arrived at WHF to meet the police with. He did have several layers of clothes on which would have protected him, together with a balaclava and gloves.
He may have worn neither for the massacre, wearing something totally different and changed after arriving back at his cottage.
Disposing of the massacre clothes was easy. Either on the night, or during the month later.
There is no doubt he wore gloves and shoes.
Why would he ruin an expensive wetsuit when there wa sno need to do so? Why would he wear a baclava? He planned to kill everyone so he didn't care if they saw his face or not. He had plenty of time to wash up and change before he got around to calling police.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6145.0.html
Here is the link. A respected journalist who Jeremy approached said he wore a wet suit and why.
A balaclava to protect his face from potential injuries. A good idea in my view. Just as wearing gloves is.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6145.0.html
Here is the link. A respected journalist who Jeremy approached said he wore a wet suit and why.
A balaclava to protect his face from potential injuries. A good idea in my view. Just as wearing gloves is.
Rubbish. It just shows his ignorance concerning wet suits. But if you don't listen to experts then you will listen to no one. Anything that is said by those on here about wetsuits or gloves or overcoats is just conjecture as there is absolutely no forensic evidence to suggest anything like that happened. As I said before this is a silly thread.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6145.0.html
Here is the link. A respected journalist who Jeremy approached said he wore a wet suit and why.
A balaclava to protect his face from potential injuries. A good idea in my view. Just as wearing gloves is.
His conjecture is not in the least bit persuasive. Evidence indicates he wore gloves that is most likely the only precaution he took clothing wise.
-
His conjecture is not in the least bit persuasive. Evidence indicates he wore gloves that is most likely the only precaution he took clothing wise.
There is absolutely no evidence that anyone wore gloves, except of course the police when they handled things and perhaps smudging any fingerprints that may have been there.
On the contrary Jeremy confessed to have used or at least handled the gun the night before, so why would he have used gloves if he was guilty? Your reasoning is not even logical.
-
as he worked there he had an excuse for his prints being there so he wouldent of needed to wear gloves he may of done but of needed to.
-
as he worked there he had an excuse for his prints being there so he wouldent of needed to wear gloves he may of done but of needed to.
It's just another straw man argument nugnug in order to explain why there were no clear prints on the gun. But if the police did not treat the scene as a proper crime scene then neither would they have taken great care with the gun. That is the most logical assumption in my opinion.
-
He wore gloves to protect his hands. A good job to as the judge said Neville 'put up a ferocious fight for life'.
-
He wore gloves to protect his hands. A good job to as the judge said Neville 'put up a ferocious fight for life'.
Assumption lad just assumption. No forensic proof. In fact no proof at all except in your own imagination. These are not facts.
-
He wore gloves to protect his hands. A good job to as the judge said Neville 'put up a ferocious fight for life'.
Jeremy couldn´t have predicted that. You don´t expect a physical fight if you enter house to shoot people with a firearm.
-
Jeremy couldn´t have predicted that. You don´t expect a physical fight if you enter house to shoot people with a firearm.
It's called being prepared. He had enough time to prepare.
-
It's called being prepared. He had enough time to prepare.
He wouldn´t have been preparing for a physical altercation. I would imagine it would be difficult to handle a rifle with a pair of gloves on.
-
How about solving the problem of Sheilas' prints all over the shotgun ? What was she doing with it because she didn't use it to shoot anyone ? Maybe as a threat at first ?
How do we know that Neville used the downstairs phone when he rang Jeremy ? Seeing as he " was in bed " ,did he use the office phone ? NOBODY KNOWS,do we ? !
This all kicked off upstairs in the bedroom--------not the kitchen,though ended up there when Neville had attempted to go downstairs followed by Sheila,prodding him.
-
Jeremy couldn´t have predicted that. You don´t expect a physical fight if you enter house to shoot people with a firearm.
What do you think Jeremy wore for the massacre ?
-
What do you think Jeremy wore for the massacre ?
How would I know?! I don´t want to play your silly games. You don´t know, I don´t know - he could have been at home in his bed sleeoing in his Adam costume. There.
-
How about solving the problem of Sheilas' prints all over the shotgun ? What was she doing with it because she didn't use it to shoot anyone ? Maybe as a threat at first ?
How do we know that Neville used the downstairs phone when he rang Jeremy ? Seeing as he " was in bed " ,did he use the office phone ? NOBODY KNOWS,do we ? !
This all kicked off upstairs in the bedroom--------not the kitchen,though ended up there when Neville had attempted to go downstairs followed by Sheila,prodding him.
The light was on in the main bedroom all the time,so quite easy to have seen a silhouette from outside as WAS SEEN,contrary to what others say.
I very much doubt that Jeremy would have started switching all the lights on in order to murder all the family. That's another ludicrous and far-fetched assumption. Why would he have needed the lights on ?
-
How would I know?! I don´t want to play your silly games. You don´t know, I don´t know - he could have been at home in his bed sleeoing in his Adam costume. There.
That's a good point. He did tell the police he slept 'like a log' that night. His downstairs phone have been loud.
-
The light was on in the main bedroom all the time,so quite easy to have seen a silhouette from outside as WAS SEEN,contrary to what others say.
I very much doubt that Jeremy would have started switching all the lights on in order to murder all the family. That's another ludicrous and far-fetched assumption. Why would he have needed the lights on ?
I'm going to continue posting/talking over you,Adam,because you're not taking a blind bit of notice of my posts.All you're concerned in is posting on your own bloody thread !
-
The light was on in the main bedroom all the time,so quite easy to have seen a silhouette from outside as WAS SEEN,contrary to what others say.
I very much doubt that Jeremy would have started switching all the lights on in order to murder all the family. That's another ludicrous and far-fetched assumption. Why would he have needed the lights on ?
I agree he will not have switched the lights on pre massacre. Post massacre he would have, while he was staging everything.
Leaving the lights on inside WHF is a good idea. It gives the impression people were awake while Sheila was around.
-
The light was on in the main bedroom all the time,so quite easy to have seen a silhouette from outside as WAS SEEN,contrary to what others say.
I very much doubt that Jeremy would have started switching all the lights on in order to murder all the family. That's another ludicrous and far-fetched assumption. Why would he have needed the lights on ?
So he could aim accurately at his victims. That is what lights are for so you can see and he wanted to see what he was shooting at.
You ask pretty silly questions.
-
How about solving the problem of Sheilas' prints all over the shotgun ? What was she doing with it because she didn't use it to shoot anyone ? Maybe as a threat at first ?
How do we know that Neville used the downstairs phone when he rang Jeremy ? Seeing as he " was in bed " ,did he use the office phone ? NOBODY KNOWS,do we ? !
This all kicked off upstairs in the bedroom--------not the kitchen,though ended up there when Neville had attempted to go downstairs followed by Sheila,prodding him.
Sheila's prints all over what shotgun? Mike mad ethe claim up there wa sno shotgun with her prints on i.
-
So he could aim accurately at his victims. That is what lights are for so you can see and he wanted to see what he was shooting at.
You ask pretty silly questions.
And you give silly answers ! Was Jeremy short-sighted at the time,or partially blind that he had to have all the lights on in a house where he'd lived for years and could probably find his way around blindfold ??
Don't be so ridiculous and EVASIVE !
-
Sheila's prints all over what shotgun? Mike mad ethe claim up there wa sno shotgun with her prints on i.
The shotgun which was found in another room by AE ( WHO ELSE ? ) You'll find that in part of her statement if you care to read the garbled thing.
-
So he could aim accurately at his victims. That is what lights are for so you can see and he wanted to see what he was shooting at.
You ask pretty silly questions.
So you contradict Adam then? For he says the lights were off. You two really are going round in circles chasing your own tails aren't you. All we actually know about the lights is in the contradictory police reports when some say the lights were on and some say they were off. That is all we know, period. So it'd a bit useless speculating on this isn't it, especially when you two profess to only follow the facts. Give me strength. ::)
-
How would I know?! I don´t want to play your silly games. You don´t know, I don´t know - he could have been at home in his bed sleeoing in his Adam costume. There.
he wore clown shoes and a top hat and i challenge anybody to prove otherwise.
-
That's a good point. He did tell the police he slept 'like a log' that night. His downstairs phone have been loud.
I thought he told Julie he couldn't sleep?
-
Sheila's prints all over what shotgun? Mike mad ethe claim up there wa sno shotgun with her prints on i.
A fingerprint of Sheila was found on a double barrel 12 bore (to you 12 guage) shotgun.
-
meaning she had touched the shotgun.
-
Hi nugnug I was under the impression that the shotgun had one finger print of Sheila's on it and it was found in the downstairs toilet.
-
well i fingerprint on it means she must of touched it what would it be doing there i wonder.
-
A fingerprint of Sheila was found on a double barrel 12 bore (to you 12 guage) shotgun.
What evidence is there to establish this? Are there documents that establish where on the shotgun, when and for sure they are hers? The only document I saw offered by Mike represented a shotgun was positive for fingerprints but nothing beyond that.
-
What evidence is there to establish this? Are there documents that establish where on the shotgun, when and for sure they are hers? The only document I saw offered by Mike represented a shotgun was positive for fingerprints but nothing beyond that.
Why worry whether there was or wasn't one of Sheila's fingerprints was on a shotgun? I would like to see someone pick up a shotgun and fire it with one finger.
-
Why worry whether there was or wasn't one of Sheila's fingerprints was on a shotgun? I would like to see someone pick up a shotgun and fire it with one finger.
For the sake of accuracy. So many things have been alleged as facts that turned out to be untrue. It is necessary to start from scratch nd determine what the facts are in order to then assess the case on the basis of such facts.
While it is true she can't have held the shotgun in one hand and rifle in the other Rambo style and that no shotgun wounds were present so the shotgun can't have been used by her or Jeremy in commission of the murders that doesn't mean there can't be some tangential value.
If her print wa son the gun it would have to be because at some point she moved the weapon or Jeremy planted her print on it but why would he do that? If she moved it that would suggest that at some point the gun had been in her way and needed to be moved which could be used to counter claism the gun was always stowed.
-
For the sake of accuracy. So many things have been alleged as facts that turned out to be untrue. It is necessary to start from scratch nd determine what the facts are in order to then assess the case on the basis of such facts.
While it is true she can't have held the shotgun in one hand and rifle in the other Rambo style and that no shotgun wounds were present so the shotgun can't have been used by her or Jeremy in commission of the murders that doesn't mean there can't be some tangential value.
If her print was on the gun it would have to be because at some point she moved the weapon or Jeremy planted her print on it but why would he do that? If she moved it that would suggest that at some point the gun had been in her way and needed to be moved which could be used to counter claism the gun was always stowed.
What, you mean Uri Geller style? It does appear that the family was out and out careless with guns though. My stepfather had all manner of guns including a small canon which he fired every year and an old flintlock. The police came round regularly to examine his gun safe which was in the lintel over the door with the door to it in another room which was kept locked. The Bamber family appread to treat their guns in a very unsafe way. There appeared to be a shotgun propped up against a wall in one picture and the gun safe wasn't a safe at all. It was a cupboard under the stairs. It's a wonder Ralph Bamber didn't get repremanded by the police?
-
What, you mean Uri Geller style? It does appear that the family was out and out careless with guns though. My stepfather had all manner of guns including a small canon which he fired every year and an old flintlock. The police came round regularly to examine his gun safe which was in the lintel over the door with the door to it in another room which was kept locked. The Bamber family appread to treat their guns in a very unsafe way. There appeared to be a shotgun propped up against a wall in one picture and the gun safe wasn't a safe at all. It was a cupboard under the stairs. It's a wonder Ralph Bamber didn't get repremanded by the police?
All we know is what the witnesses said was his usual policy with weapons. The fact the closet was not locked doesn't mean he was not careful to put them in the closet after use. It only takes one time of a wepaon being left out though for someone to get their print on it moving it so in that sense her print would not necessarily prove anything one way or the other towards such it is just one piece of the puzzle.
Was the shotgun in the photo (which was unloaded and open) the one a print was supposedly found on? That is another relvant question.
Since people keep bringing the issue up it is necessary to establish whether it is a fact and if so which precise weapon and where to then be able to make any assertions based thereupon.
-
All we know is what the witnesses said was his usual policy with weapons. The fact the closet was not locked doesn't mean he was not careful to put them in the closet after use. It only takes one time of a wepaon being left out though for someone to get their print on it moving it so in that sense her print would not necessarily prove anything one way or the other towards such it is just one piece of the puzzle.
Was the shotgun in the photo (which was unloaded and open) the one a print was supposedly found on? That is another relvant question.
Since people keep bringing the issue up it is necessary to establish whether it is a fact and if so which precise weapon and where to then be able to make any assertions based thereupon.
Personally I don't think it worth arguing over. If she did try and use a 12 bore shotgun she's probably end up being thrown to the floor.
-
Personally I don't think it worth arguing over. If she did try and use a 12 bore shotgun she's probably end up being thrown to the floor.
Obviously none was used in commission of the murders (no victims hit with buckshot and not damage to the house was found to have been made by buckshot) and that is the real reson the alleged print holds little significance.
But just for the sake of accuracy women her size can fire them without being knocked over given the correct stance. Without padding the shoulder can take a beating though and even the hips or gut cna be bruised. Someone who doesn't know to expect the kind of recoil that occurs and doesn't have a good stance to deal with it is the most likely to fall. You seme to be suggesting it is true she would not know much about it's operation and had not fired them before in suggesting she would get knocked down.
-
Obviously none was used in commission of the murders (no victims hit with buckshot and not damage to the house was found to have been made by buckshot) and that is the real reson the alleged print holds little significance.
But just for the sake of accuracy women her size can fire them without being knocked over given the correct stance. Without padding the shoulder can take a beating though and even the hips or gut cna be bruised. Someone who doesn't know to expect the kind of recoil that occurs and doesn't have a good stance to deal with it is the most likely to fall. You seme to be suggesting it is true she would not know much about it's operation and had not fired them before in suggesting she would get knocked down.
Yes I don't think she knew much about 12 bores?
-
Yes I don't think she knew much about 12 bores?
Obviously those who think Jeremy is guilty believe the evidence that she didn't ever use any gns so would agree with you she didn't know much about 12 bores or any other guns.
What you shoot also plays a role though. I fired a round that contained chain and it had quite a kick. I laughed and thought it was the stupidist thing I ever heard but the damage it did was pretty nasty. I wasn't laughing after I saw what it did to the target, more or less in awe.
-
Obviously those who think Jeremy is guilty believe the evidence that she didn't ever use any gns so would agree with you she didn't know much about 12 bores or any other guns.
What you shoot also plays a role though. I fired a round that contained chain and it had quite a kick. I laughed and thought it was the stupidist thing I ever heard but the damage it did was pretty nasty. I wasn't laughing after I saw what it did to the target, more or less in awe.
Just one of the reasons I won't allow any kind of gun in my house. I am fascinated with them don't get me wrong. I just don't want them anywhere near my family. Too many accidents. My friend even contemplated killing himself with one, that was a .22. But he decided to become a woman instead. ;D
-
Just one of the reasons I won't allow any kind of gun in my house. I am fascinated with them don't get me wrong. I just don't want them anywhere near my family. Too many accidents. My friend even contemplated killing himself with one, that was a .22. But he decided to become a woman instead. ;D
Oh, gosh!
-
Oh, gosh!
Yep. Had all his bits chopped off. ;D
-
Yep. Had all his bits chopped off. ;D
I have met one who did that. He/she looked so profoundly sad, so I had to wonder if it was a wrong move. There is no turning back, is there?
How is your friend doing in his/her new gender of choice?
-
I have met one who did that. He/she looked so profoundly sad, so I had to wonder if it was a wrong move. There is no turning back, is there?
How is your friend doing in his/her new gender of choice?
Well put it this way. His wife weren't all that happy about it. ::)
-
Well put it this way. His wife weren't all that happy about it. ::)
Cher´s daughter became a man. Cher wasn´t thrilled either!
-
Cher´s daughter became a man. Cher wasn´t thrilled either!
Really? I didn't know that but she certainly taught her daughter plastic surgery was the norm!!
-
The transformation.
(http://i.imgur.com/WJvKXZM.jpg)
-
The transformation.
(http://i.imgur.com/WJvKXZM.jpg)
Goodness!! What a difference! :o :o :o :o
-
WOW!
-
Goodness!! What a difference! :o :o :o :o
Gee why would Cher be upset by going from a half decent looking female to that...
Normally we see men transformed into very ugly women but this shows that the reverse transformation are not always much better. I never saw what she looked like before I have only seen the after I assumed she would have been uglier than that based on the after.
That makes me wonder even more about her girlfriend. Her girlfriend was a lesbian dating an ok looking girl. Why would she be on board with her changing to a hideous looking man?
-
Neither have/had the lovely American/Indian features of the mother at that age.
-
I understand Cher's daughter has always struggled with weight which led to an eating disorder. Maybe giving up the struggle cured one problem and gave rise to several more. I can imagine her having a whole list of psych problems. I'm not laying that at Cher's feet but she'd have been a hard act to follow. Maybe swapping a beautiful woman for an ugly man isn't so surprising under the circumstances.
-
I understand Cher's daughter has always struggled with weight which led to an eating disorder. Maybe giving up the struggle cured one problem and gave rise to several more. I can imagine her having a whole list of psych problems. I'm not laying that at Cher's feet but she'd have been a hard act to follow. Maybe swapping a beautiful woman for an ugly man isn't so surprising under the circumstances.
I understand what you are saying. My ex is the son of a very "big" actor here, and even though he is perfectly equipped as a person with charms, good looks and brains, he always feels inadequate. Like Cher´s daughter, he also has a "hard act to follow". As a result, he has a lot of demons to fight with. It is a big shame, because there is nothing wrong with the "raw material."
The fame doesn´t come for free for anyone involved.